Is debate fundamentally painful?

bemoan said: "My implied question was: can there be even more incomprehensibly high levels of mental wellbeing, such that debating is not painful?"

and

"Orasis: "I guarantee that all of the advanced yogis on here have almost incomprehensibly high levels of mental wellbeing."

Then why so much conflict? =P."

Orasis said:

"I'm pretty sure you're kidding, but for others I think this is an important point. Many will project that any conflict is very "un-enlightened". I find this an utterly false notion.

It is absolutely impossible for a physical body, a vessel for conversation, to be omniscient.

As we all know from our noting practice, we are only experiencing the tiniest fraction of reality at any given moment. These experiences of reality create mental models. When these mental models are in communication with each other, there is *guaranteed* to be differences, either subtle or gross in how these models are constructed.

To move the perception of reality closer to reality, these metal models must interact with each other, debate each other, and enrich each other - moving each closer to the Truth."

I believe that debate and conflict of mental models is fundamentally painful just as burning your hand is fundamentally painful, regardless of the level of attainment.

A debate is sourced in a gross mismatch of conceptual models between two or more parties. The tension or pain inherent in this mismatch is due to differences in models highlighting some mismatch with true reality.

Perhaps *my* model is errant, but I have typically found that any deeply embedded mental structure that does is grossly out of line with reality is painful.

I agree. It makes sense to me that debate is fundamentally painful. It is a sign of stress, maybe not grossly so, but nonetheless stress, and it is caused by what you call a "conflict" and/or "mismatch".

There are times where I perceive this stress in debate very vividly, and it always leads to me downright closing the window where the text of the debate is, even if I can think of something to ease the mismatch in the debate. In such a case it is seen that even my contribution, in best of intentions, would just be a perpetuation of stress, as anyone would be able to misunderstand what I intended to communicate, or I would express myself insufficiently.

At those times I'm struck by the sheer impossibility of communication. And what follows that is usually a great appreciation of the value of intimate silence. Ah, yes. Silence...

It is only stress if we are clinging to views. :]

metta!

Justin

"It is only stress if we are clinging to views. :]
"

And speech

My experience is that there are basically two ways of relating to a difference of opinion, or a difference between my opinion and reality. One, struggle to impose my view/resist the other as he/she tries to do the same. Two, learn. Learning isn't painful, inherently.

I frequently have interactions with others whose models of reality are significantly different from mine and I really enjoy this when both parties choose option two. Even when one starts out coming from One and the other from Two, if we both get on the Two page, all is well and things evolve.

Every model is generated in the light of a specific purpose: we make topo maps for one use, political maps for another, and other kinds of maps for other purposes. The nature of representation (which models are composed of) is to highlight some features of a phenomena and downplay others. Each phenomena in its suchness is infinitely rich and can never be encompassed in a model.

The more I internalize this insight, the more my ongoing experience of life takes on the qualities of infinite richness, freshness and change, and the less likely I am to confuse a model with reality. The more likely i am to appreciate the pragmatic nature of models: that what a given model highlights and downplays reflects the use to which it's to be put. The more this insight waxes, the less stressful interacting with others who habitually utilize different models becomes, because to the extent that i'm awake in any moment there's a corresponding appreciation of the automatic inherent limits of models and so different models are neither a surprise nor an insult but rather more evidence of the richness and openness of life!

"The nature of representation (which models are composed of) is to highlight some features of a phenomena and downplay others. Each phenomena in its suchness is infinitely rich and can never be encompassed in a model."

This got me thinking about the speculation that our brains, and maybe even the universe itself, might be holographic in nature. Very interesting hypothesis. I don't have any links for further reading, but you can always search for it.

Justine: "It is only stress if we are clinging to views."

Yes, Justin. I also think that is right.

I believe clinging and fixation is the source of suffering. That comes first. Then afflictive states. I believe feeling states is the wrong focus and understanding.

Without such grasping and fixation, appearances arise and pass away without issue. Emotions arise and pass away without issue. All is impermanent, including positive feeling states. Like clouds in the sky is the traditional analogy. However, in the absence of afflictive states '˜transcendent' perfection / completeness is realised as one's baseline. Such transcendent completeness is what I belief AF is referring to. It is not emotional in nature. AF is right about that. It has a non-dual felt sense though. However, no one is free of obscurations / conditioning all the time. Thus, there is a continuum of realisation of the ground of reality, even as in truth, there is no dichotomy / dualism. Realisation of that truth in real time is a different matter though.

Subtle levels of grasping and fixation give rise to attachments around personal perspective and associated conceptual models. I believe subtle levels of grasping and fixation will always remain following from personality conditioning and more broadly, the conditioning of life experiences. They become increasingly transparent to a practitioner.

(cont.) edited for typos and clarity.

However, those with sufficient penetration of said conditions / dependent origination / appearances; with direct realisation of emptiness, will see that grasping and conditioning in real time and let it go there and then in real time, to greater or lesser degrees. This is a continuum of development, practice and realisation. It has no end. Stages will be complete though, with more to come. Obscurations will be seen through and levels of freedom will be achieved.

Those who cannot see their ongoing conditioning and the more subtle levels of grasping and fixation are not completely free (in terms of a stage and level of stabilisation of their ongoing baseline), even as they think they are. This failure to recognise subtle grasping and fixation is ordinary ignorance at yet a more subtle level, yet to be penetrated. Hence, those who claim to be actually free, in fact are not. Just a phase, a Kenneth says. Just my opinion, of course.

I believe some have achieved an advanced stage. It is the false and erroneous interpretation of that stage, the process and causes that lead them there; and the imposition of broader metaphysical and ontological conceptual models onto that experience, that has resulted in an exclusive, adversarial and oppressive position towards other traditions and practitioners via their language, view, philosophy and behaviour. Unintentionally, I believe. The default argument then seems to be to make it personal by suggesting another practitioner has failed to realise the same depth as they, and so has no place or credibility in offering an alternative interpretation of personal practice and experience. This has been the same oppressive and ignorant political tool utilised in much adversarial religious debate throughout the ages.

(cont.)

...
edited as a double post.

I agree with AFers insofar as the thesis proposed becomes somewhat more clear, I would argue, in what some call pce. I would suggest pce is simply the direct realisation of the inseparability of emptiness and appearances. A deep realisation of emptiness and no-self. A deep realisaiton of complete and perfect freedom. This is known to many long term practitioners from many traditions. This allows one to see what it feels like to be free of fixation and grasping; and recognise the basic ground of reality as emptiness and luminosity, inseparable from phenomena; and its basic or natural condition of perfection or completeness. This is my experience after extensive testing and also my understanding of the Mahayana, which is why I ascribe to it, and propose it as the best alternative to AF. However, I also agree that the same basic view is found in Buddhism and other non-dual traditions generally; with obvious idiosyncratic variation. Hence, I suggest a universal and inclusive, rather than exclusive and adversarial, position towards all spiritual practitioners and traditions. In this way every person's view and realisation is unique given their and its location along a continuum of penetration into the basic conditions of reality. One's ongoing personal conditioning is the variable! This is certainly unique to all and the determining factor in colouring realisation of the view in moment to moment experience of reality.

I belief AF practitioners are speaking of the same basic experiences found in many traditions. However, with many coming from Theravada, particularly the Burmese tradition, they have not been sufficiently exposed a deeper level analysis of the Mahayana, and so have looked to AF to explain their experiences. I would simply say the non-dual traditions do a much better job generally.

(cont.) edited for clarity

The confusion is fundamentally one of semantics. However, false conclusions have also been inferred by AF philosophy; thus, making it exclusive of other traditions that have realised similar, but ultimately divergent insights. Political motivations have influenced this on both sides. But I digress.

So I would suggest it is not about emotion or not emotion. It is about fixation giving rise to afflictive states. Thus, the chain of dependent origination and the process of suffering, and also the path to its end.

See reality clearly with enough depth and penetration otherwise known as pce, or utilise progressive penetration via methodical vipassana '“ eventually resulting in the same thing - and one will see through the obscurations following from grasping and fixation. PCE can be achieved through several methods found outside of AF, and has been done so by practitioners in all traditions. See all of the great known mystics as examples of this. Do this repeatedly through time and one will dissolve one's habit patterns, otherwise known as conditioning; thus, undermining the tendency towards fixation and suffering. This is a process of refinement, eventually resulting in sainthood, or Buddhahood. I know of no such western Buddha or saint. Though a few could be candidates. Especially no AFers. In my opinion, clearly a great deal of fixation and lack of insight continues. Hence, the painful nature of debate and conflict.

In kind regards,

Adam.

Of the things that you speak of that I was able to grasp, I, for one, completely agree.

I have but one small comment: The emphasis on the PCE in AF, and the means of which to arrive at one, I believe are very succinctly put, although also very idiosyncratically. This path seems to be oh-so fast compared to many other traditions. Not necessarily in arriving at the end goal, but for reaching at least advanced stages of realization. If one agrees with this, then it is in everyones best interest to explore further the actualism method.

Hey StaianGH!

For clarity would you please say which AF method you speak of that is very effective in resulting pce? Thanks! I will let you know if I recognise it from any other traditions.

Adam.

I guess what I'm trying to get at, is the debate *itself* painful. Are mis-alignments in conceptual models fundamentally painful? I'm not speaking about people who may or may not interpret that tension as suffering. I'm talking about the tension itself. Is it inherent?

To say it another way, I find the concept of an enlightened concept to be an impossibility - thus a totally enlightened conversation is a fundamental impossibility since words and concepts are fundamentally a gross simplification of reality.

Hello Adam.

I wholeheartedly agree. Thank you for your precise and detailed clarification. You manage to put clearly what I wanted to point out, but fumbled with the proper language to do so. *gratitude*

Justin

"I guess what I'm trying to get at, is the debate *itself* painful. Are mis-alignments in conceptual models fundamentally painful? I'm not speaking about people who may or may not interpret that tension as suffering. I'm talking about the tension itself. Is it inherent?

To say it another way, I find the concept of an enlightened concept to be an impossibility - thus a totally enlightened conversation is a fundamental impossibility since words and concepts are fundamentally a gross simplification of reality.
"

Hi Orasis,

Tension or stress in regards to conflicting models / maps / opinion will only arise insofar as one fixates / clings / attaches to said model(s).

As Adam has pointed out, while different practitioners may experience from a generally similar level within a continuum of awakening, they will likely always be unique to some degree in this way.

There will only be suffering / tension / stress if they are clinging to whatever current level of realization they are working with. ( in regards to discussion of maps ) Great teachers who have profound depth have a greater capacity for meeting various practitioners wherever they may be within this continuum.

metta!

Justin

I guess your question answers itself insofar as 'is tension fundamentally painful?' I would suggest tension, at least human, but more broadly as pressure on existing structures, the nature of change and impermanence, is uncomfortable if not painful. But then life is ongoing pressure and tensions given basic life drives and needs, and competing biological, psychological and social systems.

Orasis: "gross simplification of reality"

True! But we work with the limitations we find ourselves in, right?

Leaving aside utterly the specific context and topics, skillful conversation can happen on any subject, between people of any level of "enlightenment" or no enlightenment at all. On forums in general (on any subject) there is a tendency to get right to the point, be brief, and leave aside the nuances we might use in person. Many of us don't know each other in person. Some people don't tend to be nuanced even in real life either. Just for example of how different styles of conversation make for different levels of discomfort:

Friend is sobbing, angry. "That ***** insulted me in front of my boss, I am devastated."
Friend 2 can get right to the point: "You're being a doormat and wallowing in self-pity. Get over it."
or
Friend 2 can mirror and lead Friend 1 gently along, having some sympathy with Friend 1's distress: "What happened? Aw. That sucks. Yeah, I hear you. I can see that really upset you. Is there some way you can change this relationship? What if you tried this? What about trying that? Have you thought about the fact she might be jealous..." etc.

Debate, discussion, argument, conversation: all of these can happen either way, or with some combination. Some people might find the latter method a real time waster, since it doesn't get right to the point. But it tends to make for a much smoother ride, and it helps the person who is uncomfortable find their own answers, which mean more than being told what to do. When people find their own answers, they tend to have more confidence in themselves and be less defensive.

Anyway, just to offer some ideas about the issue of whether "debate" needs to be inherently painful or not. How tolerable bluntness is going to be can also depend on whether you know the other person intimately in real life, and your own sensitivity, and whether or not you get a thrill from an argument or not. Thoughts?