GENIUS FORUMS

Orenholt wrote:How is pleasure itself suffering?

Say you loved drinking....then you became an alcoholic...
Say you loved having sex....then you got aids...
Say someone enjoyed torchering you...
Say you loved smoking cigs....then you got cancer....

In other words...pleasure is only temporary.....then it ends.
And then your pleasure is gone...and you suffer....like a pleasure addict....

Kunga wrote:
Say you loved drinking....then you became an alcoholic...
Say you loved having sex....then you got aids...
Say someone enjoyed torchering you...
Say you loved smoking cigs....then you got cancer....

In other words...pleasure is only temporary.....then it ends.
And then your pleasure is gone...and you suffer....like a pleasure addict....

Good explanation.
It's not the alcoholism, aids, or cancer that are pleasurable but I see what you mean.

The question still remains though, what if the good in life outweighs the bad?
Isn't it kind of cowardly in a way to say "I can't handle the bad" or "this suffering isn't worth it"?
That sounds like something a suicidal person would say right before they blow their head off.

Think about something that gives you pleasure that you don't have at the moment, that's desire, not having what one desires is suffering, and if you do gain what you desire and it brings pleasure, that ends and you want more, or maybe something else to satisfy, this whole process only prolongs burning desire.

It isn't a matter of good outweighing the bad, the good may very well outweigh the bad, but then there is still bad. It is about moving beyond good and bad, pleasure and suffering. It's really a choice between long lasting contentment and acceptance, or short term pleasure, which means having an emptiness that you constantly think needs filling.

I can say relatively surely that everyone feels this emptiness, a constant need which is only satisfied through moving from one distraction of sensual delight to the next, until they become non-attached and hence fulfilled.

Orenholt wrote:The question still remains though, what if the good in life outweighs the bad? Isn't it kind of cowardly in a way to say "I can't handle the bad" or "this suffering isn't worth it"? That sounds like something a suicidal person would say right before they blow their head off.

But there can be no goodness without badness.

Sometimes when something "bad" happens it turns out to be actually good.
Like if you lose your job, then realize you hated it anyways, and find something better to do with your life.

Or if you think you've found a dream job.....then it turns out to be a nightmare....

But if you realize good and bad are relative....you can handle anything dished out to you...and keep your equalibrium
And yes, it would be weak & cowardly to blow your head off.....but I don't think a weak person is capable of blowing their head off.
I know I couldn't !!!!! I'd be chicken-shit !!!!

(I just realized I just contradicted myself saying "Yes, it would be weak & cowardly to blow your head off & then "I don't think a weak person is capable....") :O

How is pleasure related to suffering? Why peruse pleasure at all? What is pleasure? What mental state exists such that the want of pleasure arises at all? Why do wants exist at all? What do wants indicate? How is what they indicate a thing that brings us back to the first question...

Dan Rowden wrote:How is pleasure related to suffering? Why peruse pleasure at all? What is pleasure? What mental state exists such that the want of pleasure arises at all? Why do wants exist at all? What do wants indicate? How is what they indicate a thing that brings us back to the first question...

Q: How is pleasure related to suffering?

A: Short term happiness/Long term pain

Q: Why peruse pleasure at all?

A: We want a quick fix.

Q: What is pleasure?

A: The devil in disguise

Q: What mental state exists such that the want of pleasure arises at all?

A: Ignorance

Q: Why do wants exist at all?

A: Suffering/ignorance

Q: What do wants indicate?

A: Suffering/ignorance

Q; How is what they indicate a thing that brings us back to the first question..

A: When you are ignorant (unconscious), pleasure appeals to the ego/emotions , which can only satisfy temporary happiness.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I can say relatively surely that everyone feels this emptiness, a constant need which is only satisfied through moving from one distraction of sensual delight to the next, until they become non-attached and hence fulfilled.

That doesn't make much sense though. Sure you can move from one pleasure to another but how is non-attachment filling the "emptiness"?

Kunga wrote: But there can be no goodness without badness.

True! but there can be no badness without goodness. ;)

Dan Rowden wrote:How is pleasure related to suffering? Why peruse pleasure at all? What is pleasure? What mental state exists such that the want of pleasure arises at all? Why do wants exist at all? What do wants indicate? How is what they indicate a thing that brings us back to the first question...

Pleasure is related to suffering because pleasure is the lack of suffering. The reason to pursue pleasure is fulfill your desires. The mental state of suffering causes the desire for pleasure. Wants exist for survival purposes originally but can be for less serious purposes these days. Wants indicate that you're lacking something you need. Your highest ideal is what you need most in the world. ;)

Not filling anything, it is just getting rid of, same effect.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Not filling anything, it is just getting rid of, same effect.

But doesn't getting rid of it mean that you no longer feel pleasure either?
There is no good without evil and there is no evil without good. (yin yang basically)
Everything comes at a price.

I meant getting rid of the feeling of emptiness, pleasure and pain are both natural and unavoidable no matter who you are. Non-attachment means non-attachment to self including the pleasure and pain, leaving the world behind, it doesn't mean those things disappear at all. Attachment to illusions gives them reality.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote: pleasure and pain are both natural and unavoidable no matter who you are.

Interesting. That's basically what I've been saying about the ego never really going away.

Non-attachment means non-attachment to self including the pleasure and pain, leaving the world behind, it doesn't mean those things disappear at all. Attachment to illusions gives them reality.

How can you have pleasure and pain (which are both natural and unavoidable) without having an attachment to them?
If you're being tortured in someone's basement and they're rubbing salt into cuts on your body wouldn't you still have an attachment to the "pleasure" of NOT being tortured?

I think that most of you have this model in mind:

1=pleasure
0=enlightenment
-1=suffering

I say that this is a false understanding and that it really goes like this:

1=pleasure
0=suffering

This morning as I took a shower, the hot water came on then cold then hot... (someone was using the water in another room)
My emotions went up and down according to the temperature of the water....when it finally settled on warm (neutral), I was at peace....just a little example of how our emotions react to pleasure & pain.....on/off on/off emotional roller-coaster ride......and although i love to take relatively hot showers.......there is suffering (disappointment), when the hot water runs out, and it get's cold ........so it is wise not to have preferences....when you don't get what you want...you suffer....

Oh, here's another one i experienced last night....after spending a few hours with someone, listening to all their problems...i stopped to get a pack of cigs..(i quit smoking 6 weeks ago !!!!)
So i smoked my head off last night here till 4am.....(it wa such a pleasure to smoke again)
and now i feel sick & have a headache....like a hangover !!!!! (and i didn't even drink!)

pleasure/pain

yeah...it is wise to not be attached to pleasure.....

Kunga wrote: ........so it is wise not to have preferences....

Isn't it better to prefer society's heroes (like firefighters) than society's villains (like thugs or corrupt politicians)?
Isn't it better to prefer healthy food (like salads) than unhealthy food (like a stick of margarine)?
Isn't it better to prefer a mate that's nice (like being honest and kind) than a mate that's cruel (like one that lies and hits you)?

It seems to me that having preferences is very wise.

Orenholt wrote:

Kunga wrote: ........so it is wise not to have preferences....

Isn't it better to prefer society's heroes (like firefighters) than society's villains (like thugs or corrupt politicians)?
Isn't it better to prefer healthy food (like salads) than unhealthy food (like a stick of margarine)?
Isn't it better to prefer a mate that's nice (like being honest and kind) than a mate that's cruel (like one that lies and hits you)?

It seems to me that having preferences is very wise.

The trick is not to become ATTACHED to them.

Societies heros can become villians
Healthy food can get contaminated...might be healhier to open up a canned food if your fresh spinach has samonella.
The nice mate that's honest and kind, can be honest and kind to someone else behind your back....

Kunga wrote:
The trick is not to become ATTACHED to them.

Societies heros can become villians
Healthy food can get contaminated...might be healhier to open up a canned food if your fresh spinach has samonella.
The nice mate that's honest and kind, can be honest and kind to someone else behind your back....

Sure, heroes can become villains. Like Harvey Dent who turned into Twoface in the Batman stories. But why is it bad to have an attachment to the IDEA of a hero?
Sure, "healthy" food can become contaminated but in choosing the canned food aren't you choosing the "healthier" choice? So aren't you still sticking with your attachment to the idea of "healthy"?
And no, a mate that is honest cannot be kind to someone else behind your back because that would be dishonest in itself.

Good, Truth, Justice, Beauty.

As for myself in that sphere, to do what is good, right and true. Beauty adds to the sensory experiences.

As an idea of the mind in an imagined world including others, moral perfection.

The moral pleasure is the highest for me. Of course, noone reaches any of this absolutely.

Orenholt wrote:How can you have pleasure and pain (which are both natural and unavoidable) without having an attachment to them?
If you're being tortured in someone's basement and they're rubbing salt into cuts on your body wouldn't you still have an attachment to the "pleasure" of NOT being tortured?

Ego is identification with self, it does 'go away'.

The body wants and desires every day, it wants the pleasure of not being tortured. It aims at resonance and being comfortable. It is attached to many things. It acts and reacts without any control, it is not you.

Being aware of the true nature of self ends identification with it, seeing it for what it is, transient appearances arising and ceasing in consciousness.

If I was being tortured, I would see it as nothing more than an experience of the mind, the pain would still arise, the want for pleasure would still arise.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
Ego is identification with self, it does 'go away'.

Is the identification of self "ego" or is it merely the CONCEPT of ego?

I say that self identification is merely the concept and not the ego itself.

Ego is looking in the mirror and seeing your self, it isn't a concept, it is the belief that an appearance is "me".

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Ego is looking in the mirror and seeing your self, it isn't a concept, it is the belief that an appearance is "me".

Ok what's the difference between a concept and a belief?

Both words actually seem too specific, a concept arises at specific times, you could say the same for a belief I guess. But this is just word play, ego is identification with form as self, I don't think that should be called a concept or a belief, you can call it whatever you like, maybe understanding is a better word, who knows.

But you made the distinction between the concept of self-identification and the ego, saying the concept can be overcome but the ego remains despite that...except the ego doesn't exist as anything except the false *whatever* that transient form is self. So if that is seen to be a false identification, how does ego remain? You would have to elaborate on what you mean with that distinction.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:So if that is seen to be a false identification, how does ego remain? You would have to elaborate on what you mean with that distinction.

The concept of the self can be overcome but desires/pain/pleasure cannot.
You can know that you are the universe and still say to yourself "gee it would be nice to listen to song about now" right?
The reason it would be "nice" to listen to the song is because the ego says it would be nice, it's what the ego wants.
That has no bearing on one's ability to identify the universe as themselves.

How could the ego want anything if there is no ego?
Ego is a false identification. When that is seen, then it is understood that there is no ego, that the whole thing was a delusion.

I think you are referring to the 'body' or 'orenholt' or a particular appearance as 'ego'. Forms still arise, as does 'I would like a nice song'.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:How could the ego want anything if there is no ego?
Ego is a false identification. When that is seen, then it is understood that there is no ego, that the whole thing was a delusion.

I think you are referring to the 'body' or 'orenholt' or a particular appearance as 'ego'. Forms still arise, as does 'I would like a nice song'.

Well yes, it's the brain that tells you when you're hungry or bored or whatever. You cannot escape your own brain unless you're in a coma or you die or something like that. Enlightenment won't make your ability to experience pain and pleasure go away.

I didn't say it would, and 'brain' is a provisional name for an object of consciousness, it exists only in relation to all that it depends on, it is something seen, it is not the cause of your consciousness.