Two Views on suffering

[Dondi]

Our attachment to suffering is what keeps us from becoming ourselves. The supernjatural use of suffering includes all conscious efforts to experience it rather then escape from it. The Crucifixion is the most vivid example. Jesus' conscious experience of the Crucifixion enabled re-birth: the goal of Christianity.

I don't think it is a Christian position that suffering is some virtue to embrace. It is apparently not Jesus' position either, for though He died on the Cross, it was His desire to see something else happen:

"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist." - Matthew 17:11-13

"For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." - Matthew 11:13-14

It is implied from these passages that there was a possibility that if Israel accepted John's message and Jesus as Messiah, then all things would have been restored right then and there. That Christ's suffering would have been unnecessary. But Jesus knew the probable outcome even as He said these things. The point being is that He wasn't looking to suffer, but saw it coming:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" - Matthew 23:37

Then there is suffering that we ought to avoid:

"Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain." - Galatian 3:3-4

There is suffering that we bring upon ourselves. We can do some stupid things and bring it on ourselves. This is unnecessary suffering.

"But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;...For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing." - I Peter 3:14, 17

This kind of suffering is brought about from without, from the opposition. Peter is explaining the source of persecution that the Christians undoubtedly endured during the first few centuries of their existence. But Christians weren't looking for it as to prove themselves worthy or hold up a badge of courage. Rather that even though suffering comes, they would be able to endure it become they are doing the right thing in the eyes of God under the persecution. And conversely shame if they suffer for doing evil.

Caveat: Incidently, I've seen these verses being applied in every sense of suffering, for instance, in tragic accidents, sickness, or death of loved ones, or like in the case of Job. "Oh, that family has suffered for the Lord since the death of Uncle Charlie." But these verses only speaks of the persecution of one's faith, if people would only take them in context.

Suffering from disasters or tragedy is nothing a Christian seek either. Would that all such suffering would end. But we have that hope that one day it will.

 

[Netti-Netti]

From the Buddhist perspective I don't know if it is possible to find "a more efficient and strategic method of maintaining self"

Nick, you suggested some people are attached to their suffering. We explored that idea some more. You explained people may actually be involved in some kind of identity maintenance process that is supported by suffering. In other words, attachment to suffering is part of another process. I believe it's what the Buddhists call clinging to the idea of self.

The Buddhists would say that the idea of self is a delusion because there is no state of permanence to allow a self to exist. The delusion of self tends be fueled by fear of disintegration. Intensified clinging and entanglements are the immediate result.

The person will tend to identify with the various resultant entanglements, thinking of them as aspects of their "self." What you refer to as "attachment to suffering" may be one such aspect among others. It would appear to be an entanglement stemming from a more basic attachment to self (Attavadupadana).

I see it as an object permanence issue. Any sensory experience can help maintain a sense of self. It doesn't have to be physical suffering or pain. Social interactions will have the same effect because they mobilize lots of thoughts and emotional reactions that serve as stimulus events to remind the person of existence and give them the impression of a permanent self.

The individual may be inclined to seek very specific social reactions to confirm a very specific idea of self. Concerning the Book of Micah, the Woman’s Bible Commentary notes that God is portrayed as "a good and just and forgiving male" whereas the people who stray are portrayed as "evil and corrupt female." This may be an archetype to work through, especially if it has the effect of positioning the person as someone who should suffer because she deserves it.

The suffering then affirms the concept of justice by which the person is defined as evil and corrupt. That concept of justice in effect sustains the person. Here the person can accept the suffering of being a less than ideal person because it's better than having no social identity at all. Now, what's the feminist reaction to that?

Anyhow, what you call "attachment to suffering" would appear to be a form of attachment to self. It's easy to see how a whole life style evolves that is blindly popelled by automated attachments and aversions rather than discriminating wisdom and love. It is the opposite of being free. The way to be free is to ditch attachments and aversions. Someone who is prone to self-grasping and self-cherishing could give up attachment to suffering and then easily become fixated on something else. As you can see, the object is not important. It's the basic intention - the craving for existence and clinging to self that's the key issue.


The basic problem I've alluded to before with regard to Buddhism is that practice can become an end in itself. Here's an example where the virtuous state of equanimity becoming an object of attachment, resulting in bondage:

"There is the case, Ananda, where a monk, having practiced in this way — (thinking) 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' — obtains equanimity. He relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it. As he relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it, his consciousness is dependent on it, is sustained by it (clings to it). With clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is not totally unbound."​

MN 106: Aneñja-sappaya Sutta

Why is the story notable? Because it's one more example of what I said before. The object that is the focus of attachment is not really important here. What important is the basic intention of craving and clinging. Again, getting rid of attachment to suffering may not be the answer. The attachment process just shifts gears and immediately fixates on something else.

I really believe that Karma Yoga holds the key here and is not at all in conflict with either Buddhism or Christianity since the essential message is "know thyself."

Yes, in combination with Bhakti Yoga it can be a good thing. Here's why: Being dedicated to virtue (replacing negative karma with the positive variety) becomes a source of myriad opportunties for attachment (like the desirable self image of being a helpful and reliable do-gooder) . This can be almost as bad as being a bad person who is engaged in criminal things (though the results are different). If the pracrice entails attachment to good karma, the practice itself actually can become an obstacle - like you said "just another attachment." Love of G-d keeps these things under control.

You must Love G-d with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. That's because this is the way to avoid the craziness of identification with ego and all the resultant problems (anxious clinging, dependence on others for love, fear of disintegration, fear of losing narcissistic resources, suspicion, anger, compulsions, addictions, all of that stuff).

Love of G-d allows you to appoach Him in what the Sufis call Zikr, that is, "remembrance of God." The attachments and aversions dissipate in His presence as you move into a state of constant remembrance. Then you are free of those attachments and aversions,

Just remember - nothing exists apart from G-d. He is your true Self. So just practice the Presence.

 

[seattlegal]

The basic problem I've alluded to before with regard to Buddhism is that practice can become an end in itself. Here's an example where the virtuous state of equanimity becoming an object of attachment, resulting in bondage:

When this was said, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One: "There is the case, lord, where a monk, having practiced in this way — 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' — obtains equanimity. Now, would this monk be totally unbound, or not?"

"A certain such monk might, Ananda, and another might not.'

"What is the cause, what is the reason, whereby one might and another might not?"

"There is the case, Ananda, where a monk, having practiced in this way — (thinking) 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' — obtains equanimity. He relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it. As he relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it, his consciousness is dependent on it, is sustained by it (clings to it). With clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is not totally unbound."

"Being sustained, where is that monk sustained?"

"The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception."

"Then, indeed, being sustained, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance."

"Being sustained, Ananda, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance; for this — the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception — is the supreme sustenance. There is [however] the case where a monk, having practiced in this way — 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' — obtains equanimity. He does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it. As he does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it, his consciousness is not dependent on it, is not sustained by it (does not cling to it). Without clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is totally unbound."
​

MN 106: Aneñja-sappaya Sutta

Why is the story notable? Because it's one more example of what I said before. The object that is the focus of attachment is not really important here. What important is the basic intention of craving and clinging. Again, getting rid of attachment to suffering may not be the answer. The attachment process just shifts gears and immediately fixates on something else.

Ha! The attachments to political correctness and social engineering programs that backfire are explained!

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Nick,

You asked,

"Does this mean that there is no essential difference between Buddhism and Secular Humanism?"

--> There is a huge difference. The goal in Buddhism is enlightenment. And, for some, there is a second goal, Nirvana. (There is, of course, a huge debate raging as to the differences between enlightenment and Nirvana.)

 

[Nick_A]

Nick, you suggested some people are attached to their suffering. We explored that idea some more. You explained people may actually be involved in some kind of identity maintenance process that is supported by suffering. In other words, attachment to suffering is part of another process. I believe it's what the Buddhists call clinging to the idea of self.

The Buddhists would say that the idea of self is a delusion because there is no state of permanence to allow a self to exist. The delusion of self tends be fueled by fear of disintegration. Intensified clinging and entanglements are the immediate result.

The person will tend to identify with the various resultant entanglements, thinking of them as aspects of their "self." What you refer to as "attachment to suffering" may be one such aspect among others. It would appear to be an entanglement stemming from a more basic attachment to self (Attavadupadana).

I see it as an object permanence issue. Any sensory experience can help maintain a sense of self. It doesn't have to be physical suffering or pain. Social interactions will have the same effect because they mobilize lots of thoughts and emotional reactions that serve as stimulus events to remind the person of existence and give them the impression of a permanent self.

The individual may be inclined to seek very specific social reactions to confirm a very specific idea of self. Concerning the Book of Micah, the Woman’s Bible Commentary notes that God is portrayed as "a good and just and forgiving male" whereas the people who stray are portrayed as "evil and corrupt female." This may be an archetype to work through, especially if it has the effect of positioning the person as someone who should suffer because she deserves it.

The suffering then affirms the concept of justice by which the person is defined as evil and corrupt. That concept of justice in effect sustains the person. Here the person can accept the suffering of being a less than ideal person because it's better than having no social identity at all. Now, what's the feminist reaction to that?

Anyhow, what you call "attachment to suffering" would appear to be a form of attachment to self. It's easy to see how a whole life style evolves that is blindly popelled by automated attachments and aversions rather than discriminating wisdom and love. It is the opposite of being free. The way to be free is to ditch attachments and aversions. Someone who is prone to self-grasping and self-cherishing could give up attachment to suffering and then easily become fixated on something else. As you can see, the object is not important. It's the basic intention - the craving for existence and clinging to self that's the key issue.





The basic problem I've alluded to before with regard to Buddhism is that practice can become an end in itself. Here's an example where the virtuous state of equanimity becoming an object of attachment, resulting in bondage:

"There is the case, Ananda, where a monk, having practiced in this way — (thinking) 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' — obtains equanimity. He relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it. As he relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it, his consciousness is dependent on it, is sustained by it (clings to it). With clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is not totally unbound."​

MN 106: Aneñja-sappaya Sutta

Why is the story notable? Because it's one more example of what I said before. The object that is the focus of attachment is not really important here. What important is the basic intention of craving and clinging. Again, getting rid of attachment to suffering may not be the answer. The attachment process just shifts gears and immediately fixates on something else.


Yes, in combination with Bhakti Yoga it can be a good thing. Here's why: Being dedicated to virtue (replacing negative karma with the positive variety) becomes a source of myriad opportunties for attachment (like the desirable self image of being a helpful and reliable do-gooder) . This can be almost as bad as being a bad person who is engaged in criminal things (though the results are different). If the pracrice entails attachment to good karma, the practice itself actually can become an obstacle - like you said "just another attachment." Love of G-d keeps these things under control.

You must Love G-d with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. That's because this is the way to avoid the craziness of identification with ego and all the resultant problems (anxious clinging, dependence on others for love, fear of disintegration, fear of losing narcissistic resources, suspicion, anger, compulsions, addictions, all of that stuff).

Love of G-d allows you to appoach Him in what the Sufis call Zikr, that is, "remembrance of God." The attachments and aversions dissipate in His presence as you move into a state of constant remembrance. Then you are free of those attachments and aversions,

Just remember - nothing exists apart from G-d. He is your true Self. So just practice the Presence.

Neti

I appreciate your post We agree on a lot. I can see you've thought a great deal on these questions which is why I posted to that link on love and knowledge for those willing to try and understand it.

I'm also skeptical of "virtue" I agree that attachment is the cause of psychological suffering. That is not to say that the animal self doesn't exist. Attachment just means that we don't see it for what it is and allow it to serve us as it should..

You must Love G-d with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. That's because this is the way to avoid the craziness of identification with ego and all the resultant problems (anxious clinging, dependence on others for love, fear of disintegration, fear of losing narcissistic resources, suspicion, anger, compulsions, addictions, all of that stuff).

I don't know what you mean by love of God. Modern day New Age escapism is called love of God. I define the Love of God as to become inwardly open, vulnerable, to be consciously seen as one is and not as an image we prefer to defend. Acquiring such freedom is very difficult. True love of God means the dominance of our image that keeps us closed must die so that we can live and it doesn't want to die..

Just remember - nothing exists apart from G-d. He is your true Self. So just practice the Presence.

Here is where we really disagree. My belief in the cosmological conscious universe allows me to acknowledge qualities of being and their appropriate consciousness. This includes archangels, angels, Man, and various demiurgic influences. They all exist within the universe but are not a part of God that is outside time and space.

The universe exists apart from God and Man within the universe does also. Man can evolve to serve a necessary conscious purpose within universal structure. This makes more sense to me then this idea that we are God. I know the "Course in Miracles" attracts many who believe this but I am veeerrry wary of it since I see it as dangerous escapism.

 

[Nick_A]

I don't think it is a Christian position that suffering is some virtue to embrace. It is apparently not Jesus' position either, for though He died on the Cross, it was His desire to see something else happen:

"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist." - Matthew 17:11-13

"For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." - Matthew 11:13-14

It is implied from these passages that there was a possibility that if Israel accepted John's message and Jesus as Messiah, then all things would have been restored right then and there. That Christ's suffering would have been unnecessary. But Jesus knew the probable outcome even as He said these things. The point being is that He wasn't looking to suffer, but saw it coming:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" - Matthew 23:37

Then there is suffering that we ought to avoid:

"Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain." - Galatian 3:3-4

There is suffering that we bring upon ourselves. We can do some stupid things and bring it on ourselves. This is unnecessary suffering.



This kind of suffering is brought about from without, from the opposition. Peter is explaining the source of persecution that the Christians undoubtedly endured during the first few centuries of their existence. But Christians weren't looking for it as to prove themselves worthy or hold up a badge of courage. Rather that even though suffering comes, they would be able to endure it become they are doing the right thing in the eyes of God under the persecution. And conversely shame if they suffer for doing evil.

Caveat: Incidently, I've seen these verses being applied in every sense of suffering, for instance, in tragic accidents, sickness, or death of loved ones, or like in the case of Job. "Oh, that family has suffered for the Lord since the death of Uncle Charlie." But these verses only speaks of the persecution of one's faith, if people would only take them in context.

Suffering from disasters or tragedy is nothing a Christian seek either. Would that all such suffering would end. But we have that hope that one day it will.

Hi Dondi

It is implied from these passages that there was a possibility that if Israel accepted John's message and Jesus as Messiah, then all things would have been restored right then and there. That Christ's suffering would have been unnecessary. But Jesus knew the probable outcome even as He said these things. The point being is that He wasn't looking to suffer, but saw it coming

:

Jesus had to consciously experience the reality of our fallen being including all its hypocrisy. He had to consciously "Know Thyself" in its greatest agony. We had lost the ability so the Law became something to preach rather then become a part of us.

Jesus had to go through the Crucifixion to open a path to the Way the fallen human condition made impossible by the law alone.

It isn't a matter of doing the right thing but rather if our being can profit from suffering. Its not a matter of what we DO, but rather what we ARE.

Suffering from disasters or tragedy is nothing a Christian seek either. Would that all such suffering would end. But we have that hope that one day it will.

Even those around Jesus believed that bad things shouldn't happen to good people. They couldn't understand that it is the meaningless psychological condition of our fallen being that sustains our fallen condition and the way out begins with "metanoia" or a change in mind. Metanoia is badly translated as repent which of course causes all sort of guilt and other reactive negative emotions that make the problem worse.

Luke 13

1Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Jesus is saying it isn't a matter of what you do since towers will fall on anyone. Real freedom is the change of what we ARE: re-birth.

 

[Nick_A]

Ha! The attachments to political correctness and social engineering programs that backfire are explained!

As they must under these circumstances. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Netti-Netti]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

And then it's paved again by those who opposed the original well intentioned paving.

Here is where we really disagree.

Yes, of course it's possible your ideas on these things are as good as mine.

 

[Nick_A]

And then it's paved again by those who opposed the original well intentioned paving.



Yes, of course it's possible your ideas on these things are as good as mine.

Yes and on and on it goes following the lawful cycles as described in Ecclesiastes 3

1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,

3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak, 8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

Mechanical reactive Good intentions cannot alter cycles since they are lawful parts of these cycles. Christianity and Buddhism offer a conscious escape from attachment to mechanical cycles.

Yes, of course it's possible your ideas on these things are as good as mine.

I know that this is fashionable modern thinking but I just don't understand it. Either one of us is closer to the truth or we are both wrong but they cannot be equally as good.

For example, I believe in the conscious cosmological universe as described by Jacob Needleman in the first chapter of his Book "A Sense of the Cosmos."

Welcome to rawpaint.com

If he is right then even evolved conscious Man is not God but rather "In the Image' of God within Creation.

It just seems logical then that your ideas could be as bad as mine or mine as bad as yours but being so opposed, they cannot be considered equally good other than in imagination so we just respect differences which is OK

 

[Quahom1]

Yes and on and on it goes following the lawful cycles as described in Ecclesiastes 3



Mechanical reactive Good intentions cannot alter cycles since they are lawful parts of these cycles. Christianity and Buddhism offer a conscious escape from attachment to mechanical cycles.




I know that this is fashionable modern thinking but I just don't understand it. Either one of us is closer to the truth or we are both wrong but they cannot be equally as good.

For example, I believe in the conscious cosmological universe as described by Jacob Needleman in the first chapter of his Book "A Sense of the Cosmos."

Welcome to rawpaint.com

If he is right then even evolved conscious Man is not God but rather "In the Image' of God within Creation.

It just seems logical then that your ideas could be as bad as mine or mine as bad as yours but being so opposed, they cannot be considered equally good other than in imagination so we just respect differences which is OK

Or, both ideas are wrong, which puts them on the same side...
there is that possibility.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Mechanical reactive Good intentions cannot alter cycles since they are lawful parts of these cycles. Christianity and Buddhism offer a conscious escape from attachment to mechanical cycles.

I don't know about escape. Maybe something like learning to tolerate the suffering so that it loses some or most of the power it otherwise has over our lives, which is often increased by the effort to rearrange the world to suit our preferences.

 

[Nick_A]

Or, both ideas are wrong, which puts them on the same side...
there is that possibility.

I just said that. They may be both illusory even though well intentioned.

I know that this is fashionable modern thinking but I just don't understand it. Either one of us is closer to the truth or we are both wrong but they cannot be equally as good.

 

[Nick_A]

I don't know about escape. Maybe something like learning to tolerate the suffering so that it loses some or most of the power it otherwise has over our lives, which is often increased by the effort to rearrange the world to suit our preferences.

By escape I mean re-birth into a new quality of being. Do you believe there could be any truth in the following:

1 Corinthians 15:

42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[f] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

 

[seattlegal]

Yes, of course it's possible your ideas on these things are as good as mine.

I know that this is fashionable modern thinking but I just don't understand it. Either one of us is closer to the truth or we are both wrong but they cannot be equally as good.

It would depend upon each individual's psychological hang ups (attachments.) To assume that the myriads of different entanglements must be solved by one method is like projecting your own problems on everyone else, no? The approach Netti-Netti has might work for one individual, but not another; while the approach Nick_A has might work on yet another individual, but not for everyone. Each approach could be equally good when applied to the correct individual, according to their hang-ups, or each could both be equally bad according to incompatibility towards a specific problem.

In Buddhism, it is said that there are 84,000 dharma doors, or ways to liberation.

 

[Netti-Netti]

In Buddhism, it is said that there are 84,000 dharma doors, or ways to liberation.

The 84,000 dharma doors idea can be interpreted in at least two ways. One possible meaning is that there are many variations on the same essential teaching and the same basic approach to practice.

The alternate meaning you seem to be suggesting is one that favors pluralism based on the assumption that there many approaches/views and that customizing is a good thing.

Btw, I'm pretty sure that the "84,000 dharma doors" idea refers to Mahayana Buddhism and, as such, it's a rationalization for various Chinese, Tibetan, Thai, Korean and Japanese syncretisms of Buddhism that involve superstitious prayers, sorcery, and such - all of which are of questionable value.

 

[Nick_A]

It would depend upon each individual's psychological hang ups (attachments.) To assume that the myriads of different entanglements must be solved by one method is like projecting your own problems on everyone else, no? The approach Netti-Netti has might work for one individual, but not another; while the approach Nick_A has might work on yet another individual, but not for everyone. Each approach could be equally good when applied to the correct individual, according to their hang-ups, or each could both be equally bad according to incompatibility towards a specific problem.

In Buddhism, it is said that there are 84,000 dharma doors, or ways to liberation.

Seattlegal, I believe you misunderstood me. I wasn't referring to an approach but rather basic concepts. If a person is a Secular Humanist and lives a good responsible life with a bit of humility they can actually be considered following the path of the Good Householder and basically what is encouraged in the book of Ecclesiastes and leads to salvation of "good seed."

I don't believe in a personal God since I believe God to be ineffable and outside time and space. Another may believe in a personal God that is concerned with my life and if I am moral or not.

As far as basic concepts, they cannot be equal. Either there is a personal God or their isn't. However paths on their exoteric level relating to each concept can be followed in ways that can be either beneficial or detrimental as concerns the seed of their soul.

 

[seattlegal]

Seattlegal, I believe you misunderstood me. I wasn't referring to an approach but rather basic concepts. If a person is a Secular Humanist and lives a good responsible life with a bit of humility they can actually be considered following the path of the Good Householder and basically what is encouraged in the book of Ecclesiastes and leads to salvation of "good seed."

I don't believe in a personal God since I believe God to be ineffable and outside time and space. Another may believe in a personal God that is concerned with my life and if I am moral or not.

As far as basic concepts, they cannot be equal. Either there is a personal God or their isn't. However paths on their exoteric level relating to each concept can be followed in ways that can be either beneficial or detrimental as concerns the seed of their soul.

What does equality of concepts have to do with effectiveness regarding specific, individual instances of healing?

Either you deny a diversity of individual paths of healing, projecting your problems on everyone else, or you recognize a diversity of paths of healing, no?

 

[Nick_A]

What does equality of concepts have to do with effectiveness regarding specific, individual instances of healing?

Either you deny a diversity of individual paths of healing, projecting your problems on everyone else, or you recognize a diversity of paths of healing, no?

By healing I believe you are referring to spiritual healing. I think we would agree that when we get the flu we need physical healing that sometimes needs the help of antibiotics.

As I see it, spiritual healing is psychological and is the process of regaining a lost inner balance between the mind, body, and emotions.

I wouldn't deny that there are many paths to this goal but also know many of them are escapist. They try to retain an imaginary balance through inwardly hiding. If they are not being bothered and secure in fantasy they believe they are spiritually healed.

A balanced person can be master of themselves. They can experience crisis and not fall to pieces. They have not lost balance during a crisis so have not lost their connection with the higher. Spiritual healing for me then is regaining lost balance so as to function with it since spiritual sickness arises through a lack of balance.

Do you have a different conception of spiritual healing?

 

[seattlegal]

By healing I believe you are referring to spiritual healing. I think we would agree that when we get the flu we need physical healing that sometimes needs the help of antibiotics.

As I see it, spiritual healing is psychological and is the process of regaining a lost inner balance between the mind, body, and emotions.

I wouldn't deny that there are many paths to this goal but also know many of them are escapist. They try to retain an imaginary balance through inwardly hiding. If they are not being bothered and secure in fantasy they believe they are spiritually healed.

A balanced person can be master of themselves. They can experience crisis and not fall to pieces. They have not lost balance during a crisis so have not lost their connection with the higher. Spiritual healing for me then is regaining lost balance so as to function with it since spiritual sickness arises through a lack of balance.

Do you have a different conception of spiritual healing?

Healing isn't necessarily confined to sickness, although it can certainly apply in that case. Wounds require healing, as well.

 

[Nick_A]

Healing isn't necessarily confined to sickness, although it can certainly apply in that case. Wounds require healing, as well.

Simone Weil suggests in the OP suggests that consciously recognizing a psychological wound as an unnecessary but damaging ego attachment and to become free of it by becoming vulnerable to help from above is a transformative experience.

The alternative is suppression which sometimes makes a person socially acceptable and provides the peace of escapism but does little to serve the process of inner growth which is the purpose of the essence of religion.

This is really very difficult. A wounded animal curls up in a corner to defend itself. Psychological wounds are the same. Yet the idea is somehow to consciously allow oneself to become open rather than recoil.

This is the great value of forgiveness which isn't for the benefit of another but what is necessary for oneself to become inwardly free. Forgiveness heals the wound if we are capable of it but in reality it is very difficult. It is hard to let it go.

Jesus said: "Forgive them for they know not what they do." Easier said then done for me yet at the same time I recognize the great significance in that remark. It is the process of these kinds of efforts that Simone means by a supernatural use of suffering. The process of experiential recognition and not just flip service of what holds us in attachment is in itself a freeing process.