What is not in relation is “in suffering”

The absence of problems would make most people totally nonplussed. In fact, if problems would disappear, they would disappear along with them…So for many, being problem and conflict free, would be an unimaginable hell…

Swarn:
The fact that humans like their problems is I think natural. I would argue that it’s okay to like problems provided that

1) You are actually trying to solve them so you can move on to something new and

2) One spends their energy on problems that are actually worth trying to solve. Like how to reduce the suffering of others. The real “problem” is that people prefer to focus on the meaningless so that they can convince everyone that they are also suffering. As you so often say it comes down to ego, a form of self-centeredness.

Me:
Problems and conflicts are inherent in self-centeredness. Utterly speaking, the fragment – that is, the separated ego – is a non-relation. And what is not in relation, is “in suffering”…

So yes…- people prefer to focus on the meaningless not only in order to convince everyone that they are also suffering, but maintaining the suffering in themselves as the prevalent code, THEY COMMUNICATE THROUGH, AND MAKE OTHERS A PART OF THEIR MISERY.

It doesn´t require a huge capacity to fathom that Life is Intrinsic Relation, meaning that everything existing is interrelated with anything else.

YET!!

This is the mainstream problem of egocentrism:

In its vapid dream of being fragmented, it cannot naturally fathom the above mentioned simple but overarching truth…- namely that nothing exists outside relation.

Whatever it undertakes, self-centeredness obsessively states and stresses non-relation.

“I am by being not” – is its twisted credo. It wants to stand out against all odds, and the only way to achieve that, is creating non-relation – that is suffering…Problems. Conflicts.

So logically, if non-relation shows to be an inane dream, it means also that ultimately,
Suffering – despite being so widespread and very real -, is in fact…a dream too…:) A toilsome misconstruction.The outcome of the ubiquitous ego-delusion of being separate from Life…again, a non-relation.

To reach the bottom line:
In order for us to move to something new, we need to lay aside this nearsightedness called “separate ego”, and individually – to start with – wake up from this engrained misnomer that Life is about suffering.

Advertisements

About julienmatei
I feel an inner urge to express what I see, to communicate and share with others all these impressions. Often the things I see are there, not yet manifest, but waiting... to be observed, talked about, and embraced. These new insights need another approach, a more vivid curiosity... Due to fear and prejudice we prefer to see only "the official" truth - but THE OFFICIAL TRUTH IS DEAD - being dead, it has nothing to give... We can continue pretending Death is fascinating or... we can take the trouble to LIVE... THE NEW has no definition yet... Again, IT requires another "perception", the courage to apprehend everything differently, from a totally new angle, with new confidence and inquisitive touch. This blog is not about interesting concepts, it is about participation... finding new solutions, inspiration, togetherness.

4 Responses to What is not in relation is “in suffering”

  1. TBS says:

    “So yes…- people prefer to focus on the meaningless not only in order to convince everyone that they are also suffering, but maintaining the suffering in themselves as the prevalent code, THEY COMMUNICATE THROUGH, AND MAKE OTHERS A PART OF THEIR MISERY.”

    Beautiful. Thank you.

    The ‘guest writer’ said:

    “One spends their energy on problems that are actually worth trying to solve. Like how to reduce the suffering of others. The real “problem” is that people prefer to focus on the meaningless so that they can convince everyone that they are also suffering. As you so often say it comes down to ego, a form of self-centeredness.”

    Ego is not a form of self-centeredness. Ego is a form of ‘false-self’-centeredness or image-centeredness. Narcissus did not fall in love with his ‘self’, he fell in love with an image of the light that reflected off of his body (that then reflected off the pool…’back to his sight’).

    Focusing on how to reduce the suffering of others is a function of ego. My ‘reflection’ (a la Narcissus) cannot reduce the ‘suffering’ of other ‘reflections’.

    • Swarn Gill says:

      I guess it depends on how you define ego. Freud would define it one way, we use it in commonly in another way, and I prefer the more Freudian definition. But I meant to say egocentricism and not “ego” so perhaps that is where the confusion lies. Narcissism which, while based on the Greek story, has a much more comprehensive definition today in psychological terms so I don’t know that I completely agree. But I appreciate your thoughts, and I do understand the subtlety of your argument. It is I think true though that our sense of self is completely biased and may not actually be the “Self”, but then who else knows the self either. We are constantly defining self through our interactions with other. Sometimes allowing the influence of others to redefine ourselves, sometimes holding on to our own definition and building even stronger walls when someone tries to suggest we are different from who we are.

  2. TBS says:

    I am an undefinable, infinitely worthy, inseparable expression of The Whole. All is One; and One is All. This ‘thing’ that moves about in this ‘place’ — i.e. ‘me’ — is a manifestation of The Light. ‘I’ have no beginning…and no end. I did not ‘come into’ this world, I will not ‘go out’ of it. I am OF All.

    The Cosmos has no ‘need’ of all the crazy shit that has been foisted onto me by illusory mandates that resulted in the construction of a false image…no need of any ‘help’ that I imagine that I can give. Focusing on how I might reduce the suffering of others is but one of those imaginings. The greatest help I can be is simple…be.

    Freud was a ‘figurehead’ for the delusional process of multi-sectioning — attempting to chop The All up into manageable, measurable, definable, ‘explainable’ pieces. [Had there been no ‘Freud’ some other fool would have ‘made’ the same ‘discoveries’.] This process removes the pieces from relation…sleight of hand trickery.

    When my ‘created self’ lets go of the controls, the ‘default settings’ of The Cosmos do just fine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: