After reading this I am reminded of what I like to call: The gospel of John Grisham. When he was a kid in summer camp, he was standing under a tree for shade with a group of boys. One boy sat on a wire fence. As they talked, the boy on the fence suddenly keeled over dead. Lightning had struck the tree out of a clear, blue sky. Grisham said that he learned that day that "Anything can happen to anyone, anywhere, at any time".
In terms of suffering, at least that boy's suffering was over immediately. However, I am certain that the misery of his parents had just begun.
I tend to call this the gospel of the universe, and have witnessed / experienced ample evidence of its validity.
Thank you for posting this, Robert. I concur. I have suffered. Greatly. It's part of the package. Usually, it comes unexpectedly and unbidden, and outstays its welcome. Sometimes for years, even decades. It's as much a part of life as joy or peace. Suffering is just as global as it is individual in scope, as you have pointed out. I find that, in spite of the physical / emotional agony, the real suffering comes from the belief that it can and / or must be eliminated. This belief, based on my own experience, is what I would call excruciating horseshit...
Finally got around to listening to this, and I agree with your perspective on this Robert.
Having been involved with zen buddhist practice for a number of years, I have found that as time has passed the elements that have continued to resonate have become progressively stripped back - until all that I am left with is exactly the view expressed in this segment. I wouldn't define this paradigm as buddhist any more, just being human. I wish you well.
You've started an interesting and lively debate here, Robert!
I stopped seeking a long time ago, but if I were looking for a spiritual teacher, I'd far sooner choose one who admitted that he/she suffers and feels pain rather than one who told me I can transcend suffering by following his/her teaching.
I think some of it is semantics - what one person means by "pain" and "suffering" may not be what someone else understands from those words.
For me, the phrase "Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional" has a practical application in my life. It reminds me not to tell I-centred stories of woe about my experiences.
Like many millions of people, I live with physical pain every day. And I struggle a great deal to be OK with the way that we humans behave towards one another, towards this beautiful planet and all the other living beings we are supposed to be sharing it with.
Even though I face immense challenges in my life, I know that I am incredibly privileged to have a roof over my head, food on the table, a computer and the time to talk about these things on Substack.
I also know that when the physical pain becomes unbearable, I can take painkillers. I'm lucky.
To my mind, I do not suffer, but I know that millions of people do because they do not have a choice. The people who have no home, no food, or whose country is being blown up, really are suffering.
There isn't a single interpretation we can offer to those people to make them feel better. There is no point telling them to stop arguing with reality, to stop telling stories of woe, that it's all God's will or that everything is in divine order.
They have no choice but to live through their experiences and feel what they feel.
For me, living with integrity - or at least trying to - means having the courage to do the same: to allow myself to feel whatever my heart and body feel when I am faced with what seems like senseless and mindless suffering. I allow myself to feel and to cry if that's what needs to happen.
As one of the fortunate ones, I know I have a responsibility to not add to the suffering of the world and to do my best to alleviate it when I can. As part of not adding to that suffering, I look for the value within my own experience of "pain" or "suffering", whatever we want to call it. When I see what is happening in the world, it breaks my heart. But more importantly, it breaks my heart OPEN. And that, for me, is the value within the experience, because I would rather live with an open heart and feel pain than have a closed heart and close my eyes to the reality that is happening all around me.
Thank you, Robert, for taking the time to debate these issues and answer everyone's queries. These are important issues to deal with.
I hate it when someone makes up their own definitions for words, think Kelly Ann Conway's alternate truths. So here I go anyway--
Emotions are always a combination of a sensation and a thought or belief
Pain is physical or emotional discomfort
Suffering is or is caused by arguing with reality
It can be very valuable to investigate strong emotions, try to separate what is the sensation and what is the thought? As soon as you can differentiate the sensation often becomes more bearable. Sometimes the thought can be traced back to earlier experience that 'set' a belief which can be investigated for it's congruence with reality.
Pain will happen, anything from a stubbed toe to the death of a loved one to a terminal diagnosis from your doctor.
Suffering is based on the belief that this present moment could or should somehow be other than what it is. And that's origin of the saying, "Pain is mandatory. Suffering is optional." And I believe that's what the sutras point to.
"Pain is mandatory. Suffering is optional." Unadultered nonsense (in my opinion). Just some facile bullshit that is repeated until those repeating it fall into a hypnotic trance.
Some suffering is a case of arguing with reality, and that can be alleviated by applying wisdom. But there is a kind of suffering that is not alleviated by applying wisdom. People in intense, unremitting physical pain suffer no matter what they think about reality.
If you have never felt pain like that, you don't know what you are missing and might consider snapping out of the trance where you assume that you know enough about the many varieties of human suffering to philosophize so blithely about it. A woman I know, suffering from Trigeminal Neuralgia came to the end of her rope and ended her life, not because she argued with reality, but because her reality was unbearable.
That was the point of the Jack Kornfield statement, and Robert Hall calling the Noble Truths kindergarten stuff.
If Jack has never met anyone who was free of suffering, he is referring to a large sample of people --his many Buddhist acquaintances--who were focused on that goal and failed to attain it. I feel confident that your opinion on this matter derives from a much smaller and less specialized database.
Jack Kornfield (born 1945) is an American writer and teacher in the Vipassana movement in American Theravada Buddhism.[1] He trained as a Buddhist monk in Thailand, Burma and India,[2] first as a student of the Thai forest master Ajahn Chah and Mahasi Sayadaw of Burma. He has taught mindfulness meditation worldwide since 1974. In 1975, he co-founded the Insight Meditation Society in Barre, Massachusetts, with Sharon Salzberg and Joseph Goldstein, and subsequently[clarification needed] in 1987, Spirit Rock Meditation Center in Woodacre, California. Kornfield has worked as a peacemaker and activist, organized teacher training, and led international gatherings of Buddhist teachers including the Dalai Lama.
I have great respect for Kornfield and what he's done and I have my own experience. Training with monks and masters is a wonderful thing and many have very profound realization they can convey. But it's also a way to absorb a load of dogma. I've been meditating and investigating for nearly 60 years (I'm 75) and have spent time with various shiny people. In the end I can only go by my own experience.
I have been in pretty deep shit with Lyme disease causing hallucinations and almost daily panic attacks from neurotoxins while simultaneously my wife while recovering from Lyme was accidentally injected with hepatitis-virus in a medical error. Her body recognized the virus as problematic (only about 25% of infected do that) and had a massive reaction with intense malaise and abdominal pain. It took several ER visits before she had a high enough virus titer to get a diagnosis. In the meantime her doctor gave her gabapentin for the pain and she had a horrible reaction to it. I got to sit on the bed, holding her hand while we discussed what she wanted me to do for her funeral and memorial service. There was an obvious shift in my experience when I accepted what was instead of wishing it were different. It was not "better" in the sense of less misery but a secondary level of mental pain (which I was referring to as suffering) did abruptly vanish. I don't think there's a ceiling on this. Suicide is always an option when chronic pain is intense enough for long enough. It can be a rational decision based on quality of life. Suicide can also be a more reflex, panic decision which is often the case with psychological pain. You may not like the differentiation or my terminology but it's been clearly there in my own experience.
I agree with your differentiation and your terminology.
So would you say that you never suffer or that certain kinds of emotional suffering no longer trouble you? There is a vast difference there, right?
Chapter 61 is a reply to a question: ". . . many teachers, including the Buddha, say that there is an end to suffering. You say that you are awake—so why do you still suffer?"
I do still suffer and it is increasingly clear as time passes that it comes directly from my "personal psychology" believing that things could be different from what they are and then wishing that they conformed to that fantasy. I regard "the end of suffering" as aspirational rather than something I can actually attain. If the fantasy/story of reincarnation is true, then maybe in some other lifetime (1/2 to 3/4 joking there)
I tend to believe, not ultimately unattainable, just unattainable for me in the foreseeable future. Less suffering seems like a good thing. That currently unattainable goal is just a direction to aim, which is less suffering.
Absolutely, suffering is desiring things to be different then they are and having the *arrogance* to not doubt those beliefs and understandings, being confident to be perceiving the full truth of the moment. Just because Robert is suffering ,
- doesn't mean there is one and final level of awakening. there are gradations and levels of insight and understanding. Seeing behind the veil is baby step 1.
- doesn't mean Robert has enough for a theory that encompasses majority of phenomomena and has what is needed to answer this question better than you if you spend couple of years researching the matter . Doesnt mean Buddha had final answer either.
Just because he hasnt met people who dont suffer that they dont exist. They do exist, they just keep away from "normal" people because who would believe? and share to what point? to be called out like that?
Pain and compassion does not have to come with suffering!!
The questioner is advised best to keep looking till you have all your answers collected. Robert, just because he writes well and speaks form the heart (i have no doubt about his genuineness and his awakening), does not have anywhere close to the full picure. Question ALL your beliefs. Dont make Robert into a Buddha either.
Not making me into a Buddha is a good idea. So is not making the Buddha into a Buddha.
You seem to have misread this chapter. I never said I had never met anyone who was completely free of suffering; it was two experienced, lifelong Buddhist teachers who agreed on that. Jack Kornfield is one of the most highly regarded Buddhist teachers in the world, who has practiced the dharma for his entire adult life (he is 79, like me), and has known countless serious practitioners, and he said it. That doesn't prove anything, but it is highly suggestive.
There are gradations of insight and understanding, and awakening never ends, but the idea of being free of all suffering is not, I was saying, a healthy goal, in my view, but a denial of the human condition that has nothing to do with awakening but remaining hypnotized.
Suffering and pain are the same thing from my point of view Robert I totally understand what you’re communicating. The whole concept the one has transcended suffering
I agree that an ego/ self that has a goal of being free of all suffering (itself) does not have a healthy goal. What I think is a healthy goal for humanity and people in general is to get to broad elaborate cosmology / understanding that is closest related to truth and the deeper reality, that encompasses as much phenomena/different experiences as possible .
An understanding of the situation that gets us more nuance- what suffering actually is, what people and this life is, what determines the various suffering, where its needed/ where its not needed. What Works. This is what a few people are trying to do. It is not to get rid of own suffering , is to evolve self and others understanding that actually reduces unnecessary suffering through education. You dont have an elaborate theory of what suffering is necessary and in what instances. Buddhas theory is outdated and not complete but why not make a better one before saying people can disregard his as likely fantasy?
I appreciate your writing and there is a lot of valid points that pop up, but I think
its not healthy in general to discourage people from looking for better explanations as to what is going on.
A problem that can occur in these conversations is that people stop investigating because a highly regarded Buddhist or Robert (who undoubtly appeals to a certain group of intellectuals) said "this is how it is" , "there is nothing more we can find cause consiousness". So the questioning person is left stranded on the wrong plateau whilst a whole world is actually left to discover, through the phenomenology of direct experience , which can bring people to some very different places of the whole thing than your experience. Leading to different conclusions on suffering and many other points.
"We cannot know more" , "there is nothing more to find" etc is also a belief in the realm of fantasy and also not healthy for the individual and/or society (as is believing in unicorns - the other extremes). Respectfully, Anna
Yes, Anna, I agree that working on reducing unnecessary suffering is a worthy idea but that is not accomplished primarily philosophically or by speculating on the substrate of consciousness but through changes in how human needs are addressed in the material sphere.
For example, millions of people suffer because they lack sufficient clean drinking water. Telling a thirsty person that her suffering is due to reliance on an outdated theory and you have a better one will not alleviate that suffering in the slightest. It might even make it worse.
I have never said, "this is how it is." If you think I have, you are unfamiliar entirely with my work in which I stress repeatedly that I have no final answers about anything and that my words are self-expression, not "Truth." Nor have I ever said there is nothing more to find. You have created a straw-man "Robert" in your mind and are arguing with it.
If you want to discuss these matters with me, look into my writing first. You don't have to buy anything. Chapters are available to read and download on my website.
And yet .. if you read account for example from Viktor Frankl and his observation in concentration camps, you will see that having a sound(er) theory about what’s going on and deriving meaning from it literally determines outcome being life and death . And many such examples ( I have lived in 90s communist collapse Russia and have experienced poverty and seen first hand who gets through well and who doesn’t ).
Of course no one needs to tell a hungry person in Africa about any philosophy , but there is 0 evidence that you feeling bad about it is going to help anyone there anymore than a Buddhist or anyone else not suffering about it. What matters to the hungry is only who will reach into one’s pocket and take the money out, not the suffering .
With regards to imaginary Robert I am arguing with : this is partly right. It’s not just you, it’s a group of recently awake , overly rationalists that scratched my itch . You see : no matter if you say you don’t know anything and don’t make any claims on truth, you know that the moment you come out as ‘awake’ people will weight your words differently . Unless it’s poetry , art or fiction - they just will.
I came awake, Anna--what I call awake--forty-something years ago. I kept silent about it and just lived an awakened life without ever mentioning it. Between 2005 and 2010, two people in my life, one right after the other, urged me to share my point of view, and that is what I am doing.
My work has nothing at all to do with your itch. Your criticism here is based on your failure to understand what this chapter is about, not anything that I have ever said.
Good stuff here, Robert, love the honesty. Awakening seems to tend to reduce the form of suffering that comes from believing our thoughts. Doesn’t eliminate pain though.
—
On another note: You wrote, “Everything is all in your mind—but that does not mean it’s not real.”
“Mind” seems like a somewhat tricky word. I’m curious why you choose to use it? I suppose all words are tricky since none of them can accurately capture this immediacy
For me words just don’t really come close at all -- that makes it difficult to say much 😅
This immediacy presents as a dynamic continuum of inconceivable textures
To call this immediacy ‘my mind’ implies a separate individual with a ‘mind’ who ‘owns’ this apparition... to say ‘everything’ is ‘in’ this ‘mind’ implies an inside and outside and makes an assumption that nothing is ‘outside’ ‘your mind’... this layers substantial abstraction on top of this simple immediacy... I feel these layers add unnecessary confusion and can easily reinforce the default human view
I guess my current preference is to sidestep ‘psychologized’ language and point toward an immediate freedom from fixed views -- in which all descriptions are included yet are seen to be inaccurate
But, Jordan, for someone who believes that using words like “mind” just causes confusion and reinforces the human view—what other view is there? I don’t know what it is like to be a bat—you have involved yourself in a shitload of them.
First, you had to read Chapter 61. Then, you had to use words to ask me why I chose to use the word "mind." Then you had to read my reply, asking what word you would use to describe perceptions, feelings, and thoughts--which is what the word “mind” most often connotes in my vocabulary. Then, you had to reply to all that with an additional barrage of words.
In case my reply here, which uses words, goes over your head (another word for mind):
All language is “psychologized” because words were created and are used by human beings whose very nature is psychological. For example, you said, “my current preference is to sidestep ‘psychologized’ language . . .” What could be MORE psychological than a preference?
Also, you asked me why I “chose” to use the word “mind.” Are there really choosers and choices, or is that split simply a matter of misusing words to “add unnecessary confusion" to a discussion about a book chapter?
I’m going on a limb here. You seem confused yourself. That confusion seems rooted in what is called, in logic, a category error or category mistake.
There are two entirely separate categories at play here:
CATEGORY #1:
The entirely indescribable suchness of each moment. There are no words for that.
Also ineffable: the experience of being awake and aware while having no idea of what “this” is, where it comes from, and where it’s headed. That experience can be POINTED AT with words, but never in the slightest be pinned down or even fully suggested by words. Poets and philosophers try their best but inevitably fail.
CATEGORY #2:
Ordinary, everyday human life involving food, clothing, shelter, personal relations, technology, medicine, education, etcetera. WORDS ARE ALL WE HAVE to manage all that. Knowing that, the wise among us use words wisely without having to constantly repeat warnings about the inadequacy of words.
In Category #1 words are inadequate, but the wise users of words understand that we are not in Category #1. When we are, we fall silent.
I saw a cartoon once. A man is at ZEN AUTO REPAIR. He says, "I'm here to pick up my car."
The clerk, with a shaved head and robes, replies, There IS no car."
Jordan, with all due respect, the confusion is not caused by using words but by using them wrongly. By "wrongly," I mean failing to discern which category is in the foreground and which rules are in effect.
I have written and spoken millions of words about the human condition. At times, I have REFERRED to the human experiences in Category #1, but I never imagined making anyone BE in Category #1. To use a word that can point but never define, I never expected anyone to understand “awake."
Thanks for taking the time to write this, Robert -- I appreciate your reflections
“Suchness” is a great word for this unsayable immediacy
I guess where the miscommunication arose here is that I generally interpret your work as attempting to use words to point toward Category #1. As such I feel some words do a better job of this than others. I don’t agree that all language is equally psychologized because I specifically mean that some words are likely to reinforce a certain common psychological frame whereas other words point more directly at suchness
However if you aren’t attempting to illuminate Category #1 then maybe I have misapprehended your intent. I agree that language is beautiful and useful for all things in Category #2 -- and can even be used poetically to evoke the subtleties of Category #1 if there is an openness to ‘hearing’ what is being gestured toward
Anywho, maybe initiating this whole exchange was pedantic and unhelpful on my part -- if so I apologize. As you note I am indeed ironically very fascinated by words and by the meta-question of how to use them most skillfully when attempting to point at anything in Category #1 or #2
P.S. To be clear I interpret your work as often pointing to Category #1 while also illuminating how Category #1 and #2 interrelate and are non-separate
After reading this I am reminded of what I like to call: The gospel of John Grisham. When he was a kid in summer camp, he was standing under a tree for shade with a group of boys. One boy sat on a wire fence. As they talked, the boy on the fence suddenly keeled over dead. Lightning had struck the tree out of a clear, blue sky. Grisham said that he learned that day that "Anything can happen to anyone, anywhere, at any time".
In terms of suffering, at least that boy's suffering was over immediately. However, I am certain that the misery of his parents had just begun.
I tend to call this the gospel of the universe, and have witnessed / experienced ample evidence of its validity.
Thank you for posting this, Robert. I concur. I have suffered. Greatly. It's part of the package. Usually, it comes unexpectedly and unbidden, and outstays its welcome. Sometimes for years, even decades. It's as much a part of life as joy or peace. Suffering is just as global as it is individual in scope, as you have pointed out. I find that, in spite of the physical / emotional agony, the real suffering comes from the belief that it can and / or must be eliminated. This belief, based on my own experience, is what I would call excruciating horseshit...
Yes, it is horseshit, or more politely, yellow leaves given to children to stop them demanding gold.
Talk is cheap. Anyone who preaches that nonsense has never really suffered.
Amen...
Love hearing this after having read the book twice now. A reminder that is very welcomed. Thank you 💚
Finally got around to listening to this, and I agree with your perspective on this Robert.
Having been involved with zen buddhist practice for a number of years, I have found that as time has passed the elements that have continued to resonate have become progressively stripped back - until all that I am left with is exactly the view expressed in this segment. I wouldn't define this paradigm as buddhist any more, just being human. I wish you well.
You've started an interesting and lively debate here, Robert!
I stopped seeking a long time ago, but if I were looking for a spiritual teacher, I'd far sooner choose one who admitted that he/she suffers and feels pain rather than one who told me I can transcend suffering by following his/her teaching.
I think some of it is semantics - what one person means by "pain" and "suffering" may not be what someone else understands from those words.
For me, the phrase "Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional" has a practical application in my life. It reminds me not to tell I-centred stories of woe about my experiences.
Like many millions of people, I live with physical pain every day. And I struggle a great deal to be OK with the way that we humans behave towards one another, towards this beautiful planet and all the other living beings we are supposed to be sharing it with.
Even though I face immense challenges in my life, I know that I am incredibly privileged to have a roof over my head, food on the table, a computer and the time to talk about these things on Substack.
I also know that when the physical pain becomes unbearable, I can take painkillers. I'm lucky.
To my mind, I do not suffer, but I know that millions of people do because they do not have a choice. The people who have no home, no food, or whose country is being blown up, really are suffering.
There isn't a single interpretation we can offer to those people to make them feel better. There is no point telling them to stop arguing with reality, to stop telling stories of woe, that it's all God's will or that everything is in divine order.
They have no choice but to live through their experiences and feel what they feel.
For me, living with integrity - or at least trying to - means having the courage to do the same: to allow myself to feel whatever my heart and body feel when I am faced with what seems like senseless and mindless suffering. I allow myself to feel and to cry if that's what needs to happen.
As one of the fortunate ones, I know I have a responsibility to not add to the suffering of the world and to do my best to alleviate it when I can. As part of not adding to that suffering, I look for the value within my own experience of "pain" or "suffering", whatever we want to call it. When I see what is happening in the world, it breaks my heart. But more importantly, it breaks my heart OPEN. And that, for me, is the value within the experience, because I would rather live with an open heart and feel pain than have a closed heart and close my eyes to the reality that is happening all around me.
Thank you, Robert, for taking the time to debate these issues and answer everyone's queries. These are important issues to deal with.
I hate it when someone makes up their own definitions for words, think Kelly Ann Conway's alternate truths. So here I go anyway--
Emotions are always a combination of a sensation and a thought or belief
Pain is physical or emotional discomfort
Suffering is or is caused by arguing with reality
It can be very valuable to investigate strong emotions, try to separate what is the sensation and what is the thought? As soon as you can differentiate the sensation often becomes more bearable. Sometimes the thought can be traced back to earlier experience that 'set' a belief which can be investigated for it's congruence with reality.
Pain will happen, anything from a stubbed toe to the death of a loved one to a terminal diagnosis from your doctor.
Suffering is based on the belief that this present moment could or should somehow be other than what it is. And that's origin of the saying, "Pain is mandatory. Suffering is optional." And I believe that's what the sutras point to.
"Pain is mandatory. Suffering is optional." Unadultered nonsense (in my opinion). Just some facile bullshit that is repeated until those repeating it fall into a hypnotic trance.
Some suffering is a case of arguing with reality, and that can be alleviated by applying wisdom. But there is a kind of suffering that is not alleviated by applying wisdom. People in intense, unremitting physical pain suffer no matter what they think about reality.
If you have never felt pain like that, you don't know what you are missing and might consider snapping out of the trance where you assume that you know enough about the many varieties of human suffering to philosophize so blithely about it. A woman I know, suffering from Trigeminal Neuralgia came to the end of her rope and ended her life, not because she argued with reality, but because her reality was unbearable.
That was the point of the Jack Kornfield statement, and Robert Hall calling the Noble Truths kindergarten stuff.
If Jack has never met anyone who was free of suffering, he is referring to a large sample of people --his many Buddhist acquaintances--who were focused on that goal and failed to attain it. I feel confident that your opinion on this matter derives from a much smaller and less specialized database.
Jack Kornfield (born 1945) is an American writer and teacher in the Vipassana movement in American Theravada Buddhism.[1] He trained as a Buddhist monk in Thailand, Burma and India,[2] first as a student of the Thai forest master Ajahn Chah and Mahasi Sayadaw of Burma. He has taught mindfulness meditation worldwide since 1974. In 1975, he co-founded the Insight Meditation Society in Barre, Massachusetts, with Sharon Salzberg and Joseph Goldstein, and subsequently[clarification needed] in 1987, Spirit Rock Meditation Center in Woodacre, California. Kornfield has worked as a peacemaker and activist, organized teacher training, and led international gatherings of Buddhist teachers including the Dalai Lama.
I have great respect for Kornfield and what he's done and I have my own experience. Training with monks and masters is a wonderful thing and many have very profound realization they can convey. But it's also a way to absorb a load of dogma. I've been meditating and investigating for nearly 60 years (I'm 75) and have spent time with various shiny people. In the end I can only go by my own experience.
I have been in pretty deep shit with Lyme disease causing hallucinations and almost daily panic attacks from neurotoxins while simultaneously my wife while recovering from Lyme was accidentally injected with hepatitis-virus in a medical error. Her body recognized the virus as problematic (only about 25% of infected do that) and had a massive reaction with intense malaise and abdominal pain. It took several ER visits before she had a high enough virus titer to get a diagnosis. In the meantime her doctor gave her gabapentin for the pain and she had a horrible reaction to it. I got to sit on the bed, holding her hand while we discussed what she wanted me to do for her funeral and memorial service. There was an obvious shift in my experience when I accepted what was instead of wishing it were different. It was not "better" in the sense of less misery but a secondary level of mental pain (which I was referring to as suffering) did abruptly vanish. I don't think there's a ceiling on this. Suicide is always an option when chronic pain is intense enough for long enough. It can be a rational decision based on quality of life. Suicide can also be a more reflex, panic decision which is often the case with psychological pain. You may not like the differentiation or my terminology but it's been clearly there in my own experience.
I agree with your differentiation and your terminology.
So would you say that you never suffer or that certain kinds of emotional suffering no longer trouble you? There is a vast difference there, right?
Chapter 61 is a reply to a question: ". . . many teachers, including the Buddha, say that there is an end to suffering. You say that you are awake—so why do you still suffer?"
I do still suffer and it is increasingly clear as time passes that it comes directly from my "personal psychology" believing that things could be different from what they are and then wishing that they conformed to that fantasy. I regard "the end of suffering" as aspirational rather than something I can actually attain. If the fantasy/story of reincarnation is true, then maybe in some other lifetime (1/2 to 3/4 joking there)
genuinely curious - what is the point of aspiring to the unattainable?
I tend to believe, not ultimately unattainable, just unattainable for me in the foreseeable future. Less suffering seems like a good thing. That currently unattainable goal is just a direction to aim, which is less suffering.
Okay Robert. It’s a bitter pill — your response.
I'm not sure what you mean, Tina.
Absolutely, suffering is desiring things to be different then they are and having the *arrogance* to not doubt those beliefs and understandings, being confident to be perceiving the full truth of the moment. Just because Robert is suffering ,
- doesn't mean there is one and final level of awakening. there are gradations and levels of insight and understanding. Seeing behind the veil is baby step 1.
- doesn't mean Robert has enough for a theory that encompasses majority of phenomomena and has what is needed to answer this question better than you if you spend couple of years researching the matter . Doesnt mean Buddha had final answer either.
Just because he hasnt met people who dont suffer that they dont exist. They do exist, they just keep away from "normal" people because who would believe? and share to what point? to be called out like that?
Pain and compassion does not have to come with suffering!!
The questioner is advised best to keep looking till you have all your answers collected. Robert, just because he writes well and speaks form the heart (i have no doubt about his genuineness and his awakening), does not have anywhere close to the full picure. Question ALL your beliefs. Dont make Robert into a Buddha either.
Not making me into a Buddha is a good idea. So is not making the Buddha into a Buddha.
You seem to have misread this chapter. I never said I had never met anyone who was completely free of suffering; it was two experienced, lifelong Buddhist teachers who agreed on that. Jack Kornfield is one of the most highly regarded Buddhist teachers in the world, who has practiced the dharma for his entire adult life (he is 79, like me), and has known countless serious practitioners, and he said it. That doesn't prove anything, but it is highly suggestive.
There are gradations of insight and understanding, and awakening never ends, but the idea of being free of all suffering is not, I was saying, a healthy goal, in my view, but a denial of the human condition that has nothing to do with awakening but remaining hypnotized.
Suffering and pain are the same thing from my point of view Robert I totally understand what you’re communicating. The whole concept the one has transcended suffering
I agree that an ego/ self that has a goal of being free of all suffering (itself) does not have a healthy goal. What I think is a healthy goal for humanity and people in general is to get to broad elaborate cosmology / understanding that is closest related to truth and the deeper reality, that encompasses as much phenomena/different experiences as possible .
An understanding of the situation that gets us more nuance- what suffering actually is, what people and this life is, what determines the various suffering, where its needed/ where its not needed. What Works. This is what a few people are trying to do. It is not to get rid of own suffering , is to evolve self and others understanding that actually reduces unnecessary suffering through education. You dont have an elaborate theory of what suffering is necessary and in what instances. Buddhas theory is outdated and not complete but why not make a better one before saying people can disregard his as likely fantasy?
I appreciate your writing and there is a lot of valid points that pop up, but I think
its not healthy in general to discourage people from looking for better explanations as to what is going on.
A problem that can occur in these conversations is that people stop investigating because a highly regarded Buddhist or Robert (who undoubtly appeals to a certain group of intellectuals) said "this is how it is" , "there is nothing more we can find cause consiousness". So the questioning person is left stranded on the wrong plateau whilst a whole world is actually left to discover, through the phenomenology of direct experience , which can bring people to some very different places of the whole thing than your experience. Leading to different conclusions on suffering and many other points.
"We cannot know more" , "there is nothing more to find" etc is also a belief in the realm of fantasy and also not healthy for the individual and/or society (as is believing in unicorns - the other extremes). Respectfully, Anna
Yes, Anna, I agree that working on reducing unnecessary suffering is a worthy idea but that is not accomplished primarily philosophically or by speculating on the substrate of consciousness but through changes in how human needs are addressed in the material sphere.
For example, millions of people suffer because they lack sufficient clean drinking water. Telling a thirsty person that her suffering is due to reliance on an outdated theory and you have a better one will not alleviate that suffering in the slightest. It might even make it worse.
I have never said, "this is how it is." If you think I have, you are unfamiliar entirely with my work in which I stress repeatedly that I have no final answers about anything and that my words are self-expression, not "Truth." Nor have I ever said there is nothing more to find. You have created a straw-man "Robert" in your mind and are arguing with it.
If you want to discuss these matters with me, look into my writing first. You don't have to buy anything. Chapters are available to read and download on my website.
www.dr-robert.com
Walk on!
And yet .. if you read account for example from Viktor Frankl and his observation in concentration camps, you will see that having a sound(er) theory about what’s going on and deriving meaning from it literally determines outcome being life and death . And many such examples ( I have lived in 90s communist collapse Russia and have experienced poverty and seen first hand who gets through well and who doesn’t ).
Of course no one needs to tell a hungry person in Africa about any philosophy , but there is 0 evidence that you feeling bad about it is going to help anyone there anymore than a Buddhist or anyone else not suffering about it. What matters to the hungry is only who will reach into one’s pocket and take the money out, not the suffering .
With regards to imaginary Robert I am arguing with : this is partly right. It’s not just you, it’s a group of recently awake , overly rationalists that scratched my itch . You see : no matter if you say you don’t know anything and don’t make any claims on truth, you know that the moment you come out as ‘awake’ people will weight your words differently . Unless it’s poetry , art or fiction - they just will.
All the best.
I came awake, Anna--what I call awake--forty-something years ago. I kept silent about it and just lived an awakened life without ever mentioning it. Between 2005 and 2010, two people in my life, one right after the other, urged me to share my point of view, and that is what I am doing.
My work has nothing at all to do with your itch. Your criticism here is based on your failure to understand what this chapter is about, not anything that I have ever said.
Not sure why you are going on about this? IMHO you may want attention. I am very familiar with wanting attention. I wish you the best.
Okay, I won't get stuck on it. I'll keep walking or I'll picture myself walking.
Good stuff here, Robert, love the honesty. Awakening seems to tend to reduce the form of suffering that comes from believing our thoughts. Doesn’t eliminate pain though.
—
On another note: You wrote, “Everything is all in your mind—but that does not mean it’s not real.”
“Mind” seems like a somewhat tricky word. I’m curious why you choose to use it? I suppose all words are tricky since none of them can accurately capture this immediacy
Thanks for your work 🙏🏼
You're welcome, Jordan. What word would you use for perceptions, feelings, and thoughts?
For me words just don’t really come close at all -- that makes it difficult to say much 😅
This immediacy presents as a dynamic continuum of inconceivable textures
To call this immediacy ‘my mind’ implies a separate individual with a ‘mind’ who ‘owns’ this apparition... to say ‘everything’ is ‘in’ this ‘mind’ implies an inside and outside and makes an assumption that nothing is ‘outside’ ‘your mind’... this layers substantial abstraction on top of this simple immediacy... I feel these layers add unnecessary confusion and can easily reinforce the default human view
I guess my current preference is to sidestep ‘psychologized’ language and point toward an immediate freedom from fixed views -- in which all descriptions are included yet are seen to be inaccurate
But, Jordan, for someone who believes that using words like “mind” just causes confusion and reinforces the human view—what other view is there? I don’t know what it is like to be a bat—you have involved yourself in a shitload of them.
First, you had to read Chapter 61. Then, you had to use words to ask me why I chose to use the word "mind." Then you had to read my reply, asking what word you would use to describe perceptions, feelings, and thoughts--which is what the word “mind” most often connotes in my vocabulary. Then, you had to reply to all that with an additional barrage of words.
In case my reply here, which uses words, goes over your head (another word for mind):
All language is “psychologized” because words were created and are used by human beings whose very nature is psychological. For example, you said, “my current preference is to sidestep ‘psychologized’ language . . .” What could be MORE psychological than a preference?
Also, you asked me why I “chose” to use the word “mind.” Are there really choosers and choices, or is that split simply a matter of misusing words to “add unnecessary confusion" to a discussion about a book chapter?
I’m going on a limb here. You seem confused yourself. That confusion seems rooted in what is called, in logic, a category error or category mistake.
There are two entirely separate categories at play here:
CATEGORY #1:
The entirely indescribable suchness of each moment. There are no words for that.
Also ineffable: the experience of being awake and aware while having no idea of what “this” is, where it comes from, and where it’s headed. That experience can be POINTED AT with words, but never in the slightest be pinned down or even fully suggested by words. Poets and philosophers try their best but inevitably fail.
CATEGORY #2:
Ordinary, everyday human life involving food, clothing, shelter, personal relations, technology, medicine, education, etcetera. WORDS ARE ALL WE HAVE to manage all that. Knowing that, the wise among us use words wisely without having to constantly repeat warnings about the inadequacy of words.
In Category #1 words are inadequate, but the wise users of words understand that we are not in Category #1. When we are, we fall silent.
I saw a cartoon once. A man is at ZEN AUTO REPAIR. He says, "I'm here to pick up my car."
The clerk, with a shaved head and robes, replies, There IS no car."
Jordan, with all due respect, the confusion is not caused by using words but by using them wrongly. By "wrongly," I mean failing to discern which category is in the foreground and which rules are in effect.
I have written and spoken millions of words about the human condition. At times, I have REFERRED to the human experiences in Category #1, but I never imagined making anyone BE in Category #1. To use a word that can point but never define, I never expected anyone to understand “awake."
I wish you well.
Thanks for taking the time to write this, Robert -- I appreciate your reflections
“Suchness” is a great word for this unsayable immediacy
I guess where the miscommunication arose here is that I generally interpret your work as attempting to use words to point toward Category #1. As such I feel some words do a better job of this than others. I don’t agree that all language is equally psychologized because I specifically mean that some words are likely to reinforce a certain common psychological frame whereas other words point more directly at suchness
However if you aren’t attempting to illuminate Category #1 then maybe I have misapprehended your intent. I agree that language is beautiful and useful for all things in Category #2 -- and can even be used poetically to evoke the subtleties of Category #1 if there is an openness to ‘hearing’ what is being gestured toward
Anywho, maybe initiating this whole exchange was pedantic and unhelpful on my part -- if so I apologize. As you note I am indeed ironically very fascinated by words and by the meta-question of how to use them most skillfully when attempting to point at anything in Category #1 or #2
Take care!
P.S. To be clear I interpret your work as often pointing to Category #1 while also illuminating how Category #1 and #2 interrelate and are non-separate