Hi All . 🙂
I have mentioned and I have read of others speaking of sufferings on many levels as of late .
What are your thoughts as to "what Is at the root of all sufferings" .
daz .
The suffering being referred to always seems to be psychological. I don't know why.
Hi S.b .
Any sufferings felt within the ordinary mind where our senses dictate or take priority over and above which Is real will have a psychological edge/aspect to It . For the mind will try and ascertain from where the sufferings arise . The mind will try and evaluate and reevaluate what the cause Is until the Intellect Is satisfied or the emotional heart has found contentment .
None of what Is realized as to what the root cause Is will come from the ordinary mind state .
I don't think just telling someone they 'did it to themselves' stops a person from suffering.
That’s right S.b. but perhaps the Individual will then focus on the self Instead of looking to blame another . Everything resides within and everything within Is expressed without as part of our own creation and that creation Is what we all experiencing . When we eventually self love our creation will reflect that .
No suffering . No blaming outside of oneself . Because there is no-one else .
x dazzle x
Hi Giles,
What lies beyond the barriers? I'm not sure, isn't that the point of barriers? However one thing that barriers do is to constrain, and that is what I see.
Well, to know a barrier you must have awareness of the 'other side' of it, otherwise you cannot recognise it as a barrier. If someone had spent their whole life inside a room without any knowledge of an 'other side'' they would not perceive the walls as barriers. Only if they knew of the 'other side' could they perceive barriers, so I assume that as you are able to perceive barriers you must be aware of the other side and what is there.
In terms of the universe being infinite there are a number of thoughts about this - there is certainly a theory that beyond the physical universe there is nothing, it does not exist and as the physical universe expands into the nothingness it creates the space needed for it to expand. This is a bit like particles behaving differently when observed, in this case there was nothing (literally) before the big bang and it was the bang that started to create finiteness.
All theories though. Science also tells us that nothing can be created or destroyed, so they sort of contradict themselves when they say that there was nothing before the big bang, and that's what happens when you extrapolate findings without actually knowing facts. If there is nothing there which doesn't exist then space cannot expand into it. This is the paradox that the minds of scientists create because they just don't know. It is beyond their measurements, theories and mathematics to accept that the universe is infinite, because they insist that there must be some edge to it. They completely ignore the possibility that, just as one galaxy exists and there are clearly other galaxies out there, that what they call the "physical universe" (i.e. what came out of the big bang) could just be one of an infinite number of such universes in the whole of space. To myself, the universe is absolutely everything and never ending.
What you may enjoy reading is a book called "Zero - Biography of a Dangerous Idea" by Charles Seife which discusses the mathematics of Zero and infinity. 😉
In terms of time travel of course this week we have had the good news that the speed of light may well have been broken - and that of course leads to all sorts of time potential issues 😉
Good news? Well, that depends, I'm sure some scientists wouldn't see it that way. For starters the media may have easily blown things out of proportion, and the scientists themselves who observed the neutrino arriving before the light, say that they could have made a mistake in their measurements and it would need retesting and re-verifying. Of course, the speed of light can vary as the value of "c" used in E=mc^2 is the speed of light in a vaccum. In other mediums, light can go much slower, and can even be made to travel at less than walking pace. So there are many factors that need to be eliminated from the experiment and confirmed first. Of course, if it's true, then that only goes to show that science and the maths it uses is seriously flawed and whilst it makes a 'good' model for the various applications it is used in, it isn't 'perfect' and cannot therefore be used for exacting 'proof'. Would it also allow for time travel... mathematically yes, but practically, that's one for them to show, and I won't be holding my breath. Just as tachyons are conceptual particles travelling backwards in time because they are moving faster than the speed of light, there is a lot of things still to be proven. Anyhow, that's one for the Scientific Matters forum methinks. :rolleyes:
All Love and Reiki Hugs
I agree that there is more to knowledge of the mind than a scientifically based concept of the mind, but If I go to a GP I'd be happier to know that he or she had gone to medical college, than find out they were just an enthusiastic amateur. If someone here had qualifications in psychology I would have to bow to their superior understanding of the subject, though I do think the only people really qualified to tell me about the workings of the mind are those rare, enlightened people who have completely mastered their mind, and who are no longer subject to it's influence.
No offence, but this is the philosophy forum, not the psychology forum, so being qualified in such things has no real bearing on this discussion just as being a qualified engineer would have no real bearing on it. It would offer a viewpoint certainly, but that viewpoint should not be taken as being superior just because of their qualifications. If you believe otherwise then please feel free to see my logical reasoning as a result of working with computers for 30 years and having a Computer Science degree as my qualification for my superior understanding. 😀
As for enlightened people, you may just be talking to such people, so before judging others as not being enlightened, it is perhaps better to see everyone as our teachers and put these things to the test for ourselves and thus discover what is true. One of the problems with society is that people too easily just take other people's word for things and don't test for themselves. I would say that you can take anything you've read on this thread, but you should't believe any of it, till you've tested it yourself to find out what is true.
That's what I've been reading on this thread. Until we attain liberation all of us are working with models of the mind that make sense to us, but they'll always be incomplete until we stop using the mind to analyze the mind.
Well, if we do that then we may as well stop discussing it all right now. :rolleyes:
However, before we can have knowledge from personal experience we need to have information, and that information is given to us. Yes it helps if we can avoid letting the mind and preconceived ideas (ideas of the past and future etc.) get in the way and corrupt the information. The more we remain present, the more we are in control of the mind and the less the mind itself influences the information we receive, and the more we can test that information without corruption to know it to be true or false.
The suffering being referred to always seems to be psychological. I don't know why. I believe in karma, and I believe karma largely dictates our circumstances, but I don't think just telling someone they 'did it to themselves' stops a person from suffering.
No, of course it doesn't. The person needs to learn to recognise their mind as the causal factor, but also that the mind is not their true Self, and this achieved through learning about self-realization and putting it to the test. Once this is realized then the creations of the mind are naturally recognized and can be let go when they arise. As I've said before, it's not about blame, though the mind would love to make us think that is what is being said about it.
All Love and Reiki Hugs
No offence, but this is the philosophy forum, not the psychology forum, so being qualified in such things has no real bearing on this discussion
No offence back at you, but there's been more said about psychology in this thread than philosophy before I joined in. In fact, I think if a psychologist read through this thread they'd find it very revealing.
It would offer a viewpoint certainly, but that viewpoint should not be taken as being superior just because of their qualifications. If you believe otherwise then please feel free to see my logical reasoning as a result of working with computers for 30 years and having a Computer Science degree as my qualification for my superior understanding.
That might be one of the problems; people aren't computers. Someone did say earlier that this thread reads like advice for robots. Too much head and not enough heart.
As for enlightened people, you may just be talking to such people
Hmmm, you might like to think so, but I'm not convinced. 😉
so before judging others as not being enlightened, it is perhaps better to see everyone as our teachers
There's an outside chance that I could teach you something then? I think you said earlier in this thread that this discussion was adding to our understanding, did you really mean that you were adding to everyone else's understanding 😉 ....Just pulling your leg :).
I would say that you can take anything you've read on this thread, but you should't believe any of it, till you've tested it yourself to find out what is true.
What makes you think I haven't? What I've tested might make your hair curl.
Until we attain liberation all of us are working with models of the mind that make sense to us, but they'll always be incomplete until we stop using the mind to analyze the mind.
Well, if we do that then we may as well stop discussing it all right now. :rolleyes:
One of the reasons I don't think anyone here is enlightened is because we are carrying on discussing it.
The person needs to learn to recognise their mind as the causal factor,
More psychology. Would you say that to the someone living in a war zone, or to victims of drought or starvation? They're suffering, and this thread is about the root cause of suffering after all. I'm not fundamentally disagreeing with you regarding the wider karmic picture, but sometimes I do feel that the New Age jargon sounds a bit smug and patronizing; a bit too western, middle class and comfortable. It jars a bit.
Haven't read all replies, but I think suffering has both material and emotional causes. The material cause is part of our alienation from the means of production, the fact we are subject to a greedy oppressive capitalist society where we are enslaved within social relations outside of our control, and most of what we do and are is commodified for the benefit of the few.
Emotionally, I think suffering stems from our alienation from our sense of self... Why are we here? What's the point of everything when we're just going to die? How to relate to others whilst trying to discover yourself? Acknowledging those realities and still getting satisfaction from life is difficult indeed.
As for pain, that is mostly a physical thing. How a person deals with it can depend on their personality and where they are in their own head/outlook, but pain is pain and I hate to hear it linked to karma etc.
Why are we here? What's the point of everything when we're just going to die?
These are my thought exactly everytime myself and my brothers sit down to a... ahem... delicious homecooked meal at my mothers....:(
I am so sorry... I hope I didn't just denigrate this entire thread... I'll make my password more dificult to remember to give myself thinking time...:confused:
... it really was just a joke my mother is an amazing cook....
I'll slink off now...
No offence back at you, but there's been more said about psychology in this thread than philosophy before I joined in. In fact, I think if a psychologist read through this thread they'd find it very revealing.
True, but I think you'll also find that some philosophies also discuss along similar lines, so I'm personally looking at it from a philosophical view even if that does some to breach into the field of psychology somewhat. 😉
That might be one of the problems; people aren't computers. Someone did say earlier that this thread reads like advice for robots. Too much head and not enough heart.
Indeed, hence why I put that, as my qualifications are not really relevant except that I do like to logically follow thing through and test things correctly as I do when I write computer software. And I do put my heart into writing my software. 😉
As for enlightened people, you may just be talking to such people
Hmmm, you might like to think so, but I'm not convinced. 😉
I don't judge one way or the other to be honest, but I do consider everyone's opinion to be valid and all to be teachers of information. I will read it, put it to the test (if I haven't already) and know if that is true information or not.
One of the reasons I don't think anyone here is enlightened is because we are carrying on discussing it.
The people we discuss with may well be enlightened. An elightened person wouldn't necessarily go out of their way to impart information on others, but if someone was to ask an enlightened person a question, they would answer it with a truthful answer. So no reason that the discussion couldn't carry on with enlightened people involved. I'll hold off judgment as to whether anyone is or isn't.
There's an outside chance that I could teach you something then? I think you said earlier in this thread that this discussion was adding to our understanding, did you really mean that you were adding to everyone else's understanding 😉 ....Just pulling your leg :).
You are already teaching, so I woudn't doubt that you can. It certainly does add to my understanding. In truth I am adding to others understanding just as much as they are adding to mine, so leg pulling aside, there's a sense of truth in it, but it's without the ego, which is what you were insinuating with the leg pull. 😉
I would say that you can take anything you've read on this thread, but you should't believe any of it, till you've tested it yourself to find out what is true.
What makes you think I haven't? What I've tested might make your hair curl.
I never said you hadn't. Please do share your thoughts though. I've tried eating the crusts of bread, but that never made my hair curl. 😀
The person needs to learn to recognise their mind as the causal factor,
More psychology.
No, philosophy. The teachings of Advaita philosophy concern themselves with the mind as being the causal factor and not being the true Self (observer). Yes, psychology does discuss the mind, but so do many other fields.
Would you say that to the someone living in a war zone, or to victims of drought or starvation? They're suffering, and this thread is about the root cause of suffering after all.
This is what I was discussing earlier with Chris, and the way I differentiate it is that the person is experiencing events causing them pain in the present moment, but the suffering is carrying that pain with them after the event. So, I don't consider suffering to be something in the present moment. It's really a case of terminology, so you could also look at it as being two different levels of "suffering" instead. You could call it suffering in the present moment and suffering from the past events. The root cause of suffering in the present moment is the event of the present moment itself, but the root cause of suffering from the past events is what is created in the mind.
I'm not fundamentally disagreeing with you regarding the wider karmic picture, but sometimes I do feel that the New Age jargon sounds a bit smug and patronizing; a bit too western, middle class and comfortable. It jars a bit.
I'm not aware that I've been using New Age jargon. Mostly I've been talking in terms of living in the present moment (the Now) from a perspective of Adviata which is thousands of years old, though of course there are New Age movements that have picked up on such concepts and made it a modern day thing, such as Eckharte Tolle's "Power of Now" etc. So, apologies if it's come across as New Agey to you, or smug or patronizing, but that's the issue with only having words on a forum to discuss this rather than discussing in person with all the benefits of voice, hearing and action. 🙂
All Love and Reiki Hugs
I am so sorry... I hope I didn't just denigrate this entire thread... I'll make my password more dificult to remember to give myself thinking time...:confused:
... it really was just a joke my mother is an amazing cook....
I'll slink off now...
😀
Humour is always worthwhile.
All Love and Reiki Hugs
I am so sorry... I hope I didn't just denigrate this entire thread... I'll make my password more dificult to remember to give myself thinking time...:confused:
... it really was just a joke my mother is an amazing cook....
I'll slink off now...
Please don't apologise - a touch of humour was long overdue on this thread! In my opinion, of course 🙂
😀
Humour is always worthwhile.
All Love and Reiki Hugs
a touch of humour was long overdue on this thread! In my opinion, of course 🙂
Oh well, that's good to know - my sense of humour can surface in some strange and not always appropriate situations sometimes ....:)
I think suffering has both material and emotional causes. The material cause is part of our alienation from the means of production," the fact we are subject to a greedy" oppressive capitalist society where we are enslaved within social relations outside of our control, and most of what we do and are is commodified for the benefit of the few.
Hi Naomij Welcome to thread . 🙂
What aspect of the self can become greedy? .
What aspect of the self actually suffers?
Emotionally, I think suffering stems from our alienation from our sense of self... Why are we here? What's the point of everything when we're just going to die? How to relate to others whilst trying to discover yourself? Acknowledging those realities and still getting satisfaction from life is difficult indeed.
I agree that sufferings stem / arise because there are underlying feelings that one has that entails/contains an element of separation from what It Is that we are .
Unless on some level we don't happen to glance at a reflection of our true self and realize what we are It Is possible to remain In a mental loop and will think that we are this and we are that . It Is the continuous thinking that keeps the hamster wheel turning .
In that respect there will never be peace . Where there Is a lack of peace there will remain suffering .
If an Individual doesn't care what It Is that they are that doesn't mean that what they truly are Isn't forever calling their name . They just don't hear their own voice .
x dazzle x
Just came across one of Mooji's wonderful teachings...
Suffering Is Optional
From: Moojiji | 15 Feb 2011 | 7,936 viewsSilent Retreat with Mooji in Tiruvannamalai, 17.12.2010 session 2 "Unveil the Satguru Within"
Mooji explains a way to deal with anger and discover your true Self beyond the body. Even in great pain you have a choice not to suffer
[url]Moojiji's Channel - YouTube[/url]
As I see it,
There can be two types of suffering, purely physical and emotional.
In both cases, it is a feeling of pain/discomfort.
The root cause of physical suffering is easily seen, as it is a direct result of our nervous system, and if we were to remove the function of our nervous system that causes pain, then we would not experience physical suffering.
It is much harder to see the cause of emotional suffering. Emotional suffering does not come from a physical cause of the environment around you. For example, physical suffering can come from being hit with an object, a physical cause in your environment. Emotional suffering comes from a disturbance within your mind. Your mind is at peace when the world around is the way you want it to be. Your mind is disturbed when something in the world around you is not the way you want it to be. One cannot always have the world exactly the way one wants it to be because we cannot control everything that happens in the world. Thus, the disturbance happens due to a lack of control over the world around you. If you imagine a person who would be able to have complete control over the entire world around them, then they would not suffer. But would they be human then?
Religion is a way many people deal with suffering, and it helps because religion tells a person to give up their desire for control (over the world) to some sort of deity that will make the best decisions for them.
Therefore, it seems to me, that the root cause of suffering is the inability to control the world around you.
Therefore, it seems to me, that the root cause of suffering is the inability to control the world around you.
You can alter (control) your perception of the world around you (the perceptions that are the cause that lead to the effect of the suffering within your system).
Religion is a way many people deal with suffering, and it helps because religion tells a person to give up their desire for control (over the world) to some sort of deity that will make the best decisions for them.
Depends on the religion.
Depends on the religion.
It could be said that it's true of all religions. Free will is surrendered to the perceived doctrine, so one is absolved of personal responsibility.
It could be said that it's true of all religions. Free will is surrendered to the perceived doctrine, so one is absolved of personal responsibility.
The one I know best is shamanism. No doctrine, no holy book, no superior power (That last one can be argued about, but the argument shows that any power is not part of any doctrine).
Personal responsibility is high on the agenda.
The one I know best is shamanism. No doctrine, no holy book, no superior power (That last one can be argued about, but the argument shows that any power is not part of any doctrine).
Personal responsibility is high on the agenda.
I probably didn't express myself very well. I just meant that any religion or belief system can relieve personal suffering because the will is more, or less, surrendered to that belief, personal responsibility notwithstanding.
I probably didn't express myself very well. I just meant that any religion or belief system can relieve personal suffering because the will is more, or less, surrendered to that belief, personal responsibility notwithstanding.
I guess I’m being more dense than usual, but I’m not sure that I understand this. Are you saying that any belief detracts from free will?
In shamanism belief is not ‘faith’. I don’t ‘believe in’ my spirits any more than I believe in anyone else I know. I do belive them. That is, because they are long time friends, I know that I can rely on what they say. Does this have relevance to your post?
No, I don't think it does, Crowan. I think we are at cross-purposes, probably because I'm not including Shamanism in my wildly generalised suppositions about religions! I know what I meant, but I concede I'm viewing the topic through too limited a lens.:)
You can alter (control) your perception of the world around you (the perceptions that are the cause that lead to the effect of the suffering within your system).
I am no expert in buddhism (apologies to buddhists), but is this not what Buddha did when he sat under the tree?
Hi All . 🙂
I have mentioned and I have read of others speaking of sufferings on many levels as of late .
What are your thoughts as to "what Is at the root of all sufferings" .
daz .
The beautiful and sublime 'The Light of Asia' by Sir Edwin Arnold is worth reading if anyone wants to expand their understanding of this question on the spiritual level.