Things Are As They Are.
Correct me if I’m wrong, you don’t necessarily see the self as the source of our psychological suffering. So in that sense, the conversation here skews more toward what the structure actually is and where the limits of our ability to know that are, and less so toward the micro ways it could be said to impact our behavior and relationships with others.
Scott, not quite. I don’t focus on the self as the source of psychological suffering. The source, as I see it, is the belief that things could be different from what they are—the insistence on an otherwise that does not exist. The self is the mechanism through which that resistance operates, but the belief is what produces the suffering. The distinction matters because it locates the problem more precisely.
So, absent that belief, the unavoidable felt sense of being a separate self is not a problem?
Just speaking for myself here, Scott, there is a felt sense of a space between this biological system called Robert and the next system. I would not try to deny that. I may be ill and dying while you are thriving. Obviously, there is a separation there. But that felt sense of separation is counterbalanced by observing and understanding co-dependent origination. No one is truly separate.
Those are the conditions. In and of themselves, they do not produce psychological suffering. That arises whenever we want things to be different. What is, is, and in this moment cannot be different. Resisting that is psychological suffering.
Yes, I was referring to the “me” that is separate from my thoughts, feelings, etc., the loop, if you will. Regardless, your response is immensely clarifying. Thank you.
Is there a “me” that is separate from thoughts and feelings, Scott?
No, but that thought, or felt sense, that there is, certainly still arises, particularly in stressful or difficult moments. It shows up in the form of thoughts such as “I need to change, I need to fix this.”
I understand that, Scott, but I would not write off the feeling of agency. “Myself the doer” may be a kind of illusion, but perhaps feeling the need to change is part of the flow, not a defect in it.
If that’s the case, would it logically follow that the psychological suffering stemming from feeling the need to change would also be part of the flow and not a defect?
Yes. From that perspective, nothing is a defect. Things are as they are. If suffering is involved, it is until it isn’t.
I love the simplicity in and the clarity stemming from the dialogue. I also deeply appreciate the awareness that the agency to transform things is part of beingness. The realization that things are as they are and can't be different in this moment does not eliminate agency... it actually frees it!
I find myself somewhere in the middle of this.
Yes, suffering often comes from wishing reality were other than it is. There is wisdom in seeing that clearly.
But I am not convinced that every movement toward change is resistance.
A flower turning toward the sun is not resisting the shade. A wounded animal seeking shelter is not resisting reality. A human being wanting healing, connection, or growth may simply be expressing the next movement of life itself.
The desire to change can arise from fear and rejection of what is.
It can also arise from love.
From curiosity.
From the natural unfolding of a living system.
For me, the question is not whether I want things to change, but whether I am at war with what is while they do.
Can I acknowledge reality completely and still participate in its unfolding?
Can I say, “This is what is,” while also saying, “And this is where life seems to be moving next”?
Perhaps both are true.
Things are as they are.
And things are always becoming.