Suffering or pain is a human element. In fact a universal
element. In trying to negotiate the world, to suit ones state of mind, there
arises a gap that cannot be achieved. There is always or atleast mostly, a not reconciling to the present moment. Till such time the content of creation can be reconciled, the mind
is in turmoil. The turmoil of the mind leads to anger and frustration causing
suffering to oneself and whatever or whoever is around him.
We think that we can change the world or content, to suit the limitations of the mind to reconsile. This we think can be advised by specialist in that field. There is elaborate analysis of how suffering and pain can be
handled. Psychiatry, Medicine, Motivation, Holiday, Meditation,
Yoga, Prayers, Guru seeking, Black Magic, etc are results of such analysis. The causes and effects
are analysed, logic applied, actions taken positively or negatively until the
suffering ends or until there is some new pain that replaces the earlier one. Each
of these therapies would seem to be apparently working on someone or the other and would therefore be
assumed to work across all section of 'people'and so there is a continuous effort across the globe to conquer suffering. However there is no analysis of an entity that
suffers. Such an entity that could suffer is an assumed reality, that, there is
a ‘me’ ' in there', solid and real,
that really suffers. Of course its true that there appears to be a ‘me’ entity in there with choices to make it feel more real. How solid is this
notion of an entity that could be real and solid, is what needs to be resolved,
but very difficult or rather impossible. So in the sentence ‘ who suffers’, the
suffering is put under the microscope rather than the sufferer.
When some one tells us that he has a problem, we ask what
his problem was. There seems to be no weight on the ‘who’ that seems to be
owning the pain. So what to do?. Just do what is normally not done. Search for
the ‘who’. Answering the questions about who suffers, imposes reality to the
who. So best, is to probe, if there is a who, and where the hell does it
reside, how or why does it behave in a certain pattern etc. Soon, when the attention is diverted
from suffering to the sufferer, there seems to more to discover.
Who am I is an age old question.. Why? Because it remains unanswered, and like a myth, it can go on for ages. Its like answer for ‘why’ the sky is blue.
There is no sky, but apparently yes, and also ‘blue’. In absence of a solid
sky, there cannot be a solid colour, that such a non existing sky can take on
to exhibit itself. So a notional sky, would seem to need a notional colour.
Such is this ‘I’ business. Notional and real, apparently.
Thus the simplest of the question, who I am, seems so
complex, that it has never been part of a basic teaching that a child needs,
before it can face the world. A chicken that is born, flaps its wings, ready to
take on the world, and happy, until, in language, it learns that it could be a
breakfast item for all beings on earth, out there hounding for it. Once this
sinks in, its running away from all beings, trying to secure itself, a survival
chance, rather than enjoying, what the world has to offer, for which its birth,
was a cause.
Finally, no matter, how you analyse the source ‘me’ that
appears as the centre of all problems, you would derive that a notional centre
of all problem, that is causing an apparent me and a solid ‘me’ as an individual
entity, is non-existent. The aliveness which is a cause for all sensations does exist, but the experiencing of all sensation, makes feel that aliveness is
separate from life, and individual to a form, but, which has no derivative truth.
This should be enough proof that aliveness is all there is, and sensations is
all there is , as an expression of aliveness and brings about experiences, as if
real, a mental notion that a ‘me’ is real and volitional, is kept in place in
psyche. Try as much, the trying is the effort and the effort is the ‘me’ but
the whole goddam thing is a GAG.
Suffering is real and tangible. The moment or content of the moment is not going to change. Only the perception of the moment to reconcile mentally is what matters. We need to know that the ‘me’ that does or
does not suffer is simply notional. This can change the perception. In fact the perception changes first to drop the 'me-sense' and there seems nothing to do. So what to do? Find the one 'to do or not to do', then see if do or not do, needs doing by the non existent me.
