Shocking the system - Conscious Pain and Suffering

[Phill4]

Consciously choosing discomfort because it is not the default mode is not necessarily the answer. (especially for the masochist ;D) There were monks who consciously chose bodily mortification to combat certain natural bodily functions they viewed as "sinful" but this didn't necessarily bring consciousness or holiness. Doing the opposite of the mechanical default can become just as mechanical. This is akin to the forces of sleep redoubling their efforts once we start to wake up. I think it is also possible to consciously choose your mechanical suffering, to add an additional twist to it.

G. talks about self observation, not immediate change, conscious suffering is
1)relative
2)has a purpose specific to the work taking place in the individual
3)is a concept that predicates G's system.

people who like pain , masochists, function under a different mechanism where pain is not a suffering but rather enjoyable. thus the conscious suffering for that person indicates a line of work in the psychic-emotion aspect first and addressing the imbalance. If such person wants to change that is.


As for Muxel's comment, the responses revolved around a question of a new member in reference to specific issue. In trying to work with the member's perspective, which works for everyone equally, the responses were in accordance to the question. as this idea developed, the conversation evolves in different directions and deeper ideas.

What I am noticing is the word "relative" and "relativity" is not being grasped, leading to confusion

 

[BHelmet]

Suffering is related to pain I am experiencing - but it has more to do with how long that pain is experienced and what can or can not be done to solve the problem. Suffering is about duration and, perhaps also, the lack of workable remedies.

I think the Stoics would beg to differ with that.

There is pain and there is suffering, and the difference lies in accepting what you cannot change. Or maybe it's more the difference between unconscious and conscious suffering - if you accept the suffering, meaning you make it conscious, it becomes more tolerable.

Right - I don't see that I am suggesting anything any different. (lack of workable remedies = things that can't be changed) (and I am not concerned about the Stoics or the Cynics differing but I have been accused of being both...whatever)

So, why do we accept the suffering? In some cases it is because the alternatives are all assessed to be "worse"; unchangeable, as you say; OR perhaps (even better!) at odds with our 'aim'. So a current 'pain' can be consciously chosen, especially if it is aligned with an aim. Whether this makes it more tolerable is beside the point. In fact, perhaps IF the suffering/pain is more tolerable, that could be an indication that we are back in default mode of maximizing comfort and avoiding what we "don't like".

 

[Phill4]

There is pain and there is suffering, and the difference lies in accepting what you cannot change. Or maybe it's more the difference between unconscious and conscious suffering - if you accept the suffering, meaning you make it conscious, it becomes more tolerable.

Maybe not more tolerable, but i'm thinking about the lines of concious, you know why is there, you chose it as a necesity to move forward and the aim to attain self-knowledge, change etc. and necesity in the bigger aim in the world.

 

[Alejo]

Suffering is related to pain I am experiencing - but it has more to do with how long that pain is experienced and what can or can not be done to solve the problem. Suffering is about duration and, perhaps also, the lack of workable remedies.

I think the Stoics would beg to differ with that.

There is pain and there is suffering, and the difference lies in accepting what you cannot change. Or maybe it's more the difference between unconscious and conscious suffering - if you accept the suffering, meaning you make it conscious, it becomes more tolerable.

Right - I don't see that I am suggesting anything any different. (lack of workable remedies = things that can't be changed) (and I am not concerned about the Stoics or the Cynics differing but I have been accused of being both...whatever)

So, why do we accept the suffering? In some cases it is because the alternatives are all assessed to be "worse"; unchangeable, as you say; OR perhaps (even better!) at odds with our 'aim'. So a current 'pain' can be consciously chosen, especially if it is aligned with an aim. Whether this makes it more tolerable is beside the point. In fact, perhaps IF the suffering/pain is more tolerable, that could be an indication that we are back in default mode of maximizing comfort and avoiding what we "don't like".

Or that some of your goals are being attained.

To use your example of working out. Let's say for conversations sake that the aim was to grow larger muscles, or to increase your muscle resistance. You accept the muscle soreness for you understand that this is the path to reaching your aim. And as the pain becomes more bearable you might notice that you've reached some progress and thus are able to choose to remain, or move on (increase weight).

All of this process is informed (it reaches a form) by what furthers or hinders your aim. It also informs your conscious tolerance or acceptance to suffering. Which sort of brings me back to that original idea I mentioned earlier.

Before choosing to suffer for sufferings sake, an observation is required. This is what creates the aim that is needed in order to understand what quiality and quiantity of suffering will further said aim.

 

[bjorb]

I might missed the point entirely what you are trying to convey.

But maybe it's not per se about choosing to suffer. But about choosing to struggle. And through this struggle we suffer. And our aim of this struggle is to develop our conscience and become more conscious. To better/overcome ourselves from egoistic, selfish, self-importance, STS thinking/behavior.

But the aim of ''The Work'' is not to suffer ofcourse. It's the death of the Ego that causes pain. This is necessary, but the 'reward' is more worth than Gold for those who truly endure it.

 

[T.C.]

A person can talk about pain or suffering but WHY does a person call it pain or suffering?

It's just a conventionally agreed upon label (although I'm sure there's some 'green language' involved).

What IS the nature of pain or suffering?

I'm not sure that's a particularly good question - I mean, the way you've worded it. What do you mean by nature?

I think a more useful question would be, "What is the purpose of pain or suffering?" Because that makes sense; its purpose is to tell us that something is wrong.

Now, how that relates to conscious suffering is different to unconscious suffering. Our mind and physiology are set into a collection of micro personalities, right? We get hungry, we become one person; we get humiliated, we become another person; we get excited, we become another person.

If you're still alive, that actually means that your little i's have done the job they were supposed to do: Get you into adulthood. So the pain we experience from conscious suffering, is the mind and body saying, "What the heck do you think you're doing! What we've got WORKS! You'll get us both killed! I can't let you do this because it is wrong!"

Struggling on in quiet desperation, having to watch t.v., eat junk food, drink alcohol, get into unhealthy relationships, act out in ways that you wish you hadn't that make your life worse; not do what you feel is right; putting up with family and friends who don't really care about you and so always feeling alone and unloved; getting older, getting fatter, getting onto the medications prescribed by your doctor; ending up seriously ill, wishing you'd lived your life authentically but now it's too late...

All the while, the above person is suffering mentally, physically and emotionally, because these aspects of the person are screaming that there's something seriously wrong with their automatic and unconscious way of life.

The deeper causes and mechanisms of suffering are important to suss out. [...] I think it is necessary to analyze the pain and suffering in order to really consciously choose or our choices may just revert to the default mode.

Absolutely. It's necessary to deeply analyse everything in your life that you can become aware of. However, if you've got your hand in the fire, are you as bothered about knowing why it's burning you and analysing the properties of the flame and with your free unburning hand, googling for info about nerves and skin and muscle and tendons and trying to link it all together?

My point is, suffering is one of the most real things; it's one of the things no one can deny. If I say to a five year old, "I banged my head yesterday" they don't need an explanation of what that means: pain is a human universal, whether it's physical, mental or emotional.

Consciously choosing discomfort because it is not the default mode is not necessarily the answer.

To what question? The point of choosing conscious suffering is not simply because it isn't the default mode. It's because, sooner or later, you're faced with a truth, which leads to a question. "There is suffering, and you cannot avoid suffering. But you can choose your suffering." So would I rather suffer with or without purpose?

(especially for the masochist ;D) There were monks who consciously chose bodily mortification to combat certain natural bodily functions they viewed as "sinful" but this didn't necessarily bring consciousness or holiness.

But they weren't engaged in the Fourth Way, like we're supposed to be. And you can't assume that they didn't acquire something of significance from their practices - it's just that, all the time they spent cloistered away making love to their own egos, they could have been out in the real world making a difference to other people's lives.

Doing the opposite of the mechanical default can become just as mechanical.

Yes, but the Universe always notices when that's happening, and to the sincere seeker, it always gives a good, hard kick in the pants. It's also the reason why we need a network.

This is akin to the forces of sleep redoubling their efforts once we start to wake up. I think it is also possible to consciously choose your mechanical suffering, to add an additional twist to it.

Totally agree; I did it myself. But you know the biggest problem with choosing mechanical, automatic suffering? It is by definition the height of selfishness. That's all well and good if you're completely detached from anyone else, but when you live and work in a society, you're connected to others in myriad ways - even people you don't know - and a selfish person brings pain and suffering to other people, pain and suffering that is then itself haphazard and arbitrary; and one has become a representative of chaos.

Anyone with a spark of conscience can't live like that forever.

So, why do we accept the suffering? In some cases it is because the alternatives are all assessed to be "worse"; unchangeable, as you say; OR perhaps (even better!) at odds with our 'aim'. So a current 'pain' can be consciously chosen, especially if it is aligned with an aim. Whether this makes it more tolerable is beside the point. In fact, perhaps IF the suffering/pain is more tolerable, that could be an indication that we are back in default mode of maximizing comfort and avoiding what we "don't like".

What's wrong with that, though? And by that, I mean, what's wrong with realising, you actually can make life better for yourself, but it's going to be hard work? There would be no point in the work if it didn't bring benefits. You just have to get your act together, stop pitying yourself and become an adult, wake up to the fact that you might have a moral obligation to be something more than an automaton wallowing in its misery and not doing anything about it because it can all be philosophised away.

That's why becoming conscious of your suffering (waking up the emotional centre, I guess) is the prerequisite: if you don't actually become conscious of the reality of pain and suffering, you can't become aware of the fact that they're real and serve a purpose and they can't be philosophised away.

 

[axj]

For me, one of the hardest things to accept was that pain is a part of life (at least in 3D). I used to have almost an obsession to avoid feeling pain and discomfort. One interesting thing is that the avoiding of feeling pain and discomfort is what creates a lot more pain and suffering. Opening up and feeling whatever is painful is actually much less painful than the pain created through resistance.

I also think that it is good to remember that conscious suffering is not something we have to seek out, it will come on its own when we do the Work, are open and follow our aim.

And just like there is a reward system of 'feeling good' in physicality, there is also something similar on the 'spiritual level': when you do the Work and go deeper, you get to experience fulfillment and other blissful feelings/energies as a 'reward' for working in alignment with your purpose and the purpose of the Universe at large.

 

[BHelmet]

Why does a person label an experience or a sensation pain/suffering? If I jump in a cold shower for some reason, why should I call it pain or suffering? It is just an extreme and sudden sensation of nerves reacting to the cold water. Or a better example might be going to the dentist, which I did the other day. The needles going into my gums/jaw were 'painful'. But my experience of that pain changed depending on several things. If I tensed up and resisted, it was more acute. If I consciously tried to relax and willingly accepted the needles, it was less acute and not even really painful.

My main point in this is that I am wondering if pain/suffering are not as subjective as morality? In other words, I am hypothetically suggesting that pain is an individual thing. Waiting in line might be angry suffering for an impatient person or an opportunity to express the virtue of patience for some other type of person. A lot of 'suffering' is derived from our relationship to the unpleasant experience. Suffering and Pain are subjective and that impacts this discussion. OSIT

Is accepting that long line and relaxing just self-calming or is it a sane response to a situation that can't be changed? Again, I think it is subjective and could go either way. The only objective thing about it is the people standing there, the clock ticking and my automatic reaction to all this. (then at that point I have the opportunity to consciously choose my reaction, to choose the dance I will do with the situation) But, to repeat, my main point is to suggest that suffering is perhaps very subjective; and therefore, each individual can benefit most by asking and answering these questions for themselves and not generalizing or projecting.

It is not my intent to get into a tit for tat point-by-point type of deal here. I have been very careful to couch my observations and experiences in “could be’s” “perhaps” “not necessarily” and question marks. Nowhere am I making assertions meant to be valid for all persons or all situations. I am very aware that this area is an open question and that is how I am approaching it. I am also aware that each person’s experience and level of development are unique and valid and serve some purpose. I also bear in mind that not all people have the same 'lesson plan' or are at the same point on the learning curve.

When I ask “what is the nature of pain and suffering” I am rhetorically asking this to stimulate inner reflection. You are suggesting that may not be a good question. I think it is. Whatever...no biggie, so be it. I think it is important to know the source of the pain and suffering in order to be able to consciously use that pain and suffering in the best way. Perhaps I should have added "What is the nature of your pain and suffering." Why do you call it pain or feel it as pain? What is the mechanism of it's expression? Is there a recurring theme to your suffering? There are a lot of interesting and liberating realizations in these questions. OSIT

Conjecturing about hypothetical people and situations can be useful at times to gain some perspective and distance from a question. But, ultimately, the real questions live within the individual and should be honestly asked of the self.

I could be wrong, but, you seem a little annoyed in your post. Of course, I don’t really know. You seem to be also making assumptions about what I have been saying and ‘where’ I am “coming from” about these issues. Perhaps somehow taking it personally? Again, I don’t really know. My impression is that you may be hearing me saying or implying things I am not really saying.

eg: Me: " There were monks who consciously chose bodily mortification to combat certain natural bodily functions they viewed as "sinful" but this didn't necessarily bring consciousness or holiness."
You: "And you can't assume that they didn't acquire something of significance from their practices"

...did I say or imply I was assuming that? I certainly didn't mean to.

I do mean to be wondering aloud, so to speak; to be inviting in. I do not mean to be saying: ‘this is absolutely how things are and anybody who thinks differently is just plain wrong’. (Did you hear that as directed at you? It was not. I say that because that can be a flaw of MY machine.)

Another interesting aspect in this is that definite, absolute answers tend to close off the opening for discussion. I know my machine is programmed to want answers. But the answers can close off the asking process and limit what knowledge can be accessed, especially when I am too certain I am “right”. There is a lot of power in speaking for one's self. And you can't really speak for yourself if you don't know yourself. Hence the need to get to the source and root of what suffering means to a person in their own individual life. It has taken me a long time to really get that.

Sometimes I think we are all just talking to ourselves. Sometimes I will read things I have written as if I was saying those things to myself. It is always an instructive exercise; and often a humbling one.

ADMIN NOTE: Snipped long quoted post.

 

[bjorb]

Hi BHelmet

I know you where talking to T.C and I don't know if I understood everything you said in the correct way, but maybe I can help out a bit.


[quote author= BHelmet]My main point in this is that I am wondering if pain/suffering are not as subjective as morality? In other words, I am hypothetically suggesting that pain is an individual thing.[/quote]

[quote author= BHelmet]A lot of 'suffering' is derived from our relationship to the unpleasant experience. Suffering and Pain are subjective and that impacts this discussion. OSIT[/quote]

[quote author= BHelmet]But, to repeat, my main point is to suggest that suffering is perhaps very subjective; and therefore, each individual can benefit most by asking and answering these questions for themselves and not generalizing or projecting.[/quote]

Unconsciousness suffering is subjective. This is pain deprived from the Ego. We suffer duo to our self-importance.

Conscious suffering is objective. We suffer because we struggle trying to become more conscious of ourselves and develop our conscience so that we can learn how to love and help others.

There is a clear difference, but it's certainly not always clear if we are crystallizing on the right foundations. But that's what this network is for, so if you are having doubts about some of the approaches you are enduring. Feel free to share.


[quote author= BHelmet]Me: " There were monks who consciously chose bodily mortification to combat certain natural bodily functions they viewed as "sinful" but this didn't necessarily bring consciousness or holiness."
You: "And you can't assume that they didn't acquire something of significance from their practices"[/quote]

I think T.C. meant with that:

The way of the monk isn't complete. The Monk doesn't try to figure out or understand why he has 'sinful' thought. The monk just suppresses and ignores 'sinful' thoughts

That's why it isn't complete. The 4 way seeks to understand and figure out why they have 'sinful' thoughts. And only through that can we release/overcome it. By understanding the mechanics at play inside of us and realize how empty and soulless those 'sinful' thoughts are.


[quote author= BHelmet]Perhaps I should have added "What is the nature of your pain and suffering." Why do you call it pain or feel it as pain? What is the mechanism of it's expression? Is there a recurring theme to your suffering? There are a lot of interesting and liberating realizations in these questions. OSIT[/quote]

Yes, that is very essential I think.

And going back subjective suffering and objective suffering.

Why we want to become more conscious is because during our struggles we learn better to understand the universally importance of Objective Love. Only when we have a developed conscience and can act upon it are we able to truly love and help others.

That's why subjectivity is always universally empty, soulless for those who have learned. Because in that STS mode we don't truly look out or care for others. We only use others for our self-serving desires.

And I really like how axj did prashe this:

[quote author= axj]And just like there is a reward system of 'feeling good' in physicality, there is also something similar on the 'spiritual level': when you do the Work and go deeper, you get to experience fulfillment and other blissful feelings/energies as a 'reward' for working in alignment with your purpose and the purpose of the Universe at large.[/quote]

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=BHelmet]
Why does a person label an experience or a sensation pain/suffering? If I jump in a cold shower for some reason, why should I call it pain or suffering? It is just an extreme and sudden sensation of nerves reacting to the cold water.
[/quote]

Indeed. I would think that the labeling is a socially agreed upon convention for communication, like most (if not all) of the conceptual categories that we use. The reaction of the nervous system is instinctive though it can be trained with effort and repetition. But this reaction is part of the experience in the present moment. If I am completely engaged with the present moment, then the thought of "I am suffering" may not arise until later when I ruminate and process the experience. I think a part of what we call suffering comes from a narrative created after the experience of the event.

[quote author=BHelmet]
Or a better example might be going to the dentist, which I did the other day. The needles going into my gums/jaw were 'painful'. But my experience of that pain changed depending on several things. If I tensed up and resisted, it was more acute. If I consciously tried to relax and willingly accepted the needles, it was less acute and not even really painful.
[/quote]

I can relate to this experience. Another part of what we call suffering comes from the resistance to the present moment. Acceptance and relaxing alleviate the uncomfortable sensations.

[quote author=BHelmet]
My main point in this is that I am wondering if pain/suffering are not as subjective as morality? In other words, I am hypothetically suggesting that pain is an individual thing. Waiting in line might be angry suffering for an impatient person or an opportunity to express the virtue of patience for some other type of person. A lot of 'suffering' is derived from our relationship to the unpleasant experience. Suffering and Pain are subjective and that impacts this discussion.
[/quote]

I take the line that the experience is what it is. We have a choice regarding our relationship to the unpleasant experience. If an automatic reaction is the response, then there is no choice. The whole experience then is mechanical. Whether we can see the choices in a situation determines the level of conscious experiencing. And this is where some fruitful discussion can ensue. Sometimes others are able to point out different possibilities in a situation that one may not be able to see for him/herself.

[quote author=BHelmet]
Is accepting that long line and relaxing just self-calming or is it a sane response to a situation that can't be changed? Again, I think it is subjective and could go either way.
[/quote]

The long line "is". So accepting that it is there is a rational response. Acceptance is different from resignation. Acceptance can mark the beginning of a new process and promote thinking about how to change the situation later, if possible. Some people look at such situations and come up with creative solutions - like providing/suggesting online services and appointments if possible to prevent queues. Or they go up to the manager's office and ask if additional counters can be opened. IOW, they see different possibilities and that is a level of conscious experiencing which starts with acceptance.

Mechanical (or less conscious) experiencing can also have several different outcomes. Anger at "why should I be stuck in a line?" "The people in the office are inefficient/corrupt". "The people standing in the line are sheeple" .......

Often we cannot readily make out whether a response is more or less conscious by looking at behavior only. A person can wait in line with resignation; he can also wait in line seeing the possibility of exercising patience. The energies working inside the two are very different.

Anyway, I find the perspective of less/more conscious more useful than objective/subjective.

 

[T.C.]

I could be wrong, but, you seem a little annoyed in your post. Of course, I don’t really know. You seem to be also making assumptions about what I have been saying and ‘where’ I am “coming from” about these issues. Perhaps somehow taking it personally? Again, I don’t really know. My impression is that you may be hearing me saying or implying things I am not really saying.

No, you're not wrong. I was doing a lot of projecting and not seeing exactly clearly where you were coming from and what point you were trying to make.

The reason I got like that was because in the past I've been in painful situations in which I was suffering, and the thing that prevented me from confronting the pain and transforming it into action was too much overthinking and hypothesising and philosophising about the nature of pain and suffering, when it could all be reduced down to a single truth - pain and suffering are real, whatever label I give to them.

Your post read to me (yesterday) like that little i of mine who does all those things - a little i who, even though there's a time and a place for its function, takes over when it shouldn't, and so it annoys me and I don't like it.

I thought that's what you were doing. At times, I thought you were almost questioning the existence of pain and suffering or reducing it down too much.

When I was in bed, about an hour after I'd posted, I was thinking about what you wrote and what I wrote and my mind cleared and then I realised what you meant by, "What is the nature of suffering?"

The best answer I could come up with is, "It is that which I wish to avoid."

Why does a person label an experience or a sensation pain/suffering? If I jump in a cold shower for some reason, why should I call it pain or suffering? It is just an extreme and sudden sensation of nerves reacting to the cold water. Or a better example might be going to the dentist, which I did the other day. The needles going into my gums/jaw were 'painful'. But my experience of that pain changed depending on several things. If I tensed up and resisted, it was more acute. If I consciously tried to relax and willingly accepted the needles, it was less acute and not even really painful.

My main point in this is that I am wondering if pain/suffering are not as subjective as morality? In other words, I am hypothetically suggesting that pain is an individual thing. Waiting in line might be angry suffering for an impatient person or an opportunity to express the virtue of patience for some other type of person. A lot of 'suffering' is derived from our relationship to the unpleasant experience. Suffering and Pain are subjective and that impacts this discussion. OSIT

I think there's a difference between how one approaches and deals with and acts on their experience of pain (which probably heightens or lessens the amount of pain they feel), and the concept of pain itself. Your focus is on the former, whereas, in my last post, I was focusing on the latter.

I'd say you're definitely right that what one person considers painful, another would hardly acknowledge. That's where I was coming from in my response to Muxel earlier in the thread.

It is not my intent to get into a tit for tat point-by-point type of deal here. I have been very careful to couch my observations and experiences in “could be’s” “perhaps” “not necessarily” and question marks.

But earlier, you spoke of how much you value the process of analysing the subject, which has to include analysing your thoughts on the subject. To couch your observations in "could be's" etc., might be a way of you trying not to get pinned down and remain 'in the clouds' (for lack of a better way of saying it; don't take that the wrong way). Kind of like a way of avoiding having to learn to think with a hammer and be confident in everything you say or write.

When I ask “

what is the nature of pain and suffering” I am rhetorically asking this to stimulate inner reflection. You are suggesting that may not be a good question. I think it is. Whatever...no biggie, so be it.

My problem with the question was the use of the word "nature". I didn't understand what you were asking. So if I ask someone a question and they don't understand what I'm asking, I use that as a cue that I haven't properly formulated the question.

I think it is important to know the source of the pain and suffering in order to be able to consciously use that pain and suffering in the best way.

Agreed, that's why people go into therapy, or go to the doctor, or network on here or do research.

Perhaps I should have added "What is the nature of your pain and suffering." Why do you call it pain or feel it as pain?

I'd now say, then, that people define pain as anything they'd rather not experience.

Conjecturing about hypothetical people and situations can be useful at times to gain some perspective and distance from a question.

Not only that, but they can be used to illustrate a point.

But, ultimately, the real questions live within the individual and should be honestly asked of the self.

eg: Me: " There were monks who consciously chose bodily mortification to combat certain natural bodily functions they viewed as "sinful" but this didn't necessarily bring consciousness or holiness."
You: "And you can't assume that they didn't acquire something of significance from their practices"

...did I say or imply I was assuming that? I certainly didn't mean to.

I know. You were using the example in a more narrow way to illustrate a particular point. I was bringing relativity into it, showing how their practice relates to what we're attempting to do here.

I do mean to be wondering aloud, so to speak; to be inviting in. I do not mean to be saying: ‘this is absolutely how things are and anybody who thinks differently is just plain wrong’. (Did you hear that as directed at you? It was not. I say that because that can be a flaw of MY machine.)

Same here, actually. I'm glad you are bringing up the ideas so that I too can give out my ideas in the same spirit: This is what I think about it, and I might be wrong, and interacting with the network is how to find out where I'm wrong.

Sometimes I think we are all just talking to ourselves. Sometimes I will read things I have written as if I was saying those things to myself. It is always an instructive exercise; and often a humbling one.

Yes, the last couple of paragraphs of my last post was me talking to myself. But, those lines are the conclusions that this whole subject have brought me to. And when I'm not sure whether I should post things that I think are projections, I sometimes decide do it anyway based on what the C's said about (and I'm paraphrasing here) "If you're struggling, tell other people about it and do something that might reduce the suffering of people experiencing the same thing."

So since the last paragraphs were conclusions that have been things I've learned from suffering, I didn't delete them, because there might be truth in them and they might help others.

 

[bozadi]

I like a simple and general description of suffering by N. Maharaj: "suffering is primarily a call for attention". This reminds me C's statement to the effect that suffering triggers more DNA action, which I think is about an increase of attention and possibly awareness. Maybe there are different types of suffering but taking this general approach, it might be possible to say that pain or suffering can be beneficial to the extent it entails a critically needed increase of attention and awareness for overcoming a problem?

Some mixed excerpts about suffering from Maharaj, from whom these days I try extract whatever seems beneficial to me:

M: Pain is physical; suffering is mental. Beyond the mind there is no suffering. Pain is merely a signal that the body is in danger and requires attention. Similarly, suffering warns us that the structure of memories and habits, which we call the person, is threatened by loss or change. Pain is essential for the survival of the body, but none compels you to suffer. Suffering is due entirely to clinging or resisting; it is a sign of our unwillingness to move on, to flow with life.

M: All suffering is caused by selfish isolation, by insularity and greed. When the cause of suffering is seen and removed, suffering ceases.

Q: I may remove my causes of sorrow, but others will be left to suffer.

M: To understand suffering, you must go beyond pain and pleasure. Your own desires and fears prevent you from understanding and thereby helping others. In reality there are no others, and by helping yourself you help everybody else. If you are serious about the sufferings of mankind, you must perfect the only means of help you have — Yourself.

Q: Must we not suffer to grow?

M: It is enough to know that there is suffering, that the world suffers. By themselves neither pleasure nor pain enlighten. Only understanding does. Once you have grasped the truth that the world is full of suffering, that to be born is a calamity, you will find the urge and the energy to go beyond it. Pleasure puts you to sleep and pain wakes you up. If you do not want to suffer, don’t go to sleep. You cannot know yourself through bliss alone, for bliss is your very nature. You must face the opposite, what you are not, to find enlightenment.

It is in the nature of love to express itself, to affirm itself, to overcome difficulties. Once you have understood that the world is love in action, you will look at it quite differently. But first your attitude to suffering must change. Suffering is primarily a call for attention, which itself is a movement of love. More than happiness, love wants growth, the widening and deepening of consciousness and being. Whatever prevents becomes a cause of pain, and love does not shirk from pain. Sattva, the energy that works for righteousness and orderly development, must not be thwarted. When obstructed it turns against itself and becomes destructive. Whenever love is withheld and suffering allowed to spread, war becomes inevitable. Our indifference to our neighbour’s sorrow brings suffering to our door.

Q: Is not all suffering self-created?

M: Yes, as long as there is a separate self to create it. In the end you know that there is no sin, no guilt, no retribution, only life in its endless transformations. With the dissolution of the personal ‘I’ personal suffering disappears. What remains is the great sadness of compassion, the horror of the unnecessary pain.

Q: Is there anything unnecessary in the scheme of things?

M: Nothing is necessary, nothing is inevitable. Habit and passion blind and mislead. Compassionate awareness heals and redeems. There is nothing we can do, we can only let things happen according to their nature.

Q: Do you advocate complete passivity?

M: Clarity and charity is action. Love is not lazy and clarity directs. You need not worry about action, look after your mind and heart. Stupidity and selfishness are the only evil.

 

[Phill4]

Why does a person label an experience or a sensation pain/suffering? If I jump in a cold shower for some reason, why should I call it pain or suffering? It is just an extreme and sudden sensation of nerves reacting to the cold water. Or a better example might be going to the dentist, which I did the other day. The needles going into my gums/jaw were 'painful'. But my experience of that pain changed depending on several things. If I tensed up and resisted, it was more acute. If I consciously tried to relax and willingly accepted the needles, it was less acute and not even really painful.

We don't experience pain as neural signals for a reason, sensations are spontaneus, You feel what you feel and if someone afterwards trasnlates these sensations as electrical signals, pain, suffering or other terms for the sake of coding the experience in intellectual terms, or words then, yes the subjectivism acts in in favor of our subjective state.

Going around the issue as what we claim to feel or not is yet another form of subjectivism.

 

[BHelmet]

Hey T.C. - Thanks for being so honest and candid - truly. I think that really adds so much to the conversation. I don't have time for a long winded deal here right now but - thanks - very much. To be honest, I was almost dreading logging back in fear of some giant, endless hornets nest I had kicked. Again - your willingness to see into your self is inspiring.

 

[Phill4]

Yes, as others have said, "conscious suffering" takes place primarily on the emotional level.

I was recalling this today, for some reason, in terms of our reactions from lets say withdraw from too cold and too warm, too uncomfortable, we react inmediatelly.

Today i was out in the cold, and i noticed some inner reactions, thoughts, feelings and body gestures were all in agreement to withdraw from the cold some way or another and even narratives. Can this be fear, sadnes or self-importance the emotion connected to the need to withdraw??? I can't say.

It was in response to Muxel's "extreme" comparison of physical pain, i was thinking while one can actually focus on withstanding a cold weather if there is focus on our part, yes anyone can attempt to do this and succed, but the flip side to doing this excersice is loosing the chance to listen to your body reactions and understand them, explore them and have full awareness of the inner workings of the subconcious whenever we are in a moment of disconfort. By focusing on "being strong" instead of "listening to the chain reactions" and master each one with patience.

Growing confortable in a form of pain and switching when you are mentally ready to do so isn't really working on the "suffering" aspect of it, but rather crystalizing an association, because there is a self fullfilling reward in succeding everytime.



Standing in the cold and just allowing yourself to feel and listen to the disconfort, observe the chain reaction on the emotional level, tells you more than blocking it altogether.

Axj made a really good point when the pain has a root on the emotional level. Thanks for this item.