How do you tell a blind Man what the colour pink is?

[sky dancer]

Even those who can see the color labeled pink should know that the label, 'pink' is not the color.

 

[AfterGlow]

I have just cleared out my Attic and going though some old papers and books and i came accross my old Uni books,nothing like nostalgia to cheers you up,anyway i lightened on this question.

How do you tell or describe what the colour Pink is to a Man blind from birth

You can't. In much the same way that as a man I cannot be told how pregnancy or childbirth feels, and as a human I cannot fathom the sensation of undergoing metamorphosis, a blind man cannot be told what pink is, only what pink is like, which isn't pink at all.

Even those who can see the color labeled pink should know that the label, 'pink' is not the color.

I think most people realise that, still, try having a meaningful conversion without any names or descriptors and see what happens.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone. - Epictetus

What if he's got a buttful of thorns? Couldn't he blame his unhappiness on the rose family?

 

[AfterGlow]

What if he's got a buttful of thorns? Couldn't he blame his unhappiness on the rose family?

Hilarious.

No, he can only blame himself and for various reasons. 1) for sitting on something thorny as, presumably, the rose didn't come up and ram it's thorns in his bum. 2) he has the power to take out the thorns, if he doesn't he can only blame himself. 3) even if for some reason he's stuck with the thorns and associated pain, the pain signal is just an electrical impulse, he can learn to deal with it, if he chooses to moan and complain and wallow in his misfortune, that's once again only of his choosing to do so.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, he can only blame himself and for various reasons. 1) for sitting on something thorny as, presumably, the rose didn't come up and ram it's thorns in his bum. 2) he has the power to take out the thorns, if he doesn't he can only blame himself.

I forgot to mention that this is Sleeping Beauty. She's just awakened but is still locked in the casket (or whatever it was). The rose bush has grown into the casket over the years and, well... they're now making her butt quite unhappy.

Maybe this is stretching things, but I'm pretty sure there are folks out there who are made unhappy by exterior reality, although I do get the point of your quote.

even if for some reason he's stuck with the thorns and associated pain, the pain signal is just an electrical impulse, he can learn to deal with it,

I've never suffered a serious physical trauma, but I've read stories and known people. Sometimes pain and unhappiness seem like real things.

if he chooses to moan and complain and wallow in his misfortune, that's once again only of his choosing to do so.

I agree with the spirit of your quote and am mostly just messing with you. But I have known people who are suffering through no fault of their own and with no way to reduce the pain. People are made differently. I don't believe that everyone is capable of escaping unhappiness just by an act of will. Some of them are made with inadequate will, for example.

 

[AfterGlow]

I've never suffered a serious physical trauma, but I've read stories and known people. Sometimes pain and unhappiness seem like real things.

There's an old Buddhist saying, it's a bit cliche so you've probably heard it "pain is inevitable, suffering is optional". The reason it's survived and become cliche is that it's essentially true, pain will afflict us all but suffering derives solely from our reactions to circumstances such as pain and bereavement.

I forgot to mention that this is Sleeping Beauty. She's just awakened but is still locked in the casket (or whatever it was). The rose bush has grown into the casket over the years and, well... they're now making her butt quite unhappy.

Maybe this is stretching things, but I'm pretty sure there are folks out there who are made unhappy by exterior reality, although I do get the point of your quote.

......

I agree with the spirit of your quote and am mostly just messing with you. But I have known people who are suffering through no fault of their own and with no way to reduce the pain. People are made differently. I don't believe that everyone is capable of escaping unhappiness just by an act of will. Some of them are made with inadequate will, for example.

Everyone who suffers does so because they allow themselves to. Sounds harsh but IMO it's true.

Epictetus, again, taught us that there are things within our power and things not within our power. Wealth, reputation and health, for example, are not in our power. We can try to bring them in line with our desires to the best of our ability, but ultimately they aren't subject to our will, reputation can be lost through the changes in other people's opinion, wealth can be stolen or devalued and health is subject to the whim of nature. Only the will is within our power, only our own thought, action and reaction do we have control over. People may seem to have an "inadequate" will, but I would contend that rather they lack the understanding and motivation to take full advantage of their own will, they allow external forces to control them seeing themselves perhaps as pawns, unable to exert any influence even over their own selves, and I would also suggest given the right knowledge and training that they could reverse this situation.

Some people saying that they lack willpower is, I believe, merely another symptom of this form of defeatism "there is no point in even trying, I don't have the willpower to succeed". I believe that to be entirely illusory, but it's also comforting for them in a way, as by believing such a thing about yourself you're essentially shifting responsibility for your happiness to the externals. Your problems cease to be your own as it's not your fault, the world is conspiring against you, there's nothing you can do, but wallow and moan.

 

[Engyo]

Everyone who suffers does so because they allow themselves to. Sounds harsh but IMO it's true.

I will actually second this. For me it is a judgement call, whether the emotional attachment is worth the cost in suffering or not. I was meditating on this last night; one of my dogs died last weekend, and while it hurts a lot that he is gone, what I learned from him and the experiences we shared are more than worth the hurt I feel now. I am fully willing to accept that suffering as the cost of the joy and love we shared.

I also need to think about this in deciding whether to find another dog or not; I will need to make the same sort of choice again in case we do decide to bring another dog into the family.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There's an old Buddhist saying, it's a bit cliche so you've probably heard it "pain is inevitable, suffering is optional". The reason it's survived and become cliche is that it's essentially true, pain will afflict us all but suffering derives solely from our reactions to circumstances such as pain and bereavement.
Everyone who suffers does so because they allow themselves to. Sounds harsh but IMO it's true.

It's a wonderful thought -- like believing that we'll all meet again in the Sweet By and By. But I can't believe it myself. I've seen suffering which didn't appear at all optional to me. Once I came upon a cat walking stiffly down the side of a road. Some kids had set him afire the night before, and I could see through his body in places. If I had thought his suffering was optional, I wouldn't have given him a sharp whack to his head with a club to transport him to the other side of that suffering.

I've read Hersey's book about the aftermath of Hiroshima. People lying about with their skin falling off their bodies -- wailing for their dead children lying beside them. If that's optional suffering, I don't think I know what you mean by 'suffering'. Can you say how those people could have opted not to suffer? Exactly, I mean. Are you talking about a difference of attitude? A mental maneuver?

I'd also be curious if you'd like to describe the difference between the Hiroshima sufferers and their neighbors, in the same physical condition, who were able to somehow avoid or overcome the suffering. I mean, can you describe the differences between what each group was actually experiencing or feeling?

Epictetus, again, taught us that there are things within our power and things not within our power. Wealth, reputation and health, for example, are not in our power.

Actually, I think wealth is within our power, at least here in the US. I was extremely poor once but decided I didn't like it, so I became wealthy. (Didn't stay there, though. I lost interest in it.) Reputation and health seem less controllable, but there are things we can do to affect them, aren't there?

We can try to bring them in line with our desires to the best of our ability, but ultimately they aren't subject to our will, reputation can be lost through the changes in other people's opinion, wealth can be stolen or devalued and health is subject to the whim of nature.

If I want to, can't I simply think myself wealthy? Especially if I look around and study how bad some people have it, I can become wealthy by an act of will. I can do the same with health, although not with reputation, since that lives in the heads of others.

Only the will is within our power, only our own thought, action and reaction do we have control over. People may seem to have an "inadequate" will, but I would contend that rather they lack the understanding and motivation to take full advantage of their own will, they allow external forces to control them seeing themselves perhaps as pawns, unable to exert any influence even over their own selves, and I would also suggest given the right knowledge and training that they could reverse this situation.

That's not my experience. I think people can have organic flaws in their brains/minds just as they have them in their bodies. That makes it pretty hard for me to blame those who seem unable to achieve their ambitions. I'm a white male with a very high IQ. Just accidents of birth. So I can't blame the poor black woman down the road, raised and living in chaos, for never conquering the business world -- even if that was her ambition. Her mother was an alcoholic, and she is retarded.

Some people saying that they lack willpower is, I believe, merely another symptom of this form of defeatism "there is no point in even trying, I don't have the willpower to succeed". I believe that to be entirely illusory,

Yes, we really do see things very differently. My willpower seems to me an accident of birth mostly. Yes, I think I've nurtured it, but I don't blame those who've been unable to do so. I see many of them as disadvantaged from birth.

... but it's also comforting for them in a way, as by believing such a thing about yourself you're essentially shifting responsibility for your happiness to the externals. Your problems cease to be your own as it's not your fault, the world is conspiring against you, there's nothing you can do, but wallow and moan.

Some seem that way, yes. But I've also known failures who make no complaint about their condition and status.

That's what attracted me to your quote in the first place. It seems to assert a truth about all people. If Epictetus had said that "Some are unhappy by reason of themselves alone," I'd have passed it by as an obviously true truth.

 

[England my lionheart]

You can't. In much the same way that as a man I cannot be told how pregnancy or childbirth feels, and as a human I cannot fathom the sensation of undergoing metamorphosis, a blind man cannot be told what pink is, only what pink is like, which isn't pink at all.

I agree that you can't,i thought it was an interesting question from my Uni days

 

[AfterGlow]

It's a wonderful thought -- like believing that we'll all meet again in the Sweet By and By. But I can't believe it myself. I've seen suffering which didn't appear at all optional to me. Once I came upon a cat walking stiffly down the side of a road. Some kids had set him afire the night before, and I could see through his body in places. If I had thought his suffering was optional, I wouldn't have given him a sharp whack to his head with a club to transport him to the other side of that suffering.

There are a couple of points in what you've said, first we need to distinguish pain from suffering, pain is physical, suffering is mental. You can have two cancer patients in equally severe pain, yet one can seem to suffer from it much more than the other and that suffering comes from his response to his pain, not the pain itself. Secondly, both Buddhists and the Stoics taught that mankind is in a bit if a unique position and I tend to agree - cats lack what Epictetus called a "reasoning faculty" they can experience pain and their mind can make them suffer but they lack the capacity to analyse the origin of their suffering, it's in this analysis and the subsequent understanding of how and why we suffer that places us as humans in a position where we can reduce or even end suffering for ourselves.

I've read Hersey's book about the aftermath of Hiroshima. People lying about with their skin falling off their bodies -- wailing for their dead children lying beside them. If that's optional suffering, I don't think I know what you mean by 'suffering'. Can you say how those people could have opted not to suffer? Exactly, I mean. Are you talking about a difference of attitude? A mental maneuver?

Essentially yes. Pain is pain, they couldn't avoid what happened to them and the pain would have been excruciating, but suffering is mental anguish, it's emotional pain, like feelings of loss, betrayal, anger etc. We don't have control over the origin of the physical pain, but we do have control over the origin of the mental pain.

I'd also be curious if you'd like to describe the difference between the Hiroshima sufferers and their neighbors, in the same physical condition, who were able to somehow avoid or overcome the suffering. I mean, can you describe the differences between what each group was actually experiencing or feeling?

Hypothetically, in such a situation those who avoided suffering would have done so by maintaining a level of control over their thinking and reactions, they wouldn't have allowed themselves to fall into thought patterns of panic and stress, of grieving for their losses and worrying about a future they'll miss out on. They would have tried to deal with the situation at face value, as it is without applying layers of emotional meaning and anxieties to what was happening. Whether that would actually be possible, even for the Buddha, were he to be in a position with his flesh dropping off and his eyes melting down his face, I don't know, but I hope it would be.

Actually, I think wealth is within our power, at least here in the US. I was extremely poor once but decided I didn't like it, so I became wealthy. (Didn't stay there, though. I lost interest in it.) Reputation and health seem less controllable, but there are things we can do to affect them, aren't there?

There are things we can do to affect them, and we can make wise choices that seemingly give us some control, but ultimately it is out of our hands. I know someone from Zimbabwe who now lives here in the UK who had a good life with a nice house and decent job. Then the currency of Zimbabwe collapsed and his five bedroom house with various stables and outhouses is now worth about as much as a Mars bar. We may seem safer, you and I, living in Western states, but we just never can know what's around the corner.

If I want to, can't I simply think myself wealthy? Especially if I look around and study how bad some people have it, I can become wealthy by an act of will. I can do the same with health, although not with reputation, since that lives in the heads of others.

Yes, that's precisely what you can do. Want what you have and don't want what you don't have.

That's not my experience. I think people can have organic flaws in their brains/minds just as they have them in their bodies. That makes it pretty hard for me to blame those who seem unable to achieve their ambitions. I'm a white male with a very high IQ. Just accidents of birth. So I can't blame the poor black woman down the road, raised and living in chaos, for never conquering the business world -- even if that was her ambition. Her mother was an alcoholic, and she is retarded.

Don't get me wrong, I realise people can exist in situations that make living difficult, and what I'm saying isn't about blame. What the Buddha and Stoics taught though isn't rocket surgery, the actual teachings are very simple to understand and easy to practice, what's hard is getting out of our current mindsets. I think it's possible for everyone, even the mentally handicapped. Certainly it would be more of a challenge to explain the principles to such a person, but I don't think it impossible.

Yes, we really do see things very differently. My willpower seems to me an accident of birth mostly. Yes, I think I've nurtured it, but I don't blame those who've been unable to do so. I see many of them as disadvantaged from birth.

As do they, no doubt. Even if such a thing were true though, they can still try, we don't all have to be Buddhas, just thinking a little differently about the situations we find ourselves in can improve our level of happiness.

Some seem that way, yes. But I've also known failures who make no complaint about their condition and status.

I would posit that if someone makes no complaint about their condition and status, if they are content with who and what they are, they aren't failures. And at the other end of the spectrum you can have what society deems as a success, a business man who is CEO of a powerful organisation "earning" millions of dollars a year, but who is morally bankrupt, defrauding his business partners, extorting his customers, cheating on his wife, who is stressed, depressed and angry, I can't think of a greater failure.

That's what attracted me to your quote in the first place. It seems to assert a truth about all people. If Epictetus had said that "Some are unhappy by reason of themselves alone," I'd have passed it by as an obviously true truth.

It's also what made him a great philosopher who inspired Emperors. If he were to go around just giving conventional truths that seemed obvious to everyone without having to think about how the truth related to their own lives, he would have fallen into obscurity as he would have been useless. By giving us truths that jar us out of our comfortable mindsets, that make us contemplate ourselves he was actually teaching something useful. Like you say, we wouldn't be having this conversation and you wouldn't be thinking about his teaching if he were a bland teacher, unwilling to upset the applecart of conventional belief.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

....first we need to distinguish pain from suffering, pain is physical, suffering is mental.

OK. I figured you were using the terms to make a distinction along those lines, but I’m new to these ideas so you’ll need to move slowly with me.

You can have two cancer patients in equally severe pain, yet one can seem to suffer from it much more than the other and that suffering comes from his response to his pain, not the pain itself.

That seems reasonable. I will make a small objection, which is that I think there are a physiological differences between individuals. Some people just don’t seem as sensitive to pain as others. I guess I’m saying that it’s not always a difference in mentally. Sometimes it seems related to our physical construction or nature.

But I observe that brutes seem to suffer less than sensitive poetic types. Dogs and cats don’t even react to injections, for example, which might send a fullgrown man into panicked terror. Maybe you’re saying that we can control the sensitivity? I had a dental procedure recently, and I noticed that the main effect of the drugs was to distract me from the pain. It still hurt, but I kept forgetting to focus on it and to care. So I didn’t suffer nearly so much as I would have if alert and conscious. (Yeah, I’m the sensitive poetic type.)

Secondly, both Buddhists and the Stoics taught that mankind is in a bit if a unique position and I tend to agree - cats lack what Epictetus called a "reasoning faculty" they can experience pain and their mind can make them suffer but they lack the capacity to analyse the origin of their suffering, it's in this analysis and the subsequent understanding of how and why we suffer that places us as humans in a position where we can reduce or even end suffering for ourselves.

I agree that we can reduce it, but not that we have the power to end it. I have heard stories, though, of Buddhist monks who – after years of training – seem able to escape into their minds when pain comes calling.

As I read those stories, though, I remember thinking that I wouldn’t want to spend my life in that sort of training. It seems they dedicate a large chunk of their time in training themselves for the avoidance of suffering, and I guess I’d rather suffer a bit more and train a bit less.

Hypothetically, in such a situation those who avoided suffering would have done so by maintaining a level of control over their thinking and reactions, they wouldn't have allowed themselves to fall into thought patterns of panic and stress, of grieving for their losses and worrying about a future they'll miss out on. They would have tried to deal with the situation at face value, as it is without applying layers of emotional meaning and anxieties to what was happening. Whether that would actually be possible, even for the Buddha, were he to be in a position with his flesh dropping off and his eyes melting down his face, I don't know, but I hope it would be.

Yeah, I’m thinking that you must be talking about longer-term suffering. Those people lying in the streets of Hiroshima – with hours or minutes left to live – probably didn’t have the time to avoid much of their suffering.

There are things we can do to affect them, and we can make wise choices that seemingly give us some control, but ultimately it is out of our hands. I know someone from Zimbabwe who now lives here in the UK who had a good life with a nice house and decent job. Then the currency of Zimbabwe collapsed and ....

Oh, sure. I agree with that. I have no illusions about holding onto my wealth or health or even my life if a meteor falls on my block.

Yes, that's precisely what you can do. Want what you have and don't want what you don't have.

I disagree pretty stoutly here. I’ve achieved a few minor things in my life, and I never would have done that if I hadn’t wanted something. I think of wanting as a good thing. It leads to accomplishment. Even when I fail, the effort of reaching beyond my grasp seems like a positive experience.

I realise people can exist in situations that make living difficult, and what I'm saying isn't about blame.

I’m sure you don’t think in terms of blame, but blame seems a necessary consequence of what you’re saying. You seem to be holding that the retarded black woman down the road from me could achieve if only she could generate the willpower for it. And that it’s possible for her to do so. I disagree with that, and I can’t help hearing, “It’s her fault if she doesn’t.” But maybe I’m still missing some important element of your outlook.

I think it's possible for everyone, even the mentally handicapped. Certainly it would be more of a challenge to explain the principles to such a person, but I don't think it impossible.

I guess this is a point on which we just can’t agree. That happens.

As do they, no doubt. Even if such a thing were true though, they can still try, we don't all have to be Buddhas, just thinking a little differently about the situations we find ourselves in can improve our level of happiness.

I’m sure you’re right about that. Most of us are slave to our current mindsets.

And at the other end of the spectrum you can have what society deems as a success, a business man who is CEO of a powerful organisation "earning" millions of dollars a year, but who is morally bankrupt, defrauding his business partners, extorting his customers, cheating on his wife, who is stressed, depressed and angry, I can't think of a greater failure.

I don’t think society generally sees such people as successes – judging from the stories we love most. Gordon Gecko was one of the greatest villains ever presented to us. Silas Marner was a humble hero. There are some who count raw wealth as success, but not so many, I think.

It's also what made him a great philosopher who inspired Emperors. If he were to go around just giving conventional truths that seemed obvious to everyone without having to think about how the truth related to their own lives, he would have fallen into obscurity as he would have been useless.

A fair argument, but such broad assertions make me see him as perhaps a great lecturer or teacher rather than a great philosopher. But maybe if he were here speaking to me directly, I’d think differently. It’s why I love argumentation over reading textbooks or listening to lectures. The best way to learn another worldview is through give-and-take, I think.

 

[evane123]

I think explaining that light is a dynamic matterial that passes through the eye and leaves the eye in tact because most if not all of the dyinamics pass through the eye. I think explaining that there are millions of receptors that recieve the light and that not any area seems to be missed within the veiw of the eye would help. I think once the light reaches the receptors that the light is transmitted to the brain. I think the receptor refocuses and the procedure is started again at speeds that can be figured by waving a hand fast and noticing the drag. I think the light is then transmitted to the brain. I think the color is decided by the light dynamics speed and size. I think black is nothing recieved (but seen in distance because of the refocus of the eye that is dealing with things at a distance and light intensity). I think white is the strongest light dynamic that can be seen because the eye becomes blind if a person stares at the sun. I think the speeds between at explained with amounts between black and white. I think some things are color blind to the other colors other than black and white.

 

[AfterGlow]

That seems reasonable. I will make a small objection, which is that I think there are a physiological differences between individuals. Some people just don’t seem as sensitive to pain as others. I guess I’m saying that it’s not always a difference in mentally. Sometimes it seems related to our physical construction or nature.

Oh, I agree that people have different pain thresholds, I'm not debating that. What I'm suggesting (and when I say "I" I really mean people like Epictetus and the Buddha) is that with the right understanding we can distinguish between pain and suffering, see pain for what it is, temporary, physical, not under our control. Suffering, mental anguish, lasts for as long as we let it, is as powerful as we allow it to be and utterly under our control. The teachings of Buddha and the Stoics aren't so much about enduring physical pain as they are about preventing mental pain. The average man when struck down with pain feels two pains, like being shot once and then being shot again, the first is nerve ending pain, the second mental suffering. The enlightened man, in theory, only has to deal with the first pain.

But I observe that brutes seem to suffer less than sensitive poetic types. Dogs and cats don’t even react to injections, for example, which might send a fullgrown man into panicked terror. Maybe you’re saying that we can control the sensitivity? I had a dental procedure recently, and I noticed that the main effect of the drugs was to distract me from the pain. It still hurt, but I kept forgetting to focus on it and to care. So I didn’t suffer nearly so much as I would have if alert and conscious. (Yeah, I’m the sensitive poetic type.)

It's not about controlling the physical response to pain so much as it is about controlling our mental reaction to it, not allowing ourselves to fall into despair and anguish. In practice this may reduce the physical pain, as in your example, because the more you think about a pain the more aware of it you become and the more the feeling becomes amplified in your consciousness, usually making it feel more intense.

I agree that we can reduce it, but not that we have the power to end it. I have heard stories, though, of Buddhist monks who – after years of training – seem able to escape into their minds when pain comes calling.

As I read those stories, though, I remember thinking that I wouldn’t want to spend my life in that sort of training. It seems they dedicate a large chunk of their time in training themselves for the avoidance of suffering, and I guess I’d rather suffer a bit more and train a bit less.

Which is reasonable. I think I said before that we don't all have to be Buddhas, nor monks, we can just apply the teachings of these guys to our daily lives and in doing so can learn to take control of our own happiness, rather than letting our happiness be dictated by others and our surroundings, or rather our reactions to others and our surroundings.

Yeah, I’m thinking that you must be talking about longer-term suffering. Those people lying in the streets of Hiroshima – with hours or minutes left to live – probably didn’t have the time to avoid much of their suffering.

Heh, probably not. I'm not saying this is something you can teach yourself to do in an hour, but if these people had been practicing to control their emotions and thoughts all their lives, why couldn't they continue to do so even under such extreme conditions as an atomic blast?

I disagree pretty stoutly here. I’ve achieved a few minor things in my life, and I never would have done that if I hadn’t wanted something. I think of wanting as a good thing. It leads to accomplishment. Even when I fail, the effort of reaching beyond my grasp seems like a positive experience.

I think you have a healthy attitude then. A lot of people don't think like that though. Very often wanting something we don't have or the wish to avoid something we do have but can't escape causes people a great deal of mental suffering. The ability to accept our failure to acquire the object of our desires without resentment, to remain content in the face of disappointment is at the core of Buddhist and Stoic philosophy.

I’m sure you don’t think in terms of blame, but blame seems a necessary consequence of what you’re saying. You seem to be holding that the retarded black woman down the road from me could achieve if only she could generate the willpower for it. And that it’s possible for her to do so. I disagree with that, and I can’t help hearing, “It’s her fault if she doesn’t.” But maybe I’m still missing some important element of your outlook.

I don't really do blame, like I said. Things are how they are, my feelings are that if we use circumstances as justification for inaction we are just shifting focus away from ourselves onto external phenomena. The woman down the street from you may be mentally handicapped, but does that mean she's a lost cause?
If the "retarded" woman can still reason, can still think like a human being, then her intelligence doesn't matter as the philosophy isn't complex, the language can be dumbed down for her. If she's so mentally handicapped that she can't think like a human being, or only has the mental age of a baby, then I'd agree with you that the circumstance would be too great for her to overcome.

I don’t think society generally sees such people as successes – judging from the stories we love most. Gordon Gecko was one of the greatest villains ever presented to us. Silas Marner was a humble hero. There are some who count raw wealth as success, but not so many, I think.

My point was that on paper such people appear successfull, they have money, influence, land, connections, everything the average Joe on the street aspires to. It's not until we learn of their darker aspects that these "successes" are shown in their true light, as hollow and meaningless.

A fair argument, but such broad assertions make me see him as perhaps a great lecturer or teacher rather than a great philosopher. But maybe if he were here speaking to me directly, I’d think differently. It’s why I love argumentation over reading textbooks or listening to lectures. The best way to learn another worldview is through give-and-take, I think.

Reading Epictetus is more like visiting a forum than having a lecture, a lot of it's written in socratic dialogue, it's a bit like listening in on a conversation. It's 2,000 years old so no copyright, read it here if you like Discourses - Google Books

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What I'm suggesting (and when I say "I" I really mean people like Epictetus and the Buddha) is that with the right understanding we can distinguish between pain and suffering, see pain for what it is, temporary, physical, not under our control. Suffering, mental anguish, lasts for as long as we let it, is as powerful as we allow it to be and utterly under our control. The teachings of Buddha and the Stoics aren't so much about enduring physical pain as they are about preventing mental pain. The average man when struck down with pain feels two pains, like being shot once and then being shot again, the first is nerve ending pain, the second mental suffering. The enlightened man, in theory, only has to deal with the first pain.

OK. Good explanation. It occurs to me, though, that I can never really grasp what you’re talking about. I mean, the condition of “non-suffering” is a mental state, so I could only begin to understand it by experiencing it. Does that sound right to you?

Now let’s say that I’m your little brother, whom you love dearly, and I’m suffering. Really suffering. But I’m also a skeptic. I have no more reason to believe in the state of non-suffering than in pixies, and I’m no more willing to study and practice toward the Buddha’s Way than toward studying pixies and going out on pixie hunts.

So how would you convince me that non-suffering is real?

I think I said before that we don't all have to be Buddhas, nor monks, we can just apply the teachings of these guys to our daily lives and in doing so can learn to take control of our own happiness, rather than letting our happiness be dictated by others and our surroundings, or rather our reactions to others and our surroundings.

Sounds reasonable. Can you tell me the major teachings? Just a couple of high points? (Or maybe you're already doing that by reviewing it with me here?)

Heh, probably not. I'm not saying this is something you can teach yourself to do in an hour, but if these people had been practicing to control their emotions and thoughts all their lives, why couldn't they continue to do so even under such extreme conditions as an atomic blast?

They might’ve done so. But I still can’t imagine how their experience would have been different from the experience of their neighbors. I guess there’s just no way to know that.

I think you have a healthy attitude then. A lot of people don't think like that though. Very often wanting something we don't have or the wish to avoid something we do have but can't escape causes people a great deal of mental suffering. The ability to accept our failure to acquire the object of our desires without resentment, to remain content in the face of disappointment is at the core of Buddhist and Stoic philosophy.

Literate friends have sometimes called me a stoic. On the other hand, I’ve also experienced a lot of mental suffering.

I remember one incident from my youth which makes me think I may have a bit of stoicism in me. A friend and I were on a fishing pier, and I was working with my much-loved pocketknife when it fell into the water. I continued working, but my friend became hysterical. “Your knife! It fell into the water! You lost your knife!”

“But it’s gone,” I answered. “There’s nothing I can do about it. The water’s too deep. Let’s get on with things.”

He looked at me like I was insane – he even called me insane, if I’m remembering right – but I really didn’t see the point of his reaction.

So maybe stoicism is like lots of other stuff. Intelligence, beauty, athletic skill. Maybe it’s mostly just built into us.

Reading Epictetus is more like visiting a forum than having a lecture, a lot of it's written in socratic dialogue, it's a bit like listening in on a conversation. It's 2,000 years old so no copyright, read it here if you like

Discourses - Google Books

Thanks for the reference. I’ll take a look.

 

[AfterGlow]

OK. Good explanation. It occurs to me, though, that I can never really grasp what you’re talking about. I mean, the condition of “non-suffering” is a mental state, so I could only begin to understand it by experiencing it. Does that sound right to you?

Now let’s say that I’m your little brother, whom you love dearly, and I’m suffering. Really suffering. But I’m also a skeptic. I have no more reason to believe in the state of non-suffering than in pixies, and I’m no more willing to study and practice toward the Buddha’s Way than toward studying pixies and going out on pixie hunts.

So how would you convince me that non-suffering is real?

Good question. I suppose in such a hypothetical situation I could only demonstrate by example, by remaining calm and content in situations we share but in which he forms mental suffering. In reality though, people experience non-suffering every day, people are often calm and content if nothing comes along to disturb them, the point of the philosophies we're talking about here is to remain in that calm state even when confronted with disturbances.

Sounds reasonable. Can you tell me the major teachings? Just a couple of high points? (Or maybe you're already doing that by reviewing it with me here?)

The teachings are vast, there are literally thousands of pages to the Buddhist scriptures and a variety of stoic thinkers we can read. If I were to try to sum up some of the most important aspects to me, I might say;
'Take a step back and try to see the world as it actually exists, minus the veil of emotion we usually use to interpret it',
'Act in accordance with nature, or to put it another way, don't struggle against what isn't in your power to change',
'Learn to let go',
'Think and act with kindness and understanding when dealing with other people'.

There's a lot more to it than that. For example, I would say the last one is just as much about reducing the disturbing aspects of our own minds, such as anger, hatred and greed, as it is about being compassionate to others.

Literate friends have sometimes called me a stoic. On the other hand, I’ve also experienced a lot of mental suffering.

I remember one incident from my youth which makes me think I may have a bit of stoicism in me. A friend and I were on a fishing pier, and I was working with my much-loved pocketknife when it fell into the water. I continued working, but my friend became hysterical. “Your knife! It fell into the water! You lost your knife!”

“But it’s gone,” I answered. “There’s nothing I can do about it. The water’s too deep. Let’s get on with things.”

He looked at me like I was insane – he even called me insane, if I’m remembering right – but I really didn’t see the point of his reaction.

So maybe stoicism is like lots of other stuff. Intelligence, beauty, athletic skill. Maybe it’s mostly just built into us.

I think the athletic skill example is a good analogy. Sure some people are born better at sports than others, but even the worst athlete can improve with practice, I believe the same is true for the mind.