You can’t just say that the essence of suffering is “the big sad”. These are all aspects.

And what is so depressing here? I really don’t understand. Is it that talking about suffering makes people sad? Is that how empathy works? This is a genuine question. I do not feel uncomfortable or sad talking/hearing about tragedy or suffering. I understand the feelings, but I don’t feel them. That’s why I would never link the philosophical discussion of suffering and depression.

Unless your point is that depression and suffering are linked? If that is the case, then I fully agree. One can cause the other, both ways.

So, do you not understand your emotions? Are they just “things that happen” to you?

I’m not trying to be mean. And I’m sorry if I came off that way. I just want to understand.

That is a very bleak perspective. By this logic, we can say that everything ever is meaningless.

Life of itself is not meaningless. It exists to test, create, and replicate patterns at a faster time scale than the regular processes of the universe. Meaning is usually assigned after the fact. Or at least that’s my experience.

I guess that makes sense. But not even the corrupt elites should suffer. We should find a more humane way for seeing them off. But that’s beside the point. Thank you for the explanation.

Physical pain is not caused by attachment. It could be caused, for example, by electricity, or perhaps a sharp object. No attachment needed.

And no, the physical body is not a form of attachment. It is a part of you just like the mind is. You literally cannot exist without some form of a body.

And what about suffering due to desease? Like having a very bad fever dream. Where’s the attachment there?

Do you get my perspective?

That is a very vague description. I’m not asking for a definition. What does it mean to you personally? Is it simply a “state of mind”. If so, is it equal to other states of mind, and if yes, in what ways?

The descriptor is not the essence. Do you look at an image and say that it is the thing it represents?

No offense, but you are like the third person to bring masochism into the discussion. What’s up with that? Just because someone “can find pain enjoyable” doesn’t mean that “suffering” means something else to them.

Or am I mistaken on that?

You mean as a concept or as in file? I assume a concept, since there are no file attachments or links here.

Attachment is definitely a cause of suffering, but it is not the essence of it. There can be suffering without attachment, and attachment without suffering.

I did not mean to look for scenarios of true suffering. That is pointless. I’m more interested in the concept itself. It’s not just pain and futility. Suffering is something else, something distinct. I’m not trying to find the “true definition”. I just want to know different perspectives to understand the concept better.

I do agree that the concept is subjective to a large degree, and what I am looking for are the parts that are not subjective, the “core” of the concept. Thank you for providing your perspective.

So is it subjective in your view?

And could you explain what you mean by “Some suffering I like, some suffering I don’t.”? I don’t exactly understand that one?

That seems more like futility than suffering. Futility is definitely a part of “suffering”, but I do not think it is the essence. There’s also the perception. If someone keeps making the same mistake and doesn’t notice, they do not suffer like the person who does notice.

But thank you for contributing your perspective.

I’m not asking the Buddha about the nature of suffering. I’m asking you, the people. What is it to you?

Is that an insult or just a misguided attempt to help? How is a schizophrenic theory a piece of computer hardware?

It was not a 3D render, it was a photo of a piece of hardware in the shape of a cube. Not cube-like, a cube with some parts sticking out. I’m like 90% sure it was mostly circuit board in deep blue. I don’t think it was a PC per se, but definitely physical hardware. And the official name might not be “The Tesseract” but that’s what all the articles called it.

That is a PC case of an enjoyable aesthetic.

It wasn’t an artist’s randition, it was photos. And it wasn’t a case, it looked like a component. Or maybe an entire computer in one, like the Raspberry Pi? I don’t know, man, it was a cube, I’m not a scientist.

The pictures could’ve been just some prop or something. I don’t know. Both articles I remember used the same pictures. I remember several photos from various angles. It was a new thing less than a decade ago. So 2010s would be the decade. It was definitely new kind of physical structure, but I’m not sure about actual computing architecture as in software side.

Actually, that could be it. I remember reading something about improved latency and changes in physical computing architecture. I’m not 100% sure this is it, but it’s definitely close to what I remember.

How would it be a promotion? It looked nothing like it did in the MCU. It had circuits and other parts like a graphics card does, or a motherboard. The circuit board was a dark blue, I think.

Edit: Turns out I can’t read. I read your comment as “Maybe it was a promotion or altered reality (as in ARG)”. But no, I don’t think that is the case. It’s not like remembering a detail wrong, like with the Mandela Effect. I couldn’t just have imagined reading several articles on a product. That’s not how it works, I don’t think.