Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 For forty-five years, the Buddha said, over and over again, " I teach only suffering and the transformation of suffering. " When we recognize and acknowledge our own suffering, the Buddha - which means the Buddha in us - will look at it, discover what has brought it about, and prescribe a course of action that can transform it into peace, joy, and liberation. Suffering is the means the Buddha used to liberate himself, and it is also the means by which we can become free. ~ Thich Nhat Hanh http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/suffering.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > For forty-five years, the Buddha said, over and over again, " I teach > only suffering and the transformation of suffering. " When we recognize > and acknowledge our own suffering, the Buddha - which means the Buddha > in us - will look at it, discover what has brought it about, and > prescribe a course of action that can transform it into peace, joy, > and liberation. Suffering is the means the Buddha used to liberate > himself, and it is also the means by which we can become free. > > ~ Thich Nhat Hanh > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/suffering.html > Conscious suffering brings the suffering to an end, through revealing its unreal nature. Not that suffering is unreal, because it is damn real when it hurts, but it´s causes are unreal: images. len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > For forty-five years, the Buddha said, over and over again, " I teach > > only suffering and the transformation of suffering. " When we > recognize > > and acknowledge our own suffering, the Buddha - which means the > Buddha > > in us - will look at it, discover what has brought it about, and > > prescribe a course of action that can transform it into peace, joy, > > and liberation. Suffering is the means the Buddha used to liberate > > himself, and it is also the means by which we can become free. > > > > ~ Thich Nhat Hanh > > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/suffering.html > > > > > Conscious suffering brings the suffering to an end, through revealing > its unreal nature. > Not that suffering is unreal, because it is damn real when it hurts, > but it´s causes are unreal: images. > > len > ************* Suffering Is. It's very real. But the ROOT OF SUFFERING...what is that?? " I suffer because....? " " Silver " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > For forty-five years, the Buddha said, over and over again, " I > teach > > > only suffering and the transformation of suffering. " When we > > recognize > > > and acknowledge our own suffering, the Buddha - which means the > > Buddha > > > in us - will look at it, discover what has brought it about, and > > > prescribe a course of action that can transform it into peace, > joy, > > > and liberation. Suffering is the means the Buddha used to > liberate > > > himself, and it is also the means by which we can become free. > > > > > > ~ Thich Nhat Hanh > > > > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/suffering.html > > > > > > > > > Conscious suffering brings the suffering to an end, through > revealing > > its unreal nature. > > Not that suffering is unreal, because it is damn real when it > hurts, > > but it´s causes are unreal: images. > > > > len > > > > ************* > > Suffering Is. It's very real. But the ROOT OF SUFFERING...what is > that?? " I suffer because....? " .... I take images for reality. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- > 1069@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > For forty-five years, the Buddha said, over and over > again, " I > > teach > > > > only suffering and the transformation of suffering. " When we > > > recognize > > > > and acknowledge our own suffering, the Buddha - which means > the > > > Buddha > > > > in us - will look at it, discover what has brought it about, > and > > > > prescribe a course of action that can transform it into peace, > > joy, > > > > and liberation. Suffering is the means the Buddha used to > > liberate > > > > himself, and it is also the means by which we can become free. > > > > > > > > ~ Thich Nhat Hanh > > > > > > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/suffering.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conscious suffering brings the suffering to an end, through > > revealing > > > its unreal nature. > > > Not that suffering is unreal, because it is damn real when it > > hurts, > > > but it´s causes are unreal: images. > > > > > > len > > > > > > > ************* > > > > Suffering Is. It's very real. But the ROOT OF SUFFERING...what > is > > that?? " I suffer because....? " > > ... I take images for reality. > > Len > ********** Hmmm. Do you mean that imagination is the root of suffering? How does imagination arise? What is the root of imagination? The root of imagination would be the root of suffering then? What is it? Believing in imagined reality? Giving credence to one's own imaginings? how does that happen? How do we come to accept as True what should be obviously false?? Obvious? If it were obvious, no one would give credence to their imaginings. Maybe the root of suffering is the fact that things are not layed out so explicitly. A misunderstanding of Everything? Lack of Understanding and once Understood, then....WHAT? Then suffering dissolves? The ROOT OF SUFFERING is lack of Understanding. What is understanding? Is it Wisdom? Wisdom with a capital W? Sophia, the Matriarch of Old. One of the Old Wise Ones. " Silver " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- > > 1069@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For forty-five years, the Buddha said, over and over > > again, " I > > > teach > > > > > only suffering and the transformation of suffering. " When we > > > > recognize > > > > > and acknowledge our own suffering, the Buddha - which means > > the > > > > Buddha > > > > > in us - will look at it, discover what has brought it about, > > and > > > > > prescribe a course of action that can transform it into > peace, > > > joy, > > > > > and liberation. Suffering is the means the Buddha used to > > > liberate > > > > > himself, and it is also the means by which we can become > free. > > > > > > > > > > ~ Thich Nhat Hanh > > > > > > > > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/suffering.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conscious suffering brings the suffering to an end, through > > > revealing > > > > its unreal nature. > > > > Not that suffering is unreal, because it is damn real when it > > > hurts, > > > > but it´s causes are unreal: images. > > > > > > > > len > > > > > > > > > > ************* > > > > > > Suffering Is. It's very real. But the ROOT OF SUFFERING...what > > is > > > that?? " I suffer because....? " > > > > ... I take images for reality. > > > > Len > > > > ********** > > Hmmm. Do you mean that imagination is the root of suffering? How > does imagination arise? What is the root of imagination? The root > of imagination would be the root of suffering then? What is it? > Believing in imagined reality? Giving credence to one's own > imaginings? how does that happen? How do we come to accept as True > what should be obviously false?? Obvious? If it were obvious, no > one would give credence to their imaginings. Maybe the root of > suffering is the fact that things are not layed out so explicitly. > A misunderstanding of Everything? Lack of Understanding and once > Understood, then....WHAT? Then suffering dissolves? The ROOT OF > SUFFERING is lack of Understanding. What is understanding? Is it > Wisdom? Wisdom with a capital W? Sophia, the Matriarch of Old. > One of the Old Wise Ones. > > " Silver " It is the image which makes us suffer. Image is a thought: thought about future pain, future danger, future loss... When you suffer (and it´s not toothache, but something psychological) there is always a negative image about something involved, negative judgement. But this image is not the thing itself, the image of my future poverty, after I´ve lost my job, is not the actual poverty, the image of my lonely life after she has left me is not the actual loneliness. So we are scared of the image. The moment the image is gone, there is no suffering. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- > 1069@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- > > > 1069@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > <lissbon2002@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For forty-five years, the Buddha said, over and over > > > again, " I > > > > teach > > > > > > only suffering and the transformation of suffering. " When > we > > > > > recognize > > > > > > and acknowledge our own suffering, the Buddha - which > means > > > the > > > > > Buddha > > > > > > in us - will look at it, discover what has brought it > about, > > > and > > > > > > prescribe a course of action that can transform it into > > peace, > > > > joy, > > > > > > and liberation. Suffering is the means the Buddha used to > > > > liberate > > > > > > himself, and it is also the means by which we can become > > free. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Thich Nhat Hanh > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/suffering.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conscious suffering brings the suffering to an end, through > > > > revealing > > > > > its unreal nature. > > > > > Not that suffering is unreal, because it is damn real when > it > > > > hurts, > > > > > but it´s causes are unreal: images. > > > > > > > > > > len > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************* > > > > > > > > Suffering Is. It's very real. But the ROOT OF > SUFFERING...what > > > is > > > > that?? " I suffer because....? " > > > > > > ... I take images for reality. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > ********** > > > > Hmmm. Do you mean that imagination is the root of suffering? How > > does imagination arise? What is the root of imagination? The > root > > of imagination would be the root of suffering then? What is it? > > Believing in imagined reality? Giving credence to one's own > > imaginings? how does that happen? How do we come to accept as > True > > what should be obviously false?? Obvious? If it were obvious, no > > one would give credence to their imaginings. Maybe the root of > > suffering is the fact that things are not layed out so > explicitly. > > A misunderstanding of Everything? Lack of Understanding and once > > Understood, then....WHAT? Then suffering dissolves? The ROOT OF > > SUFFERING is lack of Understanding. What is understanding? Is it > > Wisdom? Wisdom with a capital W? Sophia, the Matriarch of Old. > > One of the Old Wise Ones. > > > > " Silver " > > > > It is the image which makes us suffer. > Image is a thought: thought about future pain, future danger, future > loss... > When you suffer (and it´s not toothache, but something > psychological) there is always a negative image about something > involved, negative judgement. But this image is not the thing > itself, the image of my future poverty, after I´ve lost my job, is > not the actual poverty, the image of my lonely life after she has > left me is not the actual loneliness. So we are scared of the image. > The moment the image is gone, there is no suffering. > > Len ******* Yes. I think that's what needs to be understood so that the Reality of Suffering can be surrendered to. The actual suffering. The loneliness, the poverty, the real psychological pain, the real physical harm resulting from our collective actions. Thank you for this most engaging discussion. :-) " Silver " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- > > 1069@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- > > > > 1069@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > > <lissbon2002@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " > <illusyn@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For forty-five years, the Buddha said, over and over > > > > again, " I > > > > > teach > > > > > > > only suffering and the transformation of suffering. " > When > > we > > > > > > recognize > > > > > > > and acknowledge our own suffering, the Buddha - which > > means > > > > the > > > > > > Buddha > > > > > > > in us - will look at it, discover what has brought it > > about, > > > > and > > > > > > > prescribe a course of action that can transform it into > > > peace, > > > > > joy, > > > > > > > and liberation. Suffering is the means the Buddha used > to > > > > > liberate > > > > > > > himself, and it is also the means by which we can become > > > free. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Thich Nhat Hanh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/suffering.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conscious suffering brings the suffering to an end, > through > > > > > revealing > > > > > > its unreal nature. > > > > > > Not that suffering is unreal, because it is damn real when > > it > > > > > hurts, > > > > > > but it´s causes are unreal: images. > > > > > > > > > > > > len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************* > > > > > > > > > > Suffering Is. It's very real. But the ROOT OF > > SUFFERING...what > > > > is > > > > > that?? " I suffer because....? " > > > > > > > > ... I take images for reality. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > ********** > > > > > > Hmmm. Do you mean that imagination is the root of suffering? > How > > > does imagination arise? What is the root of imagination? The > > root > > > of imagination would be the root of suffering then? What is > it? > > > Believing in imagined reality? Giving credence to one's own > > > imaginings? how does that happen? How do we come to accept as > > True > > > what should be obviously false?? Obvious? If it were obvious, > no > > > one would give credence to their imaginings. Maybe the root of > > > suffering is the fact that things are not layed out so > > explicitly. > > > A misunderstanding of Everything? Lack of Understanding and > once > > > Understood, then....WHAT? Then suffering dissolves? The ROOT > OF > > > SUFFERING is lack of Understanding. What is understanding? Is > it > > > Wisdom? Wisdom with a capital W? Sophia, the Matriarch of > Old. > > > One of the Old Wise Ones. > > > > > > " Silver " > > > > > > > > It is the image which makes us suffer. > > Image is a thought: thought about future pain, future danger, > future > > loss... > > When you suffer (and it´s not toothache, but something > > psychological) there is always a negative image about something > > involved, negative judgement. But this image is not the thing > > itself, the image of my future poverty, after I´ve lost my job, is > > not the actual poverty, the image of my lonely life after she has > > left me is not the actual loneliness. So we are scared of the > image. > > The moment the image is gone, there is no suffering. > > > > Len > > ******* > > Yes. I think that's what needs to be understood so that the Reality > of Suffering can be surrendered to. The actual suffering. The > loneliness, the poverty, the real psychological pain, the real > physical harm resulting from our collective actions. > > Thank you for this most engaging discussion. > > :-) > > " Silver " If you really surrender to reality, with no images, there is hardly suffering. Maybe just some physical pain, that´s all. Image gone, suffering gone. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 In a message dated 3/27/2006 6:39:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:14:33 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Regarding Buddha and the notion of suffering Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- > > 1069@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- > > > > 1069@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > > <lissbon2002@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " > <illusyn@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For forty-five years, the Buddha said, over and over > > > > again, " I > > > > > teach > > > > > > > only suffering and the transformation of suffering. " > When > > we > > > > > > recognize > > > > > > > and acknowledge our own suffering, the Buddha - which > > means > > > > the > > > > > > Buddha > > > > > > > in us - will look at it, discover what has brought it > > about, > > > > and > > > > > > > prescribe a course of action that can transform it into > > > peace, > > > > > joy, > > > > > > > and liberation. Suffering is the means the Buddha used > to > > > > > liberate > > > > > > > himself, and it is also the means by which we can become > > > free. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Thich Nhat Hanh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/suffering.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conscious suffering brings the suffering to an end, > through > > > > > revealing > > > > > > its unreal nature. > > > > > > Not that suffering is unreal, because it is damn real when > > it > > > > > hurts, > > > > > > but it´s causes are unreal: images. > > > > > > > > > > > > len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************* > > > > > > > > > > Suffering Is. It's very real. But the ROOT OF > > SUFFERING...what > > > > is > > > > > that?? " I suffer because....? " > > > > > > > > ... I take images for reality. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > ********** > > > > > > Hmmm. Do you mean that imagination is the root of suffering? > How > > > does imagination arise? What is the root of imagination? The > > root > > > of imagination would be the root of suffering then? What is > it? > > > Believing in imagined reality? Giving credence to one's own > > > imaginings? how does that happen? How do we come to accept as > > True > > > what should be obviously false?? Obvious? If it were obvious, > no > > > one would give credence to their imaginings. Maybe the root of > > > suffering is the fact that things are not layed out so > > explicitly. > > > A misunderstanding of Everything? Lack of Understanding and > once > > > Understood, then....WHAT? Then suffering dissolves? The ROOT > OF > > > SUFFERING is lack of Understanding. What is understanding? Is > it > > > Wisdom? Wisdom with a capital W? Sophia, the Matriarch of > Old. > > > One of the Old Wise Ones. > > > > > > " Silver " > > > > > > > > It is the image which makes us suffer. > > Image is a thought: thought about future pain, future danger, > future > > loss... > > When you suffer (and it´s not toothache, but something > > psychological) there is always a negative image about something > > involved, negative judgement. But this image is not the thing > > itself, the image of my future poverty, after I´ve lost my job, is > > not the actual poverty, the image of my lonely life after she has > > left me is not the actual loneliness. So we are scared of the > image. > > The moment the image is gone, there is no suffering. > > > > Len > > ******* > > Yes. I think that's what needs to be understood so that the Reality > of Suffering can be surrendered to. The actual suffering. The > loneliness, the poverty, the real psychological pain, the real > physical harm resulting from our collective actions. > > Thank you for this most engaging discussion. > > :-) > > " Silver " If you really surrender to reality, with no images, there is hardly suffering. Maybe just some physical pain, that´s all. Image gone, suffering gone. Len Physical pain does not necessitate suffering. Pain is sensation only. Suffering is the resistance to the sensation. Surrender will resolve suffering, whether it is emotional or physical. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > For forty-five years, the Buddha said, over and over again, " I teach > > only suffering and the transformation of suffering. " When we > recognize > > and acknowledge our own suffering, the Buddha - which means the > Buddha > > in us - will look at it, discover what has brought it about, and > > prescribe a course of action that can transform it into peace, joy, > > and liberation. Suffering is the means the Buddha used to liberate > > himself, and it is also the means by which we can become free. > > > > ~ Thich Nhat Hanh > > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/suffering.html > > > > > Conscious suffering brings the suffering to an end, through revealing > its unreal nature. > Not that suffering is unreal, because it is damn real when it hurts, > but it´s causes are unreal: images. > > len > The " hurt " is unreal as well. Anything seen/felt as " mine " is unreal. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- > 1069@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > For forty-five years, the Buddha said, over and over > again, " I > > teach > > > > only suffering and the transformation of suffering. " When we > > > recognize > > > > and acknowledge our own suffering, the Buddha - which means > the > > > Buddha > > > > in us - will look at it, discover what has brought it about, > and > > > > prescribe a course of action that can transform it into peace, > > joy, > > > > and liberation. Suffering is the means the Buddha used to > > liberate > > > > himself, and it is also the means by which we can become free. > > > > > > > > ~ Thich Nhat Hanh > > > > > > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/suffering.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conscious suffering brings the suffering to an end, through > > revealing > > > its unreal nature. > > > Not that suffering is unreal, because it is damn real when it > > hurts, > > > but it´s causes are unreal: images. > > > > > > len > > > > > > > ************* > > > > Suffering Is. It's very real. But the ROOT OF SUFFERING...what > is > > that?? " I suffer because....? " > > ... I take images for reality. > > Len > that's good and " images " as such take time. what takes time is unreal. without time there can not be suffering. to suffer is to be " in time " . to wake up from suffering is to no longer be " in time " , to no longer " be as someone " , but for all of that to have dissolved into Now. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > For forty-five years, the Buddha said, over and over again, " I teach > > > only suffering and the transformation of suffering. " When we > > recognize > > > and acknowledge our own suffering, the Buddha - which means the > > Buddha > > > in us - will look at it, discover what has brought it about, and > > > prescribe a course of action that can transform it into peace, joy, > > > and liberation. Suffering is the means the Buddha used to liberate > > > himself, and it is also the means by which we can become free. > > > > > > ~ Thich Nhat Hanh > > > > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/suffering.html > > > > > > > > > Conscious suffering brings the suffering to an end, through revealing > > its unreal nature. > > Not that suffering is unreal, because it is damn real when it hurts, > > but it´s causes are unreal: images. > > > > len > > > The " hurt " is unreal as well. > Anything seen/felt as " mine " is unreal. > > Bill Hurt in the meaning of the pain felt in the body is real. A house is real, whether I call it mine or not, it's still there. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > For forty-five years, the Buddha said, over and over again, " I > teach > > > > only suffering and the transformation of suffering. " When we > > > recognize > > > > and acknowledge our own suffering, the Buddha - which means the > > > Buddha > > > > in us - will look at it, discover what has brought it about, and > > > > prescribe a course of action that can transform it into peace, > joy, > > > > and liberation. Suffering is the means the Buddha used to > liberate > > > > himself, and it is also the means by which we can become free. > > > > > > > > ~ Thich Nhat Hanh > > > > > > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/suffering.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conscious suffering brings the suffering to an end, through > revealing > > > its unreal nature. > > > Not that suffering is unreal, because it is damn real when it > hurts, > > > but it´s causes are unreal: images. > > > > > > len > > > > > The " hurt " is unreal as well. > > Anything seen/felt as " mine " is unreal. > > > > Bill > > > Hurt in the meaning of the pain felt in the body is real. > A house is real, whether I call it mine or not, it's still there. > > Len > You are talking an ordinary language sense of the term real. I am talking in nondual terms. What about *feelings*? Are feelings " real " ? You could argue so, of course. That would be an ordinary way to speak. But I am saying that any feelings one " has " as " one's own " are unreal. They are illusion. If the " hurt " is a feeling one has, then for that ownership process to occur there has to be time. Actually, without time there is no possibility of even labeling as " hurt " or as " my hurt " . Try it when you are in the dentist chair next time. Try being so present with whatever sensations that the sensations are experienced instant by instant. The body might straighten, the abdomen might tighten. But if totally in the Now it is a blur of sensation. Not exactly pleasant, but just a chaos of sensation, nevertheless. When totally in the Now there is no *time* for " I am feeling pain " . So when I say " real " I mean when there is only Now, when there is no time, *that* I am saying, is real. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 --- billrishel <illusyn a écrit : Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > For forty-five years, the Buddha said, over and over again, " I > teach > > > > only suffering and the transformation of suffering. " When we > > > recognize > > > > and acknowledge our own suffering, the Buddha - which means the > > > Buddha > > > > in us - will look at it, discover what has brought it about, and > > > > prescribe a course of action that can transform it into peace, > joy, > > > > and liberation. Suffering is the means the Buddha used to > liberate > > > > himself, and it is also the means by which we can become free. > > > > > > > > ~ Thich Nhat Hanh > > > > > > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/suffering.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conscious suffering brings the suffering to an end, through > revealing > > > its unreal nature. > > > Not that suffering is unreal, because it is damn real when it > hurts, > > > but it´s causes are unreal: images. > > > > > > len > > > > > The " hurt " is unreal as well. > > Anything seen/felt as " mine " is unreal. > > > > Bill > > > Hurt in the meaning of the pain felt in the body is real. > A house is real, whether I call it mine or not, it's still there. > > Len > You are talking an ordinary language sense of the term real. I am talking in nondual terms. What about *feelings*? Are feelings " real " ? You could argue so, of course. That would be an ordinary way to speak. But I am saying that any feelings one " has " as " one's own " are unreal. They are illusion. If the " hurt " is a feeling one has, then for that ownership process to occur there has to be time. Actually, without time there is no possibility of even labeling as " hurt " or as " my hurt " . Try it when you are in the dentist chair next time. Try being so present with whatever sensations that the sensations are experienced instant by instant. The body might straighten, the abdomen might tighten. But if totally in the Now it is a blur of sensation. Not exactly pleasant, but just a chaos of sensation, nevertheless. When totally in the Now there is no *time* for " I am feeling pain " . So when I say " real " I mean when there is only Now, when there is no time, *that* I am saying, is real. Bill those sensations can also be understood as pure energy. when the mind labels them as " hurt " it resists it. Patricia ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > --- billrishel <illusyn a écrit : > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For forty-five years, the Buddha said, over > and over again, " I > > teach > > > > > only suffering and the transformation of > suffering. " When we > > > > recognize > > > > > and acknowledge our own suffering, the Buddha > - which means the > > > > Buddha > > > > > in us - will look at it, discover what has > brought it about, and > > > > > prescribe a course of action that can > transform it into peace, > > joy, > > > > > and liberation. Suffering is the means the > Buddha used to > > liberate > > > > > himself, and it is also the means by which we > can become free. > > > > > > > > > > ~ Thich Nhat Hanh > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/suffering.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conscious suffering brings the suffering to an > end, through > > revealing > > > > its unreal nature. > > > > Not that suffering is unreal, because it is damn > real when it > > hurts, > > > > but it´s causes are unreal: images. > > > > > > > > len > > > > > > > The " hurt " is unreal as well. > > > Anything seen/felt as " mine " is unreal. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Hurt in the meaning of the pain felt in the body is > real. > > A house is real, whether I call it mine or not, it's > still there. > > > > Len > > > > You are talking an ordinary language sense of > the term real. I am talking in nondual terms. > > What about *feelings*? Are feelings " real " ? > You could argue so, of course. That would > be an ordinary way to speak. > > But I am saying that any feelings one > " has " as " one's own " are unreal. They > are illusion. If the " hurt " is a feeling > one has, then for that ownership process > to occur there has to be time. Actually, > without time there is no possibility of > even labeling as " hurt " or as " my hurt " . > Try it when you are in the dentist chair > next time. Try being so present with whatever > sensations that the sensations are experienced > instant by instant. The body might straighten, > the abdomen might tighten. But if totally in > the Now it is a blur of sensation. Not > exactly pleasant, but just a chaos of > sensation, nevertheless. When totally in > the Now there is no *time* for " I am feeling > pain " . > > So when I say " real " I mean when there is > only Now, when there is no time, *that* > I am saying, is real. > > Bill > > those sensations can also be understood as pure > energy. > when the mind labels them as " hurt " it resists it. > Patricia > let's look at that... " pure energy " is a label as well, is it not? so... to-label is to-categorize is to-think-about-what-to-do... that is how it is seeming to me... that the *very labeling* -- nevermind " what kind of " label -- is a mode of processing that inherently seeks to control. do I witness a flower more purely if I see it as " energy " or if I have no thought about the flower? or to see it another way: does not applying a label, even one such as " pure energy " , does not that in itself create a separation, an illusion of this-here-labeling, that-there-labeled? I am actually asking. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 When totally in the Now there is no *time* for " I am feeling pain " . L.E: I appreciate your good intensions but there is and can be pain in the present, just no suffering. Pain is physical. Suffering is emotional. You cannot suffer and be in the present so when there is an experience of emotional hurt you suffer until it subsides enough to again have the possibility of existing in or entering the present. IMHO. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > When totally in > the Now there is no *time* for " I am feeling > pain " . > > > L.E: I appreciate your good intensions but there is and can be pain in the present, just no suffering. > Pain is physical. Suffering is emotional. You cannot suffer and be in the present so when there is an experience of emotional hurt you suffer until it subsides enough to again have the possibility of existing in or entering the present. IMHO. > > Larry Epston Read my words a little more carefully... I said, " no *time* for 'I am feeling pain' " . The *thought* " I am feeling pain " requires time. I did not say there is no pain. But even pain is much different when there is complete presence, complete acute awareness. It would seem that would just make it worse. But the opposite is the case. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 --- billrishel <illusyn a écrit : Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > When totally in > the Now there is no *time* for " I am feeling > pain " . > > > L.E: I appreciate your good intensions but there is and can be pain in the present, just no suffering. > Pain is physical. Suffering is emotional. You cannot suffer and be in the present so when there is an experience of emotional hurt you suffer until it subsides enough to again have the possibility of existing in or entering the present. IMHO. > > Larry Epston Read my words a little more carefully... I said, " no *time* for 'I am feeling pain' " . The *thought* " I am feeling pain " requires time. I did not say there is no pain. But even pain is much different when there is complete presence, complete acute awareness. It would seem that would just make it worse. But the opposite is the case. Bill aaahhh pain. I remember giving birth, and it took three days because of the pain. Now I look at it with awe, what incredible energy. But then, at the time, it was ...like trying to eliminate a watermelon...see what I mean? intense energie and maybe life nose to nose with death. P ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > --- billrishel <illusyn a écrit : > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > When totally in > > the Now there is no *time* for " I am feeling > > pain " . > > > > > > L.E: I appreciate your good intensions but there is > and can be pain > in the present, just no suffering. > > Pain is physical. Suffering is emotional. You > cannot suffer and be > in the present so when there is an experience of > emotional hurt you > suffer until it subsides enough to again have the > possibility of > existing in or entering the present. IMHO. > > > > Larry Epston > > Read my words a little more carefully... > I said, " no *time* for 'I am feeling pain' " . > The *thought* " I am feeling pain " requires time. > I did not say there is no pain. > > But even pain is much different when there is complete > presence, complete acute awareness. It would seem > that would just make it worse. But the opposite is > the case. > > Bill aaahhh pain. I remember giving birth, and it took three days because of the pain. Now I look at it with awe, what incredible energy. But then, at the time, it was ...like trying to eliminate a watermelon...see what I mean? intense energie and maybe life nose to nose with death. P ~~~~~ am seeing what you mean about that... it seems when you say " intense energie " it is like what I call the the " sparkle of Now " ... I mean how more Now can you get than " life nose to nose with death " ? There's no slack in that. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Bill: When totally in the Now there is no *time* for " I am feeling pain " . > > > > > > L.E: I appreciate your good intensions but there is > and can be pain > in the present, just no suffering. > > Pain is physical. Suffering is emotional. You > cannot suffer and be > in the present so when there is an experience of > emotional hurt you > suffer until it subsides enough to again have the > possibility of > existing in or entering the present. IMHO. > > > > Larry Epston > > Read my words a little more carefully... > I said, " no *time* for 'I am feeling pain' " . > The *thought* " I am feeling pain " requires time. > I did not say there is no pain. > > But even pain is much different when there is complete > presence, complete acute awareness. It would seem > that would just make it worse. But the opposite is > the case. L.E: O.K. It's a grammar problem. I agree there is no I am problem in the present, but that's also true in the not present, the un-present. A human organism is not the verbal I am we use to refer to ourselves, it just exists as intelligent life. But I suppose that in the not present, the combination of pain and suffering together is more intense than pain in the present without suffering. But is still hurts bad sometimes so it's best to avoid pain if possible. It's a good thing the I am that doesn't exist but thinks it does in the not-present tries to keep the organism from damage, danger or harm. Amazing how a not existing ego can protect itself from harm most of the time or even to put itself in harms way some of the time as in being a killer murderer soldier protecting our democracy and freedom > Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > > > Bill: When totally in the Now there is no *time* for " I am feeling > pain " . > > > > > > > > > L.E: I appreciate your good intensions but there is > > and can be pain > > in the present, just no suffering. > > > Pain is physical. Suffering is emotional. You > > cannot suffer and be > > in the present so when there is an experience of > > emotional hurt you > > suffer until it subsides enough to again have the > > possibility of > > existing in or entering the present. IMHO. > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > Read my words a little more carefully... > > I said, " no *time* for 'I am feeling pain' " . > > The *thought* " I am feeling pain " requires time. > > I did not say there is no pain. > > > > But even pain is much different when there is complete > > presence, complete acute awareness. It would seem > > that would just make it worse. But the opposite is > > the case. > > L.E: O.K. It's a grammar problem. I agree there is no I am problem in the present, but that's also true in the not present, the un-present. A human organism is not the verbal I am we use to refer to ourselves, it just exists as intelligent life. But I suppose that in the not present, the combination of pain and suffering together is more intense than pain in the present without suffering. But is still hurts bad sometimes so it's best to avoid pain if possible. It's a good thing the I am that doesn't exist but thinks it does in the not-present tries to keep the organism from damage, danger or harm. Amazing how a not existing ego can protect itself from harm most of the time or even to put itself in harms way some of the time as in being a killer murderer soldier protecting our democracy and freedom > > > Larry Epston But is still hurts bad sometimes so it's best to avoid pain if possible. ~~~~~~ It is best to be very aware and very present. That's it. And that applies to mortal danger as well as to " just being " with grace in the normal scheme of things. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 It is best to be very aware and very present. That's it. And that applies to mortal danger as well as to " just being " with grace in the normal scheme of things. Bill L.E: I agree with you, unforunately, most humans know nothing about this possibility and experience both suffering and pain together. I suffer at times as well. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For forty-five years, the Buddha said, over and over again, " I > > teach > > > > > only suffering and the transformation of suffering. " When we > > > > recognize > > > > > and acknowledge our own suffering, the Buddha - which means the > > > > Buddha > > > > > in us - will look at it, discover what has brought it about, and > > > > > prescribe a course of action that can transform it into peace, > > joy, > > > > > and liberation. Suffering is the means the Buddha used to > > liberate > > > > > himself, and it is also the means by which we can become free. > > > > > > > > > > ~ Thich Nhat Hanh > > > > > > > > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/suffering.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conscious suffering brings the suffering to an end, through > > revealing > > > > its unreal nature. > > > > Not that suffering is unreal, because it is damn real when it > > hurts, > > > > but it´s causes are unreal: images. > > > > > > > > len > > > > > > > The " hurt " is unreal as well. > > > Anything seen/felt as " mine " is unreal. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Hurt in the meaning of the pain felt in the body is real. > > A house is real, whether I call it mine or not, it's still there. > > > > Len > You are talking an ordinary language sense of > the term real. I am talking in nondual terms. What I say is not related to any theory, it´s just perception. What I imagine, what only exists as an image, a thought, a fantasy, I call unreal. Every kid can understand that. What I really see, I call real. This is a matter of word use. > What about *feelings*? Are feelings " real " ? > You could argue so, of course. That would > be an ordinary way to speak. Feelings are real, in the meaning that when you feel sad you may cry, when you feel angry, the adrenaline is running through your body. There is a factuality to a feeling: the state of the body, the tears, the adrenaline, and also the consequences of a feeling (passionate murder) are very real. Someone is really dead, his kids have really lost their father, it is not imagination, it is not a thriller on TV. The causes of feelings are unreal though, for they are images. Imagination causes real feelings, real hurt, real pain, however when the imagination ceaes, the feelings, the hurt, the pain also cease. > But I am saying that any feelings one > " has " as " one's own " are unreal. Feelings are only there when they are owned. There are no feelings that one " has " as not one´s own. If they aren´t owned, there are no feelings. The ownership is a thought, cause the owner is a thought. The thought of owning or losing whatever triggers feelings. When the ownership isn´t there, there are no feelings. But again, feelings are real physiological reactions, which even can be mesured, which even can lead to stress, agression, illness, dead. So images (unreal) lead to real stuff: pain, killing, suicide... > They > are illusion. If the " hurt " is a feeling > one has, then for that ownership process > to occur there has to be time. Actually, > without time there is no possibility of > even labeling as " hurt " or as " my hurt " . Yes. Without time/thinking this hurt simply wouldn´t be . > Try it when you are in the dentist chair > next time. Try being so present with whatever > sensations that the sensations are experienced > instant by instant. The body might straighten, > the abdomen might tighten. But if totally in > the Now it is a blur of sensation. Not > exactly pleasant, but just a chaos of > sensation, nevertheless. When totally in > the Now there is no *time* for " I am feeling > pain " . > > So when I say " real " I mean when there is > only Now, when there is no time, *that* > I am saying, is real. > > Bill You mean, there is no owner without thinking/time. True. I don´t like calling things unreal in theory, though. I mean that feelings are only there if the owner/time is there. If the owner is there, there is no use in calling feelings unreal, because this is theory. It is the " owner " who calls them unreal ;-) What is really seen as unreal, is no more. If it is there, you might THINK it is unreal, you might want to BELIEVE it is unreal, because it suits you, because you don´t want to deal with it. But you don´t really see that it´s unreal, because in the case you see that, nothing is there left to be called unreal. Believing that something is unreal is itself unreal. When no illusion is there, is there a need to call anything unreal? No. It is the illusion which wants to call the illusion unreal, creating another illusion on top of the first illusion :-) Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > --- billrishel <illusyn a écrit : > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For forty-five years, the Buddha said, over > and over again, " I > > teach > > > > > only suffering and the transformation of > suffering. " When we > > > > recognize > > > > > and acknowledge our own suffering, the Buddha > - which means the > > > > Buddha > > > > > in us - will look at it, discover what has > brought it about, and > > > > > prescribe a course of action that can > transform it into peace, > > joy, > > > > > and liberation. Suffering is the means the > Buddha used to > > liberate > > > > > himself, and it is also the means by which we > can become free. > > > > > > > > > > ~ Thich Nhat Hanh > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/suffering.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conscious suffering brings the suffering to an > end, through > > revealing > > > > its unreal nature. > > > > Not that suffering is unreal, because it is damn > real when it > > hurts, > > > > but it´s causes are unreal: images. > > > > > > > > len > > > > > > > The " hurt " is unreal as well. > > > Anything seen/felt as " mine " is unreal. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Hurt in the meaning of the pain felt in the body is > real. > > A house is real, whether I call it mine or not, it's > still there. > > > > Len > > > > You are talking an ordinary language sense of > the term real. I am talking in nondual terms. > > What about *feelings*? Are feelings " real " ? > You could argue so, of course. That would > be an ordinary way to speak. > > But I am saying that any feelings one > " has " as " one's own " are unreal. They > are illusion. If the " hurt " is a feeling > one has, then for that ownership process > to occur there has to be time. Actually, > without time there is no possibility of > even labeling as " hurt " or as " my hurt " . > Try it when you are in the dentist chair > next time. Try being so present with whatever > sensations that the sensations are experienced > instant by instant. The body might straighten, > the abdomen might tighten. But if totally in > the Now it is a blur of sensation. Not > exactly pleasant, but just a chaos of > sensation, nevertheless. When totally in > the Now there is no *time* for " I am feeling > pain " . > > So when I say " real " I mean when there is > only Now, when there is no time, *that* > I am saying, is real. > > Bill > those sensations can also be understood as pure > energy. > when the mind labels them as " hurt " it resists it. > Patricia Yes, exactly. And resistance melts when hurt is observed as a sensation, unlabelled. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > those sensations can also be understood as pure > > energy. > > when the mind labels them as " hurt " it resists it. > > Patricia > > > > let's look at that... > > " pure energy " is a label as well, is it not? > > so... to-label is to-categorize is to-think-about-what-to-do... > > that is how it is seeming to me... > > that the *very labeling* -- nevermind " what kind of " label -- > is a mode of processing that inherently seeks to control. > > do I witness a flower more purely if I see it as " energy " > or if I have no thought about the flower? > > or to see it another way: does not applying a label, > even one such as " pure energy " , does not that in itself > create a separation, an illusion of this-here-labeling, > that-there-labeled? > > I am actually asking. > > Bill If it is a label you cling to, it does. If it is a word/label used in the dialogue to point to what it is without label, it doesn´t. To me the word energy sound OK. It is energy. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.