Fear is the root of All suffering

[Karl]

There is no objective condition that evokes suffering on a being, aside from the being choosing to believe they are experiencing suffering, and then override perception of Now with this inherently self-imposed delusion. 

 

Humans are taught to suffer, and impose it upon themselves to whatever extent they choose, completely irregardless of outside conditions.  Someones "worst day" is someone else's ultimate dream fantasy life day, the difference is in the choice of perception. 

 

Suffering concludes in proportion to ones realization of mindfulness and compassion.  Complete mindfulness, complete compassion (which is inherently a fearless state) can not suffer.  

 

Humans don't need some amazing new process or technology or some profound wisdom to not suffer.  Just stopping choosing to suffer ones own delusions, and instead embracing perception of Now is more than adequate. 

 

Not suffering, and choosing to experience unbreakable peace doesn't require any outside resources or help, or even waiting until tomorrow.  It is a gift you can give yourself through realization of mindfulness Now.  These are the first low hanging fruits to pick to begin a path towards self-awareness and then awareness. 

 

Think less of finding a specific practice or teacher or book of wisdom, and more about removing the delusions you were choosing to replace perception of Now.

 

Nirvana is already inside you waiting to be perceived, it only costs laying down your burdens of delusions to accept the gift that was always there waiting for you. 

 

With Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

You have a pretty good life though Bud. That's not to say that should exclude you from that opinion, I can see why you would say it and I wouldn't necessarily disagree. I'm wondering if you have ever been in a position that would make you uncomfortable ? If the economy turned sour tomorrow morning and you found yourself without any work and the house being foreclosed would you retain that view ?

 

[Bud Jetsun]

You have a pretty good life though Bud. That's not to say that should exclude you from that opinion, I can see why you would say it and I wouldn't necessarily disagree. I'm wondering if you have ever been in a position that would make you uncomfortable ? If the economy turned sour tomorrow morning and you found yourself without any work and the house being foreclosed would you retain that view ?

 

 

As you know better than most Karl, I am extremely fortunate to live a dream to live my RnD passions as a gift to improve air quality for all earth bound living beings. 

 

No matter what 'misfortune' (because 1st world misfortunes are 3rd world fantasy), I would remain unable to suffer without consensually forfeiting realization of mindfulness to instead choose to trade it for the illusion of being a victim of my own mind to suffer.  At some point it becomes a question of at which point do you choose to stop recognizing your thoughts are exclusively your domain.  I wouldn't claim to rule out anything, but it seems extremely unlikely to choose to return to delusion after self-realization.  

 

If someone had merely told me I could only suffer my own minds choice to experience suffering, that awareness could be lost easily because it wasn't my awareness, it was my interpretation of someone else's realization.  

 

If one self-realizes Truth of the nature of reality, it would take choosing to not recognize reality and instead choose a path of self-delusion to suffer.  Not impossible, but improbable if one chooses to continue to value compassion (Love-thought rather than fear-thought.)

 

No matter what circumstances may or may not arrive, you don't have to face anything more than this one moment of Now that encompasses our human experience.  I don't know if I could burn alive in Nirvana right now, as I've never tried it.  I do realize if one is going to burn alive, it would be particularly compassionate to choose awareness of perfect mindfulness during the experience, and pointless self-torture not to.  

 

With Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Brian]

In making the definition you chose, did you not examine to see how it held up against real world phenomena? If you did , you were seeking the truth of this little snip of the human condition... and in doing thus, you weren't creating a bias you already had, you were challenging it. If it stood up , great! if it modified the degree to which you understand , or apply , or your level of conviction , that's great too. There's really no downside.

Buddha is reputed to have suggested that folks examine , that they not take things as handed down, even his own teachings ,,, ESpecially his own teachings. ( and none of you need me to explain why)

Fair enough -- I'll get back to you tomorrow afternoon.

[Brian]

Please keep your responses to four-letter or less words?

 

And besides, dualism is an aspect of Tao.

Moi??? I eschew obfuscation.

 

Yes, peaches are an aspect of the Tao but I wouldn't say peaches [are] the Tao, would you? There are people, however, who believe the ten thousand things are all there is.

[liminal_luke]

Please keep your responses to four-letter or less words?

 

I don´t know if this is what you mean as well Marblehead, but I´ve often wished people would talk in language I could understand. Sometimes, when I´ve really wanted to understand something and didn´t, I´ve asked for clarification and generally people are willing to try to explain. And for that, I´m grateful.

 

Mostly though it´s hard to come upon such conversations because I like to think of myself as a smart guy, and when I don´t understand my ego takes a beating. Which happens quite a lot around here. Sometimes it´s because other people are just all-around more intelligent. Sometimes it´s just that they are talking about a subject I´m not knowledgeable about. Sometimes it´s because understanding the conversation requires a level of spiritual experience I don´t possess.

 

There´s a subtle fear that flickers up when I´m confronted with something I don´t understand, something that challenges my ego. Part of the practice of being a bum, for me, is learning to allow people to be themselves. It sucks when that means accepting their brilliance, but there ya go.

 

If I stay in the fear and ego, I suffer. If I accept myself and others, I suffer less.

 

 

Liminal

Edited August 26, 2015 by liminal_luke

[Spotless]

You are in time only in the grasp of your identifications - YOU are not in time.

 

You are in space only as you are in the grasp of "Other than You"

 

YOU - do not suffer nor are you blemished - but in the grasp of time and space you "suffer" fighting for your plot(s) of land(ing) and your positions on Other Than You and the tiger of the past chasing you and the insurance you wish to take out on the future.

 

Other Than You - means space is limited - madness becomes sanity - and you become a frog.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Spotless

[allinone]

okay girls, you are fired.

 

Let us real men do the dirty work of removing bad karma from earth.

[Marblehead]

Yes, peaches are an aspect of the Tao but I wouldn't say peaches [are] the Tao, would you? There are people, however, who believe the ten thousand things are all there is.

Excluding what I removed, you done good.

 

And excellent point.  We know I don't talk about spirituality very often.  But really, given that I accept the scientific assertion that the Ten Thousand Things are only four percent of total reality I must confess that there is 96% of what is that is not observable with only the physical senses.

 

The Ten Thousand Things is an aspect of Tao, not Tao itself.  An Atheist cannot define Tao.  To attempt to do so would be a contradiction.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

You are in time only in the grasp of your identifications - YOU are not in time.

 

You are in space only as you are in the grasp of "Other than You"

 

YOU - do not suffer nor are you blemished - but in the grasp of time and space you "suffer" fighting for your plot(s) of land(ing) and your positions on Other Than You and the tiger of the past chasing you and the insurance you wish to take out on the future.

 

Other Than You - means space is limited - madness becomes sanity - and you become a frog.

If there is no "other" there cannot be a "you".

 

There are only two alternatives:  Oneness or Duality

 

But even if I chose Oneness I will still avoid the tiger.

[Marblehead]

okay girls, you are fired.

 

Let us real men do the dirty work of removing bad karma from earth.

Okay Donald.

[allinone]

There is no objective condition that evokes suffering on a being, aside from the being choosing to believe they are experiencing suffering, and then override perception of Now with this inherently self-imposed delusion. 

 

Humans are taught to suffer, and impose it upon themselves to whatever extent they choose, completely irregardless of outside conditions.  Someones "worst day" is someone else's ultimate dream fantasy life day, the difference is in the choice of perception. 

 

Suffering concludes in proportion to ones realization of mindfulness and compassion.  Complete mindfulness, complete compassion (which is inherently a fearless state) can not suffer.  

 

Humans don't need some amazing new process or technology or some profound wisdom to not suffer.  Just stopping choosing to suffer ones own delusions, and instead embracing perception of Now is more than adequate. 

 

Not suffering, and choosing to experience unbreakable peace doesn't require any outside resources or help, or even waiting until tomorrow.  It is a gift you can give yourself through realization of mindfulness Now.  These are the first low hanging fruits to pick to begin a path towards self-awareness and then awareness. 

 

Think less of finding a specific practice or teacher or book of wisdom, and more about removing the delusions you were choosing to replace perception of Now.

 

Nirvana is already inside you waiting to be perceived, it only costs laying down your burdens of delusions to accept the gift that was always there waiting for you. 

 

With Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

Now is not a place here but a transcendent wisdom about a state where everything stands still.

In standstill there is no sense consciousnesses nor their objects.

 

Now is used for meditation and cultivation. In other words its practice of jhana and wisdom, where first to enter jhana you need to go through desire realms and go beyond desire(craving, lust etc) in order to reach first jhana, then we can start speaking about defeating suffering.

 

Nirmanarati heaven in desire realm, only a mere smile will satisfy all sexual desires.

Highest desire realm heaven, joy is attainable by will.

Edited August 26, 2015 by allinone

[Spotless]

Now is not a place here but a transcendent wisdom about a state where everything stands still.

In standstill there is no sense consciousnesses nor their objects.

 

Now is used for meditation and cultivation. In other words its practice of jhana and wisdom, where first to enter jhana you need to go through desire realms and go beyond desire(craving, lust etc) in order to reach first jhana, then we can start speaking about defeating suffering.

 

Nirmanarati heaven in desire realm, only a mere smile will satisfy all sexual desires.

Highest desire realm heaven, joy is attainable by will.

The "must suffer to get there" attitude is not necessary - the "defeating suffering" is delusion - that steps must first be taken in order to arrive is an elongation of the current game.

 

Bud has set it down as neat as a pin - right on the money - all in plain sight.

Mindfulness and Compassion are the only stumbling blocks in the quote - not because they are incorrect - but only because they have such loose definitions and because language is such a weak medium.

 

NOW is not a place where everything stands still - it is a place where even the rug comes alive - where plastic plants are alive - where the air is you and you are the air - it is vitality.

 

Their is no waiting in Now.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Spotless

[allinone]

The "must suffer to get there" attitude is not necessary - the "defeating suffering" is delusion - that steps must first be taken in order to arrive is an elongation of the current game.

 

Bud has set it down as neat as a pin - right on the money - all in plain sight.

Mindfulness and Compassion are the only stumbling blocks in the quote - not because they are incorrect - but only because they have such loose definitions and because language is such a weak medium.

 

NOW is not a place where everything stands still - it is a place where even the rug comes alive - where plastic plants are alive - where the air is you and you are the air - it is vitality.

 

Their is no waiting in Now.

 

You may stop time in your body and get liberated but this way you can't get into heavens what are real worlds, from where probably Ufo's are coming. And if you just abide in the now then you wasting time.

 

On earth level you need to connect your mind with the body. Then you can enter desire world. And then you will notice that your desires are insatiable, therefore need to start purify your mind and body using wisdom. You will bring these heaven energies into earth and see your sinning and correcting yourself will hurt you and that's suffering.

 

Can't bypass serving and devotion and slowly build your way up to the one who is ruling and deciding who gets enlightened or elevated. Either way you need to get to know what means to be a weaker link and also accept your position.

[bax44]

You may stop time in your body and get liberated but this way you can't get into heavens what are real worlds, from where probably Ufo's are coming. And if you just abide in the now then you wasting time.

 

On earth level you need to connect your mind with the body. Then you can enter desire world. And then you will notice that your desires are insatiable, therefore need to start purify your mind and body using wisdom. You will bring these heaven energies into earth and see your sinning and correcting yourself will hurt you and that's suffering.

 

Can't bypass serving and devotion and slowly build your way up to the one who is ruling and deciding who gets enlightened or elevated. Either way you need to get to know what means to be a weaker link and also accept your position.

[dwai]

Can this not be in accord with , one needing to have suffered to have active aversion to it? If so , this fear requires suffering, whether you agree that any and all suffering requires fear  .... 

Well not all aversion from suffering is based on experience. Somethings are innate (biologically/genetically imprinted). Some others are learnt as part of growing up and education.

 

Fear is predicated on the individual identity, but I still hold that Fear is the root because the individual identity cannot be eliminated entirely. As part of our self inquiry/self realization, we will be reducing the individual identity to the bare minimum needed to survive. This also involves dropping of fear...and clinging in general. 

[Spotless]

Grasping (suffering) is the root of all fear.

Fear is a condition.

 

Wetness in not the root of all water.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Spotless

[Bud Jetsun]

Highest desire realm heaven, joy is attainable by will.

 

 

I have good news for you sir.  Unlimited Joy is already available to you by will alone Now. 

 

There is no special clubs to join, no required secret password to chant, and there is nobody else who can do it for you, no matter how impressive the beard or beautiful the poetry. 

 

Lay down your delusions of knowing.  Lay down all unforgiven burdens and choose to forgive all yet unarisen events.  Realize why you deserve your compassion, and choose to appreciate your own perceptions of Now until your shirt is wet with tears of joy, then still continue if you like.  

 

With Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Karl]

My shirts wet with white paint from doing the front windows. Sitting back and looking at the the smooth paint and sound wood is truly joyous.

 

Just the first floor windows to do now. Such satisfaction. Tomorrow out on the bike for a blast with a mate-more Joy.

[dwai]

Grasping (suffering) is the root of all fear.

Fear is a condition.

 

Wetness in not the root of all water.

But wetness is what causes the discomfort (or comfort)

[Brian]

Don't you understand yet, Karl, that I have no interest in playing logical games with you? Logic is a very powerful and useful tool when used appropriately and with explicit awareness of its limitations and dangers. Logic, however, (and regardless of whether we are talking Aristotelian term logic or propositional calculus or mathematical logic or Boolean algebra or whatever) only addresses a tiny sliver of reality, in the same way that traditional understandings of "matter" and "energy" only account for a fraction of "what which is" (see also -- "dark matter" and "dark energy").

 

If you must have an alternate definition in order for my statement to be considered germane (although you have repeatedly stated that you reject out of hand any evidence or theories which conflict with your personal belief system so this is all really more for other readers than for you), consider this:

Suffering is a state of emotional anguish caused by dwelling upon a source of physical or psychological discomfort.

 

I just pulled that one out of thin air...

I already offered one proposal in this thread but I'll toss out another:

Suffering is an emotional manifestation of mental obsession with the cognitive dissonance which results from mistaking dualism for the Tao.

Is this one youre comfortable with personally, feel describes your view and are willing to judged by it?

Judged?!?

 

Ummm...

 

By whom and for what purposes?

By me and or everyone else who reads these things , the crowd you are presenting this to, Im one of those who think that judging always happens ,( its the rendering of verdict and sentence which is the thing that should often be postponed or waived.) The purpose I would have is for establishing whether you are seriously considering the question and being sincere in your answer , so that I may judge it the best product of your view, and attend to it with appropriate diligence. If you aren't sincere on this topic there's no reason why I should respond with much sincerity. It would be a waste of both our times. Its fine to goof around or be glib, its just not productive contribution to a topic which is ,, not glib. I'm trying to get past the semantics which obfuscate most of the threads .

Fair enough -- I'll get back to you tomorrow afternoon.

First, allow me to restate that developing a subjective definition of a term -- based on unstated assumptions, reverse-engineered from a foregone conclusion, and biased by unacknowledged personal beliefs -- and then using that boiled-down definition as the basis for logical calculus (from any school of thought) is folly and self-delusion.

 

Let me also say right up front that I don't suffer, so my opinion is based upon observations of others and assimilation of various teachings.

 

With that said, I am told, basically, that the validity of my input on this topic (and, I would assume, any similar topic or thread) will be judged by the perceived sincerity of my response to the question of how I define the word "suffering." I suppose I should just shrug and walk away. I am told elsewhere, however, that some may benefit from my thoughts on this topic so I'll continue.

 

 

So, my two off-the-cuff definitions were:

"Suffering is a state of emotional anguish caused by dwelling upon a source of physical or psychological discomfort."

and

"Suffering is an emotional manifestation of mental obsession with the cognitive dissonance which results from mistaking dualism for the Tao."

 

Combining these two, we see I am suggesting that suffering is a side-effect of the intellectual discord created by believing the relative reality of the dualistic world is really "all that is" and ignoring unity.

[Karl]

"Take 2 definitions into the shower " :-)

 

As an aside, neither definition is good. The first is circular reasoning, as i would say psychological discomfort is suffering.

The second is dependent on a second concept which is equally undefined.

 

Then you have another one which seems more of an explanation than a definition.

 

I still don't understand what is meant by the dualistic world. There seems to be several types of dual. Which one do you ascribe to Brian ?

 

Or is this a good time to go back to the political thread ;-)

 

 

[Stosh]

First, allow me to restate that developing a subjective definition of a term -- based on unstated assumptions, reverse-engineered from a foregone conclusion, and biased by unacknowledged personal beliefs -- and then using that boiled-down definition as the basis for logical calculus (from any school of thought) is folly and self-delusion.

 

Let me also say right up front that I don't suffer, so my opinion is based upon observations of others and assimilation of various teachings.

 

With that said, I am told, basically, that the validity of my input on this topic (and, I would assume, any similar topic or thread) will be judged by the perceived sincerity of my response to the question of how I define the word "suffering." I suppose I should just shrug and walk away. I am told elsewhere, however, that some may benefit from my thoughts on this topic so I'll continue.

 

 

So, my two off-the-cuff definitions were:

"Suffering is a state of emotional anguish caused by dwelling upon a source of physical or psychological discomfort."

and

"Suffering is an emotional manifestation of mental obsession with the cognitive dissonance which results from mistaking dualism for the Tao."

 

Combining these two, we see I am suggesting that suffering is a side-effect of the intellectual discord created by believing the relative reality of the dualistic world is really "all that is" and ignoring unity.

Ok , by the definition that you are using for suffering,, you're basically saying , I paraphrase ,you don't dwell on stuff making it worse, (because you aren't ignoring unity). Yes, the definition makes a big difference. I have no idea what you mean by 'ignoring unity' though. 

[Brian]

Ok , by the definition that you are using for suffering,, you're basically saying , I paraphrase ,you don't dwell on stuff making it worse, (because you aren't ignoring unity). Yes, the definition makes a big difference. I have no idea what you mean by 'ignoring unity' though. 

There are some people on the forum who believe that "reality" is that which they can detect with their own senses or "reason out" with their own intellect. It is my opinion (as one who was formerly in that camp) that they are in denial. They believe, conversely, that I am delusional.

 

<shrug>

 

 

[Karl]

There are some people on the forum who believe that "reality" is that which they can detect with their own senses or "reason out" with their own intellect. It is my opinion (as one who was formerly in that camp) that they are in denial. They believe, conversely, that I am delusional.

 

Why can't unity be the other way around? Why not everything is concrete reality and that there is no mind/body problem? Then experience and reason are unified, body and mind are unified. Concrete man in a concrete universe is unified. Isn't that just the inverse of everything is unified nothingness- and like you changed, this is what I used to believe.

[Stosh]

There are some people on the forum who believe that "reality" is that which they can detect with their own senses or "reason out" with their own intellect. It is my opinion (as one who was formerly in that camp) that they are in denial. They believe, conversely, that I am delusional.

 

<shrug>

 

 

I'm in the other , the ,,,external reality is inferred , group. But I still don't see where unity comes in, (but don't think you're delusional. )