Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 26, 2018 14:09:27 GMT
Yes, Reefs 'two kinds of suffering' is far more confusing....the pain/suffering distinction is clear. To see that the presence of pain need not equal the presence of suffering....that (as siftingtothetruth has so nicely explained) suffering involves ' an interpretation' is what's important. Even Reefs 'thriving vs. not thriving' business is off imo. It's not that bodily health/condition no longer matters at all post SR, but absent identification with the body, it really does take a back seat in terms of importance and focus. Post SR, One's very definition of what it means to 'thrive' now has the seeing of underlying, all encompassing, inherent perfection coloring it. An idea such as "Thriving" then, is no longer solely attributed to bodily state, but now includes the bigger picture. One who is identified with form will see a withered, drying flower as definitely not thriving, but one who is not, can see the utter perfection of all stages and states of physical life....and that the dying flower is not something wrong or aberrant at all in the larger scheme of things. And in that seeing, the 'experience' of thriving can be, even alongside cancer. SR takes the focus off 'the personal'.....and in that, illuminates the fundamental perfection inherent in even something as personally distasteful as Cancer. And really, the notion of thriving is odd in the more expansive contexts, and really doesn't apply at all to the SR. Life happens within cycles of growth and decay. We wouldn't say a 100 year old who's body is failing is out of alignment because he's not thriving. All creatures are supposed to die. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 26, 2018 15:28:13 GMT
Yes, Reefs 'two kinds of suffering' is far more confusing....the pain/suffering distinction is clear. To see that the presence of pain need not equal the presence of suffering....that (as siftingtothetruth has so nicely explained) suffering involves ' an interpretation' is what's important. Even Reefs 'thriving vs. not thriving' business is off imo. It's not that bodily health/condition no longer matters at all post SR, but absent identification with the body, it really does take a back seat in terms of importance and focus. Post SR, One's very definition of what it means to 'thrive' now has the seeing of underlying, all encompassing, inherent perfection coloring it. An idea such as "Thriving" then, is no longer solely attributed to bodily state, but now includes the bigger picture. One who is identified with form will see a withered, drying flower as definitely not thriving, but one who is not, can see the utter perfection of all stages and states of physical life....and that the dying flower is not something wrong or aberrant at all in the larger scheme of things. And in that seeing, the 'experience' of thriving can be, even alongside cancer. SR takes the focus off 'the personal'.....and in that, illuminates the fundamental perfection inherent in even something as personally distasteful as Cancer. And really, the notion of thriving is odd in the more expansive contexts, and really doesn't apply at all to the SR. Life happens within cycles of growth and decay. We wouldn't say a 100 year old who's body is failing is out of alignment because he's not thriving. All creatures are supposed to die. Precisely E. Well said. I had that in mind as I wrote what I did, but didn't quite get around to capturing it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 26, 2018 16:20:15 GMT
The very asking of 'where' indicates a misconception is in play. 'I am' is the foundational presence that abides all experience. It never 'goes' or resides 'anywhere.' It's not a thing...it's awareness, Consciousness, Being, itself. And regardless of what's happening in terms of experiential content (which is always in flux, always changing, moving, 'impermanent'), I am remains constant. It's 'what's' always there, it abides all experience. And once you see clearly that it's always there and it's what you really are, it seems utterly fantastical, unbelievable that you could somehow have NOT seen it. That's why so many speak of laughing upon SR. In one sense, it's just so very obvious, it was just mind's stories that got in the way. Indeed, when it's realized that what I am is permanent, unwavering, in contrast to the body which is impermanent and in flux, there's a natural cessation of identification with the body (and all other appearance) that happens, but that doesn't mean a judgement or a 'disrespect' towards the body necessarily rushes in. You are looking to what is actually just an absence of identification with/an absence of attachment to the body, and labeling it 'disrespect' for the body. Inherent in your premise is the delusion that something that appears in experience is an actual cause/catalyst to something else that appears in experience. Absent that erroneous belief, there's no longer a story in play that says bodily health/condition is directly dependent upon something I choose to do or don't do. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5061/suffering?page=100#ixzz5SDsELuQ6Because, you draw a definite line of cause/effect between behavior and health.....you still identify with/as the appearing body/mind. You believe everyone 'should' take matters of the body very seriously because you cannot imagine being at peace, regardless of bodily state. You equate the two, (bodily condition/peace) where in SR, peace is clearly realized to be UN-conditional, not reliant, not dependent upon anything happening in experience. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Sept 28, 2018 2:24:54 GMT
The very asking of 'where' indicates a misconception is in play. 'I am' is the foundational presence that abides all experience. It never 'goes' or resides 'anywhere.' It's not a thing...it's awareness, Consciousness, Being, itself. And regardless of what's happening in terms of experiential content (which is always in flux, always changing, moving, 'impermanent'), I am remains constant. It's 'what's' always there, it abides all experience. Pizzamente with exactopepper on top. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Sept 28, 2018 2:27:46 GMT
Yes, Reefs 'two kinds of suffering' is far more confusing....the pain/suffering distinction is clear. To see that the presence of pain need not equal the presence of suffering....that (as siftingtothetruth has so nicely explained) suffering involves ' an interpretation' is what's important. Even Reefs 'thriving vs. not thriving' business is off imo. It's not that bodily health/condition no longer matters at all post SR, but absent identification with the body, it really does take a back seat in terms of importance and focus. Post SR, One's very definition of what it means to 'thrive' now has the seeing of underlying, all encompassing, inherent perfection coloring it. An idea such as "Thriving" then, is no longer solely attributed to bodily state, but now includes the bigger picture. One who is identified with form will see a withered, drying flower as definitely not thriving, but one who is not, can see the utter perfection of all stages and states of physical life....and that the dying flower is not something wrong or aberrant at all in the larger scheme of things. And in that seeing, the 'experience' of thriving can be, even alongside cancer. SR takes the focus off 'the personal'.....and in that, illuminates the fundamental perfection inherent in even something as personally distasteful as Cancer. Reefs point about how pain continues regardless of SR is solid and his framing it as two different kinds of suffering is an attempt to short-circuit the confusion caused by the limits of the pain/suffering distinction. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 28, 2018 19:58:50 GMT
Yes, Reefs 'two kinds of suffering' is far more confusing....the pain/suffering distinction is clear. To see that the presence of pain need not equal the presence of suffering....that (as siftingtothetruth has so nicely explained) suffering involves ' an interpretation' is what's important. Even Reefs 'thriving vs. not thriving' business is off imo. It's not that bodily health/condition no longer matters at all post SR, but absent identification with the body, it really does take a back seat in terms of importance and focus. Post SR, One's very definition of what it means to 'thrive' now has the seeing of underlying, all encompassing, inherent perfection coloring it. An idea such as "Thriving" then, is no longer solely attributed to bodily state, but now includes the bigger picture. One who is identified with form will see a withered, drying flower as definitely not thriving, but one who is not, can see the utter perfection of all stages and states of physical life....and that the dying flower is not something wrong or aberrant at all in the larger scheme of things. And in that seeing, the 'experience' of thriving can be, even alongside cancer. SR takes the focus off 'the personal'.....and in that, illuminates the fundamental perfection inherent in even something as personally distasteful as Cancer. Reefs point about how pain continues regardless of SR is solid and his framing it as two different kinds of suffering is an attempt to short-circuit the confusion caused by the limits of the pain/suffering distinction. If that distinction between pain vs. suffering references the absence vs. the presence of a sense of division/separation, are there actually limits to that distinction? Either that sense of separation is there or it isn't. I don't see any gray area myself. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Sept 29, 2018 11:20:08 GMT
Reefs point about how pain continues regardless of SR is solid and his framing it as two different kinds of suffering is an attempt to short-circuit the confusion caused by the limits of the pain/suffering distinction. If that distinction between pain vs. suffering references the absence vs. the presence of a sense of division/separation, are there actually limits to that distinction? Either that sense of separation is there or it isn't. I don't see any gray area myself. People peeps can never shake that sense of separation, so they can never reconcile the extreme hypotheticals, and while they might even have an experiential point of reference for the distinction based on genuine insight, the end of suffering is like a food they haven't tasted yet. It doesn't matter how you try to convey it to them, it's like trying to teach calculus to a cat. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 30, 2018 0:53:06 GMT
If that distinction between pain vs. suffering references the absence vs. the presence of a sense of division/separation, are there actually limits to that distinction? Either that sense of separation is there or it isn't. I don't see any gray area myself. People peeps can never shake that sense of separation, so they can never reconcile the extreme hypotheticals, and while they might even have an experiential point of reference for the distinction based on genuine insight, the end of suffering is like a food they haven't tasted yet. It doesn't matter how you try to convey it to them, it's like trying to teach calculus to a cat. Yeah...ok...I see what you're saying and agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 24, 2018 17:40:39 GMT
I'd also like to mention that through sharing your Satsang & relationship with Marie stories, you've also clearly relayed that it is precisely because of the 'absence' of all sorts of stuff, that the love you experience with and for her, continues to flows so unimpeded. Seems to me it could even be said that it's in the absence of fixed 'knowledge' you have about each other in general, that there is the absence then of fixed expectation re: the other, that allows that love to so freely flow. (love without an object). Yes. There's something I'd like to convey but I don't know how. When these realizations are embodied, there is, in a way, only Love happening. There's no need to know about the status of an other as relationship is not with some other. It only occurred to me recently that folks need to know if another is 'real' or if another suffers before Love can be allowed to move. Another one I'd like to re-visit. What is that really about? one needing to know for certain that there is a reciprocating 'object' involved, to both give and receive love? This is what's behind all the questions about how it is i can continue to love my husband, all the while seeing the ephemeral nature of the totality of experiential content, him included. I'd say it's the very dependency upon experience itself 'for Truth'. |
|
