🚀 go-pugleaf

Re: Suffering;  Was the Defect of Christianity and Society

beauch@teleport.com (Bob Beauchaine) wrote:

>In article <4pr329$o1a@news.magick.net>,
>Raymond Karczewski <arkent@magick.net> wrote:
>>Bill,
> There is no suffering beyond the limited mind of intellectualism.  But you, Bill,
>>have yet to grasp that.

>   Indeed?  The last time I hit myself in the thumb with a hammer, I
>   guarantee that I suffered immensely, if only for a short time.  

    No Bob, you did not suffer, you experienced physical pain which
lasted as long as it lasted. When it was over, it was over, never to
return again.  Suffering would have emerged if and  when you began to
feel sorry for yourself over your previous, fleeting experience of
pain.

>   "There is no suffering beyond the limited mind of intellectualism.  "?
>   15 minutes with a Grand Inquisotor should be sufficient to change your
>   mind.
  
  Bob, that is a fantasy of yours which bears no relationship to the
reality of this interchange other than to misdirect attention from the
path of truth via irrelevant speculation.  Speak only from your
personal experience and understanding.  I would wager you  have not
experienced a Grand Inquisitor in your lifetime, so why talk about it.
You can play all kinds of mind games to show how clever you are, or we
can have a serious dialogue.

>>   In  times of natural events like earthquakes, floods, hurricanes,
>>etc., one either survives them  or not.  It is the quality of
>>consciousness in the state of reaction which dictates suffering, not
>>the actual events.

>  You bet.  Losing one's entire family in an earthquake only creates
>  suffering in the minds of the spiritually bound.  

   There is no such thing as being spiritually bound. One can be bound
to their idea of spirituality but that too is another of the mind's
tricks.  Living spiritually is freedom per se.

>>
>>   Only in the case of man's immersion in his own conflicted mind, via
>>illusory societal rules which perpetuate in one's psyche a constant
>>state of coercion and reaction,  does man truly suffer.  

>  The only suffering I'm eduring in this thread is wading through your
>  astoundingly obtuse vocabulary.

   Such a statement as regarding  the endurance of this thread is
always the facesaveing cry of the ignorant.   Because they lack
understanding they must save face with snide remarks and attacks.
Blaming another for one's lack of openness and understanding is the
typical response of a person rationalizing their present state of
unawareness.  My words are as simple as yours, are they not?  The
problem arises in communication when one speaks from the spirit of the
word, while the other focuses on the letter of the word.  You are
having difficulty with the energy or spirit of my words.  For that
reason, we simply are not connecting with each other, are we?

>  Societal rules are far from illusory.  Break a couple of the biggies,
>  like murder or grand theft, for illustration of my point.  And I'll be
>  the judge of what causes me to truly suffer, thank you very much.

  And that is as it should be Bob.  Accept responsibility for your
lack of understanding rather than seeking to attack or discredit
another through petty judgments.  I suggest you meditate on the
meaning of the statement "Judge not lest Ye be Judged"  

>>  I did not include natural events in the post so as not to be accused
>>of long-windedness.  Didn't work, did it?   The fact has always been
>>that people are going to believe what they want to believe, until they
>>are ready to see the truth for themselves.  Until then, they will
>>suffer.

>  How then do you account for the fact that I have reached a very
>  different "truth" than you, yet seem to suffer very little ?
 
  Then why do you gravitate toward dualistic argument and cheap shots,
rather than dialoguing  with another.  Arguments are the combative
tools used in  power struggles within the domain of the linear
intellectual mind, hence its dualistic nature is the root cause of
suffering, while the use of multidimensional  dialogue leads one to
understanding and ultimate freedom.

>  Could it be that you don't yet realize that your truths are by no
>  means universal?  Or that you long winded and arrogant style isn't
>  bolstering your arguments?

  Sir, I don't argue with anyone for I clearly perceive it to be the
cause of suffering in the dualistic realm of the mind.  I merely
reflect "What IS".   Honest and integral individuals are always looked
on as an anathema to a corrupt consciousness when they mirror the
corruption of ignorant beliefs back to a conflicted consciousness. 
">/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>Bob Beauchaine

>"An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support."
>		Fulton J Sheen, Auxiliary Bishop NYC

   Bob if you truly wish to progress spiritually, you must begin to
speak only the truth, your truth, nothing else. Stop playing the game
of hypocrisy  you have been trained to play. Let the truth of your own
words come  from the depth of your very being.  Only second hand,
conditioned people rely upon the pat quotes of another.

  You may feel that I have been harsh with you.  I have merely
reflected your image back to you.  I also see and understand that you
are much more than this note would imply, but that doesn't help you
does it.  You must see it for yourself before the pettiness will drop
away.  Then we can speak as nondualistic brothers and not be coerced
into the dualistic roles of antagonists. 



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 I invite you to visit my new home page and listen to my 
personal message to the world.

Raymond Karczewski  http://www.magick.net/~arkent
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~