Re: Ad - Loving what is - Andy

[Guest guest]

> That world -- the " illusion " as Steve refers to it -- is

> entirely, 100% subjectivity, and it can be a world of misery,

> unhappiness, stress, loneliness, pain. And even that is OK when it

> is held within a larger understanding. But even then, even so, it

> may not feel good.

>

Andy in my experience misery, unhappiness, stress, lonliness and pain

ONLY exist when I am believing an unexamined story. Pain as I see it

serves ONLY ONE PURPOSE: to remind me that I am caught up believing

an untrue thought and its time to inquire. If I am still in pain

after inquiry, that simply tells me that I don't really want the

truth yet I would prefer to be right. Every moment I am always making

a choice: " Do I want to be right or do I want to be happy? "

Happiness, joy and love is the natural state of every human being, if

I feel anything else I know it's time to inquire. Here are a few gems

from Byron on this subject that you might like to ponder, or

not!

" Confusion is the only suffering. "

" No story no pain. "

" The more obscure the awareness, the greater the pain. "

" This work is about the end of suffering. "

Loving what is ...

[Guest guest]

Andy in my experience misery, unhappiness, stress, lonliness and pain

ONLY exist when I am believing an unexamined story. Pain as I see it

serves ONLY ONE PURPOSE: to remind me that I am caught up believing

an untrue thought and its time to inquire.

*****This is speculation, founded on a belief system. All that can

be said, with certainty, is that pain appears to happen.

It's " purpose " ? Adopt a belief system (or, more accurately, be

adopted by it), and you'll have " the " reason.

If I am still in pain after inquiry, that simply tells me that I

don't really want the truth yet I would prefer to be right.

*****This is simply another interpretation. I'm not suggesting it is

not accurate. Clearly, for you, it is. There is a plethora of

explanations as to why one would still be in pain even after doing

inquiry.

Every moment I am always making a choice: " Do I want to be right or

do I want to be happy? "

*****Choices are happening but you aren't making them. No need to

insert a middleman in a process that does quite well without it.

Happiness, joy and love is the natural state of every human being,

*****This is a belief that I share too.

if I feel anything else I know it's time to inquire. Here are a few

gems from Byron on this subject that you might like to ponder,

or not!

" Confusion is the only suffering. "

" No story no pain. "

" The more obscure the awareness, the greater the pain. "

" This work is about the end of suffering. "

*****None of this is new. It's recycled Buddhism, 2500 years old.

Which is not to invalidate the observations [i like many of her

utterings also :-))]. It is just that it's old hat. When asked

about his teaching, the Buddha said it served " one and only one

purpose: the end of suffering. " Now, 2500 years later, there is

still the appearance and subjective experience of suffering. This

ought to tell a perceptive viewer about the possibility of

eradicating suffering on a world-wide basis. All we can say is that

suffering happens and -- in certain mindbody entities -- attempts to

end that suffering also occur. There are varying degress of success

at ending suffering, but none of them demonstrates that one

methodology is superior to another. If suffering is to end in a

particular bodymind organism, it will happen, regardless of what

practice/path the organism adopts. The suffering can even cease

without the entity doing anything.

[Guest guest]

Dear Andy,

some of my thoughts:

> Andy in my experience misery, unhappiness, stress, lonliness and pain

> ONLY exist when I am believing an unexamined story. Pain as I see it

> serves ONLY ONE PURPOSE: to remind me that I am caught up believing

> an untrue thought and its time to inquire.

>

> *****This is speculation, founded on a belief system.  All that can

> be said, with certainty, is that pain appears to happen. 

> It's " purpose " ?  Adopt a belief system (or, more accurately, be

> adopted by it), and you'll have " the " reason.

Isn't the question how far to take it? Can I meet you where you are? If

not, let's call it separation. If I can, I understand how you see it

that way, and it does not have to be my religion. Everything is a

story. And to explain one story with another can be very useful. And if

you put two stories against each other, it can only lead to confusion,

don't you think?

> If I am still in pain after inquiry, that simply tells me that I

> don't really want the truth yet I would prefer to be right.

>

> *****This is simply another interpretation.  I'm not suggesting it is

> not accurate.  Clearly, for you, it is.  There is a plethora of

> explanations as to why one would still be in pain even after doing

> inquiry.

>

>

> Every moment I am always making a choice: " Do I want to be right or

> do I want to be happy? "

>

> *****Choices are happening but you aren't making them.  No need to

> insert a middleman in a process that does quite well without it.

Yes, and I believe this may be hard to hear for some. And I hear that

you are not saying to drop the story.

> Happiness, joy and love is the natural state of every human being,

>

> *****This is a belief that I share too.

>

I had the thought that there is only love. Where I connect with ,

is when I heard her saying, that the fundamental pain is not the fear

of death but the fear of love.

> if I feel anything else I know it's time to inquire. Here are a few

> gems from Byron on this subject that you might like to ponder,

> or not!

>

> " Confusion is the only suffering. "

>

> " No story no pain. "

>

> " The more obscure the awareness, the greater the pain. "

>

> " This work is about the end of suffering. "

>

>

> *****None of this is new.  It's recycled Buddhism, 2500 years old. 

> Which is not to invalidate the observations [i like many of her

> utterings also :-))].  It is just that it's old hat.  When asked

> about his teaching, the Buddha said it served " one and only one

> purpose: the end of suffering. "   Now, 2500 years later, there is

> still the appearance and subjective experience of suffering.  This

> ought to tell a perceptive viewer about the possibility of

> eradicating suffering on a world-wide basis.  All we can say is that

> suffering happens and -- in certain mindbody entities -- attempts to

> end that suffering also occur.  There are varying degress of success

> at ending suffering, but none of them demonstrates that one

> methodology is superior to another.  If suffering is to end in a

> particular bodymind organism, it will happen, regardless of what

> practice/path the organism adopts. 

I can relate to the all-pathes-are-the-same religion. And I can not

know about other people suffering - and when they tell me so, I can

meet them at my own suffering. I don't know about varying degrees of

success at ending suffering.

> The suffering can even cease without the entity doing anything.

Did you not say that nothing can be done, anyway?

As far as I understand I don't follow *any* teacher, but myself.

Love,

[Guest guest]

>

> *****None of this is new. It's recycled Buddhism, 2500 years old.

> Which is not to invalidate the observations [i like many of her

> utterings also :-))]. It is just that it's old hat. When asked

> about his teaching, the Buddha said it served " one and only one

> purpose: the end of suffering. " Now, 2500 years later, there is

> still the appearance and subjective experience of suffering. This

> ought to tell a perceptive viewer about the possibility of

> eradicating suffering on a world-wide basis. All we can say is

> that suffering happens and -- in certain mindbody entities --

> attempts to end that suffering also occur. There are varying

> degress of success at ending suffering, but none of them

> demonstrates that one methodology is superior to another. If

> suffering is to end in a particular bodymind organism, it will

> happen, regardless of what practice/path the organism adopts. The

> suffering can even cease without the entity doing anything.

Andy this is just so not my experience. Rather than being " old hat " I

find that the Work offers a " real " way to end suffering which I for

one could never find in Buddhism or the non-dualistic teachers

although I am extremely well aquainted with what they are saying.

The Work is new (my story), certainly not a rehash of Buddhist or non-

dualistic thought although they may share some common ground. For

example, s order of creation: think, feel, act, have and the

emphasis on internal cause and effect, can not be found in any

Buddhist/non-dualistic text I have ever read. also brings a new

fresh understanding of projection and other defense mechanisms of the

mind, which have only recently been discovered with the work of S.

Freud.

had a moment of clarity after over ten years of depression and

other psychological disorders (her story). What is important for us

is that in that moment of clarity she brought back a true way to end

our own suffering through Inquiry. Yes, I could be depressed and

suicidal for over ten years and maybe I would have a similar moment

of clarity, but I don't have to do all that. I can inquire and end my

suffering now or not! And yes I know there is no " I " , but it is a

useful term for the purposes of discussion.

You know Andy I find everything I read from you as " old hat " , I have

heard it all before and frankly its becoming a little boring. If I

really wanted to hear the non-dualistic rehtoric I could find it on

any number of web sites, to hear it here just seems out of place, but

then that's just my story.

Loving what is ...