The Problem of Human Suffering.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Aquarian

Evil causes human suffering. Nothing else.

Evil multiplies our bad feelings 2000%. Can you imagine a world where nobody actually felt bad enough for it to cause them to hurt another? Where our love was 20x more powerful than anything bad we felt?

I can explain how this works but you're unlikely to have the energetic sensitivity or objectiveness to verify what I'm saying. It took me about 7 years of single-minded pursuit of a related matter.
However, it's surely enough to ask whether God made us this way. Did God really intend for children to go through such enormous emotional suffering? Of course not. But He loves all his children, even Satan.

There are other ways that evil influences us (even in the multiple threads defending it on this board).

We are beautiful but vulnerable beings, made to do evil... by evil.

some say it's all 'your choise' and it's not possible to be made to do evil.

there are some things which stand out as distinct causes of suffering: Greed is one and Hatred is another.

i'm unlikely to entertain fluffy spiritual mush, but I posess a huge capacity for objectivity, and am sensitive caring and pure hearted. It's just I don't make a friggin parade of it because I have no notions of spiritual grandure.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Can you elaborate Sybilline?

I actually find it really difficult to make sense of the way most people use detachment, as opposed to how Buddhist scholars mean it, and they too use it in more than one application. What they do not mean by detachment is disengagement. That is, unfortunately, the more usual misunderstaning in the West, as that is the more common use of the word here. Again, much is lost in translation.

Most in the West hear detachment from emotion, or detachment from need, etc...and they understand it as disengaging, at least on some level. An entire intellectual, emotional, and even physical asceticism is built up in the West around denial of emotion, of physicality, and a life of training the mind to intellectually control the heart and the body, by force if you will.

This is not the understanding the Buddhist masters have by any means, at least not as they have directly conveyed to me in conversation (we have a small Tibetan monastery and temple nearby open to public), but nonetheless we are separated by culture and language and our different traditions, and this can lead to deep misunderstandings. However the translations typically use the word detachment specifically to imply equanimity and of being equally attached to all NOT disengagement.

I don't believe this sense of detachment as disengagement is what Xan would have meant either...though I don't want to speak for anyone ;) But I find it hard to imagine Xan saying disengage from your emotions. If this is what you understood by the term detachment, then please consider how deep the misunderstanding may have run, and consider how damaging (to the soul) this kind of misunderstanding could be. I think this is sadly a common enough misunderstanding that colours the perceptions of many and sends them off on a path of self-denial, on many levels, in the hopes of avoiding or mitigating suffering.

BTW I have had many instances of having to address our all-too-common deep misunderstanding of the term detachment in Buddhist writings...versus the common usage of the word in English...and I almost feel that anyone who uses the term detachment...needs a detailed qualifier...or should consider choosing another term for clarity...LOL...

peace & blessings,
7L

That makes sense, just take the word detachment out.

I don't like seeing Xan blown up like a spiritual balloon, that concerns me a great deal. I prefer to hear each speak from their own perspectives, which are just as valid.

Originally Posted by Gem

Someone, many thousands of years ago spoke of detachment and Xan read it, and then told you, and these days, since buddhist philosophy is quite popular, 'detachment' is believed by many many people.

Personally, I'm quite cautious about that terminology, because how might it be interpreted? People might enter complete denial of their emotional events in an effort to 'remain detached'... and take an attitude similar to sociopathy...

What I mean is, if emotional content is there then it can be felt, but a desire to be detachment may make a person is reluctant to feel them.

Is 'detachment' yet another way to avert the eyes from the harsher things, ignore them, and turn the eyes to something much more pleasing instead?

Yes... And someone, many thousands of years ago spoke of some things which we now speak of; let's face it, when it comes to spirituality, it's not easy to be original; it's just that old :) The reason I mentioned Xan is because he appended that to what I said, and I think it made it much better, and Xan deserves credit for it.

I agree with you, the word "detachment" can be interpreted in many ways, just like any other word.

To me, insincere detachment is not detachment at all --- the need is still there, you are just not meeting it --- so you're back to square one; you're still attached.

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Can you elaborate Sybilline?

I actually find it really difficult to make sense of the way most people use detachment, as opposed to how Buddhist scholars mean it, and they too use it in more than one application. What they do not mean by detachment is disengagement.

Eh....? Buddhism/Western --- I don't know --- my understanding of detachment did not come from Buddhist nor Western religions/principles --- I have a feeling my mother was the first to mention this to me; and I have not really thought about it until I grew up... :)

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Sybilline

Yes... And someone, many thousands of years ago spoke of some things which we now speak of; let's face it, when it comes to spirituality, it's not easy to be original; it's just that old :) The reason I mentioned Xan is because he appended that to what I said, and I think it made it much better, and Xan deserves credit for it.

I agree with you, the word "detachment" can be interpreted in many ways, just like any other word.

To me, insincere detachment is not detachment at all --- the need is still there, you are just not meeting it --- so you're back to square one; you're still attached.

Mostly, if someone has a new angle, the runes of spirituality to which people have conformed inhibit the new idea because it conflicts with the preconceived notions people hold dear.

There's a whole facet and an entire ilk of people who deem 'what you are' 'what love is' and offer their cliches about suffering and trancendance, and people find comfort in it, but there's a false hope, and what is sold as 'good for you' is often just sweet candy.

I aim to look at the problem of human suffering, and have the conviction that suffering can not withstand scrutiny, but people cover their eyes and shirk from the unpleasant things and place viels on it.

You desreve just as much credit for anything you yourself say, and there is no-one who has superior authority who can tell you what to think, so be careful, because some people thrive on that.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Can you elaborate Sybilline?

I actually find it really difficult to make sense of the way most people use detachment, as opposed to how Buddhist scholars mean it, and they too use it in more than one application. What they do not mean by detachment is disengagement. That is, unfortunately, the more usual misunderstaning in the West, as that is the more common use of the word here. Again, much is lost in translation.

Most in the West hear detachment from emotion, or detachment from need, etc...and they understand it as disengaging, at least on some level. An entire intellectual, emotional, and even physical asceticism is built up in the West around denial of emotion, of physicality, and a life of training the mind to intellectually control the heart and the body, by force if you will.

This is not the understanding the Buddhist masters have by any means, at least not as they have directly conveyed to me in conversation (we have a small Tibetan monastery and temple nearby open to public), but nonetheless we are separated by culture and language and our different traditions, and this can lead to deep misunderstandings. However the translations typically use the word detachment specifically to imply equanimity and of being equally attached to all NOT disengagement.

I don't believe this sense of detachment as disengagement is what Xan would have meant either...though I don't want to speak for anyone ;) But I find it hard to imagine Xan saying disengage from your emotions. If this is what you understood by the term detachment, then please consider how deep the misunderstanding may have run, and consider how damaging (to the soul) this kind of misunderstanding could be. I think this is sadly a common enough misunderstanding that colours the perceptions of many and sends them off on a path of self-denial, on many levels, in the hopes of avoiding or mitigating suffering.

BTW I have had many instances of having to address our all-too-common deep misunderstanding of the term detachment in Buddhist writings...versus the common usage of the word in English...and I almost feel that anyone who uses the term detachment...needs a detailed qualifier...or should consider choosing another term for clarity...LOL...

peace & blessings,
7L

I think you mean to say western cultural differences influence the way in which we translate eastern philosophies. 'Detachment' is not an accurate translation, but people use it anyway because that's the word that was written.

I've had enough of he said and she said anyway, and Tzu has someting written in his sig which has meaning (almost means as much as my sig does), and before we say, so and so said, better read that sig I think,

The impression we get is that so and so is so wise, and they purposely project themselves in that way, and others take them as authorities of spirituality, amd believe what they say, and to me, that's just another Budah on the road and another Christ to crucify.

And they dare say I'm insensitive, for this is the tactic you see, to paint others as lesser so as to retain their own eminence

Would I then believe this great sage who deems me such things? Therein lies the danger, that's the harm, and that's why blowing up peoples spiritual balloons conscerns me.

Look man, I like what you said and feel it does come from your own headspace as iot was expressed.

Originally Posted by Gem

You desreve just as much credit for anything you yourself say, and there is no-one who has superior authority who can tell you what to think, so be careful, because some people thrive on that.

T'is true Gem... Thank you...

[7luminaries]

A nice exchange here by all...

I just want to say that for me, denying our true needs or attempting to disengage from them, is not only fruitless but ultimately is harmful and limits the full expression of our humanity. This causes great suffering in and of itelf.

Also that by acknowledging and being present for one another, in both suffering and pain, and in love and joy, that we allow for our fullest expression of being. By denying this to one another, we do not allow for our fullest expression of being, and that too causes great suffering in and of itself.

“You can hold back from suffering of the world,
you have permission to do so,
and it is in accordance with your nature,
but perhaps this very holding back
is the one suffering you could have avoided.”

- Franz Kafka


peace & blessings,
7L

Originally Posted by Gem

some say it's all 'your choise' and it's not possible to be made to do evil.

People almost invariably do what their e-motions tell them to do.

It's a lot easier to resist if you know how you're being influenced and have a balancing emotion against it.

Also, Milgram showed that 2/3rd of people would inflict a lethal electrical shock if told to gradually build up to it by an authority.

i'm unlikely to entertain fluffy spiritual mush, but I posess a huge capacity for objectivity, and am sensitive caring and pure hearted. It's just I don't make a friggin parade of it because I have no notions of spiritual grandure.

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...stpost&t=17404

Fixed link.