Sadness can't stop feeling sad, because the sensation is exactly what it is

[RMQualtrough]

What I mean is, no matter what you identify as, the feeling "I am sad" and the associated unpleasantness, which is a feature of this infinity, is what it actually is.

By identifying with the sheer nothingness, the feeling "sad" does not change. Interpretation of it changes. But if sadness stopped being sad, it's not sadness anymore. Sadness IS the whole package deal. The feeling of "I am sad" is the entire unit, which appears in consciousness.

Same with pain. Interpretation of it can alted but the sensation itself and associated unpleasantness is a package deal. That IS what the experience is.

All of these things are objects like literally ANY other. The application of a label to what the thing is, does not stop it from merely being thing... E.g. red is a thing, the sound of a piano is a thing. Labelling red as color and piano as sound is categorizing reality. Both are just "experience" or "appearance".

Pain, suffering, anxiety, sadness, as such are just more objects like that...

Just as you can't take the redness away from red, you can't take sadness away from sad. Because it is literally exactly what they are. You can only stop adding interpretation and egoic type resistance. But the thing itself could not alter without the form ceasing to be what it is...

[Nahm]

13 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

You can only stop adding interpretation

Sadness is interpretation. 

Sadness feeling sadness implies a duality, as if sadness where some other entity. 

[Petals]

13 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

Same with pain. Interpretation of it can alted but the sensation itself and associated unpleasantness is a package deal.

I would argue that the unpleasantness is not part of the package deal. There is a sensation present, then there is an automatic interpretation of it as pain. But the pain is only painful (i.e. unpleasant) because you interpret it as pain. You interpret it as pain, so it is painful. But if you pay close attention to the sensation you can recognise that it is just a sensation that got interpreted (by a hardwired automatic process) and that there is in fact nth painful about the sensation itself.  If you have massive pain it will be very hard to prevent that interprative process. But try it on small discomforts and pains.

[RMQualtrough]

4 hours ago, Petals said:

I would argue that the unpleasantness is not part of the package deal. There is a sensation present, then there is an automatic interpretation of it as pain. But the pain is only painful (i.e. unpleasant) because you interpret it as pain. You interpret it as pain, so it is painful. But if you pay close attention to the sensation you can recognise that it is just a sensation that got interpreted (by a hardwired automatic process) and that there is in fact nth painful about the sensation itself.  If you have massive pain it will be very hard to prevent that interprative process. But try it on small discomforts and pains.

Hm, if you didn't interpret it as painful it wouldn't be the same object anymore. Interpretation of pain/aversion is an object, undifferentiated from the singular experience of all objects that we right now would call "your mind".

If the interpretation stops, the actual object which is your mind as a whole has morphed into a new object.

It constantly is.

If pain stops feeling painful it is no longer pain. If pain exists in absence of aversion, the larger unit which would be multiple "objects" (see how we split the object by categorizing pain as sensation and interpretation as thought?), it isn't the same object as what we usually mean when we say pain.

[mandyjw]

18 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

Just as you can't take the redness away from red, you can't take sadness away from sad. 

If you turn the light off, all colors go away, red is not red. 

The appearance of red is the rejection or bouncing back of red light waves and absorbing of all other color wavelengths but red. You appear to be what you reject, but you are not the appearance... but what allows the appearance to be. 

You are the light.

[seriousman24]

To add to that pain is something that "does not want to be itself".
In my personal experience I have never experienced only pain, it was always felt with another sensation.
I conjecture that if you reach absolute pain you would not be yourself, that is destruction.
We can only observe others destruction most of the time unless, we are destroyed along something other than pain , pleasure/bliss is the movement of "creation", "that which loves itself, which wants more of itself and which is timeless and therefore has no quantity", it has no "extra quantity" because it is already whole and it is already as much of itself as it can and should be since it's perfect bliss, however that which "cannot ,will not, does not desire to be itself" exists anyway in the same existence as that which needs nothing else more to exist.
Bliss by itself cannot be everything, cannot be more than one because it already is but pain can precisely be because it does not want to be itself it never encounters itself because it never is itself, but are somehow different nothings when mixed together even though neither can exist by themselves, bliss doesn't exist by itself or with something else because that would mean the existence of a self and in perfect oneness you don't need anything more, I guess the only difference is that maybe when we add consciousness, if I pretend that non existence is perfect pain and existence is perfect bliss where is even the being there, not alone as Being itself that's for sure for that would be perfect existence with nothing yet here I am and we are so that's how we make the impossible even in something as trivial as time and space without even needing to go somewhere else.

Nham's response is probably more being level based, we can define dimensions of understanding just for fun since we are all completely right and completely wrong at all times. You can replace pain with suffering though I'm sure it works decently well too I just like to use both interchangeably.

[WelcometoReality]

@RMQualtrough Nice introspecting going on. ?

On 2021-11-22 at 0:20 AM, RMQualtrough said:

You can only stop adding interpretation and egoic type resistance. But the thing itself could not alter without the form ceasing to be what it is...

In which ways are these interpretations and resistances stopped?