What is suffering? (phenomenologically)
In this note, I try to detail what are the common phenomenological elements present in all conscious moments of suffering. By suffering, I mean it in its most rudimentary sense, which is subsequently a definition that is most general (in that it applies to/is to be found in a very broad range of experiences), but also a super precise pinpointing of a particular goings-on. What I mean by suffering is that thing that has inherent ‘disliking’ to it. The effect of dissatisfaction, undesirability. The thing that is the supposed problem in the universe that we all want to subvert, or avoid, or ignore, even. It is present when you cut yourself. It is present when your girlfriend/boyfriend breaks up with you. It is present when you are slightly uncomfortable in your chair. It is even present in states of glee or deep absorption/meditative states. It is not present when you are unconscious or during states of complete ego death.
Broken down into its essential parts, suffering, quite plainly, is the combination of two intertwined phenomena, plus a third adjunct.
They are: 1) the experience of the epistemic self that comes with 2) inherent negative valence attached to it, plus 3) some sense of contraction. The epistemic self and the quality of negative valence seem to be inseparable; meaning they cannot be experienced without the other. However, the sense of contraction, although always present when suffering occurs, can be experienced without a sense of self or feeling of undesirability.
Suffering is that quality of experience that is unavoidably judged to be not preferable. I do not mean judged by the intellect who can, in fact, interpret suffering to be positive by layering on beliefs on top of the raw experience. For example, the pain felt while exercising can be judged to be a good thing by the intellect because it has the perspective that this pain now means growth later. I am not referring to the judgement made by this faculty of mind. I am referring to a more base level of being which does not have a voice but either deems an experience as being 1. Positive (would like the experience to continue) 2. Negative (would like the experience to stop), or 3. Neutral (is indifferent to whether the experience continues or stops). This is a moment by moment analysis of a particular phenomenon and is separate from (though can be influenced by) higher-order assessors in the mind — such as the intellect — who take into consideration the context of the experience. Regardless, when there is negative valence associated with some phenomena in the mind this is suffering.
Where there is a sense of self, there is some suffering. When there is no scintilla of self there is no suffering. Moments of a complete absence of any identification (Ego death) come with zero value-laden judgements. These moments are considered neutral. These moments happen many times a second, interspersing even bouts of severe suffering. On the contrary, as soon as there is even the slightest sense of self-hood, and the epistemic self is the first kind of self to show its face, that state is immediately considered undesirable in some way. Some may say they have experiences of self-hood that do not cause them suffering, but I insist that if you examine experience more closely there will always be some dissatisfaction coupled in the experience. Once an experience of ego death has been realised, no other experience really compares.*
The Sense of contraction is to consciousness like friction burn is to skin. The feeling of contraction is perceived as either a solidification of experience, an increase in density, a tightening, volume clumping, or in-pull of phenomena. There is a heaviness to it and is found in all sense impressions (physical sensations, sounds, sights, other mental forms etc.). It is the opposite of the sense of expansion, which is the other subtle most perceived change in experience. Contraction normally defines the existence of an object in the mind and this can bring the sense of self. It is, however, possible to experience the sense of contraction without suffering. Indeed, the phenomena of contraction can be present while ego death is occurring.
*To my knowledge, the sense of self (no matter how quaint) always brings some suffering and there is no state more preferable to ego death. Out of all the states of mind I have experienced, there are none which I would want to have forever, except for ego death; and this is not for how pleasurable it is, but because it is the only state that brings 100% freedom from suffering. I cannot subvert this assessment of mine that there is an asymmetry between pleasure and suffering. suffering > pleasure
