Hi Rupert,
I am intrigued by the topic of the connection between suffering and the belief in a ‘me’, and whether in the absence of belief in ‘me’ suffering perhaps recedes. There is an implicit assumption here that suffering is somehow bad or undesirable or needs to be reduced for the good of the world and everyone (all the me’s) in it.
Is it not the case that suffering is only bad for the ‘me’ that happens to be the cause of most of it and also the one who believes it suffers? Since awareness itself makes no such qualitative judgement of suffering either way, whatever might be arising as suffering, it just is.
This is something that I find a little troublesome about much of modern spiritual talk, with all the soft, touchy-feely terms such as ‘grace’, ‘love’ and ‘peace’. This all seems to rest on the same implicit assumption that we should indeed all be walking around with a smile on our face all the time in perfect peace and harmony with lots of hugs and kisses, and that suffering must be removed and is bad. Is this really the case?
From the perspective of awareness, within which and as which all forms of suffering arise, is there any such scale of goodness? Is awareness not totally neutral to whatever form it takes, suffering or not? As you say: ‘Everything that appears in nature is natural. Nuclear war, a daffodil, pollution, a newborn child, the ego, Ramana Maharshi, everything.’
Awareness is present in and as all these things. Whether it is suffering or joy, isn’t that just raw reality as it is, not good, not bad? From what perspective do all of these have to be met with acceptance, in peace and love with a smile on your face? Isn’t that just more pseudo-Advaita?
Thanks,
Ian
Dear Ian,
I have written at length on this subject in my last email to Claudia (‘Is irritation an expression of grace?’), so I suggest that you read that first. A couple of comments, however:
Ian: I am intrigued by the topic of the connection between suffering and the belief in a ‘me’, and whether in the absence of belief in ‘me’ suffering perhaps recedes. There is an implicit assumption here that suffering is somehow bad or undesirable or needs to be reduced for the good of the world and everyone (all the me’s) in it.
Rupert: There is no such implicit assumption in what is being said here. Psychological suffering and ‘me’ are two sides of the same coin – they come and go together. I am suggesting that this is a fact of experience, but there is no judgement of that fact.
There is no suggestion here that suffering is bad or that it needs to be got rid of. Suffering is ultimately an illusion (because it is based on an illusory entity). How can an illusion be bad or be got rid of? However, an illusion cannot stand being clearly looked at.
Suffering is by definition undesirable. If it were not undesirable it would not be suffering. If suffering were desirable we would be happy when we receive it, as we are when we receive all other objects of desire.
This is something that I find a little troublesome about much of modern spiritual talk, with all the soft, touchy-feely terms such as ‘grace’, ‘love’ and ‘peace’. This all seems to rest on the same implicit assumption that we should indeed all be walking around with a smile on our face all the time in perfect peace and harmony with lots of hugs and kisses, and that suffering must be removed and is bad. Is this really the case?
I cannot speak for modern spiritual talk in general but it seems that, being new to this forum, you may not be familiar with this approach. If you familiarise yourself with some of our previous conversation or with the understanding outlined in The Transparency of ThingsI think you will realise that your generalisation is not applicable in this case.
From what perspective do all of these have to be met with acceptance, in peace and love with a smile on your face?
I’ve no idea – you will have to ask those who recommend such an approach. But please don’t mistake what is being said here with these other approaches and then ask me to justify them. I can’t!
With love,
Rupert
