Why Am I Suffering?

This is not a question of theodicy. In this case, it’s a question of knowledge.

One suffers whenever awareness is “mixed up with” the content of objective experience.

This mixing makes it seem as if awareness’s being is localized and limited by the objective experience to which it seems to be bound.

How To Understand Suffering?

In two related ways: as an “error message” (Donald Hoffman quoted out of context) and as a signpost.

1. As an error message: suffering (of any kind) is indicating: “I don’t know,” “I don’t understand,” “I am confused.” 
2. As a signpost: suffering, in fact, is pointing to the nature of awareness (if only we know how to look).

What Is The Remedy?

It is to unmix awareness from the contents of objective experience.

This is termed “viveka” or “discrimination” in the language of Advaita Vedanta.

What’s An Example?

“I am deeply alone.” 

Here, “I” or “I am”–which is nothing but awareness–seems to have gotten itself mixed up with the predicate (“deeply alone’) such that it feels as if I really am alone.

Consequently, I’ll keep “playing the part of the lonely person.”

• I’ll feel as if I don’t belong. 
• I’ll pursue actions that make me feel less alone (e.g., by drinking). 
• I’ll join clubs–but still feel alienated.
• I’ll feel sorry for myself. 
• And so on.

Introducing The Witness Aspect Of The Awareness Teaching

We’re not moving onto the remedy. It will require genuine knowledge.

Below, I provide a slightly modified account of what I offered yesterday.

Fact #1: Awareness exists.

• Exercise here. 

Fact #2: Awareness is like the seer and objective experiences (thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and sensations) are like the seen.

• This is the witness teaching.
• Put differently: objective experiences appear to awareness.
  • Hearing, for instance, cannot arise unless it arises–or appears to–awareness. 
  • More here.

Fact #3: Awareness is the primary element in all experience.

• Thinking, for instance, is not primary because it comes and goes.
• But awareness does not disappear when a thought disappears. In fact, awareness remains as the background when thinking is appearing–and when thinking is disappearing.
• Moreover, awareness remains in the absence of all objective experiences–i.e., in the absence of thinking, feeling, sensing, and perceiving.

Fact #4: Awareness is unchanging while experiences change.

• Thoughts, sensations (cf. Goenka), and perceptions all change. Verify this.
• However, awareness does not change; as such, it is changeless.

So What?

• Check: if awareness is the background “seer” and if awareness doesn’t change, then how could it be in any way impacted, affected, altered, modified, stained, tainted, or–indeed–hurt by the rising and falling of any objective experience? 
• We say: “What you said really hurt me.” But–technically–hearing cannot hurt awareness, and this is clear when we stand naturally as aware presence.

In due course, it’s slowly understood that awareness, as such, does not (cannot) suffer.

Samskaric Investigation: Introduced

1. The simple proposition is that all suffering requires at least one samskara (or ego-self) on whose behalf this suffering is arising.

2. There are two ways to see through suffering. One is by letting go of attachments and aversions. The other is by going to the root, discovering the ego-self in question, and seeing it dissolve. In what follows, I discuss the latter.

3. There are many samskaras or ego-selves. Each has the same basic structure.

• “I” = awareness
• [psychological predicate]
• I is believed to be this predicate (e.g., “I am worthless”).

4. The point, in brief, will be to discover each samskara and to “unmix” awareness from the content of experience (e.g., “worthless,” “unlovable,” etc.).