Hi Chris,

You've hurled many insult at Paul for quite some time and then hidden behind a wall of silence when questions are asked of yourself.... why doesn't your much expounded love and compassion extend towards Paul?

Also, have you really given up lying? If so, prove it...

Hi Chris,

This is you on the SRI forum isn't it ([url]same post about lies, different title[/url]).

Quick question Chris, when you are performing "simple Reiki" on a client, do you ask their explicit permission before you "[url]place yourself in their energy body[/url]" (the quote from that site):

Hi Hestia,
We all perveive and sense the lightbody differently - however if the chakras appear 'deformed' then this is a constraint - a blockage of sorts, let the energy flow and the recipient will clear the blockage when they are ready to deal with it.
If while working on the head you 'place yourself into their energy body' you will get a feel for what the sensations that they are feeling (though not always acknowledged), this allow you to use this feedback to channel the energy in the most effective manner, to adjust the frequency and shape so that they are most able to use it.
love
chris

...to me this sounds like the lack of respect and violation of client boundaries that you have accussed Paul of.

Also, what are the precise techniques involved in 'placing yourself into their energy body' - please go give precise and explicit detail, so that the healing community can scrutinise the validity of this method.

Another quick point:

[url]Also on the SRI Forum [/url](my use of bold font):

More power and pride, keep adding new attunements, as many as you can get for surely it makes one a powerful master of the energy, oooh if only we had a way to show how grand we become when we take on these modalities then everyone would know what a super being we are. Perhaps someone will sell a crown for our head or a grand robe to wear when we walk through the common people.
What happend in all this to 'just for today..', where has the love and compassion gone, reiki is not even really about energy, it is about oneself, a spiritual part of our journey. It asks us to look inwards, for there we find the questions and the answers we seek, to change our lives to become more rather than more attuned.
Reiki attunements are a quick way to feel the energy, we already knew how, they just make it quick by demonstration, but apart from that they actually give us nothing we did not already have. Accruing more will not change that, for even if we have many if we have ignored our inward development we are no further along our journey that when we started. Work with what you have, develop yourself in the way only you can, do not allow others to decide who you are, or where you are going - this is your journey so take charge of it. Give yourself time and space, love and understanding - no manuals required for that eh...
love
chris

...hmn.. seems like a self-serving remark.... Are you saying that all of your healing is actually all about you and your journey?

Hi Giles,
I do not ascribe to all Buddhist teachings (people use what they choose to use from these - I believe in karma, not all do).

Agreed. I find many good teachings in Buddhist philosophy as well as others, but there are certain aspects that I do no ascribe to myself. For example, the buddhist explanation of reincarnation doesn't seem to have any evidence to support it, though it could, analogically speaking, represent different levels of karma and merit in how we reincarnate. I certianly wouldn't take it at it's word.

It again depends on what suffering we talk about - there are plenty of examples of where it is a 'construct' of the mind, worry is a clear example of this for me, while a child deprived of food in a famine area is clearly no causing its own suffering. This is not just about attachment, though it can be.

I still consider the subtle different between what is being experienced (which may be a negative or positive experience) and suffering that follows through living in the mind of the 'past' and not the present.

And it does seem as if losing attachment to things and people does relieve suffering - the question is not whether it does for me but rather whether there is a net gain, by giving up attachments and thereby losing suffering the loss of so many other positive experiences makes the process a negative one

This again seems to be the consideration that suffering and experience are the same thing. It's possible to experience positive things without any suffering, so the loss of suffering does not exclude the positive or the negative experiences and thus there is no loss of net gain simply because we choose not to suffer.

- I think that a life spent by losing attachments simply to avoid suffering is a waste of opportunity to experience some of the finest things available to us.

It's not "simply to avoid suffering though", it's to allow us to live in the present moment and to experience the maximum possible of what is going on right Now. If anything this gives us the most experiences we could wish for, rather than living in past memories, distracting us from the experiences of Now which have the most opportunities for new learning.

Now before you start off again, I am not advocating unnecessary suffering, I just believe that suffering and enjoyment, love and sorrow, all the other aspects of living are a valuable part of our existence - there is no life without death, a balance is always maintained.

I'm not going to start "start off again". However the 'need for balance' is another topic I think you'd probably disagree with me on, but would detract from this conversation.

Yes- the two different pasts are interesting.

Well I hope it clarified my understanding for you and made some logical sense.

In terms of the Buddhist model of attachment you also need to seek the answer as to whether seeking a life of no suffering by having no attachments is actually a life spent being attached to a state of no suffering. This is the fundamental problem that makes this in a mobius strip of contradiction.

Absolutely, but true lack of attachment is not saught after otherwise as you say there is an attachment to seeking no attachment. It's possible to have non-attachment without the desire, though it does take practice.

Buddha did what he did to get off the cycle of constant rebirth, to end the cycle of karma, not because he did not like suffering - it was a logical process to achieve an aim.

Ahhhh, if only we could ask him directly. I understand he saw suffering and chose to lead a life to seek ways of being free of suffering and gain merit to be free of samsara.

In the botanical world when a new species is named or a reshuffle of existing species is proposed it is up to the botanists and horticulturalists to accept it or not. There is no coercion. It is up to the proposer to make the best case they can, and I think it is the same with (generally) scientists, if you think that something is bogus you can say so and you should seek to show why, simply to discard it is not enough.

Yet science does discard something for reasons that are beyond logical. e.g. a peer doesn't like it... it's discarded. Science is just as full of bogus authority as any other walk of life. As I said, it has it's good aspects, but it's not everything.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Absolutely, but true lack of attachment is not saught after otherwise as you say there is an attachment to seeking no attachment. It's possible to have non-attachment without the desire, though it does take practice.

I agree Giles .

I would say If an Individual for example wants to remain within an expression of emotion one needs to lose themselves within It before they can realize that the emotion Is not what defines them so to speak . Only then can the Individual detach themselves from It whilst still embracing It and experiencing It (for what It Is) .

I think that Is the Important point and that Is that you need to see "anything" for what It Is before you can let It go . . . or before It dissolves . . .

It will not work If an Individual wants to detach from emotion or Identity or whatever just because they believe that detachment will bring about spiritual evolvement . Like you say the wanting to detach or the desire to detach becomes very much a part of the attachment process that they are are trying to eliminate (lol) .

daz .

Hi WS,

I always describe what and how I see the energy and the healing process going before I start. This is part of the introduction, but sensing the energy, and allowing the reiki energy to is really standard reiki, the addition is that chakras, which are not usually mentioned in reiki are just all part of the energybody that everyone has. Listening to the energy by way of feedback is also something that reiki teaches, there is no secret there. When we are privileged enough to be allowed to help someone heal it is not surprising that this energy interaction allows us to find the best way to help them heal themselves.
How can I separate the benefits to my journey from that of others, if you go and look at why I think I heal I acknowledge that healing is part of my journey, I benefit as does the client. I thank them for their part in my journey at the end of the session (sometimes if the conversation goes in that direction). There are bonds made, connections formed that change me as a person and change them as well, this is part of my journey this time round.
I make no charges, I give what I can for free and I give it with as much love and compassion as I can.

Hi Giles,
Hmm - I've been thinking about the links between attachment and suffering. I understand what Buddha said, and I think I understand why he did what he did but there seem to be added layers that can be added.
Try this....
Buddha gave up attachment for stuff because that caused suffering, and getting rid of suffering was seen as a way of stepping off the cycle of reincarnation and achieving the next level (I think that is right though a tiny bit abridged). I guess this was a self-serving choice.
What Buddha did not give up if it is right is the attachment to his wish to get off the cycle of reincarnation - did he simply change what he was attached to?
In the Now healing process you advocate detaching from suffering (again a bit abridged), does that mean you are attached to a life without suffering? If it does and you suffer a bit of suffering then not only do you suffer the bit of suffering, but you also suffer because your attachment to no suffering is a bit breached. Lol - round and round.
I agree with you, I always have that suffering now can be dealt with if it is based on events from the past, the difference between us is that I think that we will end it when we are ready, I see it as a natural process that will lead to healing, whereas (my view) you think it should just be stopped immediately. The timing is the difference and the value we each place on the evolution of the suffering->healing process.

Now you talk about "experience the maximum possible of what is going on right Now" and again the difference is that you see the means to that as changing things so that one only experiences the 'nice' things (my translation). I think that there are many aspects to life that contribute to experiencing the maximum possible - and yes, that can include suffering if it is part of the healing process.


love
chris

Hi WS,

I always describe what and how I see the energy and the healing process going before I start. This is part of the introduction, but sensing the energy, and allowing the reiki energy to is really standard reiki, the addition is that chakras, which are not usually mentioned in reiki are just all part of the energybody that everyone has. Listening to the energy by way of feedback is also something that reiki teaches, there is no secret there. When we are privileged enough to be allowed to help someone heal it is not surprising that this energy interaction allows us to find the best way to help them heal themselves.
How can I separate the benefits to my journey from that of others, if you go and look at why I think I heal I acknowledge that healing is part of my journey, I benefit as does the client. I thank them for their part in my journey at the end of the session (sometimes if the conversation goes in that direction). There are bonds made, connections formed that change me as a person and change them as well, this is part of my journey this time round.
I make no charges, I give what I can for free and I give it with as much love and compassion as I can.

You seem to have avoided telling me the precise technique of how you enter your clients energy body, and also your manipulation of frequency & shape. Are those standard Reiki practices?

...I think I remember your post about why you heal, I'll double check & get back to you about that one.

Chris, I almost forgot - when you are entering your client energy body, changing the frequency and shape of the energy - are you deciding what is best for the client, kind of doing their healing for them, making it up as you go along - or do you ask their expressed permission as to what frequency & shape they would like their energy - providing an energy menu perhaps?

Hi Giles,
Hmm - I've been thinking about the links between attachment and suffering. I understand what Buddha said, and I think I understand why he did what he did but there seem to be added layers that can be added.
Try this....
Buddha gave up attachment for stuff because that caused suffering, and getting rid of suffering was seen as a way of stepping off the cycle of reincarnation and achieving the next level (I think that is right though a tiny bit abridged). I guess this was a self-serving choice.
What Buddha did not give up if it is right is the attachment to his wish to get off the cycle of reincarnation - did he simply change what he was attached to?

I think you'll find that buddha saw the suffering of others (after he had been brought up in a 'privileged life' and hidden from 'real life') and chose to seek the path to enlightenment for the purpose of being able to teach others to be free of their suffering and free themselves from samsara. It wasn't for his own purpose, but for the good of all. So, I think you are wrong to consider buddha as self serving in that respect. If that had been the case then buddhism wouldn't be what it is, so that is sort of self disproving.

In the Now healing process you advocate detaching from suffering (again a bit abridged), does that mean you are attached to a life without suffering? If it does and you suffer a bit of suffering then not only do you suffer the bit of suffering, but you also suffer because your attachment to no suffering is a bit breached. Lol - round and round.

No, it doesn't mean I am attached to life without suffering. I understand that experiences happen, good or bad, and I have learnt to recognise when suffering occurs and seek to be free of suffering, if that is possible. If I suffer, then that's what happens in that moment. Attachement to life without suffering would not be living in the present moment, so isn't a valid assessment.

I agree with you, I always have that suffering now can be dealt with if it is based on events from the past, the difference between us is that I think that we will end it when we are ready, I see it as a natural process that will lead to healing, whereas (my view) you think it should just be stopped immediately.

Not "should", but "can" be stopped when recognised, as there is no evidence to show that anything is learnt from suffering. Lessons from experience, yes, lessons from suffering, no.

The timing is the difference and the value we each place on the evolution of the suffering->healing process.

The timing and the understanding I think.

Now you talk about "experience the maximum possible of what is going on right Now" and again the difference is that you see the means to that as changing things so that one only experiences the 'nice' things (my translation). I think that there are many aspects to life that contribute to experiencing the maximum possible - and yes, that can include suffering if it is part of the healing process.

I never said it was to experience "nice" things. It is to experience what's in the present moment, so as to not miss out on what is there, good or bad, and allow us to Act on what is needed. Your 'translation' is unfortunately, misguided.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

HI WS,
" You seem to have avoided telling me the precise technique of how you enter your clients energy body, and also your manipulation of frequency & shape. Are those standard Reiki practices?"
I'm not quite sure what you are after here, I sense a slightly shrill note of something a bit desperate again, but to me the question seems irrelevant. If you watch the persons energy body the energy is perfectly visible, and you watch your own and the energy is perfectly visible, if you see the reiki energy flowing as you put your hands on them then it is clear that you are entering their energy body with yours, it is all perfectly visible.
In the same way as you sing along with someone and you moderate your volume and pitch with healing the feedback from the client allows you to moderate how you let the energy flow, these are not something outside reiki. It is their feedback that decides what they need, they do the healing not me, I just facilitate. This is all explained to them though of course they usually cannot see the energy.

Hi Giles,
I always thought that Buddha did not decide what others needed, he certainly never told people to do the things he did. He provided an example, and the logic for people to follow if they wished - but it was his desire to step off the never ending cycle of rebirth that got him working out how to. That is not to say that he was immune to other's suffering, any more than Jesus was, but the basis was about rebirth rather than suffering, losing suffering was the means to an end (literally).

You say that you are not attached to a life without suffering (or pain) and yet seek to be free of suffering (and pain) - is that not an attachment?

I've detailed a number of examples where suffering has led to some form of enlightenment, you see that it was not the suffering, but in each case the process did change the people and it is these changes that we admire them for. Nelson Mandela chose to suffer in prison, Jesus chose the path of suffering, they did not learn from the initial imprisonment or whatever, it was the time based process that changed them.

Yes- nice things was my translation, this is because you seek to avoid pain, and suffering, seeing these things as something to be avoided defines them in some was as 'not nice'.
love
chris

HI WS,
" You seem to have avoided telling me the precise technique of how you enter your clients energy body, and also your manipulation of frequency & shape. Are those standard Reiki practices?"
I'm not quite sure what you are after here, I sense a slightly shrill note of something a bit desperate again,

Hi Chris,

I sense that you are unsettled, and I also sense that all of the accussations that you threw at Paul were actually aspects of yourself that you have failed to 'stack up' and so projected these issues onto him... kind of like not throwing your snails into someone else garden so they don't spoil the 'perfect' balance in your picture(something I read in one of your HP posts).... but I guess that you'd want me to "proove" & "provide evidence" for that 'speculation'. Is that a correct assumption of me to make? (Huh, me and my despair... you right, it's back!)

but to me the question seems irrelevant.

The relevancy of the question was to establish wheter or not you were using "simple Reiki" as you had previous stated.

If you watch the persons energy body the energy is perfectly visible, and you watch your own and the energy is perfectly visible, if you see the reiki energy flowing as you put your hands on them then it is clear that you are entering their energy body with yours, it is all perfectly visible.
In the same way as you sing along with someone and you moderate your volume and pitch with healing the feedback from the client allows you to moderate how you let the energy flow, these are not something outside reiki. It is their feedback that decides what they need, they do the healing not me, I just facilitate. This is all explained to them though of course they usually cannot see the energy.

Smoke and mirrors... stating this as fact does not make it True. And aslo you have not answered the question : is 'entering the energy body' standard Reiki practice.

Hi Giles,
I always thought that Buddha did not decide what others needed, he certainly never told people to do the things he did. He provided an example, and the logic for people to follow if they wished - but it was his desire to step off the never ending cycle of rebirth that got him working out how to. That is not to say that he was immune to other's suffering, any more than Jesus was, but the basis was about rebirth rather than suffering, losing suffering was the means to an end (literally).

Not sure which buddhist teachings you've received or what buddhist texts you've studied, but the one's I have explain that buddism is about compassion towards others with a view to relieving the suffering, by the recognition of emptiness. It is completely selfless as, when one understands emptiness, one understands it is about the unity of all (the Oneness or non-duality), and there is no individual self to be selfish with.

I read a good passage in one of my books over the weekend in relation to what you have assumed about Buddha, but I'm at work and don't have the book to hand to quote.... [goes off to look] ... but I've found some of the text online...

From: "Understanding the Mind" by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

Dharmakirti defines a valid Teacher as a Teacher who knows fully and without error what objects are to be abandoned and what objects are to be practised, and who, out of compassion, reveals this knowledge to others.

A valid Teacher, therefore, must have five qualities:

1) Unmistaken knowledge of all objects to be abandoned
2) Complete knowledge of the methods for abandoning them
3) Unmistaken knowledge of all objects to be practiced
4) Complete knowledge of the methods for practicing them
5) Revealing all this to others with the motivation of compassion

The supreme example of a valid Teacher is Buddha. His mind perfectly accords with the way things are, he is free from the two obstructions, and he sees clearly what binds sentient beings to samsara and how to release them. Since he has completely fulfilled his own purposes he has nothing to gain from deceiving sentient beings - his only motivation for teaching is great compassion.

Now, I can see that you may read the part "since he has completely fulfilled his own purposes" as being self serving, but that makes an assumption about his initial motivation for becoming enlightened. You assume that it was for his own selfish reasons to be free of samsara but, if you read the life story of buddha, it was through his recognition of others suffering that he sought the path to enlightenment so that he could become a valid Teacher and teach with the motivation of great compassion. Thus it is incorrect to say that his motivations were in any way selfish.

You say that you are not attached to a life without suffering (or pain) and yet seek to be free of suffering (and pain) - is that not an attachment?

You have assumed that I "seek" freedom from suffering, but to "seek" is to consider the future and not live in the present moment. I simply recognise that suffering may arise and when it does, I can recognise it as a creation of the mind and choose to end the suffering there and then as it has no purpose because it is simply based on the past, and is not what is actually being experienced from what is in front of me in the present. Of course, I'm no expert, and I do suffer without recognising it, but with practice, as with anything, it becomes easier.

I've detailed a number of examples where suffering has led to some form of enlightenment, you see that it was not the suffering, but in each case the process did change the people and it is these changes that we admire them for. Nelson Mandela chose to suffer in prison,

Did he choose that? He experienced being in prison, we know that as fact, but I don't think he really chose that, or that, when he suffered, he chose to suffer. It would be interesting to ask him personally. In the meantime, I won't make assumptions as if they are fact about whether he chose to suffer or not. Interesting that you feel qualified to know him so intimately though.

Jesus chose the path of suffering, they did not learn from the initial imprisonment or whatever, it was the time based process that changed them.

As I said before, it would be interesting to ask them, rather than make assumptions. Better examples would surely be from personal experience wouldn't they?

Yes- nice things was my translation, this is because you seek to avoid pain, and suffering, seeing these things as something to be avoided defines them in some was as 'not nice'.

Again, you assume I "seek". I don't seek. I experience and I choose. Those experiences may be "nice" or may not be "nice", but I can choose to recognise a "not nice" experience without carrying it forward after the event as "suffering", and thus I can Act to change the experience in the present moment so that it is not "not nice". No looking forward, no looking back, just dealing with it as it is right there and Now.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi WS,
I have not said it is true, I merely answered your question as best as I could. Reiki advocates the hand positions when giving a treatment, how can the energy body of the reiki person's hands not enter the energy body of the client when that energy body is all around them? Let me ask you though, can you see the energy? Perhaps it all looks like smoke and mirrors to you.


Hi Giles,
Ahh - I'm no scholar of Buddhism, and I do agree that Buddha was concerned over the state of mankind, but he actually found enlightenment as far as I knew by himself after seeking it through many different ways, even after finding enlightenment he was not sure if he should teach it. So I see that much of this was for him, his natural compassion led him to try and pass it to others, but that was not his driver in trying to discover it.
I agree that the word seek can be used as a future tense, but that is not the case, for it can be used in the present tense. When you are in the now you seek to eliminate suffering or whatever.
Did Nelson Mandela choose to stay in prison, yes -he did, he was offered a deal to get him out but would not compromise because that betrayed the principles that he stood for, was Jesus offered, yes he was, he was offered an out and he refused to accept it because that compromised his message. They both accepted the route of suffering instead of the deal offered (these are documented - in Nelson Mandela's biography, and of course in the bible).
love
chris

They both accepted the route of suffering

Hi Chris .

When an Individual makes a sacrifice of sorts, this type of example be It by nelson or Jesus Is part of the message that they bring . Suffering seems to be a key Ingredient .

The sacrificial lamb to the slaughter so to speak .

If Nelson was not suffering within himself / within prison then his message would of lacked sustenance . If Jesus's faith In the lord wilted then perhaps he would of chose to play his get out of jail card .

His message "was about faith" .

I would say that when an Individual connects with the light of our lord (or themselves) so to speak the sufferings In someway are shared or In someway become tolerable because of the Inner and outer strength that becomes them .

dazzle .

Hi WS,
I have not said it is true, I merely answered your question as best as I could. Reiki advocates the hand positions when giving a treatment, how can the energy body of the reiki person's hands not enter the energy body of the client when that energy body is all around them? Let me ask you though, can you see the energy? Perhaps it all looks like smoke and mirrors to you.

No Chris it really *is* smoke and mirrors. It's funny actually, I've been looking for somebody to work with for some time (in a vaugue sense), and I thought it was going to be you, but now I've firmly decided against it.

Huh, now this thread is causing me suffering, so I will say Bye Bye.

x

Bye Wildstrawberry,
Not sure what kind of work you thought I might take on with you, but I assume from your reply to my question (or lack of reply) that you cannot see the energy - it takes some practise but is open to all and has been documented by almost all cultures throughout written history.
Anyway best of luck - I hope you learn to see past the smoke and mirrors.

love
chris

Bye Wildstrawberry,
Not sure what kind of work you thought I might take on with you, but I assume from your reply to my question (or lack of reply) that you cannot see the energy - it takes some practise but is open to all and has been documented by almost all cultures throughout written history.
Anyway best of luck - I hope you learn to see past the smoke and mirrors.

love
chris

Oh please, I have spoken to you on SRI, so you know very well I can "see the energy" - But I'm not attached to seeing it and I don't 'seek' to see it, so I don't waffle on about it, I've seen your 'energy' when reading your posts on this forum... I wasn't calling your description of 'the energy' the smoke and mirrors, I was talking about your side stepping of the underlying issuesthe smoke and mirrors.

Here's some friendly advice, stop looking to Buddha & Jesus as role models and just stop evading the issues, start speeking honestly and stop licking your lips in sinister delight at the prospect of everyone who has ever slighted you and not shown you love & compassion being frazzled (or whatever) by the "Awakening Sun", the unfolding actions of which your are so eagerly monitoring.

Tata!

Hi Giles,
Ahh - I'm no scholar of Buddhism, and I do agree that Buddha was concerned over the state of mankind, but he actually found enlightenment as far as I knew by himself after seeking it through many different ways, even after finding enlightenment he was not sure if he should teach it. So I see that much of this was for him, his natural compassion led him to try and pass it to others, but that was not his driver in trying to discover it.

As the story goes, Buddha Shakyamuni (or Siddhārtha Gautama as he was called at birth) was born to a King and Queen in Nepal (in those days it was more likely the leaders of a tribe in a region rather than what we would envisage today). He grew up excluded from the 'outside' people and had little knowledge of any religious ways, until he ventured out and saw the suffering of people. It was his observation of this suffering that was his driver to seek the way to end suffering which involved him needing to discover the way for himself first so that he could teach others. As I said, I'm not sure which texts you have read, but your understanding seems to be opposing to any teachings I've studied, and you certainly seem to confidently know what buddha's motivation was.

I agree that the word seek can be used as a future tense, but that is not the case, for it can be used in the present tense. When you are in the now you seek to eliminate suffering or whatever.

You only seek if you let your mind look to the future. The very word "seek" means to look or go towards something in the future. In the present moment, we can only "choose" based on what is in front of us Now.

Did Nelson Mandela choose to stay in prison, yes -he did, he was offered a deal to get him out but would not compromise because that betrayed the principles that he stood for, was Jesus offered, yes he was, he was offered an out and he refused to accept it because that compromised his message. They both accepted the route of suffering instead of the deal offered (these are documented - in Nelson Mandela's biography, and of course in the bible).

Just because they refused to accept some deal does not mean they were suffering at that point in time. You seem to be linking the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela with suffering, which it seems to me is using the word suffering in a very general and ambigious manner, yet if he chose to stay in prison because it would have betrayed what he stood for, then he was meeting the need of that moment whereas the alternative choice would not have. As I said, this is all speculation, because you would need to have the person speak for themselves rather than speculate based on interpretations that have been read, or re-written/edited by others etc.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi Giles,
You say " he ventured out and saw the suffering of people" - but what he sought to end was not necessarily the everyday suffering, in fact it makes no sense of his quest "he left on his religious quest, which is said to have been motivated by existential concern for the human condition" (from Wikipedia) - if it was only to relive day to day suffering. The object he achieved was to step off the infinite cycle of rebirth, enlightenment, (and the suffering that encompassed during each life), and this is what his teachings such as they were is intended to deliver, not a relief from day to day suffering, but the end of the cycle which was achieved by enlightenment. It happens that the way he found included stopping the day to day suffering, but it was the perpetual cycle that was the target. Is this right, or did he just seek to end day to day suffering - if so what was the point of his teachings other than avoidance.
Again from Wikipedia (an easy but sometimes tricky source!), "On these he encountered a diseased man, a decaying corpse, and an ascetic. These depressed him, and he initially strove to overcome ageing, sickness, and death by living the life of an ascetic" - so at least art some stage it was about the suffering within this life, however (from the Creed of Buddha, Holmes):

"Whatever else Buddha may have been, he was a serious and systematic teacher who was deeply impressed with the belief that it was his
mission to lead men into the path of salvation,--a broad path, as he conceived it, but clearly defined; and as his missionary life lasted for fortyfive
years, and was one of incessant preaching and teaching; we may well believe that he mapped out the path with extreme care and
accuracy, and that the chart of life which he thus elaborated was preserved in all its detail by the retentive memory of his listeners and their
disciples, and has come down intact to the present day. We way also assume with confidence that tradition has faithfully preserved that part
of his teaching in which he gave reasons for the faith that was in him. It is certain that he urged men to enter and walk in the path in order
that, by extinguishing all desire for earthly things, they might win deliverance from the earth-life, with its attendant suffering, and attain to
that blessed state of being which he called Nirvâna. It is further certain that he believed in re-incarnation, and took for granted that those who
listened to him held the same belief; and that therefore he meant by deliverance from earth deliverance from the "whirlpool of rebirth,"
deliverance from the cycle of earth-lives which the unenlightened soul is bound to pass through."

So - this makes it clear that although Buddha may have been initially seeking simply a release from suffering what he found was a release from the cycle of suffering called reincarnation.

You say "You only seek if you let your mind look to the future."

To search, to look for - these are present tense.

Now from the freedictionary:
1. To try to locate or discover; search for.
2. To endeavor to obtain or reach: seek a college education.
3. To go to or toward: Water seeks its own level.
4. To inquire for; request: seek directions from a police officer.
5. To try; endeavor: seek to do good.
6. Obsolete To explore.

Now these do not talk about the future, to try to locate is a present tense, to endeavour is present tense.

Finally if you read the stuff that Nelson Mandela wrote about his time in prison you will see that he did achieve a kind of enlightenment during his period of suffering, it was not just a conscious choice to suffer on principal, the process allowed understanding and development.
love
chris

Hi Giles,
You say " he ventured out and saw the suffering of people" - but what he sought to end was not necessarily the everyday suffering, in fact it makes no sense of his quest "he left on his religious quest, which is said to have been motivated by existential concern for the human condition" (from Wikipedia) - if it was only to relive day to day suffering. The object he achieved was to step off the infinite cycle of rebirth, enlightenment, (and the suffering that encompassed during each life), and this is what his teachings such as they were is intended to deliver, not a relief from day to day suffering, but the end of the cycle which was achieved by enlightenment. It happens that the way he found included stopping the day to day suffering, but it was the perpetual cycle that was the target. Is this right, or did he just seek to end day to day suffering - if so what was the point of his teachings other than avoidance.

It is yourself who believes it is avoidance Chris, that is your own interpretation. How you manage to link the ending of suffering to avoiding suffering I still fail to see. Ending and avoiding are two differing things.

Again from Wikipedia (an easy but sometimes tricky source!),

Often a very unreliable source as I've found out many a time.

"On these he encountered a diseased man, a decaying corpse, and

deliverance from the cycle of earth-lives which the unenlightened soul is bound to pass through."

So - this makes it clear that although Buddha may have been initially seeking simply a release from suffering what he found was a release from the cycle of suffering called reincarnation.

Whatever he discovered, his driving aim was to relieve the suffering of humankind. He may not have recognised this could be done outside of just a single lifetime, but he eventually discovered that that was possible.

You say "You only seek if you let your mind look to the future."

To search, to look for - these are present tense.

Now from the freedictionary:
1. To try to locate or discover; search for.
2. To endeavor to obtain or reach: seek a college education.
3. To go to or toward: Water seeks its own level.
4. To inquire for; request: seek directions from a police officer.
5. To try; endeavor: seek to do good.
6. Obsolete To explore.

Now these do not talk about the future, to try to locate is a present tense, to endeavour is present tense.

No. The act is performed in the present moment, but the focus is placed on something in the future, something that doesn't exist here and now. If it existed here and now then there would be no need to seek or search for it now would there?
Thus, to seek or search for something requires the mind to consider the goal in the future and to act in the present towards that goal, but putting the mind on a future goal ignores the needs in present moment. To seek/search is a future minded action, if it was completely in the present, then you would have already found it.

Finally if you read the stuff that Nelson Mandela wrote about his time in prison you will see that he did achieve a kind of enlightenment during his period of suffering, it was not just a conscious choice to suffer on principal, the process allowed understanding and development.

I haven't read his words (assuming they are all his words and not edited), and I think we can't assume that his interpretation of suffering is the same as your own, or that he was indeed suffering at the moments when he experienced his enlightenments or whatever. I can't see how these examples you keep trying to use are of any relevance if the person themselves is not here to express their own understanding. If you could provide us with details of personal experience then that may be different.... because you say that people learn from suffering, yet you use your ideas of other people as examples. They just can't stack up or be sufficient as evidence.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Because I've contributed to this thread I'm getting notifications of new posts, and after having a scan through I do wonder what others who read this thread make of it.

Second guessing and criticising the motives of Buddha and Jesus, for goodness' sake! And quibbling over what the word 'seek' means!

The root cause of all suffering? Attachment.

Attachment to...ideas

If you don't wish to contribute barafundle we're not twisting your arm.

This is something we're discussing to help our own understanding, so it's beneficial to us.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

If you don't wish to contribute barafundle we're not twisting your arm.

I didn't say it didn't have some entertainment value, but thanks, I'll take that as my cue to sling my hook.

This is something we're discussing to help our own understanding, so it's beneficial to us.

I'm glad it's helping your understanding and you're finding it beneficial. :dft002:

:038:

Don't worry Barafundle i doubt if any of the main parties on this thread are open to much ' new understanding'. Just a lot of confusing squabbling at this stage. I'm right, no i'm right, no i'm right, no i'm right, no i'm right, no i'm right :confused:

Have not seen one post where anyone has said they've been helped with their own understanding :rolleyes: No surprise there i guess - those big old egos would never admit that lol!

But you're right, it is entertaining :).

Hi Barafundel and Malchy,
Perhaps you see this conversation as worthless, perhaps you see that we do not agree, if so that is because you have not been following it properly.
We are discussing the life of Buddha, and in order to explain each of our understandings of it from the different views we have actually quoted sources - it is these sources we are discussing. I've already said that I am no scholar of the life of Buddha, and I enjoyed Giles' descriptions, I did a bit of dodgy research and it made me think harder, I dredged up the source of my understanding and gave it back to Giles. Perhaps instead of criticising us for trying to 'second guess' what these great figures were thinking, but was not documented by them, you would give us what you see as the motives based on what is known (not assumed) - I for one would like that for it may well lead me into greater understanding.

Hi Giles,
I'm not so sure that avoidance and ending are so different but if it makes more sense to say ending then that is ok. The use of words is key to all of this so testing the tense does have relevance.
The section I quoted about Buddha was from a well known book, now out of copyright (available for download), you did not comment on it, have you read it? I enjoyed it, I agree it is only one person's view but it seemed well thought out.

love
chris

Don't worry Barafundle i doubt if any of the main parties on this thread are open to much ' new understanding'. Just a lot of confusing squabbling at this stage. I'm right, no i'm right, no i'm right, no i'm right, no i'm right, no i'm right :confused:

Have not seen one post where anyone has said they've been helped with their own understanding :rolleyes: No surprise there i guess - those big old egos would never admit that lol!

But you're right, it is entertaining :).

Hi Malchy,

If you wish to judge and try and insult members of the forum by saying that we're squabbling, not open to new understanding or that we have big old egos, I'm more than happy to refer you to the forum guidelines () in respect of Language:

Language:
Any foul or hostile language used will not be tolerated. This includes any derogatory statements and profanity. Direct or indirect personal attacks are strictly not permitted. Insults and negative attitudes are not allowed. Saying you don't agree and why, can be done in a good humoured and polite way without causing offence.

All members have the right to their own ideas, beliefs and faiths. Members have the right to express these with equal respect and consideration

As Chris correctly points out, if you find the conversation confusing then you have not chosen to read it (I know it's gone on for a long time, so it's a lot to read through, so I can understand some people's reluctance to get involved). We have also said at various stages that we are discussing this to aid our understanding, and the discussion has certainly helped me to re-evaluate my own understanding and look at other viewpoints, though little evidence has been presented to change my understanding and therefore, I can only conclude that my undstanding "stacks up" (to use Chris' term. :)) I am certainly more than willing to change my understanding if someone can explain to me how we can benefit from not living in the present moment or how we can benefit from suffering. This is what I am trying to understand in my discussion with Chris. We are of course limited by the written word on the forums and our own limitations of understanding the terminology of words, hence why are discussing that at such depth.

You may find that entertaining, and I'm glad you enjoy it, but we are certainly not squabbling, simply progressing our spiritual knowledge.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi Giles,
I'm not so sure that avoidance and ending are so different but if it makes more sense to say ending then that is ok. The use of words is key to all of this so testing the tense does have relevance.

Words, I find, are very important to our understanding as these provide us with the model we use, and allow us to communicate as best we can that understanding to others. No words can describe everything, but we can do what we can to understand each other.

To me, "ending" is tantamount to a final stage of something, such as if I were to burn a book. Although the energy of the book is transformed and still exists as energy in the universe, the book that was made from that energy has ended and will not return to being that same book again. Avoidance is to put something aside, such that it could return again. This would be like putting the book back on the bookshelf. The book still exists even if I'm avoiding reading it, but I can certainly come back to seeing that book again as the book it is. Thus I see a clear distinction between avoiding suffering and ending suffering. If we end suffering, it won't return (though we can recreate some new suffering from something else or something similar). If we avoid suffering, it's still there, and can pop up again another time.

The section I quoted about Buddha was from a well known book, now out of copyright (available for download), you did not comment on it, have you read it? I enjoyed it, I agree it is only one person's view but it seemed well thought out.

Not sure which book you were referring to, and I have many books on buddhism and other philosophies myself as well as having received teachings likewise from many sources (and of course read a lot on the internet :rolleyes:)
The stories relating to Buddha do vary depending on who is writing about it, some being more scholarly interpretations from (ahem!) 'original' texts and others being written by more Western non-scholarly sources who have an 'interest' in the area (a bit like if I were to write a book on buddhism). So, perhaps Buddha's initial drive was to end his own suffering without concern for others in a selfish manner, or perhaps it was a desire to end the suffering of all. We may never really know.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi Giles,
OK - taking your example of ending versus avoiding as read, and it makes sense the way you put it, we come back to 'my' question about living in the Now, and this is at the heart of my doubts I suppose. If you choose for this moment to live in the now, choose not to suffer by whatever the process is, perhaps only working with those things that are relevant to ones existence Now or whatever, the suffering will end. What then if in the next moment one chooses not to live in the Now, will the old suffering resurface? Or will one only be subject to any suffering resulting from new issues that have occurred since 'leaving the Now'?
If the old suffering will (eventually) resurface if one chooses not to live in the Now then it is avoidance, if it will never resurface then it is ending.
If upon leaving the Now one will only suffer from issues arising since leaving the Now than what I see in a way is something akin to the Catholic confession, confess and ditch all the old stuff, leave the confessional and start up a new lot of stuff that can be ditched at the next confession (I have never seen how this is expected to honestly work). So if I chose to live in the now for only one moment each week, I would only ever have suffering from the past week.
Does this sound confused? - hehe - but it is a fundamental question.
If I look back at Paul's comments on healing then it should be an ending, for he says that any suffering is ended permanently with his healing process even if the client does not choose to live in the Now from then on.
The point here is clear - if a few minutes of living in the Now can end all of suffering arising from past issues and events, than apart from other benefits perhaps, there is little reason from an 'ending suffering' point of view to continue to live in the now.


The text for The Creed of Buddha can be downloaded here, I liked it, it was not biased, and he also produced The Creed of Christ which I enjoyed asd well.
<a class="go2wpf-bbcode" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href=" http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/cob/index.htm "> http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/cob/index.htm -
Harking back a bit all I ever see about Buddha and Jesus is interpretations of what they are supposed to have thought and said, some choose to interpret one way, some the other, and the 'for heaven's sake' bit makes it sound as if all this is worthless, but of course it is not. Where would we be if we did not try to interpret Shakespear's works, or Chaucer, look at the many interpretations of the bible texts. So anyone that thinks that this is in some way un-necessary or perhaps even stupid has obviously never operated in an academic manner, for that is what much of research and academia is all about. It is the synergy of combining and exploring different view-points that eventually allows the 12 blind men to discover what the elephant really looks like.

love
chris

Hi Chris

If I look back at Paul's comments on healing then it should be an ending, for he says that any suffering is ended permanently with his healing process even if the client does not choose to live in the Now from then on.
The point here is clear - if a few minutes of living in the Now can end all of suffering arising from past issues and events, than apart from other benefits perhaps, there is little reason from an 'ending suffering' point of view to continue to live in the now.

I am answering this for your clarification and understanding.

It is not living in the now which ends the suffering, it is the healing itself which ends the suffering and allows someone to begin to function within the now, not the other way around.

Hi Paul,
Yes - my mistake - scrub out living - change to healing.

What then does living in the Now offer by way of reduction of suffering?

love
chris

Hi Giles,
OK - taking your example of ending versus avoiding as read, and it makes sense the way you put it, we come back to 'my' question about living in the Now, and this is at the heart of my doubts I suppose. If you choose for this moment to live in the now, choose not to suffer by whatever the process is, perhaps only working with those things that are relevant to ones existence Now or whatever, the suffering will end. What then if in the next moment one chooses not to live in the Now, will the old suffering resurface? Or will one only be subject to any suffering resulting from new issues that have occurred since 'leaving the Now'?

This brings up back to where we were before, but I think we're clearing the waters a little.

If you choose, in the present moment, to not live in the Now, what you are doing is putting your mind on thoughts of the past (and maybe projecting those as thoughts of the future, but ideas of the future are created from the past, so essentially they're all thoughts of the past). So, you're awareness is in the present moment (it can't be anywhere else), but rather than use the mind as a tool to observe the present and Act, we are letting the mind take over and bring up the past memories as thoughts. Although the memories exist in the present moment, the way our memories are stored means that they become associated with other things in the mind (It's scientific knowledge that we remember things by association, that's what I'm talking about there). Because of the association of memories, the exact situation of the universe at the time the event took place that the memory is based upon, now no longer exists, and we know we couldn't possibly store the whole universe as a memory. That's what I refer to when I say it's 'corrupted', though you could look at it as layering of new memories upon old or whatever framework of understanding you want to put on it. The memories are a 'perception' of the event at the time it happened, and has been added to and changed over time. Now, those memories may come from past lives or not depending on what you believe, but regardless, they will not be an accurate presentation of the universe as it was at the time of the event, only this 'corrupt' mind created thought that arises.

Suffering is, to my understanding, when we take one of these past thoughts and believe it to be a real situation right here and now, and let it cause us emotional/mental or physical pain in this present moment. The real past no longer exists, but we are letting the mind created past cause us suffering in the present moment. It isn't something static, because as the present moment progresses, the suffering itself can influence our memories and thoughts and we can get in a cycle of changing the suffering, sometimes with very bad consequences (like when we refer to blowing something out of proportion).

So, in the present moment you can recognise the suffering for what it is, something that is mind created and based on an event in the past that no longer exists (that's not to say the event didn't happen, but the memory is only based on it, it isn't actually it). When you recognise this in the present moment you can choose to let it go, because it is serving no real purpose (there's nothing to be learnt from a mind created false idea of something from the past). That is living in the Now and allows us to connect with the situation in the present moment rather than what the mind is creating.

Now, to come to your question...

If we then choose to not live in the present moment again, will that suffering resurface...

No. Put simply, any suffering that arises will be newly created by the mind and such thoughts will have arisen because of associations with what is in this new present moment. Now you may say that "ah, but the suffering is based on the same past memory, so it's still suffering on the same thing". Now, apart from the small fact that the memory itself will have changed since the last suffering so it's not exactly the same memory, we have already associated the fact that the suffering last time was not real and this itself is remembered and associated with that memory. The suffering was previously ended (when recognised it was not real it ceased to exist), so any new suffering is being generated by some other factor.

As an example, say we had had an argument with someone a few weeks ago, and this morning we remembered that argument and it caused us to get angry with that person, even though they aren't here. When this anger arose, we brought ourselves to the present moment and recognised that the anger served no purpose as the argument has already gone and cannot be changed, and the anger is just being created by our own mind, so we chose to let it go. Now, later, we see someone else who reminds us of that person again and we feel anger arise. Is it anger at the same thing? No, the anger is arising for a different reason, something to do with the association between that person and the person we argued with. It's not the same anger, as the thought was not triggered by the association with the argument, but by something different, so we should recognise this aspect of anger as something different, and recognise that it too is created by the mind and we can choose to let it go. Each time some suffering arises we can choose to end it, and this will heal us as we eventually recognise that there is no real suffering to be experienced from the past memories.

Simply put... old suffering cannot resurface as that would involve travelling back in time.

If the old suffering will (eventually) resurface if one chooses not to live in the Now then it is avoidance, if it will never resurface then it is ending.

Exactly, and as old suffering cannot resurface, it is ended. Now that's healing.

If upon leaving the Now one will only suffer from issues arising since leaving the Now than what I see in a way is something akin to the Catholic confession, confess and ditch all the old stuff, leave the confessional and start up a new lot of stuff that can be ditched at the next confession (I have never seen how this is expected to honestly work). So if I chose to live in the now for only one moment each week, I would only ever have suffering from the past week.

No, it's nothing like that. Suffering could arise from any memory if we are not in the present moment. You'd have to cut out all memories to do what you're thinking of. LOL! That's not going to happen.

Does this sound confused? - hehe - but it is a fundamental question.

Not at all. I was expecting you to ask such a question.

If I look back at Paul's comments on healing then it should be an ending, for he says that any suffering is ended permanently with his healing process even if the client does not choose to live in the Now from then on.

I don't know Paul's process, but if it follows what I've said above, then such suffering is permanently ended and only new suffering will arise. I'm not sure it would be "any" suffering as that would imply that no more suffering can arise, but I think it means that any suffering that has been dealt with is ended.

The point here is clear - if a few minutes of living in the Now can end all of suffering arising from past issues and events, than apart from other benefits perhaps, there is little reason from an 'ending suffering' point of view to continue to live in the now.

No. We're not talking of some magic bullet where you can step into the Now for an hour, end all your suffering and then go back to living out of the Now and no more suffering will ever happen. We're talking of living in the Now and healing any suffering that arises so that suffering is ended. Of course further suffering can be created in the future.

The text for The Creed of Buddha can be downloaded here, I liked it, it was not biased, and he also produced The Creed of Christ which I enjoyed asd well.
[url]The Creed of Buddha Index[/url] -
Harking back a bit all I ever see about Buddha and Jesus is interpretations of what they are supposed to have thought and said, some choose to interpret one way, some the other, and the 'for heaven's sake' bit makes it sound as if all this is worthless, but of course it is not. Where would we be if we did not try to interpret Shakespear's works, or Chaucer, look at the many interpretations of the bible texts. So anyone that thinks that this is in some way un-necessary or perhaps even stupid has obviously never operated in an academic manner, for that is what much of research and academia is all about. It is the synergy of combining and exploring different view-points that eventually allows the 12 blind men to discover what the elephant really looks like.

Agreed. Thanks for the link, I'll download it when I'm at home.

All Love and Reiki Hugs