Posts Tagged ‘belief’

benefit by accepting change

March 27, 2012
A boy riding a bicycle with training wheels

A boy riding a bicycle with training wheels (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Do you accept change, benefiting from changing developments in economics and society?

by Cal Euphoria,
of the Accepting Beneficiaries of a Changing World

Conditions are always changing- even while we sleep. We may notice some changes very suddenly- and those we may call “surprises” (and then we may look back and call some of the surprises pleasant or exciting and call others unpleasant, disappointing, or frustrating). We may notice many changes very slowly, calling them developments or trends. We may even notice changes just as they begin- long before others may notice them or may even be willing to accept them. We may call them intuitions or forecasts or prophecies or revelations or even revolutions emerging.

Any change- even just a possible change- may also be rejected, denied, and resisted. We could judge against a certain possible change as personally threatening or repulsive and then complain about it, protest against it, protect against it, campaign to reverse or “fix” it, or just try and try to prevent it simply by sustaining something else. Plus, we may just focus compulsively on what we hope may still be true.

Two men riding one bicycle in Paris, France.

Two men riding one bicycle in Paris, France. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

All of that can be quite exhausting, plus eventually it just does not work. Whatever we do or do not do, life always changes anyway- breathing in only for a while, then breathing out only for a while, and so on.

However, accepting change is essential to responsibility, functionality, and leadership. Rejecting anything is a symptom of dis-ease, or a lack of adaptability… in that one can be so attached to a certain possibility that the absence of that possibility would result in the experience of distress or suffering. If we focus on anything that we believe would or could result in distress, that is already distressing or agonizing.

Mental dis-ease or distress or suffering or agonizing (which, by the way, always has physical consequences) is not the inherent result of any particular external change or development. (Note: I am not talking here about a lack of physical development due to undernourishment- such as the “modern epidemic” of undersized jaws and crowded teeth due to diets of refined, processed,
“convenience” foods. See or In contrast to organic nutritional deficiencies (or physical injury- which is highly correlated to undernourishment), mental dis-ease or “disorder” is always an interactive response in which some possible development may be filtered through some neuro-linguistic patterns and then those patterns (or beliefs) may delete, distort, or otherwise decode the particular possible development, then – in the case of a responding of dis-ease – interpret that development or perception as “a threat, a problem, or a worry.”

However, what exactly is threatened? If the development is not inherently threatening, but only perceived as a threat from the context of a certain specific belief system, then perhaps it is only the belief system itself (the neuro-linguistic pattern) that is threatened by a particular development.

For those who are not familiar with the term neuro-linguistic pattern, consider that all beliefs are made up of words (language). Beliefs are inherently linguistic. Life (and experience) is not inherently linguistic, except for language itself.

Using language is like trying to describe a dream- the words are always related to the dream, but never replicating the actual experience of the dream for another. For instance, if two people both have direct experience with riding a bicycle, then they can linguistically refer to the direct experience of riding a bicycle and no beliefs need be involved.

Because their neurology has direct experience with bicycle-riding, the words about bicycle riding simply prompt a triggering of the associated neurology. The bicycle riders have direct experience patterned in to their neurology, and are not especially prone to argue with other people about any particular beliefs about bicycle-riding. Bicycle riders know bicycle-riding, and they know when other people know from personal experience or when other people merely are operating or talking from presumptions or concepts or beliefs or theories about riding a bicycle.

Any particular concept may be instantly recognized as a misconception, at least, by an experienced bicycle rider. Only for those that are not experienced bicycle riders, theories and arguments may be very interesting about what bicycle riding would be like, could be like or should be like. All of those intellectual conversations may lead someone to eventually experience bicycle riding- or may primarily have a social value, as in when people go on for years or decades about something and how it may be attractive or repulsive- yet never experience it directly. Notice that while bicycle riders may reminisce and discuss bicycle riding, they are not likely to argue about it, especially not arguing about how it should or should not be done.

They may share their experiences of how they did it as distinct anything else that they may have also explored. They may offer instructions or guiding questions, but would an experienced bicycle rider ever argue about what bicycle riding would be like?

Now, I did not select the analogy of bicycle riding because it is particularly important. However, it is common. Most children I know have seen bicycle riding and will eventually do it.

Further, there are many different variations of riding a bicycle. There is riding a bicycle up a mountain… or for hours in a highway

An ordinary bicycle. Man riding the bicycle in...

An ordinary bicycle. Man riding the bicycle in the centre of Kraków, Poland Polski: Bicykl. Mężczyzna jadący na bicyklu po krakowskim rynku, Polska (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

race… or in very different weather conditions- like during a snowstorm, hailstorm or on a muddy dirt road. I am clear between which types of bicycle riding are personally familiar to me from direct experience, and which ones I could imagine with my neurology and describe with words speculatively, but that I do not actually know.

However, some people may not be so clear about their own direct experience and what may ultimately be merely their opinions. Anyone who argues about politics or religion or economics… or human relationships or ANYTHING at all may be quite confused about language itself, that is, about the social function of arguing.

What do I mean by the social function of arguing? Arguing about bicycle riding is never really about bicycle riding. Arguing about bicycle riding is really always about the personalities doing the arguing. The social function of arguing is for people to test who actually knows what they are talking about from direct experience and who is just exploring concepts and theories and beliefs and words.

People who know the social function of arguing do not argue about arguing- nor about anything else, at least not other than in humor. People who argue do not know about the social function of arguing are the ones who argue RELIGIOUSLY. Arguing may be the central quality of their personality. They may argue about certain things in particular or about anything in general.

Arguing is always supposing as in speculating- and supposing or speculating certainly can have value. However, arguing is merely supposing or speculating WITHOUT recognizing that whatever is supposed to be is merely whatever is speculated to be.

Anything is possible- but supposing without knowing that one is merely speculating: that just may not work well, if at all. So, the social function of arguing is to identify – for all the rest of us – those of us who do not know that they are merely speculating about what is supposed by them personally to in fact be, but actually may not be… or even may be.

So, this article is not particularly about arguing (or bicycle riding). However, distinguishing what arguing is may be essential to what this article is particularly about. This article is about accepting the changing world- as distinct from arguing about it. In accepting the changing world, one may personally adjust to any changes such that one benefits from those changes.

It is possible for someone to benefit from changes that they argue against, but that benefit may be quite temporary. To reliably benefit from however the world is changing, one MUST accept however the world is changing- like not accept a certain set of changes, but accept any possible change- absolutely ANYTHING! If one is attached to arguing against (or for) ANYTHING, than one rejects what is already possible now as the world. If one rejects the world now for one’s personal attachments and opinions, the world may reject that one.

That is, the benefits of this changing world- benefits that I could otherwise be experiencing now- may instead just flow through my hands as I may try to grab the flowing water. I cannot grab the water- though I can exhaust myself trying- but I can cup my hands and allow the water to collect in my hands and to benefit me, to quench my thirst.

A famous man once said that one can drink from a well and remedy one’s thirst temporarily- but that there is also a drink that will cure one’s thirst forever- removing all possibility of the dis-ease of agonizing over the changing world, cleansing one of the rusty accumulations of obsolete belief systems, giving one a direct experience of something profound and unspeakable, something beyond the reasoning or speculative mind, something that the famous man called the peace beyond understanding, the peace of God. Another famous proverb says that the meek shall inherit the earth.

The vain may argue over what they suppose to be more important than what actually is. They may seek approval and glory.

The meek or humble recognize the glory of God in all of God’s works, that is, in everything and everyone. Because of their accepting the changing world just as it is, rather than exhausting themselves by condemning how the world may or may not be and should or should not be, struggling against the changing world, rejecting it and rejecting God, those who accept the changing world just as it is naturally and automatically go with the flow and adjust themselves into positions and relationships and patterns that bring to them benefit from the changes of the world. In other words, the humble inherit the changing world while the vain or arrogant reject and argue about it.

Notice (Photo credit: Squirmelia)

So, I have been accurately forecasting various major global changes for the last 7 or so years. Many of those changes have manifested since then, surprising much of humanity, such as the rise and then fall of commodity prices, especially fuel and oil, as well as the changes in lending markets, real estate markets, financial institutions, stock prices, and rates of unemployment, delinquency, foreclosure, and bankruptcy. However, the changes that I began publicly forecasting 7 years ago have not competed, and with each new development, I can update my forecasts to be more specific about the near future. Knowing how to recognize changes before most others even have a chance to reject and argue about them, I can adjust to benefit from them. I can also help you to do the same.

What I did not know 7 years ago is the extent to which not only other people but the extent to which I had learned to reject the changing world, condemning it and many of the people within it, most particularly, myself. Those who reject themselves and the changing world seek to prove themselves, to enter and win arguments, and to earn approval and love and rescue or salvation. Those who accept the changing world and themselves AUTOMATICALLY align and attune and adjust, thus benefiting from the changing world, inheriting the future.

I invite you to contact me for either or both of the following explorations: not only how to adjust economically and financially to accept the benefits offered by the changing world, but also how to open one’s heart to accepting all that is possible for this changing world and for each of us. I look forward to hearing from you and from benefiting along with you.

“Lest ye humble yourselves like children, ye shall not enter….” Seek first to accept this world as already heaven now, be redeemed from judgment against it… into innocence, and then all else shall be added unto you- fountains of blessings that will overflow like a gushing spring or geyser.

Receive the spirit and character of the Holy One as your own, and accept that you are made in the image of the Holy One, exactly according to God’s will, as an expression or form of God- just as is everyone else. So, if the beam in your own eye offends thee, cast it out! If you judge another as wrong, just forgive them and the error shall be corrected. However, if you are unwilling to forgive, error shall persist- within you as resentment and perhaps even within them as guilt.

You who have known what it is like to wallow in guilt and resentment and dis-ease and generally to make life hell, how dare you allow others to suffer when you could end the suffering now just by your blessing the changing world and everyone of us here, including yourself…. How dare you arrogantly reject the benefits that the changing world is offering you? Would you rather complain and protest and struggle against the changing world- condemning God indirectly- or accept the blessings which God offers generously, reliably, predictably, faithfully?

First published: October 3, 2009

Related articles

Beyond Belief… INSPIRATION!

March 22, 2012

Holy One, how can we live in the presence of inspiration? How can we bless the world?

If our world faces some disturbance in the forms of blame or shame or guilt or beliefs about how life should have been or

English: This is the religious symbol of Ayyav...
Image via Wikipedia

should not have been, how can we bless our world? If there may be anything that we may believe to be preventing us from experiencing inspiration, curiosity, joy, and gratitude now, how can we bring curiosity, joy, gratitude, and inspiration along with any such belief? How can we bless any beliefs that we may have been practicing to prevent ourselves from experiencing inspiration, curiosity, joy, and gratitude?

By the way, does inspiration require any belief? In fact, is inspiration even compatible with belief?

Isn’t our experience that beliefs may conflict with other beliefs? In fact, for any belief, isn’t there at least one belief possible that would directly conflict? [Isn't every belief implicitly a disbelief in any belief/dis-belief that might oppose it? Is belief itself a disturbing or dis-easing of the peace of God?]

When we are living in inspiration, is there any conflict perceived between our lives of inspiration and any other experience of inspiration? Beliefs include the possibility of conflict [i.e. disagreement and argument], don’t they? Beliefs may even be rooted in producing an inevitable conflict [an inevitable disturbance or experience of dis-ease]. Inspiration allows for the possibility of conflict- without excluding it or resisting it- [and perhaps even blessing it].

In the presence of any conflict- such as one of conflicting beliefs- it may be possible for us to practice believing something about any conflict ["here is my opinion of that conflict..."]. Yet, is it also possible for us to face conflict without practicing any belief- perhaps blessing any conflict [and any believing, disturbing, or dis-easing]- perhaps even experiencing only inspiration?

Beliefs History Mormon

Beliefs History Mormon (Photo credit: More Good Foundation)

[I wrote this last night- April 22, 2009- except for the portions in brackets, which I added while typing this in. Shortly after writing this, I recalled that of 2 or 3 books with me right now, I had a book with me called Beyond Concepts- which is about 200 pages on the same subject I address here. It is written by the wife of the founder of a healing practice called BodyTalk. I then began reading it a second time....]

Related articles

A life without problems & the language of relating to life as a problem

February 29, 2012
Published on Aug 14, 2009. Re-published as a page on February 28, 2012.

Experience (Photo credit: djniks)

I have been having very serious problems with reality. Isn’t that awesome?
A problem is a belief that God (i.e. you, I) has failed definitively and is incapable of miraculously resolving some allegedly unresolved and perhaps unresolvable situation. At root, a problem is a way of relating with reality that identifies some situation as wrong ( as a problem, as what should not be). Along with that often goes this: relating to some other situation as the cause of the problem- an excuse for one’s own results, experiences, actions or inactions. Making a problem out of life  basically identifies the one with the problem as the victim isolated from an all-powerful, evil, villainous reality (AKA “the victim mentality“). At least, that is one way of making a problem out of life. There are other ways that are not so dramatic, but making life in to a problem in this particular way is, frankly, quite an interesting way to draw attention to one’s self.
The big problem was a reflection (or projection) of my belief in what is wrong with my life (i.e. with me) and of my worshipping of my own insistence that something is wrong. The experience of “problem” is the resulting evidence- which I present as obvious, incontrovertible proof that reality should not be how it is and then I make friends with anyone who agrees with me and deem everyone else as obviously “part of the problem.” The problem thus justifies my worship of the belief that something is wrong with my life (i.e. with me): “see, here is the proof: just look at this problem!”
By the way, problems are always presumed to be more important than the rest of reality. Did I mention that people who agree with me on how important my problems are (on how important I am through them) may be who I identify as my friends (oh, and did I also mention how insightful they are)? People who erroneously think that other things are “the problem” are wrong… obviously. ;)
So, in cooperation with our alleged enemies, we may come together like magnets, each arguing for how we are repulsed by each other. We join together, facing each other with angry tears and surging adrenalin- and chant this mantra in harmony like the sopranos and tenors of a choir: “you are so wrong. You are so wrong. You are so wrong. How can you be so wrong? I can’t believe that you could actually be so wrong. How much wronger could anyone be? You may be the wrongest person to ever live! God really must be ashamed of creating someone as wrong as you.”
However, at least we can still agree with them that any people who question the existence of problems must be insane. Here’s proof: none of any of our friends (none of the friends of my enemies and none of my own friends- you remember- the insightful ones) question the existence of problems, do they?
Religion overthrowing Heresy and Hatred II

Religion overthrowing Heresy and Hatred II (Photo credit: Nick in exsilio)

At root, problems are hatred. “You are so wrong” (or even “this is so wrong”) is a mantra of hatred, and when I say “you are so wrong,” who hears it most? Who hears me say “you?” Which “you” hears it every single time I say (or even think) it?

Religion overthrowing Heresy and Hatred I

Religion overthrowing Heresy and Hatred I (Photo credit: Nick in exsilio)

I hear it everytime I say it. I hear it every time one of my friends say it. When the people that I call my enemies say it, I probably don’t bother listening to them really because they are obviously wrong anyway. So, if my distant enemies have only been listening to me as little as I have been listening to them (if at all), then to whom are they really saying their mantras (whether in Russian or Arabic or Hebrew or English): to themselves (and perhaps also to their friends- and even their children- who will listen to my latest hypnotic mantras of hatred)?
“But stop trying to change the subject, buddy. Let’s get back to the specifics of my very special and important problem. You know the one. Don’t act like I need to tell you what the real problem is here…. You KNOW the one!”
So, if I have been attached to a certain specific method or specific outcome which does not fit present reality, could the source of the problem be not reality but my insistence on a method or outcome which may not fit with reality? Insisting that reality adhere to my presumptions is rebellion against reality. That could be a problem, huh?
Insisting that my life (I) should not be how it is (how I am) is not partnering with reality. Rebelling against reality first isolates me from reality (implicitly denying that I am real) and then implies that reality is the source of my rebellion- you know- because something obviously is fundamentally wrong with reality, you know- the distant reality way over there, so far away from me, the innocent victim, who is so unlike all-powerful reality. On the other hand, I may have been attributing a lot of power to reality. What if at least some of the power that any alleged reality may have is actually power that came from me and my attention? That would have been ironic, wasn’t it?
English: The mantra of Padmasambhava (Guru Rin...

Image via Wikipedia

The experience of problem was my insisting that something is fundamentally wrong with reality. The experience of problem was the insistence that reality is fundamentally wrong. By the way, people who did not agree with me not just on exactly how reality is wrong but even on the basic premise that reality is wrong… are people that I deemed to be insane. Again: ironic, wasn’t it?
“By the way, do you know what your problem is? You do, huh? Well, in that case, let me tell you what your problem is….”
Consider that in order to partner with reality, first we might question what reality actually is. We might even question how reality comes to be and even the seemingly absurd question of whether reality even exists.
Who would I be if I questioned the existence of reality? That would imply that I stop separating myself from any particular something. Hating is rooted in the belief that I am not the object of the hatred. Fearing, hoping, and even loving may be rooted in the belief that I am not the object of the experience. Or, perhaps loving is the direct experiencing of life as living- without separating life into you and me, good and eve, villain and victim, subject and object, cause and effect, alive and dead, into two.
What if what I have been calling reality was only a specific, limited way of experiencing living? What if I relax my objectifying of reality as “the way it is” and experience living curiously as “what could be?”
Reality is just something that could be. Insist, then suffering may result.
Insist on how reality should be, and am I not the one who suffers? Insist on how I should be, and am I the one who suffers- or, by focusing on my own way of being, isn’t my experience of life by which I mean my experience of my life by which I mean my experience of me living my life… responding precisely to my evolving attention? What if that has always been all that has ever been?
Does reality mechanically produce an experience which I then call me? Does life live me living my life? Is my life the dead product of a remote God-reality- an impersonal, all-powerful and yet possibly judgmental, insecure, jealous, and vengeful God-reality- or am I this very God-realizing attention which gives form to experience?
On the seventh day, God said to herself: “Hey, do you know what your problem is? You are so wrong! By the way, stop trying to change the object!”
And so God, who had been having a very bad hair day, removed her comb from the surface of the obviously uncooperative mirror- where she had been trying so earnestly to get the mother-flipping reflection to part right there- no, not here (AAAARRRGH). Instead, she then, perhaps by a divinely accidental coincidence of synchronicitous grace, casually placed the comb on her head all the way over here and indeed relaxed her hand, sliding this comb gently through her hair just like that. Suddenly, just as she felt the comb gently moving across her scalp, something truly miraculous happened….
God just woke up from the dream that there was ever a mirror out there at all. A mirror that did not ever exist could not have always been a problem, shouldn’t you?


We do not have to sail in the direction of the wind, but if we ever sail off course, is it easier to change the direction of the wind or the direction of the sail?

Related articles

The shaky faith of the angry

January 22, 2012

The shaky faith of the angry

Have you ever been so angry that you were just shaking? Imagine some politicians debating angrily and shaking their fingers at each other: one says “I personally blame you completely for creating this problem,” then, in response, Ron Paul gets so furious that he shakes and he says “WHAT? How can you blame me? I voted against everything bad and for everything good. The real problem is politicians like you who blame other politicians for blaming other people for causing the real problems that they say are the real problems when in fact, once the accusations are removed, those so-called problems are just developments as in circumstances.”
Okay, of course, politicians like Ron Paul would probably not say that. They are too busy relating to reality as a bunch of problems, then prioritizing the various problems, then valiantly trying to solve them or at least to look valiant to themselves while they try to solve them.
I call that vanity as in pride. I began studying the subject a long time ago when I too began valiantly saving the world from all of its problems, or at least trying to look good while I tried to look like I was solving at least one actual problem.
Ron Paul at a rally in the Nashville War Memor...

Image via Wikipedia

My grandmother Edith was not impressed by all of that. One day shortly after I entered college, she said to me something like this: “oh, you are such a proud little do-gooder, aren’t you?”
“WHAT?” was of course my reply. Then I thought silently to myself “but no, I am NOT argumentative! Ron Paul may be argumentative, but certainly not me.”
I could be a very angry youngster at times. Further, in some ways, I did not really grow up much in the next decade. Or the one after that.
However, now I finally understand what she was referencing. I was following a program of what to be proud about, what to be interested in, and what to do to fit in (at least to fit in to that program of how to be perceived as a do-gooder).
She probably asked me how was college and what had I been doing. I told her that I volunteered to go to a beach and clean up trash with a bunch of other college students, mostly young ladies who would be wearing much less during the volunteering outing than I was used to seeing them wearing. Of course, I may not have described it precisely like that to her. Anyway, with all my pride at cleaning up the beach like any good boy should do, she responded with “Grow up, boy! By the way, you look thin. How many push-ups can you do?”
I was startled. I was stunned. I was offended. I was insulted. I was angry.
She was my grandmother. She was supposed to be nice to me. She was supposed to soothe me. She was supposed to validate me. At least those were the kinds of things that I might have said to myself.
So, let’s talk briefly about faith and anger. Sometimes people talk about faith a lot but they get irritated or angry if anyone questions their logic. In other words, they have confused faith with something that involves presumptions and logic. Their faith is rooted in some particular evidence. Their faith is about a logical deduction based on that evidence. That’s normal, but that is not what I mean by faith. I might call that a mere belief or presumption.
Faith is the natural result of experience. If I have direct experience with some subject, then do I get irritated or angry if someone questions my experience? Do I have shaky faith that is actually just a belief or presumption? Do I have an anxiety about convincing other people to agree with me? Do I crave their approval? Do I disapprove of anyone who does not share my particular form of devotion or fanaticism or ideology? Do I criticize and complain as a ritual of my religion based on belief and presumption and idealistic mythology?
The disapproval and argumentativeness of someone who craves validation is just a sign of their craving. That would apply to me as well as anyone else.
It is one thing to go to beaches for any reason whatsoever. It is another thing to whine about other people going to beaches and leaving trash there. Whining can be annoying. Which is more annoying: the trash on the distant beach or the whining about it for hours and weeks?
I’m not whining about whining either (though I may have done that a few times as well). If someone whines and someone else validates their whining, that is entirely possible. It may not be very valuable to me, but my valuing of something is a distinct issue.
I could value some possibility as a thing to suppress or to ignore or to encourage and promote. Any of those are possible- yes, even suppressing or opposing something.
If Ron Paul wants to oppose all government programs that redistribute wealth to particular exclusive recipients from particular select sources of government revenues, that is possible. I may or may not choose to actively question whether there have any been any government programs that did not redistribute wealth to particular exclusive recipients from particular select sources of government revenues.
I might choose to invest my time and energy to question something or oppose it or promote it or ignore it. I might choose to promote particular systematic redistributions of wealth toward particular recipients and from particular sources. That could be in the form of the politics of involuntary redistribution or in the form of operating a business and soliciting customers through things like advertising and referrals.
Maybe my grandmother was actually angry at me for being such a wuss (a “good” boy). She was not angry as in abusive, but maybe she was just angry as in disappointed. “Is that all you’ve been doing in college? Really? That sounds rather boring. Don’t you have any dramatic adventures for sharing to amuse your dear old granny?”
“Um, well, not that I am going to tell you, Granny. I’m only going to tell you about picking up trash from the beach. Given your response to that story, I think that whole topic of conversation is already over!” ;)

the four noble truths

January 10, 2012
Neuroimaging sheds light on the seat of suffering

Image via Wikipedia

This is a lesson based on a tradition called “the four noble truths.” Briefly, those truths are the first truth of suffering, the second truth of the cause of suffering, the third truth of the discontinuing of the cause of suffering, and the fourth truth of the way to live life after suffering.

The first truth of suffering involves relating to life as if there is some part of life that should not be how it is. Suffering is not simply pain or illness or old age or dying or even violence. Suffering is a way of relating to life. Suffering involves ill will as in contempt as in enduring madness as in mental illness as in agonizing as in hell. While there are a variety of forms and intensities of suffering, what I mean by the word suffering includes all of them.

The second truth of the cause of suffering involves the recognizing of the power of words. Words are symbolic codes with an origin as signals of sound, though words can also be written. The term “words” can even include gestures and hand signals or “sign languages.” 

Words are distinct from a mere signal because of the importance of the sequencing of the words. Words are the origin of what can be called nonsense, such as “this should be what should not be.” The second truth, briefly, is that all suffering is caused by nonsense made of words.

Specifically, “this should not be how it is” is the kind of formation in words that can correspond to the experience of suffering, at least if there is a belief in the nonsense rather than a recognition of the nonsense as nonsense. “This should not be how it is” is rooted in “there is exactly one way that this should be.” In other words, suffering is rooted in the linguistic model of “there is exactly one way that this should be,” at least as it applies to some particular perception or experience. “There is exactly one way that this should be” is further rooted in “there is exactly one way that life should be,” which is nonsense.

However, if operating as if it is inherently true that life should be a certain way, then suffering is the natural and inevitable result. That suffering could be in the form of ill will as in contempt as in enduring madness as in mental illness as in agonizing as in hell. Or that suffering could be mere frustration, worry, resentment, sorrow or grief.

Earlier than the belief that “there is exactly one way that life should be” is another presumption in language. That presumption is “there is exactly one way that life is,” which is also nonsense.

So, if there is a belief in the nonsense that there is exactly one way that life is, then that leads to the belief in the nonsense that there is exactly one way that life should be (which is also the way that it allegedly is), which leads to the various forms of suffering such as shame and blame and rage. If there is a belief that there is exactly one way that a particular thing is (which is also the way that it should be), then that belief in nonsense inevitably leads to various forms of suffering.

Beliefs are made of words. Beliefs are all nonsense. They are the origin of suffering.

Beliefs in what should be produce suffering. Beliefs in what is also produce suffering. Belief is also called idealism and idolatry and foolishness.

So, before we proceed to the third noble truth of the discontinuing of the causing of suffering, let’s review. The first noble truth is that suffering is relating to some part of life as if it should not be how it is. The second noble truth is that suffering originates in the belief that there is exactly one way that a particular part of life is and that is the only way that it should be.

Now, by summarizing those two truths close together, the nonsense of suffering may be extremely clear. If there is exactly one way that life is, but then life is not that way, then how can there be exactly one way that life is? Obviously, a linguistic construction of how life is exactly one way is part of life. So, if there is a logical conflict between a linguistic construction (or belief) about how life should be and the actual experience of how life is, then suffering is neglecting the actuality of life for the nonsense belief in words. 

In the Judeo-Christian terminology, neglecting the actuality of life by worshiping a nonsense belief in words is what is referenced by “placing another God before God.” In Muslim terminology, recognizing the actuality of life as distinct from worshiping a nonsense belief made of words is what is referenced by “there is no God but God.” Of course, because language involves codes, various interpretations of the encoded messages in words are possible. However, worshiping language instead of God is the root idolatry. 

Even the phrase “literal interpretation” is ironic because if something is recognized as an interpretation, then interpretation implies the use of symbolic codes of language. How can there be a “literal symbolism?” Such idealisms and idolatries are nonsense from the start.

However, nonsense is part of life. Should there be no nonsense? Should there be no beliefs made of words and no words? Should there be exactly one interpretation of anything?

Those ideas fall back in to the same trap of nonsense. It is not that there should be no suffering, nor that there should be any suffering. There either is suffering or there is not suffering. That is all.

So, the third noble truth of the discontinuing of the cause of suffering is simple. To discontinue causing yourself suffering, simply recognize how you have been causing yourself suffering through the inattentive use of language. That recognizing is sufficient to discontinue the causing of suffering. 

In other words, suffering does not need to fixed. Suffering can be distinguished. The distinguishing of suffering results in a relaxing away from the beliefs that cause suffering. Once the beliefs are distinguished as nonsense, no additional beliefs are required to replace the presence of the prior beliefs. More beliefs will only bring more suffering.

To review again, the first noble truth is that suffering is relating to some part of life as if it should not be how it is. The second noble truth is that suffering originates in the belief that there is exactly one way that a particular part of life is and that is the only way that it should be. So, the linguistic belief that there is only one way that some part of life should be results naturally in relating to one or more parts of life as if they should not be how they are, which is suffering.

Further, the third noble truth is to discontinue causing yourself suffering by simply recognizing how you have been causing yourself suffering through the inattentive use of language. Recognize the power of language and you will never worship any beliefs of language. You will be free of the suffering caused by the inattentive use of language.

So, there is no single way that life should be. There is no single way that anyone should be. There is no single way that I am. There is no single way of labeling life with language that is the only possible interpretations. All of those constructions in language are nonsense. Many interpretations in language are possible.

As for the fourth noble truth, the way to live life after suffering is basically to be attentive to language. Do what you must do. Do what you can do. Do what you should do. Do what you will do.

Now, there may be other interpretations of these four noble truths. Since these four noble truths are just symbols made of language, why shouldn’t there be multiple interpretations?

Is there exactly one way that the four noble truths should be? Is there exactly one way that the four noble truths are? 

Are there exactly four noble truths? Are these noble truths even true? What if there is no such thing as a noble truth except as a symbol in language?

If someone says “attention to language makes no difference,” so what? If someone challenges you with a nonsense belief made of language, so what? If someone says that their nonsense belief made of language is not a nonsense belief made of language, so what? If someone says that idolatry is not idolatry, so what? If someone says that their language is not idolatry but some other language is idolatry, so what? If someone says that there is no such thing as freedom, so what? If someone says that there is no such thing as language, so what?

Remember, when nonsense is recognized as nonsense, nonsense cannot cause suffering. Only believing in nonsense can cause suffering. So, one can play along with someone else’s beliefs or not. If someone is speaking the language of suffering, you can speak in that language as well, yet is there another form of language beyond suffering? Also, is there another form of interacting beyond the use of language?


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 756 other followers

%d bloggers like this: