Hi Murtaza

I thank you for clarifying your response, however I still don’t feel dialog between us is going to be helpful.  You appear to be very literal with your definitions where as I see words as symbols, that point past themselves expanding ones experience.

To be clear your language didn’t bother me it just left me little space to engage with.   Take your reaction to the words wonder and joy that gave you permission to assume you understood my experience and so labeled me a ‘norime’.  Perhaps if you knew of my time in the military, time of cancer, time of losing love ones you might reconsider the definition of ‘normal’. Where you responding to me you, or responding you your associations with the words joy and wonder? Presuming my use of the words meant you knew me, and knowing me, free to label me and set me aside.  The very thing you dislike others doing to you.

I brought up the Buddhist noble truth of suffering because you your original question in this thread reminded me of it. (and that this is a Buddhist site if a little one)  You assume that because I brought it up I understand it and or must agree with it. Which I do and I don’t. It seems to depends on the perspective I take. From where I look at it, in general or personal, objective or subjective…  Life is complex and simple.

I should have been clear, It was Schopenhauer who said ‘Life is something that should not be’ In context He struggled with the reality that Life feeds off life, and that he found no meaning to it, and little joy. (I wonder if he did not enjoy being sad, I wonder if that might also apply to me?) 

Our life is dependent of consuming life until it is our turn to be consumed. Every breath we take fuels and brakes down our body.  The only advice I gave is that how we respond to that reality is important as it will very much color our experiences. Some will turn to religion, some to drink, some to meditation, some to despair, some to indifference, some to engagement, some to art, some to anger, some to love, some to hate, some to compassion, some to joy… Their may be a time for each, who am I to say which is the better for someone other then myself.

I wondered if the “Salmon” after completing it journey enjoyed the struggle or resented it.  It is a wonder to me that I can imagine that that Salmon did. That does not mean I have been able to do the same with regards my own sufferings… I wonder…. when I found myself on a mountain, in a storm, injured, cold, miserable, frightened, that in that moment I found wonder at the power of the storm, the mountain, myself. A experience I would never choose to experience, yet cannot deny how alive I felt in the moment. I wonder if it was Joy? How is it that perspective can change a memory of a experience, and that change the present moment? Why is it the word wonder is related to the word wounded? Greater minds then mine have pondered such things.

This is only dialog not advice.

Interesting dialog Murtaza. You appear have undergone a great deal of self examination leaning towards a philosophical realistic view on life. Perhaps a desire to measure and label life and make it understandable if not manageable.

Life is suffering, some suffering cannot be eased, therefore the compassion action, the logical one would be to end it? (This I believe was your initial question?)

The response to the Question of Life: No, get me off this ride and end this cycle of birth and death all of which is suffering. (Birth and death both literal and as metaphor. Every creation is also a destruction and every destruction a creation. Summer leads to winter which leads to summer. That is the wonder of Life and its Horror.) Life is broken, something that should not be, refusing to conform to my will of what it ought to be, I resist life.

Another response to the question of Life, one that also sees Life as it is, its wonder and horror, and that is with a YES and then a choice to Participate “joyfully” in the sorrows of the world. Such a Yes looks suffering in the eye and does not pretend life to be otherwise while resisting the temptation to turn toward indifference. Engaging in life with a aim of not adding to the suffering when possible, open to laugh in the moments of wonder.

I wonder if perhaps how we answer the question that is Life, isn’t the only choice and act of free will we have. Yes or No. Most wisdom traditions seem to flirt with both, maybe that’s dependent on the eye of the beholder.

My observations is that a ‘Yes’ is the more difficult answer to come to, at least until it is embraced and internalized. This Yes has the potential to lead to a kind of contentment and participating with the flow of life as it is. A No tends to push against the flow, the more painful as we know Life’s will, will in the end be done. But that can be fun and a kind of wonder too…

Perhaps the trick is to be honest with which ever answer and make it yours. Maybe their is a time for each?

The salmon struggles against the current to return home and lay its eggs, perhaps even having a kind of knowing that completing its task will be its end. An end that will be the same for its spawn.  A cycle of suffering, struggle and  wonder? One can imagine the salmon happy. (Did the Salmon answer life with a Yes or No?)

• This reply was modified 3 years, 7 months ago by Peter.

Hi Weiword

“Participate joyfully in the sorrows of the world. We cannot cure the world of sorrows, but we can choose to live in joy. The warrior’s approach is to say “yes” to life: “yea” to it all.” ― Joseph Campbell

Every myth and religious tradition has struggled with the question you asked. (often related to the question of why is their evil, pain, suffering in the world) The answer of the mystics is ‘YES’. However many will argue that the answer is No, get me off this ride and end the cycle.  Others that we broke Life (sin) and so must fix it.  (and we fix it by following the rules… and following the rules will be rewarded )

You have already noted that you have little influence on the majority of the suffering in the world you are witness too, and a intuition that a answer of No is causing you a great deal of discordance.   That a answer of No is really a ego thing, a attempt to control life and shape it to our will.

What if Life is not broken?

The reality of life is that it ‘lives’ off life, life eats life, that is its wonder and horror. (each breath you take is a sacrifice of life, a birth, a death and a reresection)  Is is possible to say Yes to that wonder and horror? I believe there is.

A No tends to go against the flow, against life, leading to resistance, tension, anger and fear. While a Yes enters into the flow where you actually can influence it. Think of the sky diver that has learned to use slight body moments to influence how he falls and avoid tumbling. Either way the skydiver is falling. They can fight it and tumble or relax, influence what they can an enjoy the ride.

The challenge is the temptation to allow the Yes to turn to indifference and a disengagement with life. (which would be a No)

A authentic Yes ‘sees’ life as it is, opening the heart to gratitude and compassion. A authentic Yes will avoid adding to the suffering of the world, alleviating the suffering that is within their power. This presents the challenge of learning how to be fully engaged in life as it is and “detached” from outcomes. (again not indifference) The tension between being contemplative (still) while active and engaged.

Many of the mystics talk about the ‘stillness being the dance’  the ‘ darkness the light..  It will feel like a paradox. How can one be still and moving? How can the dark be the light?  (the way out is not up but down, into the pain)? How can one enjoy ones gifts while at the same time participating in the suffering of others, of life? (without the need of anger and hate to drive the movement?)

Mindfulness, contemplation, gratitude, compassion…. action

Hi Felix

Sounds like you have a good plan in how to move forward. I also find that when I spend to much time following the news that I get disappointed, frustrated, angry. I wonder where is the compassion, the ability to listen. Why have so many hardened  their hearts as comes to the idea of forgiveness (I suspect many equate forgiveness with no longer be able to hold people accountable. A very unskillful concept of forgiveness). What happened to the idea of learning better and doing better. That we are more then the sum of our parts, more then a single moment in time, more then a single experience? Has the idea of zero tolerance lead to the idea that people are defended by the worst thing they have ever done.  No tolerance, no forgiveness, no room for learning better.

I can get very worked up and lose site of my own center. My challenge has been to maintain my center, the still point, while staying engaged in the world as it is. To accept the world as it and engage in and detached. That has always seem to be a paradox, the art of being engaged and detached at the same time. Their are times I can hold that paradox but more times then not I slide into a detachment that is really indifference. A work in progress

Anyway I came across the following the other day and it reminded me of this conversation

Yearning for a new way will not produce it. Only ending the old way can do that. You cannot hold onto the old all the while declaring that you want something new. The old will defy the new; the old will deny the new; the old will decry the new. There is only one way to bring in the new. You must make room for it. – Neale Donald Walsch

Easier said then done. I’ve notice that when I do spend to much of my attention on the news I slip into my ‘old ways’

A unlived Life will be projected onto others to the extent that it is unrecognized. What you devalue and reject in yourself you will criticize and castigate other for. What you fear in yourself you will flight or flee in others. What you lack in yourself you will depend upon others to provide. – Living your Unlived Life – Robert A. Jonson.

When I do fall back into the trap of my ‘old ways’ I am doing just that. As I pay attention to the news I find myself projecting my disappointments, my desire for control, for things to be other then what they are on others. A distraction  and in a odd way though wanting control my projections actually are a surrender of what control and accountably that I have.  Probably why I do it.

Anyway keep at it, what more can we do.

Hi Felix

The movie did simplify Campbells work focusing mostly on the surface of the Hero Journey and only hinted at the deeper question all Hero’s face. How to respond to Life As It Is.  Campbells work looks through the words of myth (symbolic language, transparent to the transcendent ) for deeper meanings. Objective language tends to be liner and limiting.

I would argue that the world we ‘live’ in isn’t the objective “real” one of the five senses. but a subjective inner one.  We have experiences that are of the five senses but then filter them through our expectations, fears, hopes… turning them into a subjective inner personal experience.  What is real? The actual event in which we actually have very limited knowledge of (we just think we have all the facts), or the inner one which we actually engage with. In trying to understand our experiences we turn them into stories and like dreams, when we look through the words we use, point to deeper truths. Chose the better story.

We work for that which no work is required and so we go around in circles. We experience both the objective and subjective worlds and live in neither. Demanding that only one be ‘real’ trying to force Life to conform. It is easy to experience inner peace sitting alone quietly by a lake… and then we have to prepare our supper only to discover we forgot to bring food. Life has demands on us regardless of our desires and intentions. We must eat.  The trick is to remain sitting quietly by a like while fully engaged in Life as it Is. This is the still point of being which is dancing with Life. Those words won’t mean anything unless one heads the Call of the hero journey, allowing the stories we tell (our way of being) to be transparent to the transcendent. It is the still point where acceptance is already and always present.

Hi Ashmitha

Is it normal to feel on and off about your significant other? Yes it is

My observations have been that many couples panic when they experience these “off and on” feelings and ‘feed the wrong wolf’  even when its a part of every relationship experience. I think its related with confusing the ideals of Love and Like Is is possible to Be in Love while at the same time not always be in Like? Yes.  I would argue its actually more difficult to Like someone 24/7 then it is to Love them 24/7 .  If I love someone I must also always Like everything about them. This type of relating often comes with a relating to the idea of Unconditional Love as being Unconditional allowing  similar to  the misconception that Forgiveness means the person forgiven is off the hook and can’t be held accountable.

The experience of Love and Loving is very much connected with the experiences of accountably, responsibility, meaning, purpose, sacrifice… so much so I don’t think the experiences can be separated.  If such is the case it would be very normal and likely to feel on and off about ones significant other.  A practice of Mindfulness and discernment might be helpful in determining if boundaries have been crossed that need to be addressed.

Hi Weirword

Its a great question.

There are those that argue that only the objective world is real.  If we can touch it, smell, it, see it, measure it, it is real. But when I see, smell, and touch an object the experience is filtered through memory, emotions, associations, and the experience something more, the inner world often at apparent odds with the objective one. What is real? Where is the Wonder?

To navigate these waters, we become story tellers – ‘At our most basic nature, we are social creatures who love to tell stories. Stories that may or may not be true, designed to be taken into deep consideration rather than believed.’ – In Ireland when asked if a story is true the answer might be a some Yes, some No and you are left to discern which is what. I’ve always liked that answer. Their may be an objective truth, yet the best stories touch something deeper, a inner truth.

How to teach a child to believe in a kind, helpful, and wonderful reality?

Your question reminded me of 1897 book ‘Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus’. A kind of question every child faces at some point in life.  ‘Does Santa Claus exits?’ is the question of what is real, the objective reality of sight, smell, touch, measurement… or that which touches something beyond measurement?  (is it a either or? I trust not, however society of late seems to prefer a imagined certainty of all or nothing… In other words the death of wonder) Is Santa Claus a true story?  Some yes, some no… what is it you wish to connect to? The wonder of generosity and Love or a reindeer flying not as metaphor but an impossibility.

At our most basic nature, we are social creatures who love to tell stories. Such stories often become Mythic, the “dreams of the universe”, stories that may or may not be true, designed to be taken into deep consideration rather than believed.

I might argue that a door to wonder is becoming conscious (mindful) of the ways in which we relate and engage in stories.

Joseph Campbell suggested that there are Four Basic Functions of Mythology.  Four ways to engage with story. In my opinion learning to be conscious of ‘which lens’ we are engaging with a story is the key to wonder.  – “It would not be too much to say that myth is the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human cultural manifestations.” ~ Joseph Campbell

Joseph Campbell’s “Four Functions of Myth” From Pathways to Bliss

1. Mystical Function: The first function of mythology [is] to evoke in the individual a sense of grateful, affirmative awe before the monstrous mystery that is existence
2. Cosmological Function: The second function of mythology is to present an image of the cosmos, an image of the universe round about, that will maintain and elicit this experience of awe. [or] …to present an image of the cosmos that will maintain your sense of mystical awe and explain everything that you come into contact within the universe around you.
3. Sociological Function: The third function of a mythological order is to validate and maintain a certain sociological system: a shared set of rights and wrongs, proprieties or improprieties, on which your particular social unit depends for its existence.
4. Pedagogical Function: the fourth function of myth is psychological. That myth must carry the individual through the stages of his life, from birth through maturity through senility to death. The mythology must do so in accords with the social order of his group, the cosmos as understood by his group, and the monstrous mystery.

The second and third functions have been taken over in our world by secular orders. Our cosmology is in the hands of science. The first law of science is that the truth has not been found. The laws of science are working hypotheses. The scientist knows that at any moment facts may be found that make the present theory obsolete; this is happening now constantly. It’s amusing. In a religious tradition, the older the doctrine, the truer it is held to be.

In the scientific tradition, on the other hand, a paper written ten years ago is already out of date. There’s a continuous movement onward. So there’s no law, no Rock of Ages on which you can rest. There’s nothing of the kind. It’s fluid. And we know that rocks are fluid, too, though it takes them a long time to flow. Nothing lasts. It all changes.

In the social realm, again, we don’t regard our laws as being divinely ordained. You still hear it from time to time, as in the current abortion problem: God is talking to Senator So-and-so, or Reverend  Thus-and-such. But it doesn’t seem to make sense otherwise. God’s law is no longer the justification for the nation’s laws. Congress decides what a decent aim for the social order is and what the institution is that should bring that aim about. So I would say that in this secular society of ours, we can no longer really think of the cosmological and sociological functions as a problem.

However, in all of our lives, the first and fourth functions do still play a role, and it’s these that I will be addressing. We are going to find ourselves far away from the old traditions. The first is the problem of awe. And, as I’ve said, you can have one of three attitudes toward it.

The fourth function now is the pedagogical. Basically, the function of the pedagogical order is to bring a child to maturity and then to help the aged become disengaged. Infancy is a period of obedience  and dependency. The child is dependent on the parent, looks to the parent for advice and help and approval. There comes a time, however, when the individual has to become self-reliant and not dependent but himself the authority. Now here we come to a distinction between the traditional attitude toward this problem and the contemporary Western one. The traditional idea is that the adult who has moved from dependency to responsibility should take over without criticism the laws of the society and represent them. In our world, we ask for the development of the individual’s critical faculties, that you should evaluate the social order and yourself, then contribute criticism. This doesn’t mean blowing it up. Nor does it mean blowing it up before you’ve found out what it is. ….

• This reply was modified 3 years, 8 months ago by Peter.