Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Pain and suffering!
seeker242
ZenFlorida, USA Veteran
@havamar
I was trying to say that IF there already is a perfect balance, then death would not be a relief because there is nothing to be relieved from.
Life is beautiful, and so are you. Thank you for discussing this with me.
Ditto, Thanks seeker what are you arguing about? Do you know what's being said? We're both saying that suffering is perfect. Literally, I don't see the point in creating conflict here. What's the argument?@TheJourney I was saying "I want to not feel pain", when there is pain present AND "everything is perfect" is a direct contradiction. The two are mutually exclusive. If everything is perfect, then there is no need to want to not feel pain. There is just pain and no wanting of something else. If one wants to not feel pain when pain is present, that alone means and proves that everything is not perfect. One can not say that "I don't want to feel this pain. I want to feel something else" and "everything is perfect" at the same time. It is either one or the other.
0
Comments
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perfect
See definitions 2. and 3.
"2.
excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.
3.
exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose: a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for cutting out keyholes. "
Pain exactly fits the need of an evolved creature to know when damage is occuring to its body. It is one of many facets of being that the universe experiences. The universe is perfect or "excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement". We are part of the universe. This is how I experience perfection.
Equanimity characteristically induces & promotes impartial neutrality...
its function is to look upon things with an even unreactive indifference!
its manifestation is the gradual stilling of both attraction & repulsion..
its proximate cause is seeing, that all inherit the results of their actions.
its effect is utter purification & perfection of all other mental qualities,
by ending both discontent & delight, thereby providing the necessary
equal calm required for their complete assessment & accomplishment.
Equanimity means Unaffectable..
Equanimity means Unprovokable..
Equanimity means Undisturbable..
Equanimity means Unexcitable..
Equanimity means Imperturbable..
Equanimity means Disengaged..
Equanimity means Disentangled..
Equanimity means Detached..
Equanimity means Immovable..
Equanimity means Unbeatable..
Equanimity means Untemptable..
Equanimity means Wholly Immune..
Equanimity means Indifferent..
Equanimity means Impartial..
Equanimity means Unbiased..
Equanimity means Disinterested..
Equanimity means Balanced..
Even like a smiling mountain!
If there is the thought "I don't want to feel pain", then attraction and repulsion have yet to be stilled. Within equanimity (or Buddhist perfection), there can be no wanting of something else because if there is, then it is not equanimity.
Of course, it all depends on how you define the word "perfection". I define it according to the Buddhist teaching of the "Ten Perfections", equanimity in this case, which is different that the standard dictionary definition. Within equanimity everything is and always feels perfect regardless of what is. Within equanimity, wanting stops occurring.
Enlightenment is an awakening to reality/unreality, not a transformation of physiological processes.
I think the pain/suffering he would be referring to is more of an emotional pain or suffering rather than pain as a pure physical sensation. Emotional suffering I do not currently experience, while the physical sensation of pain is part of my experience. I am accepting of this sensation, but I would rather have no physical pain.
When I say everything is perfect, I mean everything in the sense of "everything" not "my little world".
Obviously everyone is averse to pain, but if nothing can be done about it, there is no use fretting over it.
Psychological agony can make physical agony worse.
Your attitude can affect the level of pain.
so it's best to develop a detached attitude....
The Buddha may well have been in acute discomfort and pain while he was dying, but there is no mention made of his complaining.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ybvz6
This article specifically mentions mindfulness practice in reducing chronic pain.
Many, many people experience pain and die every day without complaining. This is not unique to Buddha, or Buddhists.
I believe one reason why, which relates to the teaching of "Anatta", is because his fingers are not his fingers, they are just fingers and nothing more. It is simply impossible to torture a Buddha. A Buddha does not identify himself with a body so, in effect, he does not even have a body. His body is not him. His body feels pain but he does not. He does not have the thought "This body is mine" or "this pain is mine". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
The Buddha exists in a constant state of equanimity, regardless of any and all physical circumstances. Even if he saw a 500 megaton nuclear bomb coming straight at him, he would be completely and totally unperturbed. He would probably just smile while observing the trail of smoke behind it all the while knowing that his body is going to die. However, that is not a problem because his body is not him. It's just a body, a lump of flesh and bones, and nothing more.
Mindfulness based cognitive therapy is a very effective treatment for pain management for many people, yes, as are some other methods. With regards to Mindfulness based cognitive therapy (MBCT), it is wonderful to see modern psychology incorporating Buddhist practices into their modern day therapy. MBCT was developed and structured after Jon Kabat-Zinn's mindfulness-based stress reduction program (MBSR). Jon Kabat-Zinn developed MBSR out of traditional Buddhist practices of mindfulness because he himself is a practicing Buddhist and saw the value of bringing "buddhist psychology" in the the modern treatment world which is a very good thing for modern psychology IMO.
Absence of any uncertainty, any doubt, any confusion, any delusion & all ignorance…
Presence of confidence, cleared certainty, understanding all, and direct experience…
Presence of universal goodwill, infinite friendliness, all-embracing & boundless kindness…
I don't understand how anyone could not desire that.
Maybe because I don’t want to be so disconnected from life as it really is?
I suppose indulging in emotions and turning them into some personal drama, causes extra suffering.
Wishing to avoid the real experience of life however, also causes suffering.
The real letting go is being here and now, without adding, without suppressing, without clinging. Very simple – in a sense.
It is hard to be detached from things one loves. It is easily said or posted on this board, but living it is a different story. Currently, I cannot detach myself from relatives or friends, for example. I am not indifferent to their faith but I want them to be happy, I cling to their well-being.
Remember that arhantship is not a thing easily gained. It is hard work and needs much insight and discipline.
Secondly it could even be in line with the Buddhist paramita of compassion.
Perfecting the paramita’s is supposed to be good for your spiritual progress, am I right?
(Well, I haven't anyway)
The Buddha was not some supra-mundane creature who was able to transcend his physical self. He was a human being who would have felt pain, flinched, cried out and bled, like the rest of us.
But as to his mental anguish, pain and suffering - it wouldn't have happened.
That's more difficult to comprehend and absorb than - Which frankly, is inaccurate.
Sorry, but it is.
Seeker, Buddha was just a human, just as a human is a buddha. If what you say is true, an inhalation would hold no more significance than an exhalation for a buddha. Breathing would cease (Equanimity) causing his body to die, and therefore his personal experience. That is not enlightenment.
I can see the attitude behind your postings. I wish you well on your path to enlightenment. Peace and love to you my friend, or as you may find more fulfilling at this time 'Namaste'.
I don't think this is a symbolic teaching, I think it is meant to be taken literally. Which means "this body is not mine, this body is not I, this body is not myself. Does it not? If it does, then the logical extension to that is: what the body experiences is also "not mine". Which means, the pain is not my pain. Does it not? How could he experience pain if there is nothing that could be called "he" to begin with?
How?
the reason I believe you to be mistaken is because nowhere does he say that there is no pain, no physical suffering and no sensation. "Not I, not mine, this is not myself" is correct,
But elsewhere, he talks about the 5 skandas and the sensations, and he talks about physical suffering because these things are felt by the skandas, by the body.
Which means "this body is not mine, this body is not I, this body is not myself." is a lesson in disassociating the human form, from Consciousness. Your human form will age, become sick, disintegrate, putrefy and rot away. Your mind is detached, timeless, ageless and untouchable. No, it is not a logical extension, at all. While the body exists, then everything that happens to the body, exists. While everything that happens to the body exists, sensation exists (it's one of the 5 skandas). A Buddha does not cease to be a composite of the 5 skandas when he is enlightened.
The Buddha experienced, old age, sickness and death.
he experienced the physical breakdown and deterioration of his body. He experienced discomfort, pain, physical deterioration and degradation.
he just didn't give a damn.
Think of the body like a literal vehicle. Whether the driver is a buddha or not, the car can still rust, break down, or even be totally destroyed in a car accident rendering it useless. This.
seeker242 is asserting that as the Buddha had learnt to transcend suffering, he similarly never felt any pain, because as an enlightened being he was not of his body and therefore never felt pain.
I disagree.
It had nothing to do with him not being him. It had everything to do with his ability to not be subject to the twin arrows.
is that what you're trying to say?
Your misunderstanding lies in the concept of 'non-self'. Possibly this is a concept that can not be fully communicated with words. There is no actual self/soul/centre/thing that is you, you are an experience of the present moment interpreted through your bodily senses. Realisation of non-self does not turn off these senses.
He abandoned attachment but attachment to what? Attachment to form, feeling, etc. AKA his body. Now I think: "Well what allowed him to abandon attachment to his body?" The realization that his body is not him or his or I. It's just a pile of skin and bones. This is not correct? I agree it had everything to do with his ability to not be subject to the twin arrows. I think the question to ask now is: What is the cause of this ability arising? Is it not the abandonment of self identification views? His body and mind wrote scriptures. Technically not really because he didn't write anything but that is not important in this context. I never claimed it turned off the senses. I believe that it turns off the identification with the senses and the things that the senses experience, as being "his". In other words there is no longer any ownership of the senses or sensory experiences and there is no longer an owner. When that identification is turned off, preferences to feel one thing over another with the senses also gets turned off, since that identification process is what gives rise to those preferences. So the end result is sensory experience with absolutely no preference to feel pain over pleasure or pleasure over pain because there is nothing left there to make or fabricate these preferences.
>you are an experience of the present moment interpreted through your bodily senses.
I would agree with that if you removed the words "you are".
It's our history to remember there was a human called the Buddha, born Siddhartha Gautama and who referred to himself as Tathagata, but what I said above is why we fail when we look for a Buddha outside of ourselves... there's no such thing. The only awakening comes to the mind, from within. There's no Buddha "out there" to find, there's only the true nature of all phenomena that was discovered (likely "again") over 2,500 years ago.
:om: