Gozu
We cannot prove any of this. We are talking of subjective experience. And I totally agree that a human being’s environment has a big impact over his state of mind. But it does not have an impact over a state of no-mind. The challenge is to become aware of your ability of being outside your mind, to be “in this world, but not of it.” I have discussed the idea of no-mind upthread. Let me know if you understand or if there are some aspects which still do not come across clearly to you.
If someone where to hit you in the face, you would certainly undergo physical suffering (pain). However, in the moments after, you could either become lost in the emotion of repetitive, neurotic thought (mental suffering), or you could practice non-reactance; loving acceptance. Since you state, yourself, that “all suffering is in the mind anyways”, then you may see how if you simply accepted the pain for what it was, and turned the other cheek, you will withhold no internal suffering (mental struggle against the now, the now which logically cannot be denied), whereupon the aggressor likely will continue to suffer, since they were angry/irritated/fearful enough to hit you in the first place.
Was this an effective example?
And onto the point of “everybody breaks under torture”… is this provable? What about those who die during torture? Are you counting them as “breaking”? All it takes is one example otherwise to posit reasonable doubt on this point.
It wasn’t merely crucifixion. If you are interested in the entire process of torture which Christ supposedly underwent, you could open a Bible or you could watch Mel Gibson’s film, “The Passion of the Christ.” But to argue that Christ wasn’t tortured enough to prove the point that the egoic attachments to life can be silenced is to argue a technicality. We can always think of a more sadistic torture, if we so choose, even more so then testicle electrocution. There is no end to that debate. Personally, I think the bodily pain that Christ faced was more than enough to prove His point. We may agree to disagree on this though, if you so choose.
We know that people have died in hunger strikes, though. So, for their body, there was no difference between that and starvation, because they literally starved to death in their efforts. So then where did the difference lie? In their minds, or perhaps, the lack thereof.
But then you bring up, perhaps what may be, a much more powerful point; the notion of starvation not only of yourself but of your family as well. As I have commented on earlier, you cannot force a state of wisdom upon anyone, so even if your own experience is one of no suffering, it may be absolutely terrible to watch those whom are closest to your earthly existence in such a state of suffering.
But now I will argue why a state of complete no-mind, self-less-ness, is preferable even in this incredibly dire situation, and actually why allowing yourself to suffer in such a predicament is actually the selfish route.
As long as you know that earthly life is not the end, and you accept the present moment with loving acceptance of the reality which is occurring right before your eyes, you would not cause need-less suffering upon yourself (thoughts of guilt, remorse, regret, failure, etc), because it simply would do no good. It would not improve the situation. It would not bring food to your family. If anything, the most effective strategy may in fact be, the opposite, the silencing of the mind, which may allow inspiration to flow through, which may contain an answer to their intense suffering, if such an answer were to exist.
But even if such an answer would not come, I ask you this: In your final days with your family, wouldn’t it be best to live in the present moment anyway, so that you can focus in your totality, your love upon them? Conversely, if you are stuck in an egoiccally based cycle of thought (of guilt, etc), you would be wasting valuable cognitive resources and time which you could have used in expressing your undying love for those who are dying in front of you. By living in the moment, by not wallowing in remorse, you could *fully delve your self *into every single last moment with them, looking them straight in the eyes, and telling them over and over, “This is not the end. Trust me. I love you,” or any number of other expressions which may ease their pain.
But I will tell you this: One thing that will NOT ease their pain is watching YOU suffer as well. Therefore, it seems that self-imposed suffering is, in all its forms, by definition, selfish, because in such a state, being trapped cycling in loops of futile thought within your own mind, you literally cannot be self-less, and, therefore, you cannot be truly selfless! Thus, even in times most dire, I gracefully ask you to set the example of loving and full acceptance, and then to watch to see whether the world around you slowly adjusts to follow suite, as I believe it will.
Yes, they have tried to use religion, but have they tried to use their selves? You even mention “zen”, so then you must know that zen teaching has NO dogma, and therefore, NO religion to “teach”. It is all inner teaching, and the only thing a “teacher” can ever do is help guide you down your own path to enlightenment. This is because, contrary to contemporary Western religious thought, the answer cannot be found outside of you, unless it is first within you.
oh stop you rascal!!