Who opposes reality? (Who practices suffering?)

A:  Is this all suffering? Mental, spiritual and physical?

T: i think so. i believe he is coming from a perspective that our souls are eternal co creators of our experience of this “reality” and choose to have these experiences, all of them.. it’s kind of heavy and empowering at the same time !!!

A:  I’ve only read lightly on the subject, but how does this work as far as interpersonal dynamics? Like no one can effect another, it’s only our perception or reception of their actions?

JR:  Physical pain is not what is meant by suffering. Osho is talking about the practice of agonizing- a pattern of linguistic ACTIVITY. It reliably produces agony.

The practice of respect for all of life is related to “bliss.” If you reject parts of life and relate to them as “what should not be,” then that resisting is also called agonizing- over how to create or keep what should be and how to prevent or eliminate what should not be.

Those forms of terrified idealism and guilty perfectionism are behavioral. To respect the power of language is, as many authors have so eloquently stated, “heavenly.”

T: I like what J R said but after some reflection i feel that Osho is referring to all suffering – physical included. the whole of experience of life is one energy and the physical is not separate .. anyway it’s interesting food for thought and deepening awareness. as far as a method Osho taught.. I don’t really know what he taught specifically but I’m sure there was a lot of meditation involved…

also I think that one can and does affect other people all the time but our perception of everything including another’s actions is solely our responsibility .. just my 2 cents

JR: Part of what Osho is referencing is what we would call guilt as well as, as I said agonizing, which is related to guilt. It does not matter whether some historical instance of physical pain was “my fault.” He was not talking about fault, but responsibility as in power or influence.

In this moment, if I think of physical pain as “bad” (repulsive) and then I think of past physical pain as “my fault,” that is the present-moment “cognitve behavior” of guilt or shame or contraction or repression. Such repressing has it’s function, but so does EVERYTHING else, such as pain (sensation).

Imagine that a bright light is so “painful” that I turn my head away from it. Is that the suffering that Osho was referencing? That is a physical reflex.

A doctor strike my knees with a tiny hammer. My eyes see my leg extend but I do not even feel pain. My attention focuses on the movement of my leg. Again, that is a physical reflex.

In reality, there is only one reality. We can talk about multiple realities, but that is just a linguistic convenience.

In reality, the doctor striking my knee is an instrument of reality, as is the knee and the leg and “me” and also the nurse who puts the bright light near my face and then calmly says, “I know it is very bright, but it is important that you face forward so that I can examine your eyes, okay?”

What is “outside of reality?” Not the light or the light switch or the power lines or the electric company. It is all continuous. It is not just connected, but an uninterrupted, singular reality.

Those who are experiencing physical pain and reflexes are part of reality, too. The idea of guilt is part of reality, as in the linguistic model of relating to some portion of reality as “what should not be.” That mode of relating is SIN and we are responsible for that. Again, this is a message of power and responsibility and salvation.

An ancient Hebrew word for reality can be translated in many ways. Reality is continuous in time (eternal) and continuous in space (everywhere) and continuous in influence (omnipotent). There is no other competing identity which is outside of reality.

“Hear ye O Israel, the Lord thy God is singular, one, whole, inclusive, holy.”

We can use the word God or not. If we conceive of God as almighty, but then talk about a devil who threatens God with overthrow, then that is not the worship of an Almighty God. That is illogical. That is also agonizing. That is “worshiping the Devil.”

Oddly enough, everyone goes through that stage. Everyone eventually “sins,” (from the Greek word for “misses the target”) and that is why repenting is relevant to everyone.

“I am responsible” is a declaration of power and influence and alertness. “I am guilty” is the contrasting experience of disempowerment that naturally leads each facet of reality to the way of relating called “forgiving reality of not being how I arrogantly presumed that it should be (based on my innocent naivete).” We recognize sin, then we forgive reality for OUR sin of condemning whatever portions of Holy Creation that we previously condemned as repulsive or disgusting or disturbing, and then we relax.

Being occasionally repulsed or disgusted or disturbed- like by a bright light or loud sound- is the Will of God. There is nothing “outside of the Will of Reality.” However, it may be the Will of Allah that occasionally someone somewhere says “here is something that God did not make and that God even forbids” and then they get to experience that tension and distress and disturbance and repulsion.

Some practice agonizing for seconds or minutes before “waking up.” Some agonize for hours or even days or weeks or months or years.

In the long run, how long the run was makes no real difference once the finish line is crossed. It is Divine Will that we pass through stages in the development of our linguistic maturity.

As for a “separation” between different facets of reality, the physical reality is the only one, though there are various PERSPECTIVES that we can PRACTICE… in linguistic cognition. We can label the singular reality in a variety of interpretative alternatives.

“Mental” can refer to the unmindful use of language (ironically). Spiritual, for those who are operating from a naive “mental” foundation, seems to be some isolated “superior reality” or “superior perspective.” That idea is part of the experience of suffering of a deluded ego. “My perspective over here is better than yours over there (which I may secretly consider to be a threat to mine).”

That is still mental, actually- the unmindful use of language, unawakened, dreaming. Spiritual refers to the mindful use of language- which may be rather rare.

Language is a DISTINCT portion of reality, unique and quite unlike things like physical sensation. Linguistic activity is isolated in the sense of being distinct, but not in the sense of being disconnected from neurochemistry and biochemistry and so on.

“In the beginning, the all-inclusive reality spoke and created constrasting distinctions in language: day in contrast to night, heaven in contrast to earth, light in contrast to darkness. However, the darkness has no power over light because the word darkness is actually just a convenience of language. Darkness is merely the relative absence of light- like when you are in a very bright room with several windows and then you close the shade on one window, one could say that one has bought additional darkness in to the room by shading one of the windows.”



Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: