Re: Some reflections on pain and suffering - Andy

[Guest guest]

Andy,

You asked:

" *****Are the above comments drawing an equivalence in the feeling,

sensation, and satisfaction of meeting someone in thought alone

(absent their physical presence, a presence which can be 'tested' by

taste, touch, sight, and smell), and meeting someone in thought & in

person? "

Yes, that is what I have heard do on several occasions. She

told one man whose wife had recently died that his wife had only

existed as a story in his mind both before and after her death and if

he thinks he needed something to touch, then he should get himself a

stuffed animal.

Steve D.

>

> > say's: suffering is an optional

> > Missing someone you love is an optional also?

> >

> > What do you think?

>

> Missing someone sounds like suffering to me, so I would definitely

> say that feeling was optional.

>

> When deals with someone who is missing someone they love

> because they have parted or died, she often asks if they have a

> picture of their loved one in their mind. Where does the loved one

> really exist? Isn't it just as a thought in your mind?

>

>

> *****Are the above comments drawing an equivalence in the feeling,

> sensation, and satisfaction of meeting someone in thought alone

> (absent their physical presence, a presence which can be 'tested'

by

> taste, touch, sight, and smell), and meeting someone in thought &

in

> person?

[Guest guest]

Andy,

You asked:

" *****Are the above comments drawing an equivalence in the feeling,

sensation, and satisfaction of meeting someone in thought alone

(absent their physical presence, a presence which can be 'tested' by

taste, touch, sight, and smell), and meeting someone in thought & in

person? "

Yes, that is what I have heard do on several occasions. She

told one man whose wife had recently died that his wife had only

existed as a story in his mind both before and after her death and if

he thinks he needed something to touch, then he should get himself a

stuffed animal.

*****Is there, then, a difference between what is asserted above and,

say, deriving pleasure from reading a menu as opposed to eating the

actual meal?

See, I understand where BK is coming from. In an Absolute sense I

can appreciate such teachings. I've been engaged in them for years,

intellectually. But as a living-breathing-hands-on " reality, " that

is not where I live, at the moment. Right now, the world that I

inhabit and move within (the illusion, as you refer to it) is very

real. In several Eastern traditions it is referred to as the

relative world, and, while being illusory, for most of humanity -

this person included - it holds a very strong pull.

It appears that Byron underwent a profound Opening, a

Transformation, a falling away of the mindbody identification, that

appears - from published reports - to be " available " to a very small

portion of the population. She -- like all the other reports I've

read of such happenings -- didn't " do " anything to bring this about.

It happened. It wasn't the result of prayer, meditation, " good

deeds, " or the Work. In fact, the Work didn't exist until post her

Opening. It was a Shift that came, unbidden.

It seems to me ass-backward to engage in the Work in the hopes of

producing or having a similar Understanding happen. This is not to

devalue what may arise from doing the Work, but I think that doing it

in the hopes of seeing, experiencing, and appreciating Life as BK

does is misguided. Many of her perceptions seem to have appeared

after her Opening but prior to the Work being generated.

Let me try an analogy. Imagine a classical musician, one who has

been trained, studied, and been engaged in the profession for dozens

of years. Excluding such luminaries as a Mozart and a Beethoven,

when the " average joe " hears a piece of classical music, he/she will

hear *some* of the things that the classicist does. Not all. Even

though it is ALL there for the hearing, some (or perhaps many) of the

undertones, the subtilties, will escape the " average joe. " Some of

what the classicist hears is just not heard by the " average joe. "

So: what BK sees, hears, understands, may be so -- for all of us.

But I don't hear it. Not yet. I understand the teaching. I can

see, quite clearly in fact, how all others arise in the localized

consciousness that is " me " ; that an experience of " reality " is born

from the confluence of a subject and an object.

And yet -- for me, at this moment -- there is a palpable difference

between being in the physical presence of another and simply

imagining, fantasizing about their being here. I can fantasize about

someone who not in my physical presence and may even experience, to a

limited degree, some of the other senses: sight, smell, taste. But

the immediacy of being in the other's presence is dramatically toned

down. It is simply not the same experience.

And it is similar with a menu. Reading it, I can, to a certain

extent, smell & taste the food. That experience is not filling, not

satisfying, physically, for me.

Yes, the world arises in consciousness, and consciousness is all

there is. And yet, for me, the relative world, the waking dream of

phenomenality, the illusion, is very real.

For me, the relative world is compelling. It is not the whole story,

to be sure, but it is part of the story. I do not deny the validity

of BK's comments to the widower: sure, all experience is a story and

the wife that was known by the man was the man's creation, but there

is a feeling here that such observations about the nature of loss,

while accurate, are not complete, and in their ignoring the relative

world of life and death, they miss the mark. And I am aware that

this says more about me than about BK and her understanding. But it

is my feeling that one can have both: the profound Understanding of

the Absolute, and a deep appreciation of the relative world of life

and death. Perhaps that is the most mature of all understandings.

[Guest guest]

Andy,

You ended your post with " But it is my feeling that one can have

both: the profound Understanding of the Absolute, and a deep

appreciation of the relative world of life and death. Perhaps that

is the most mature of all understandings. "

You could be right. It appears that way for me. For me, if one truly

has an understanding of the absolute then they would have to have a

deep appreciation for the relative world. Why leave out any part of

oneself? It is all me and it is all God and of course I love myself,

who wouldn't? I am just too greedy to leave any of it out.

You said " It seems to me ass-backward to engage in the Work in the

hopes of producing or having a similar Understanding happen. "

I don't understand your " ass-backward " however, Yes, I totally agree

with your point. always stresses the point that we do the Work

only to know the truth, never to change something or get something.

Thank you for so eloquently sharing your beliefs.

Steve D.

>

> Andy,

>

> You asked:

>

> " *****Are the above comments drawing an equivalence in the feeling,

> sensation, and satisfaction of meeting someone in thought alone

> (absent their physical presence, a presence which can be 'tested' by

> taste, touch, sight, and smell), and meeting someone in thought & in

> person? "

>

> Yes, that is what I have heard do on several occasions. She

> told one man whose wife had recently died that his wife had only

> existed as a story in his mind both before and after her death and

if

> he thinks he needed something to touch, then he should get himself a

> stuffed animal.

>

>

> *****Is there, then, a difference between what is asserted above

and,

> say, deriving pleasure from reading a menu as opposed to eating the

> actual meal?

>

> See, I understand where BK is coming from. In an Absolute sense I

> can appreciate such teachings. I've been engaged in them for

years,

> intellectually. But as a living-breathing-hands-on " reality, " that

> is not where I live, at the moment. Right now, the world that I

> inhabit and move within (the illusion, as you refer to it) is very

> real. In several Eastern traditions it is referred to as the

> relative world, and, while being illusory, for most of humanity -

> this person included - it holds a very strong pull.

>

> It appears that Byron underwent a profound Opening, a

> Transformation, a falling away of the mindbody identification, that

> appears - from published reports - to be " available " to a very

small

> portion of the population. She -- like all the other reports I've

> read of such happenings -- didn't " do " anything to bring this

about.

> It happened. It wasn't the result of prayer, meditation, " good

> deeds, " or the Work. In fact, the Work didn't exist until post her

> Opening. It was a Shift that came, unbidden.

>

> It seems to me ass-backward to engage in the Work in the hopes of

> producing or having a similar Understanding happen. This is not to

> devalue what may arise from doing the Work, but I think that doing

it

> in the hopes of seeing, experiencing, and appreciating Life as BK

> does is misguided. Many of her perceptions seem to have appeared

> after her Opening but prior to the Work being generated.

>

> Let me try an analogy. Imagine a classical musician, one who has

> been trained, studied, and been engaged in the profession for

dozens

> of years. Excluding such luminaries as a Mozart and a Beethoven,

> when the " average joe " hears a piece of classical music, he/she

will

> hear *some* of the things that the classicist does. Not all. Even

> though it is ALL there for the hearing, some (or perhaps many) of

the

> undertones, the subtilties, will escape the " average joe. " Some of

> what the classicist hears is just not heard by the " average joe. "

>

> So: what BK sees, hears, understands, may be so -- for all of us.

> But I don't hear it. Not yet. I understand the teaching. I can

> see, quite clearly in fact, how all others arise in the localized

> consciousness that is " me " ; that an experience of " reality " is born

> from the confluence of a subject and an object.

>

> And yet -- for me, at this moment -- there is a palpable difference

> between being in the physical presence of another and simply

> imagining, fantasizing about their being here. I can fantasize

about

> someone who not in my physical presence and may even experience, to

a

> limited degree, some of the other senses: sight, smell, taste. But

> the immediacy of being in the other's presence is dramatically

toned

> down. It is simply not the same experience.

>

> And it is similar with a menu. Reading it, I can, to a certain

> extent, smell & taste the food. That experience is not filling,

not

> satisfying, physically, for me.

>

> Yes, the world arises in consciousness, and consciousness is all

> there is. And yet, for me, the relative world, the waking dream of

> phenomenality, the illusion, is very real.

>

> For me, the relative world is compelling. It is not the whole

story,

> to be sure, but it is part of the story. I do not deny the

validity

> of BK's comments to the widower: sure, all experience is a story

and

> the wife that was known by the man was the man's creation, but

there

> is a feeling here that such observations about the nature of loss,

> while accurate, are not complete, and in their ignoring the

relative

> world of life and death, they miss the mark. And I am aware that

> this says more about me than about BK and her understanding. But

it

> is my feeling that one can have both: the profound Understanding of

> the Absolute, and a deep appreciation of the relative world of life

> and death. Perhaps that is the most mature of all understandings.

[Guest guest]

>

> It seems to me ass-backward to engage in the Work in the hopes of

> producing or having a similar Understanding happen. This is not to

> devalue what may arise from doing the Work, but I think that doing

> it in the hopes of seeing, experiencing, and appreciating Life as

> BK does is misguided. Many of her perceptions seem to have

> appeared after her Opening but prior to the Work being generated.

>

Here is another analogy Andy which you may find useful, or not!

There is a beautiful island in the pacific where there is no

suffering, because everyone there is sane. On the mainland there is

lots of suffering, because most are insane. was insane, but she

took over ten years to swim to the island, where she became sane.

also discovered a boat on the island called " Inquiry " . With

this boat anyone on the mainland could travel to the island and also

become sane and end their suffering.

returned to the mainland and started to tell everyone about the

boat and the island. Some could hear what she was saying some could

not. Some insisted that the only way to the island was to swim for

over ten years. gave them a gentle smile, because she knew that

was not true. The boat worked, because there were already many

hundreds of previously insane people on the island who were now sane.

also wondered why anyone would want to swim to the island and

suffer so much, when the boat could take them there so much more

quickly.

Some wanted to worship as a guru, but once again she gave them

a gentle smile. " You don't need me to get to the island " she

said, " just use the boat and you will get there, you have to do this

yourself " .

So the wise ones joined on the island, and they waited for the

rest of the people on the mainland to catch up, or not!

Loving what is ...