Is suffering a choice or is it a must go through experience

[Schahin]

Whenever we take some healing psychedelic and get liberated out of the previous mental suffering phase, we realize that without the substance it would have never been possible. 

So that makes me think, are we responsible for our suffering? 

No matter how much we healing through a substance always gets you out of a previous mental syfferong state, and in the normal state it is rarely possible to let go of suffering sometimes it becomes even too difficult and people collapse. 

So what do you think is it our own choice or are we meant/is it planned that we suffer

Edited October 7, 2019 by Schahin

[Forestluv]

You seem to be creating "altered" state and a "normal" mental state categories. If you look closer, this duality collapses into simply the mental state that is. For example, when I am feeling down I may go for a walk in nature, do yoga or go for a run. This "alters" my brain chemistry and often perks me up. In contrast, if one sits around all day and ruminates about how much their life sucks and how noone loves them, this also "alters" brain chemistry leading to misery. These are all "altered" and "normal" states of mind.

Regarding one's "own choice". . .  who/what is the "chooser"? If you don't have a clearly defined "chooser", you will be exploring through muddy waters and won't be able to see clearly. Who/what is this chooser? Are you referring to the subjective experience of a chooser? Or is there some thing that is a chooser?

 

[Schahin]

Yes that is it, there is no chooser. 

So therefore the "person" (there is n person but we all know what I am talking about) is meant to suffer. 

What is your opinion? 

[Forestluv]

19 minutes ago, Schahin said:

So therefore the "person" (there is n person but we all know what I am talking about) is meant to suffer. 

If there is no person, who/what is suffering? Does there need to be a sufferer to suffer?

Right now, my neighbor is suffering because he lost his job and is unable to provide for his family. Are you suffering over this? Why not?. . . I imagine you are not suffering over this because this person does not exist to you. For all you know, I made it up. . . You have no attachment/identification of being this person. . . Yet if you identified that this person was you, you would be suffering. 

What is necessary for suffering? Is being human necessary? Can a rock, tree or dog suffer? Can an idea suffer? 

[DrewNows]

“Suffering is choice” 

[Schahin]

30 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

“Suffering is choice” 

Why do you say that? 

 

@Serotoninluv

A human and a dog can suffer, we might be an idea but as being we go through all being states and suffering is a being state too, god does suffer because god is being and being includes suffering. 

I suffered loads of times and when taking a psychedelic I was so grateful to that psych. But I was also sure that nothing I could have done myself to get rid of that suffering, and I tried meditation, fasting. Especially when you live in a stressfull environment and family. 

So the question still is, is it a choice of us (where we obviously dont exist, but do god experiences through us the suffering being state) or are we meant to go through this as like already mentioned above, after the healing we are grateful to the plant spirit and know by ourselves we could have not come that far so easily

Your neighbour suffers he does, even if suffering is an illusion, but it still exists as a state of being. 

Edited October 7, 2019 by Schahin

[Forestluv]

27 minutes ago, Schahin said:

 

@Serotoninluv

I suffered loads of times and when taking a psychedelic I was so grateful to that psych. 

Notice how you say *I*  suffered, rather than suffering appeared. There is an "I" dynamic that can be transcended.

30 minutes ago, Schahin said:

But I was also sure that nothing I could have done myself to get rid of that suffering, and I tried meditation, fasting.  

Again, notice how you say *I* tried to end the suffering. It's fine to talk at the level of the personality, yet there is transcendence of that. To me, it seems like you keep reaching out for that transcendence, yet can't quite take the plunge. Who/what is this *I* that is suffering and trying to end it's own suffering? Is it a story of *I*? Is it the brain suffering? The body? . . . So far, you have said "I know *I* doesn't exist, yet you know what I mean". . . If you don't get clear on the "you know what I mean part", you will be swimming through muddy waters.

35 minutes ago, Schahin said:

So the question still is, is it a choice of us (where we obviously dont exist, but do god experiences through us the suffering being state) or are we meant to go through this as like already mentioned above, after the healing we are grateful to the plant spirit and know by ourselves we could have not come that far so easily

Notice how you default back to your pre-conceived assumption and construct. Using the framework of a psychological self is fine if you want to talk about suffering in the context of a psychological self. Yet you are using the framework of a psychological self and reaching toward transcendence of that psychological self. You've said multiple times "where we obviously don't exist" - and then you speak as if we do actually exist. 

To me, it seems like you are reaching toward nondual transcendence of the psychological self, yet you are still clinging to the grounding of a dualistic psychological self. Eventually, the duality of nondual vs. dual collapses - yet you seem to be trying to skip a step.

From the nonduality, there is no god experiencing through us. You said yourself: "where we obviously don't exist". So Everything is God. There is One God. Not god experiencing ourselves. Just God. No ourselves. . . To me, this seems to be the next big realization which comes through direct experience. 

 

 

[Schahin]

Of course this will be the next big realization

But still you know what I mean with I suffered or he suffers right? It is the appearance as you say of suffering. It is not me suffering actually. B

That is the core question, there is no doer, nobody, nothing but still the appearance suffering appears for some of "us" while for "others" not (sorry I didnt now how to explain it here without using pronouns, but yiu know what I mean right) its the suffering before you realized nonduality, it was actually happening as a part of being or wasn it? :)) 

Lets say I would be tremendously suffering mentally right now writing this, someone could say no that is not true but somehow it still is? 

Transcendence is important but philophising about duality and its happenings is not wrong either is it? 

So the questions remains, is it meant for the appearance of suffering to occur or does the "doer" have a choice here (even if there is no doer, but you understand right?) 

 

Edited October 7, 2019 by Schahin

[DrewNows]

@Schahin is there suffering without thought? How about a choice, doesn’t that also require thought? What exactly is thought besides a division between myself and my experience? What if the experiencer is the experience? Wouldn’t suffering just be a trick if the mind? 

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Schahin said:

But still you know what I mean with I suffered or he suffers right? 

Yes there is suffering from the perspective of the person. Humans have constructed a thing called "suffering". Different humans have different suffering constructs. For example, a common construct of suffering is that the mind and body experience intense physical/emotional pain and don't want to feel this physcial/emotional pain and there is a strong desire to be free of the physcial/emotional pain - yet an inability to be free of it. That is a human construct of suffering. It has practical value when humans are discussing their experience. When someone tells me they are suffering - I use this type of construct to relate and communicate with them.

1 hour ago, Schahin said:

That is the core question, there is no doer, nobody, nothing but still the appearance suffering appears for some of "us" while for "others" not (sorry I didnt now how to explain it here without using pronouns, but yiu know what I mean right) its the suffering before you realized nonduality, it was actually happening as a part of being or wasn it? :)) 

When you say their is *nobody, nothing* then how can there be suffering? You just said there is nobody to suffer, nothing. Is a bowl full of nothing suffering occurring in nobody wind?

From a trans-human perceptive, we could say that there is a "thing" that the human calls "suffering" that appears in a "thing" the human calls It's mind and body - in which the human identifies as being "me".

If you say it's "the suffering before nonduality is revealed" - then we are now immersed back into the perspective of the person. Which is fine. 

So overall, is it happening or not? Both. Illusion = Reality and Reality = Illusion. Non-happenings = Happenings and Happenings = Non-happenings. This is a deeper level in which the duality between dual and nondual collapses.

1 hour ago, Schahin said:

Lets say I would be tremendously suffering mentally right now writing this, someone could say no that is not true but somehow it still is? 

Yes

1 hour ago, Schahin said:

Transcendence is important but philophising about duality and its happenings is not wrong either is it? 

Nothing wrong with philosophising about duality and mechanisms of happenings. Confusion and inner turmoil arises when there is conflation between absolute and relative. As well, when there is a belief/assumption that relative is absolute.

1 hour ago, Schahin said:

So the questions remains, is it meant for the appearance of suffering to occur or does the "doer" have a choice here (even if there is no doer, but you understand right?) 

From the perspective of a doer, there is choice. From the perspective of no-doer there is no choice. From the perspective of intention and meaning, suffering is meant to happen. From the perspective of no intention or meaning, suffering is not meant to happen. 

You are getting into causation, determination and choice again. Your answer depends on how you create constructs of causation, determination, doer and choice. We can create all sorts of constructs, just like we can construct all sorts of sand castles. Creating constructs can allow insight and we can create more elaborate constructs. Nothing wrong with that - that's what humans do. Yet the inner turmoil comes with the seeking energy of wanting to create a construct that is objectively and universally true and permanent. Just like a child will experience inner turmoil if they want their sandcastle to be grounded and permanent. At the end of the day, all sandcastles will get deconstructed by waves. And all constructs get deconstructed to Nothing. . . 

[Alex bliss]

Suffering is there so that you seek your true nature 

[iamme]

Ego's suffering is an inevitable curse as long as you're unconscious. When you have woken up to spiritual understanding, consciousness, awareness, any further suffering is indeed a choice. Of course there are stages in between but to overcome suffering you don't only have to agree that you're the ultimate being of the universe but to be aware of it at all times too! Then things might happen (or not) and you can decide if you're going to suffer or see it from another perspective.

[TheAvatarState]

@Schahin only when you become conscious of suffering and understanding of what it is can you begin to transcend it. Until that point, accept that you are a literal machine with no control over yourself. Observe the machine.