The sense of a seaparate self is not, by itself, any ...

May 24, 2008

Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:

>

> In a message dated 5/23/2008 9:48:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> adamson writes:

>

> HI Souldreamone,

>

> You wrote, " The sense of a separate self is not, by itself, any sort of

> problem " . Perhaps not....unless and until it is identified with....then all

hell

> breaks loose!

>

> Also, an " awakened being " (to use your words) might not have a " separate

> self " at all. Instead, perhaps their *sense of self* is limited to the " meat

> body " , which is the psychophysical organism " awakeness " happens to, or is

> associated with, or is the vehicle for, as being " distinct " from *its*

environment.

> But being distinct doesn't equate to being separate. Just like the color

> " red " in the in a rainbow is distinct from " green " but not *separate* (nor

are

> " they " joined for that matter either).

>

> It seems to me that the " psychophysicial human body " is programmed to

> survive, to continue, much like a " habit " or " intertia " . As for " projecting

one's

> fate into the future and contemplate such " (whomever or whatever that " one "

is

> who/that is doing the projecting) ...that appears to me to be simply

> imagination motivated by the intentional attempt to strategically assure

desired

> continuity in one form or another. This " imaginary conceptual journey " can be

> based on fear of dying...or perhaps on simple curiosity. One is " deathly

> serious " and the other is " lively play " . Meanwhile, while all this " busyness

of

> imagining " is going on there is a stillness that neither goes nor stays

anywhere

> that is totally unmoved and unaltered by all the moving shennanigans of

> thought and thinking...not matter how subtle or intense they appear to be.

>

> In regards to whether or not squirrels and birds don't experience suffering,

> I really don't know for sure. But my sense is that they do. When their mate

> dies, it appears to me they tend not to be as lively, as if they're moping.

> This interpretation might be incorrect. At the same time, in my experience a

> definite change in behavior is noticeable. Pets, for example, appear to

> despondingly search around the home for quite some time as if looking for

their

> lost mate, companion, or buddy. At any rate, I don't think that animals,

birds,

> etc (whether pets or not) are innately " indifferent to " (i.e., don't feel the

> impact of loss and a degree of grief) when a mate or one of their pack,

> herd, etc disappears. Ever watch the shows on penguins who hunt for their

lost

> baby in the midst of hundreds and hundreds of them on a cold remote patch of

> ground where they go to give birth while issuing wailing cries. Deeply moving

> experience!

>

> Michael

>

> ***Howdy, Michael.

> Negative feelings don't actually equate to suffering. We go to sad movies

> and cry, and scare ourselves half to death on amusement park rides, and pay

for

> the pleasure. If you're perceptive, you'll notice that the first time your

> heart was broken in your teens, you honored that hurt like a sacred gift from

> heaven and swore that you would never forget, and I suspect you haven't

> forgotten.

>

The terror of illusory separation............is suffering.

toombaru

May 24, 2008

In a message dated 23/05/2008 6:51:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time, adamson writes:

< ***Howdy, Michael. < Negative feelings don't actually equate to suffering. We go to sad movies < and cry, and scare ourselves half to death on amusement park rides, and pay for < the pleasure. If you're perceptive, you'll notice that the first time your < heart was broken in your teens, you honored that hurt like a sacred gift from < heaven and swore that you would never forget, and I suspect you haven't < forgotten.

Michael asks....

I agree, that so-called "negative feelings don't actually equate to suffering." Nor, might I add, do "positive" feelings...or any feelings at all. Feelings, to me, are simply "feelings". Then thought with it's desire to experiemence permanent "pleasure" (i.e., control the uncontrollable), compares and labels certain feelings/sensations as "negative, uncomfortable, bad, impure, etc" and tries to avoid or escape them via suppression, distraction, denial, etc by indulging in various attempts to manipulate, exploit, and indulge in the body's psychophysical capacity to engineer into) desired (or more desireable) experiences/sensations. My view is that this could be referred to as "suffering" as opposed to directly experiencing sadness as sadness, grief as grief. May I ask what is your definition of "suffering"?

Michael A.

***Yeah, that's how I see it. Suffering is preceded by a projection of the 'me' into the future or past. There is no actual suffering possible in the absence of this projection, and in fact there is no substantial 'me' to suffer. All of the 'me' definitions are, of course, in our memory (past) and our attachments to outcome are in the imagination as a projected future.

Sometimes we hear something like 'What is wrong right NOW?', meaning that if you don't go into the past with regret and blame or into the future with dreadful stories of what might, could, should happen, what is actually wrong right now? Any now? The moment you bring yourself back into the present (meaning out of mind's memory and imagination) there is only the movement of feeling arising and falling in the absence of any thought process to sustain it, which does not constitute suffering, and even physical pain that is merely sensation in the absence of those same thoughts about how it should have been prevented and how it can be stopped. All of that spinning away from what is present here and now is the suffering. Of course it's much easier said than done, but regardless, this is the functioning of suffering.Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.

May 24, 2008

Souldreamone wrote..

< ***Howdy, Michael. < Negative feelings don't actually equate to suffering. We go to sad movies < and cry, and scare ourselves half to death on amusement park rides, and pay for < the pleasure. If you're perceptive, you'll notice that the first time your < heart was broken in your teens, you honored that hurt like a sacred gift from < heaven and swore that you would never forget, and I suspect you haven't < forgotten.

Michael asks....

I agree, that so-called "negative feelings don't actually equate to suffering." Nor, might I add, do "positive" feelings...or any feelings at all. Feelings, to me, are simply "feelings". Then thought with it's desire to experiemence permanent "pleasure" (i.e., control the uncontrollable), compares and labels certain feelings/sensations as "negative, uncomfortable, bad, impure, etc" and tries to avoid or escape them via suppression, distraction, denial, etc by indulging in various attempts to manipulate, exploit, and indulge in the body's psychophysical capacity to engineer into) desired (or more desireable) experiences/sensations. My view is that this could be referred to as "suffering" as opposed to directly experiencing sadness as sadness, grief as grief. May I ask what is your definition of "suffering"?

Michael A.

Keep yourself and your loved ones healthy and wealthy!

#1 Health Supplement Out Of 2,000 In All Of North America!

http://oregonstate.edu/~Chickj/trailer.htm

http://xobm.usana.com/hfpres/index.cfm?distid=14631

Checked by AVG.

Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1462 - Release 5/23/2008 7:20

AM