Understand that Dan, but nevertheless I object when it’s said suffering has no place, I object when it’s said there is no process to the extent of devaluing an understanding-behavior change mode of evolution for the organism, and whatever effects that is religion.
You’ve mentioned “suffering” a few times and started me thinking about what it is. It is a huge subject for exploration and maybe should have its own discussion. In a nutshell, suffering is a resistance to what is going on, what has gone on or what may go on…It is the action that K. aimed to set us free us from. If it weren’t for suffering, would there be organized ‘religions’, organized entertainments, organized sports, etc? Psychological suffering might be the result of a physically damaged brain, in which case therapies are called for. But for a ‘healthy’, only moderately damaged brain, ‘escape’ has been the route taken for relief. So ‘suffering’, it seems to me has a central “place” in our lives. From a moderate ongoing “friction” to a full-blown breakdown…Is it ‘necessary’ to suffer psychologically? Or is it a result of ignorance? Ignorance of the 'divided mind? Ignorance of the fact that the ‘experiencer is the experience’? That the ‘thinker is the thought’? What changes with the realization that the 'suffer-er is the ‘suffering’? That the ‘duality’ itself is an illusion?
In other words one must get from here to there? Because here is a place of division? And it’s the ‘wrong turn’, K spoke about. If there truly is no becoming then there is no wrong turn, it would seem. I dont know if this is a logical conclusion to draw however.
Or the sufferer could just be aware of the suffering when it arises without reacting to it. Without trying to find just the right words to describe suffering? We all suffer, or maybe I should say we are all suffering at times. But can we observe suffering with a completely silent mind?
If thought is the root of psychological suffering can thought end this suffering? Is there an awareness that is not part of thinking that can look at suffering? And if thought is limited can it see the wholeness of suffering? Thought is limited because thought is only possible through memory. Memory is knowledge and experience which is limited.
Can we be aware of suffering when we are not suffering? If we are not suffering and we talk about suffering or look at suffering we are looking at a memory of suffering. Not suffering itself.
We can then discuss suffering but it all becomes theory and fragmented if we base the discussion on our memory of suffering. Can we be aware of suffering, when we are actually suffering? Be aware when the mind is quiet, not thinking, coming to conclusions but just observing?
1 Like
That’s the question. Can there be suffering when there is choiceless awareness? K. said his secret was that he didn’t “mind what happens”. Minding then is suffering. If you mind what happens and it is seen, felt, as bad/wrong, you suffer. There is a resistance/reaction to what is happening. But ‘not-minding’ doesn’t resist what is…it is free of what is…that is the freedom from suffering. Tom has put the question in the past as I recall: "But I do mind, who is it that is going to tell me to ‘not-mind’. How do I get from ‘minding’ to ‘not-minding’? From suffering to not suffering? Isn’t that where the systems and methods enter the picture, laying out one path or another to get from here to there? I think K. saw that there could never be an end to suffering when a psychological ‘time’ is brought into all this. “Truth is a pathless land”, he said.
Indeed. I tell myself to not mind…K says to not mind…but I DO in fact mind. Most of us do mind when we suffer, right?
I can’t …not through my own efforts, can I?
And psychological time is thought…knowledge…consciousness…past and future.
By being free of the psychological minding/not-minding duality? It’s not a progression from one to the other but a ‘breakaway’ from the duality of both? How does the break come about? Through an awareness of the trap of ‘becoming’? How does that awareness come about? Through not escaping one’s suffering in the moment?
I’m not sure that makes sense, Dan. Minding is a fact. I DO mind. I don’t NOT mind. Where’s the duality when there’s minding? I’m judging, or condemning, or resisting, or trying to solve the suffering somehow. Of course adding the duality of the ideal of NOT minding only adds more conflict and division. So when we can’t be choicelessly aware of the suffering, can we be aware of all that’s involved in resisting…knowing the answer…condemning…etc? All that is based upon thousands of years of conditioning to ideals of behavior and to beliefs and psychological knowledge.
If K’s logic is to be followed then at that moment when there is choiceless awareness, there is no self to be observed, because the self is the center of choice. I can follow the logic of that but for me it is speculation and therefore pretty abstract theorizing.
Following that same logic, if there is a ‘seeing’ of the self then it is the self seeing itself, in which case it is partial and choiceful. I think we’ve all experienced that. It is called becoming ‘self-conscious.’ It usually seems to happen when you observe a contradiction in yourself or have one pointed out to you.
‘Minding’ is an interesting word Tom. It means to hold onto something (such as ‘can you mind my bag?’) To ‘mind’ in the psychological sense may indicate holding on to an emotional reaction. So, how do you get from holding the reaction to no longer holding it?
We have a white cat in Brazil and a small dog moved into the house. They ‘minded’ each other very much at first but repeated experience taught them they were not a danger to each other. Then they stopped minding. They are friends now. The first reaction was based on fear and caution, which is understandable. But it seems they were both open to adjust their expectations. But what if the dog had been aggressive? Would it be intelligent for the cat to cease minding?
Back in the human world . . . what if you have a neighbor who continually plays very loud music? It is a practical concern.
I think, where K’s teaching comes in is when one’s ‘minding’ is to do with one’s self-image. Someone insults you, maybe deliberately or maybe just an accidental sleight. You react and that reaction nags at you, worries you. How do you move from that?
Of course that example applies, but Dan was referring to the ‘minding’ or not minding of suffering. As long as we ‘mind’ it, we are divided from it…we try to do something about it. But, it’s a fact that humans DO mind suffering…do mind fear or depression or worry…anger, etc. How can there be choiceless awareness of anger or fear if I ‘mind’/resist the anger? If I condemn or judge?
Yes, I understand that Tom. I was responding to your point however, not to Dan’s. But let’s proceed from what you have now put to us as Dan’s point, the minding or not-minding of suffering:
I think it is a wrong phrase, ‘the minding of suffering,’ because suffering is minding. It is one and the same thing. It may seem to be two things (first one suffers and then one minds), but is there really a distinction between them?
I have no answer for why Dan suffers or how he might best approach it. I’m sure it is terrible. Depression is a severe disturbance. It is like being nailed to a cross. In spite of being psychological, it is also a physical state.
I would make a distinction there, a fully blown break down is experienced by the entire organism without any differentiation made as physical or psychological; in my view, this occurs some where during the period of ‘zero self knowing (the essence of it is our complete and full identification with the physical) happening as a process’ and therefore has the potential to kick start it, a new direction is shown in life. When suffering is talked about as a hindrance, it is, as I understand it when deliberately used as an escape from self knowing, and that happens with partial break down.
When the disturbance is ‘named’, already there is a reaction to it. Even calling it a ‘disturbance’ brings about the desire to calm it, to return to one’s normal state. If this ‘disturbance’ is a result of the action of someone else, is the 'problem; here seeing, hearing, the ‘other’ as basically different than oneself? ‘You’ insult ‘me’ and ‘I’ react. But ‘you’ are just a “bundle of memories and experiences” as ‘I’ am. So it is the ‘bundles’ that are interacting and not anyone ‘actual’? Is the source of suffering related to this, that we take ourselves to be individuals filled with our self-importance and strut about like peacocks, when it’s all a psychological fantasy? And as we see what is going on around us , a lethal one. Not only for us as humans but also for our innocent neighbors who are not as ‘intelligent’ as we imagine ourselves to be?
Yes all that is going on. Call it ‘caring’, you care what happens. Other things ‘happen’ that you don’t care about. Some things make you angry and others have no effect on you…etc. You, we, ‘mind’ some things that happen and not others…I’m looking at K.'s statement that he didn’t mind what happens…and that that was his “secret”. So is a ‘distance’ from this ‘normal’ like/dislike, care/not-care, mind/not-mind psychological ‘framework’ possible? ‘Things’ will take place in the instant. In the realm of cause and effect , but is there a ‘state of observation’ (choiceless awareness) that can be a ‘light’ to all that takes place. There is. A light that doesn’t ‘mind’ what it shines on, doesn’t mind or care or like or dislike what it illuminates? Just a light unto itself.
Paul I just read this. Please don’t post things like this. First of all, it is completely erroneous. You do not know my mental state. It is also insulting. And it is also personal. Thank you.
1 Like
back to that last part later time permitting.
A light that is looking itself…a looking that is one with life itself.
1 Like
Hi Dan. Please accept my apologies. I had no intention either to personalise the issue or to pass an insult. I realise my mistake.
Let me voice it from my own perspective: When I am suffering psychologically I do not know why I am suffering. Suffering is terrible and has a depressive or crippling aspect for me. It is evidenced by a depression of my mental energies and also has a physical aspect. It is like being nailed to a cross. When I suffer, my attention is drawn to the suffering and I look for the cause. That seems to be a correct function.
My own sufferings tend to be short-lived. I come out of them in one of two ways usually. Either I become used to whatever cause is present or I understand that cause at a deeper level. Understanding at a deeper level why I am suffering tends to dissipate the suffering.
I have also said that the minding and the suffering are one thing, not two. You cannot suffer and not mind it. The suffering itself is minding. That is how it seems to me. I do not suffer and then mind. The suffering has an urgency. It draws the attention and says “deal with me.”
The process is the same whether physical or psychological. If I have a thorn in my shoe I cannot ‘not mind’ that it is sticking in my foot. The minding and the suffering are two words for the same thing. If I am in a mental state without a physical cause that disturbs my ability to function mentally then that disturbance is also suffering and is also minding for the mind wants rid of the disturbance so that it can function properly.
With suffering, whether psychological or physical, we are dealing with disturbance which is felt as pain.So, does intelligence wish to stay with the disturbance or end it? The real issue, as far as I can see, is not to do with ‘minding or not minding’ but to do with how one deals with the suffering. Persuading oneself not to mind is repression. As with the thorn in the shoe, the function of pain/disturbance/suffering is to draw ones attention to a problem and thereby find the cause.
If you know such a light, can you tell us what brought it about? What brought about the change from ‘minding’ to not minding?