GENIUS FORUMS

I have come to believe that the world is not suffering. Or at any rate it is not suffering due to lack of consciousness.

It is people who are similar to Buddha who suffer from a lack of consciousness. People who prefer reason to map the world, who find society awkward and who are not comfortable with the emotional/animal mind. Most seem to like it just fine (as can be seen on television). These people who are half awake, they are the ones suffering from lack of consciousness.

It must also be noted that despite dabbling seriously with all this enlightenment stuff most still do not get over their suffering. In most places enlightenment is compared to a lottery (zen etc).

The ideal of enlightenment involves near perfect knowledge of the world, with conquest of the animal/emotional mind by the intellectual mind. This would make one an (cognitive) alien to the human species.

Could it be that enlightenment is related to evolution. A new species is branching off from humans? This suffering is a thrust for the new species to be born?

maestro wrote:I have come to believe that the world is not suffering. Or at any rate it is not suffering due to lack of consciousness.

Consciousness and unconsciousness are two sides of the same coin. To be consciousness of something can be painful because of the unconsciousness processes which make our consciousness possible.

It is people who are similar to Buddha who suffer from a lack of consciousness.

It's true that all suffering is due to both an excess of consciousness and a lack of consciousness.

People who prefer reason to map the world, who find society awkward and who are not comfortable with the emotional/animal mind.

Science tells us that the male mind has weaker connectivity between his emotional brain and his rational brain. Also, he has a weaker connectivity between his linguistic brain and his visual-spatial brain. This lack of connectivity makes spontaneity and emotions more awkward to deal with.

Most seem to like it just fine (as can be seen on television).

Television is a caricature, rather than a realistic depiction of the human condition.

These people who are half awake, they are the ones suffering from lack of consciousness.

Their suffering is caused by both their consciousness and their unconsciousness. If a lack of consciousness was solely responsible for hell, then drug highs would not be so heavenly. A lack of consciousness can be a great bliss. However, there can be no bliss without some iota of consciousness - just as there can be no great suffering without some iota of unconsciousness.

Could it be that enlightenment is related to evolution. A new species is branching off from humans? This suffering is a thrust for the new species to be born?

I think anxiety and stress is important too. Anxiety and stress is felt when we apprehend moments in the future, moments which we judge as potentially painful.

Vulnerability to suffering is what we're anxious about - and it is precisely this vulnerability which the wise attack, undermine, eradicate. And yes, the purposeful eradication of vulnerability will likely lead to a new, more advanced, species.

I was making the following point (which was a bit lost in the opening post)

The thirst for enlightenment is present in a small subsection of humans. These humans are similar to the historical Buddha in their world-view (rational vs emotional engagement, understanding rather than pleasure).

Enlightenment is an ideal state in which the consciousness becomes clear and the passions go extinct. To a normal culturally conditioned human, this would be horrible and reminiscent of a robot or computer.

Enlightenment seekers caught in the middle are confused and suffering. The enlightened represents a new species, they are far removed from the humans.

The only circumstances under which there is no suffering is perfect consciousness, or no consciousness. Anywhere in the spectrum between these two opposites, suffering can occur, and the closer to the middle one is, the more suffering he is likely to endure. As one's consciousness increases, the more he becomes aware of the causes of his suffering, which reduces his emotional reactions to these causes, leading to a more content state of mind where suffering is minimal. As one's consciousness decreases, the more ignorant he is of causes that have the potential to cause suffering, because one lives "in the moment" leading to a more content state of mind, although there is also the possibility of immense spikes of positive and negative emotions when stimulated.

For example an ant colony seems fairly content most of the time, only aware of the most basic causes in Existence. They are obviously far more content than the average human, peacefully scouring the ground for food and serving the queen. But if their existence is unexpectedly interrupted by a predator, as it always is, they go into a complete frenzy. Assuming the predator leaves and the colony is left in tact, they once again go contently about their existence as if nothing has ever happened, blissfully ignorant of all the things that could possibly bring harm to their colony. Same thing can be said when they find a food source, they go into a complete frenzy as if they will never find food again, completely ignorant of the fact that their colony was built right next to a crab apple tree that will continue dropping fruit for them all season long.

Now take the average human who is only aware of what we can call semi-significant causes in Existence. Meaning they know enough to be aware of what could happen to them, but not aware enough to know how to deal with these causes in a rational way due to their ignorance of deeper causes. This will lead the average human to endure much suffering from unfounded worries, anxieties, and stress due to social pressures from their family, employer, religion, or mtv. Although at the same time it can also lead to great pleasure because things still have that magical spontaneous quality them that can get one very excited, such as falling in love, buying a new wardrobe, or riding along in a sports car.

Finally, lets look at a highly conscious person, who is not only aware of semi-significant causes in Existence, but also the most essential causes, e.g. absolute truth. For example the average person is very worried about how society perceives them, they are deeply insecure, and are plagued with anxiety. They want nothing more than to be loved by others. On the other hand the highly conscious person could care less how much a person loves or hates him, it means practically nothing to his continued existence, so long as people don't hate him so much that they want to kill him. He is essentially independent of how others think of him because of his grounding in truth. For he knows that he is in fact living his life, and not someone else's, he knows that if he spent all of his time worrying about what others thought of him he would never accomplish anything of value, he knows life is too short to worry about something as silly as how big his house is, or how many women he can attract. He may even know that these things don't inherently exist which would make worrying about such things completely insane and would require a complete rewiring of his brain to ever experience the same anxieties the average human experiences ever again.

So as we can see, the average human is always suffering, even when they are experiencing pleasure they are suffering because they are worried about how long their pleasure can be sustained, whether they can enhance it even further, or if something in the environment is a threat to their pleasure. They are not at all content, and are constantly trying to figure out ways to live a more pleasurable life. The highly conscious person is above all of this, because even though their may have been a point in his life where he was attempting to escape suffering, he is now at a point where suffering is escaped effortlessly due to the clarity of his understanding of Existence.

In the spirit of Kelly's investigative dexterity: ^Sue Hindmarsh. :)

I think I know what you mean: I wrote "I'm guessing that's Dan", in the Footholds thread. It was obscure, my apologies. I could be wrong in my conclusion, and if I'm right I apologise to Dan for blowing his cover.

I observed that dejavu swept in roughly the same time Dan left, his pseudonym fits Dan's sense of humour and begins with the same letter his name does. His avatar is unlikely to be realistic, and reminds me of Hakuin's threat, "I've got my eye on you!" - of which Dan would know, and he does see himself as a Zen master. Dejavu asks some suspiciously intelligent questions, and displays virtually no identity of his own. Dan has taken other identities in the past, and is an excellent emulator of many kinds of psychologies. He also wouldn't leave the forum so abruptly and completely.

But the most startling evidence was that amazing poem:

Your kind, plain of face and word,
Should gaze with love upon the herd,
Now, on your road to truth, and
God, the whole damn load, display
with novel shows of scorn [something or rather, I'm writing from memory]

Kelly, I entreat you please
To see the poodle's Mephistopheles!


KJ

I am referring to the spirit of this in the FOOTHOLDS thread, Kelly: "I'm guessing that's Dan."

Your kind, the plain of face and word,
should gaze with love upon the herd.
Broken free, now on your road, to truth,
and god, the whole damn load, display
in novel shows of scorn, only that you're
---travel worn-----

Kelly, I entreat you,
to see if you please,
that poodle's Mephistopheles!

I missed that poem.

It is very good.

PS: and, in the light of its message, it makes no important difference who the individual behind any given personality might be, no?

Kelly,

He also wouldn't leave the forum so abruptly and completely.

What makes you think he wouldn't?

-

Just to comment on Nick and Cory’s comments to Maestro.

Another way to say the same thing is that suffering is closely related to the ego’s subjective experiencing of time as a dualistic cognitive pattern. When cognition is trapped in an emotionally driven dualistic framework, then there is suffering. When the ego goes, so does the experiencing of time, which basically means that the dualistic cognitive pattern is transcended.

Moreover, when cognition is caught in an immediate dualistic cycle of pleasures and pains, then there is a problem. There is confusion; there is an “I” center that is clinging to some form, or some thing. Stillness occurs when that sort of cognition comes to an end, leaving only a sensitive mind/body state.

I find it interesting how humans discuss constantly with each other how rainy and cold weather is depressing, while warm and sunny weather is uplifting. It seems to me that the manner in which weather affects human cognition/feeling is a larger metaphor for how human thought is generally trapped within an emotional dualistic framework.

Basically, a sage is not bothered by bad weather or good weather. His mind operates from a still emptiness, and so he doesn't exhibit the same general neurosis towards 'weather' that the masses do.

Cory Duchesne wrote: Vulnerability to suffering is what we're anxious about - and it is precisely this vulnerability which the wise attack, undermine, eradicate. And yes, the purposeful eradication of vulnerability will likely lead to a new, more advanced, species.

You mean to not care about vulnerability. To become open to the all, very nice.

Cory Duchesne wrote: Consciousness and unconsciousness are two sides of the same coin. To be consciousness of something can be painful because of the unconsciousness processes which make our consciousness possible.

By consciouness I meant a deeper understanding of the world and not mere awareness.

Cory Duchesne wrote:
It's true that all suffering is due to both an excess of consciousness and a lack of consciousness.

Not true, according to my definition above.

Cory Duchesne wrote:
Television is a caricature, rather than a realistic depiction of the human condition.

True but even the common man on the street does not suffer for the want of consciousness. Would you say that a monkey or a cat suffers for the lack of consciousness?

Nick Treklis wrote:The only circumstances under which there is no suffering is perfect consciousness, or no consciousness. Anywhere in the spectrum between these two opposites, suffering can occur, and the closer to the middle one is, the more suffering he is likely to endure. As one's consciousness increases, the more he becomes aware of the causes of his suffering, which reduces his emotional reactions to these causes, leading to a more content state of mind where suffering is minimal. As one's consciousness decreases, the more ignorant he is of causes that have the potential to cause suffering, because one lives "in the moment" leading to a more content state of mind, although there is also the possibility of immense spikes of positive and negative emotions when stimulated.

How very true. But most people (other than the seekers) would like to keep the spikes, this difference in predisposition is what I was pointing at.

Nick Treklis wrote:.... so long as people don't hate him so much that they want to kill him. He is essentially independent of how others think of him because of his grounding in truth. For he knows that he is in fact living his life, and not someone else's, he knows that if he spent all of his time worrying about what others thought of him he would never accomplish anything of value...........

But then again what is of value in the absolute sense? Higher consciousness is also without inherent value for the absolute, as having social and sexual gratification. It all boils down to the predisposition.

Nick Treklis wrote: So as we can see, the average human is always suffering, even when they are experiencing pleasure they are suffering because they are worried about how long their pleasure can be sustained, whether they can enhance it even further, or if something in the environment is a threat to their pleasure. They are not at all content, and are constantly trying to figure out ways to live a more pleasurable life. The highly conscious person is above all of this, because even though their may have been a point in his life where he was attempting to escape suffering, he is now at a point where suffering is escaped effortlessly due to the clarity of his understanding of Existence.

That is true for the enlightened. However remember that among the seekers only a tiny fraction do achieve this placid nirvana.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Another way to say the same thing is that suffering is closely related to the ego’s subjective experiencing of time as a dualistic cognitive pattern. When cognition is trapped in an emotionally driven dualistic framework, then there is suffering. When the ego goes, so does the experiencing of time, which basically means that the dualistic cognitive pattern is transcended.

Time is merely an ordering of the states of the universe, consciousness cannot escape time, since it by definition perceives change, which implies time. Time is ultimately an illusion, but consciousness and time are inseparable, they are the same phenomenon.

Ryan Rudolph wrote: Moreover, when cognition is caught in an immediate dualistic cycle of pleasures and pains, then there is a problem. There is confusion; there is an “I” center that is clinging to some form, or some thing. Stillness occurs when that sort of cognition comes to an end, leaving only a sensitive mind/body state.

Agreed, attachment kills the simple joy of cognition and life, it eats away everything of value.

maestro wrote:But most people (other than the seekers) would like to keep the spikes, this difference in predisposition is what I was pointing at.

It's not that most people prefer an emotional existence over a more logical one, they simply don't have a choice in the matter. So to say they "like to keep the spikes" is incorrect because that would imply they are conscious of the underlying causes that result in the spikes, and since they are not conscious of these causes, they can not consciously like or dislike the spikes.

maestro wrote:But then again what is of value in the absolute sense? Higher consciousness is also without inherent value for the absolute, as having social and sexual gratification. It all boils down to the predisposition.

I never said higher consciousness was absolutely more valuable then lower consciousness.

maestro wrote:That is true for the enlightened. However remember that among the seekers only a tiny fraction do achieve this placid nirvana.

I'm not sure how this applies to anything I've said.