O'er vale and valley, through wind and fire...

Radiantshadow

Radiantshadow

Urban shaman
MBTI
Human
Enneagram
Human
http://www.hsuyun.org/chan/en/essays/bychuanzhi/749-suffering-again.html

Lovely essay about Zen Buddhism.

http://www4.bayarea.net/~mtlee/

Nexus of Buddhist teaching.


---

If nothing else, learning to handle pain is a necessary skill for life. Coming to handle it gracefully, then reaching the point of absorption and transformation into "goodness" - that is also useful.

I will probably periodically use this thread to dump links I hope others may find helpful. Naturally, all comments and concerns are welcome.
 
Last edited:
I liked that article. It seems to be part of the human state that many of our programs for happiness and fulfillment require some pretty deep questioning. Frequently we find they are fundamentally false. This is no scandal (in fact, I'd say it is normal), but letting go of these internal systems, considering they likely developed early in our lives, can be quite disorienting. In this regard, we can see that some suffering is productive....we can embrace this and work with it. Some suffering, however, is destructive and we must deal with this quite differently. As to the former, I consider the process ultimately no more painful than clearing out the junk to make room for that which is of real value. That's what it looks like with some perspective. At the moment, though, it is another matter.

"At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it."
 
Because I am technologically blind and do not know how to multi-quote,

It seems to be part of the human state that many of our programs for happiness and fulfillment require some pretty deep questioning. Frequently we find they are fundamentally false.

Agreed - we often lie to ourselves by paying homage to something we are not truly aligned with. This is necessary for our formation; as you said "clearing out the junk to make room". We come to know our internal dimensions by how frequently we run into their boxed edges, thinking we are an endless well. I've heard it said that we, as humans, find our definition in conflict - realizing how strong we are(n't) by being pitted against a stronger opponent so we may learn from hir, become hir so we may learn hir weaknesses and strengthen our own. Loosely, I think this is called "meta-cognition". Plato's Cave, if you will. Exit one world to find another larger and more complex than before, learning to zoom-out perceptually to see it all. I am becoming redundant here, though.

Letting go of these internal systems. . . can be quite disorienting.

Quite so. The harder part is realizing a gear of our internal systems has become weak and bent, though it gets easier with practice (a willingness to fall is the grease, I've heard). Finding the length of our stride relative to our destination, the limit of our sight relative to the outreach of dawn we seek from a position of midnight. Yet again, contrast. The best way to lose one's self, to break the machine and build anew.

I will respond to the rest when I've time, thank you for the insightful post :)
 
Radiant Shadow said:
The best way to lose one's self, to break the machine and build anew.
Click to expand...
I agree. In my own tradition, this concept is very connected to the Paschal Mystery, a supremely central reality out of which comes all kinds of truth. I say this not to promote one religious viewpoint, but rather to illustrate how universal the concept you mention may truly be.
 
I confess ignorance to the Mystery you mention. Just a guess, but is it similar to the point of view that all religions/science/art are different ways of seeing the same object?

I wonder: what marks "destructive" suffering from "positive" suffering? I tend to not differentiate, that all suffering is a means for growth (I've been told I'm naive for this, which I admit to I guess). I agree with your discipline quote - precision with one's questions bears ripe fruit, usually.
 
Radiant Shadow said:
is it similar to the point of view that all religions/science/art are different ways of seeing the same object?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think so. Some representations are perhaps clearer or more vivid than others...some may illuminate facets that might be overlooked in another (but are nevertheless there). What I find interesting is that the commonalities exist at all, and that they tend to address very fundamental awarenesses.

Radiant Shadow said:
I wonder: what marks "destructive" suffering from "positive" suffering?
Click to expand...
I think some suffering allows us to grow and stretch to deeper levels of our humanity, deeper awareness. These we can embrace and grow with. However, some (abuse, cruelty) seek to dimish or efface our humanity and basic human dignity. These I would call destuctive and should be moved away from.
 
(How do I multiquote?)

"What I find interesting is that the commonalities exist at all, and that they tend to address very fundamental awarenesses."


Agreed. Embracing different approaches lets one whittle individual systems until the differing nuances between all of them are subtly arrayed before the mind's eyes, akin to walking into an art museum (Louvre, anyone?). Instead of embracing, it seems the modern method is to wage a war of attrition until something gives and the beauty of the "wrong" approach is lost.


However, some (abuse, cruelty) seek to dimish or efface our humanity and basic human dignity. These I would call destuctive and should be moved away from.

Agreed, as long as "moving away" does not become "fleeing from". Avoidance is nasty business. We don't always get the choice to distance ourselves (trying to do so can thicken the web that binds us to degeneration), so it is prudent to walk into the dark and learn of it in order to defeat it. A clear mind is needed for that, though.
(forgive any dramatic fluffiness in my writing, I'm trying to stop it)
------------------

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/

Useful for online lectures and such, once you have a department selected click on the right end of the class box (should say "youtube" or "itunes" somewhere). You can download all the lectures - I downloaded over 80 of them pertaining to biology, psychology, and neurology. Have fun! Or not. Choice is a fun thing to use.
 
Last edited:
Invisibility

I really think Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison should be required reading in American high schools, instead of Shakespeare (most teachers I've had don't understand his plays themselves, much less the students. Romeo and Juliet, for example, was seen as a love poem instead of a warning to watch one's indulgences lest they consume). Here's what I got out of the book:

The novel uses a two-pronged attack at American society to show the limits of defining one
 
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/19VFRj/www.biochemweb.org/cell_cycle.shtml

For anyone interested in basic biology and cells, my gift to thee.
(StumbleUpon.com is a great way to find miscellaneous information, be humored, and waste time :) )

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1o0otN/www.friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm
Badly-formatted excerpts, for you lazy monkeys who don't like to follow links...

The Overcrowded Lifeboat
"In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?"

The Trolley Problem
  1. "Suggested by Philippa Foot (1920-2010), daughter of the daughter, Esther, of President Grover Cleveland but of British birth because of her father, William Sidney Bence Bosanquet.

    A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?​
    This is a classic "right vs. good" dilemma. By acting, one person dies instead of five. So the Utilitarian has no problem. However, by acting, that one person who is killed would not have died otherwise. That person is as innocent as the others, so by acting one is choosing to kill an innocent person. Their family is not going to be happy about your actions. In fact, any deaths will be morally due to the actions of the "mad philosopher." Yet choosing to kill the one person, in isolation from the circumstances, would be a wrongful homicide."

Nothing special here, just very typical and stick-in-the-mud ethical dilemmas.

​
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top