X-Ftn-To: Blue Rajah 

"Blue Rajah"  wrote:
>> Suffering is every state of consciousness that is below absolute
>> fulfillment.
>
>That's a negative definition.  All you're saying is that it's not absolute
>fulfillment.  But what is it?

You want to say that the sentence I wrote wasn't simple enough for
you? ;>

>Is pleasure suffering?  I never describe it that way.

Pleasure actually can be suffering, if it is monotonous, not
completely fulfilling, or if it happens in the wrong circumstances.
Also, if you prolong it into infinity, everything that is not so good,
that you would never want to leave it for anything, will cause
suffering. Think about it and you'll see for yourself.
If you can improve on it, it's not worth keeping. If you do keep it,
you will suffer. Simple. The enlightenment is something you can't
improve on, because it's the best.

>> >Is the sensation of pain suffering?
>>
>> Not necessarily. Pain without suffering is possible, if one doesn't
>> feel victimized by pain. There are masochists, you know.
>
>I know.  So we should be careful to detach the elements of the phrase "pain
>and suffering" that you used earlier.

When I used the term "pain", I didn't mean "the sensation of pain",
which is the phrase that _you_ used. There are many varieties of pain,
and I didn't mean the physical one, which I consider to be quite
irrelevant in comparison with some other forms of pain.

>I don't "keep mixing pain with suffering".  You're laboring under a
>misimpression.
>
>The use of the term "pain and suffering" in this thread was yours,
>not mine.
>
>Blue Rajah: "Perhaps Westerners are conditioned to think of unpleasurable
>feelings as pathologies.  When they don't feel 'happy', they think they're
>sick."
>
>Daniel: "Maybe, but if enlightenment isn't happiness, it must be something
>more. After all, I didn't hear a definition of sat-cit-ananda that would be
>consistent with pain and suffering. It would thus seem that the "western"
>definition of sickness isn't far from the truth."

Better re-read this, so that I won't have to write it all over again.
You're fishing in dull waters. I said that pain and suffering aren't
consistent with sat-cit-ananda, as a response to your claim, which
implies that the "westerners" are not spiritual enough because they
don't have an orgasm when something unpleasurable happens to them. Of
course they don't like it and they want to change it; after all, even
the "easterners" think that pain sucks, and one of the main reasons
why a yogi wants liberation is the painfulness of the physical
existence, from birth to death. Therefore it is easy to prove that you
just babble in order to hear yourself talking, and to share your
profound spiritual insights with us, to show us how unlike those
shallow western hedonists you are. ;>

>> >Pardon me if I think you're just obfuscating.
>>
>> And I think that you're full of shit.
>
>I have no idea why you're acting so hostile.

I'm not buying your crap, that's all. 

>> >> :)) You probably think that you said something very wise. ;)
>> >
>> >Probably I did.  You probably think you're wiser than I.
>>
>> :) So, if I now say that I am, then I admit that my ego is bigger than
>> yours, and then it's actually _me_ who's an arrogant, shallowminded
>> egomaniac around here?
>
>Yes.

Oh, if that would make your ego feel bigger and more comfortable in
its appearance of spiritual modesty, I might even be humble enough in
my appearance of unspiritual arrogance, to oblige you. ;>

>> No thanks,
>
>Then are you saying that you're not wiser than I am?  If you're not
>claiming superior wisdom, why are you sneering at what I think may be wise?

The truth is that you babble pure nonsense, and that I see it. There
is a possibility that you are in fact a very wise person who plays a
role of a total asshole in order to teach us all what to avoid, and in
that case I would be willing to admit that you surpass my wisdom.
However, I doubt that this is the case. 

>> >> When one is happy, one transcends suffering.
>> >
>> >When one is dead, one transcends suffering,
>>
>> When one is dead, one doesn't necessarily transcend even
>> the physical existence - therefore the reincarnation, let alone
>> suffering.
>
>Maybe.  All I know is that no dead person has ever complained to me about
>suffering.  The rest is just guesswork.

It only proves that you don't have a way of hearing dead people's
complaints.

>But how does your statement that "Suffering is every state of consciousness
>that is below absolute fulfillment" square with your statement that "When
>one is happy, one transcends suffering"?

One day you will be able to discriminate between statements made from
different positions and depths. But this day has not yet come.

When one is happy, one transcends suffering. But, if the happiness
that he experiences is not the absolute value, he would wish to go
beyond, into something more. If he isn't able to do so, he'll suffer.
The suffering because you feel nothing above pure joy is indeed
suffering, but compared to a state in which you feel nothing but
severe emotional trauma, it is pure bliss. If I want to counter a
shallow nonsense, I'll write that joy is better than suffering. But,
if one wants a perfect definition of suffering, I would have to say
that in comparison with God, everything else is suffering. So, it is
better to feel good than to feel bad, but even feeling good isn't
completely fulfilling, and so one will have to find something even
better. The best of all is God, and by finding God, all suffering will
cease. Yes, that is purely from personal experience. If you want to
call it wisdom or enlightenment, feel free to do so. 
And, since I explained my point perfectly well, I feel no need to
elaborate any further, and if you choose not to accept my arguments,
well, it's your choice. Your potential for not understanding exceeds
my potential for explaining.

>> I probably think that you're talking
>> about things far above your experience, too.
>
>I don't claim to be enlightened, so I suppose it's accurate to say that I'm
> talking about something beyond my experience.  

Cool. But I'm talking only about things within my experience. 

>I suspect that this is true for you, too.  

Nope, it isn't.

>Or are you claiming to be enlightened?

Of course. I would have to be a total idiot to write from a position
of authority if things were otherwise. Not only that _I_ know, I can
also teach others. My confidence can be confused with arrogance, but
it is just a sign that I know that I know, that's all. And because I
know, I can tell when someone doesn't.

>> Indifference is when you don't react because you are too dumb
>> - like a rock. You can grind it and smash it into little pieces, and
>> it doesn't react in any measurable way.
>
>Indifference is the same as insensate?

Very close, yes. This is why the stupid people are seldom troubled
with the things that torment the wise.

>> Transcendence, however, is when someone you love hurts
>> you in some way, and you don't take it personally, and you
>> forgive that person.
>
>Like a battered spouse?

No, more like Jesus on a cross, or like Milarepa eating the poison.

>Are you fluent in Sanskrit, Daniel?

No, I just use the terms that don't have an adequate translation in
English.

-- 
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org