Relax

There is the experience of pain and there is the experience of unpleasantness. How you identify with either one will dictate it's importance to you. I look for neither as measurement of my estate and count on the fact that the sensational is always sensational.

 

Sure, but that in no way negates the sensation, does it? It's not a matter of identifying; it's a matter of experiencing . . . or both.

 

So we hear the butness but what of surety? Your level of identification is directly related to the sensations of despair and disproportionate enthusiasm.

 

It is no good to create rules or laws pertaining to proper response to a given stimuli. If despair is appropriate, then so be it. Attempting to keep the scales of response from moving (trying to remain neutral) is a denial of being where you are and what it means.

 

You are the only one said anything about creating rules or laws pertaining to proper response and I never said anything about remaining neutral. If you enjoy despair or the disillusionment brought on by undue enthusiastic anticipation then more power to you. It is a frequently observable phenomena that if you ask a man to let go his suffering he will fight you to keep it. I would question when despair is a proper response but at the same time I cannot see where despair is anything but the natural outcome of a certain level of identification.

If someone told you your dog was killed it would cause an emotional reaction depending on what you think that means to the proportions of your life. If you considered your dogs death a tragedy then you would be very upset on hearing the news and let's say we did indeed have this information to compare with our expectations and we mourned for two hours but then someone appeared with your dog alive, was the two hours mourning a proper emotional response given the ultimate fact that the dog wasn't dead?

Where our treasure is there is our heart also. We are emotionally devoted to what we find valuable or right. It is not fact of nature that our carefree days should ever be few or distant but it is a fact that we frequently misidentify the potentials and genuine proportions of this moment.

Relax, you are terrified by a conviction in the unseen or abstract considerations of the mind. We are not upset for facts but for the interpretation of fact.

 

In another thread, I did point out that a certain group has seemingly decided that they are distinct from the rest of us by virtue of past suffering, and that, having chosen such an image, are not willing to give up their suffering even though that moment is gone. They have chosen to base their identity on the past--a martyr complex--and wear that pain like a badge of distinction. I understand that.

However, grieving is not a weakness; nor is it a misapprehension of reality. The dog died. How did you feel about that? How did those feelings manifest? Did you judge those feelings? Did you imagine that your engagement in those feelings equated to an enjoyment of those feelings? And did that cause a disconnect from a part of reality that you found unworthy of your attention?

Connections are not wrong, and it would be incorrect to assign non-reality status to that which draws feelings you are uncomfortable with. Feelings of grief are the result of viewing others as more than static clumps of matter. Disconnection is a defensive response to the reality of the meaning of connections; it is an attachment to non-attachment. You don't want to be here, but there is no there, unless you wish to create an island for yourself. Sometimes, the desire for something to be true and real actually amounts to a desire for something else to not be true and real. But relationships and their meaning are true no matter how badly you need for them to not be what they are and what they are for.

 

I regret you have not understood further.

respectful

personal reflection

no

no

no

Grieving is not a weakness. I suggested that we can find ourselves grieving on the basis of misapprehension. I would further suggest that grieving has no purpose but to be comforted. Once comforted grief has no function.

Actually it comes from conceiving so an so to be wholly contained within the physical substance of a biological machine.

To perceive the world innocent disconnects from what exactly but the specter of guilt?

In this world we exist for and with each. We may enjoy one another but we cannot in fact suffer for one another. Those who temporarily have more can assist those that temporarily have less. It is of no value to the dog whether you cry or not. Pain and suffering exist for the purpose of preventing further or lasting discomfort. The grief over death is a signal to significantly sort out or fundamentally examine those things and relationships that are close to you. Had you fundamentally apprehended the lesson of grief and been comforted in truth, you would never grieve again.

 

Your regrets concerning my limited understanding of those who cling to their tragedy to maintain a stagnant identity is regrettable; I have accurately stated the case. To believe that there is any more to understand about it is to complicate what is really quite simple. Unless you care to expound on this alleged further understanding to be had on that matter.

Also, in the case of the death of a loved one, grieving has to do with acknowledgement of who was there, and how you feel about their absence.

You attempt to console yourself with the idea that they were not their body. That is one way to cope. But we're not talking about the non-corporeal aspect of their being; of course you do not grieve that. We're talking about grieving the absence of their physical presence.

 

You accurately state the case and to that extent I have no regret. The further understanding I wish to communicate is that the heart does not know what to feel but what the mind tells it. To help relay this understanding I posed to you this question,

"If you considered your dogs death a tragedy then you would be very upset on hearing the news and let's say we did indeed have this information to compare with our expectations and we mourned for two hours but then someone appeared with your dog alive, was the two hours mourning a proper emotional response given the ultimate fact that the dog wasn't dead?"

The heart is not a good instrument for telling you what is so but is perfect for adding pace to your creative endeavor.

You are mistaken. I do not attempt to console myself with the idea that they are not their body. I have looked upon the body moments after the spirit had lifted from it and the corpse there bore no resemblance whatsoever to the living person that appeared to be situated there moments before. I am comforted by the recognition of where they are still and where they have always been which is fundamentally inside of me. That is where I know them, I do not know them over there. I have had significant communications with persons seemingly separated in silence or by distance or even apparent death through simply accepting the presence without prejudice that I find in myself. I find that we are spirit communicating physically through mind. Substantial joining is of the mind, bodies transiently touch. Our memory contains ancient and uninterrupted awareness and we are together, not separately, an organism. Our individual bodies are the common currency of our common experience.

We may say never having a body we will have missed nothing,

confined to body, we miss much.

 

Fair enough.

If someone comes to me and tells me that my dog has been hit by a car down the road, I will feel the loss. However, I would promptly go to the scene of the accident to verify the news--might even take a shovel with me. If it turns out to be not true, then I would be relieved. I would also pay a visit to the son of a bitch who lied to me and promply turn his living room into the scene of an accident. How else is someone like that going to learn?

Your analogy doesn't really work. If you were in town, and someone you knew ran up to you and told you that your house was on fire, do you think you would become a victim of an unwarranted emotional response for a time? I do.

Further, we are going to have agree to disagree on the purpose of grieving.

 

Then get a lobotomy.

 

Just because that worked for you doesn't mean it's good for everyone. I mean, look what's it's done to you!!

 

Thedope,

After giving our discussion some more thought, I've decided that:

That's it! You and me outside the Philosophy and Religion forum in thirty minutes. All the moderators will be home eating supper by then, and we can settle this in a less formal setting--a way less formal setting.

Wait! Not outside the Philosophy and Religion forum; there's just something . . . not right about that. OK, I've found a forum called: Men's Issues. Seems appropiate enough, and it'll have to do. Thirty minutes, dude!!

And to everyone else: After I'm finished with him, there will be no grieving. Trust me, he would have wanted it that way.

 

What worked or what was the working?
I simply recognize something about us.
What is good for everyone is the fact that they are real. Helpful is a matter of timing. We have variably a significant tolerance for pain but there is a breaking point for everyone.

How does my analogy not work if you agree to the function I describe? What is true for you is also true for me. Yes I am subject to emotional response via the vagueness of perception. This is why the saying do not judge by appearances but rather use right judgement.

This is what the argument for guilt always comes to, get rid of the one that makes a claim for enduring peace just to demonstrate what a guilty idea that is.

Evidently attracted the ire of an otherwise considerate individual!

 

How will that relieve you of your own thoughts?

 

I don't feel the same compulsion. The purpose of pain is to prevent momentary discomfort from becoming lasting discomfort. You can see the same purpose in grieving. If you disagree how about some reasoning behind your disagreement?

 

And relaxing is all about the essence preceding the existence. It's that feeling of relieving the stress for the kharma which truly exists for a reference into the perfection of one's corporeal occurrence. What kind of laws do this to us?; none do it is more immediately informing as the Laws which the mind works out are but the mere explanation of the injustice of the kharma. And the freedom for justice fights kharma. Let it be.

 

Thedope,

This: "Just because that worked for you doesn't mean it's good for everyone. I mean, look what's it's done to you!!" was directed toward Franklin concerning his lobotomy comment.

And surely you know that my last post was totally in jest. I was simply adding some color to the day. I would never attempt to beat the crap out of you . . . unless you killed my dog.

 

And now I wonder if you realized that this:


"In another thread, I did point out that a certain group has seemingly decided that they are distinct from the rest of us by virtue of past suffering, and that, having chosen such an image, are not willing to give up their suffering even though that moment is gone. They have chosen to base their identity on the past--a martyr complex--and wear that pain like a badge of distinction . . ."


was in reference to the infamous holocaust revisionism thread I participatated in that brought out all the screamers.

 

Perhaps grieving could be thought of as the process of adjustment. The fact that sorrow is involved in that process should not be judged as non-productive or based on a misreading of reality.