The secret of enjoying even misery!

[dattaswami]

I will give an example to show that this is practically possible. A child enjoys the sweet, but dislikes the hot dish since it tasted the hot dish once and felt the pinch of it. This means that the child did not enjoy the hot dish even once and hence, does not like to taste the hot dish again.

But, you take the case of an adult. He enjoyed the hot dish and hence, he tries to taste the hot dish again and again. The difference between the child and adult establishes the fact that the enjoyment and non-enjoyment of the hot dish does not lie in the dish, but lies in the attitude of the enjoyer.

Similarly, misery also can be enjoyed as in the case of enjoyment of hot dish by the adult. All the souls in the creation, who do not like the enjoyment of misery, resemble those children. The human incarnation of God enjoys the misery and infact, God comes down to the earth in order to enjoy the misery, which is totally absent in His upper abode.

In His upper abode, only happiness and praise of God persists by which God gets bored like in the continuous enjoyment of sweets. God called His gate-watchmen called Jaya and Vijaya and requested them to take birth as villains to give Him troubles on the earth so that He can enjoy the hot dish for a change[2].

The hot dish not only gives a variety of enjoyment but also serves as a break between two sweet dishes. Infact, the sweet dish after hot dish gives reinforced enjoyment. Thus, the hot dish serves a double purpose and is very important.
You may argue that the tragedy in a cinema can be enjoyed since we know that the entire cinema is unreal. But, the tragedy in life cannot be enjoyed like that since we know that the entire life is a reality.

God may enjoy the tragedy in the life of a human incarnation, since, for God, everything is unreal expect Himself. But, for a human being, the situation is quite different.

Since the soul is a part of unreal creation, the unreal creation cannot be unreal for the unreal soul. Unreal for unreal is always real. This argument is ruled out because even the soul can feel the creation unreal.

The entire creation is a modification of the cosmic energy. Matter is a modification of energy. All the static items are different forms of the energy only.

All the actions are different forms of kinetic energy. Infact, the space, which we consider as vacuum is also subtle invisible cosmic energy only.
This point can be proven through science. The special theory of relativity says that space bends along the boundaries of an object. If space is nothing, nothing cannot bend. Only if it is something, it can bend.

Therefore, there is nothing like nothing. The vacuum acts as a source of generation of galaxies. Therefore, the entire creation is nothing but different modified forms of cosmic energy. Even the soul is a form of nervous energy, which is a specific type of kinetic energy only, since the soul or awareness is only transformation of information from the senses to brain.

Thus, the soul can realize that the entire creation is basically a continuous quantum of cosmic energy only. In that case, all the forms like objects and all the activities are unreal with respect to the basic cosmic energy. When this is realized, the entire creation becomes unreal since there is only one real cosmic energy.

On realizing the unreal creation, the soul can enjoy the tragedy of life also as a tragedy of the unreal cinema. This monism (Advaita) is preached by Shankara to all the human beings. In His preaching to the souls, the ultimate absolute reality is cosmic energy, which can be called as Brahman.
The word Brahman can be applied to the greatest item of any category. The Veda is called as Brahman in the Gita since the Veda is the greatest book among all the books.

Coming to cosmic energy, it is the greatest among all the items of the entire creation. The word Brahman perfectly suits the cosmic energy since it is the greatest among all the categories of the entire creation.

God is also called as Brahman because God is greater then cosmic energy. God is the ultimate absolute reality and with reference to Him, even the cosmic energy is unreal. As far as the forms and activities of the creation are concerned, they are unreal with respect to the immediate cosmic energy and they are also unreal with respect to the final God.

Cosmic energy is the ultimate absolute reality with respect to forms and activities of the creation. But, the same cosmic energy is a unreal relative reality with respect to God, Who is the ultimate absolute reality.

Therefore, both the God and the soul can realize the creation in the level of forms and activities as unreal. This point of unreality of forms and activities is common to both God and soul. The ultimate absolute reality may differ in the case of God and soul and that difference is unnecessary as far as the unreal relative reality of the forms and activities is concerned.

For God, the absolute reality is Himself and for the soul, the absolute reality is cosmic energy. The soul itself is a part of cosmic energy. It can never consider itself as unreal. Therefore, the soul can never transcend the cosmic energy.

Hence, the soul can enjoy the tragedy in the level of forms and activities like God in human incarnation. There is no difference between God and soul as far as the realization of unreality of creation in the level of forms and activities is concerned. The basis for comedy or tragedy in the life is only the level of forms and activities of the creation.

The soul can never transcend space and can never imagine the situation beyond space. Since space is energy, it means that the soul can never transcend space or energy. Therefore, God, existing beyond space becomes unimaginable to any soul.

The producer-cum-director is watching the entire drama from outside. The actor is a part of the drama.

The unreal drama, involving the created story of scenes, can be realized as unreal by the inside actor as well as the outside producer-cum-director. The unreality of drama is common to both and it does not distinguish the actor and producer-cum-director.

The monism preached by Shankara is one and the same from the point of the soul as well as from the point of God. The only difference is that the cosmic energy of which the soul is a part becomes the ultimate absolute reality for the soul, whereas for God the ultimate absolute reality is Himself since the cosmic energy is also an unreal relative reality in the view of God.

Therefore, the human incarnation of God and also the realized soul can enjoy the misery of the world since it is unreal to both.

[Gary Childress]

I will give an example to show that this is practically possible. A child enjoys the sweet, but dislikes the hot dish since it tasted the hot dish once and felt the pinch of it. This means that the child did not enjoy the hot dish even once and hence, does not like to taste the hot dish again.

But, you take the case of an adult. He enjoyed the hot dish and hence, he tries to taste the hot dish again and again. The difference between the child and adult establishes the fact that the enjoyment and non-enjoyment of the hot dish does not lie in the dish, but lies in the attitude of the enjoyer.

Similarly, misery also can be enjoyed as in the case of enjoyment of hot dish by the adult. All the souls in the creation, who do not like the enjoyment of misery, resemble those children. The human incarnation of God enjoys the misery and infact, God comes down to the earth in order to enjoy the misery, which is totally absent in His upper abode.

In His upper abode, only happiness and praise of God persists by which God gets bored like in the continuous enjoyment of sweets. God called His gate-watchmen called Jaya and Vijaya and requested them to take birth as villains to give Him troubles on the earth so that He can enjoy the hot dish for a change[2].

The hot dish not only gives a variety of enjoyment but also serves as a break between two sweet dishes. Infact, the sweet dish after hot dish gives reinforced enjoyment. Thus, the hot dish serves a double purpose and is very important.
You may argue that the tragedy in a cinema can be enjoyed since we know that the entire cinema is unreal. But, the tragedy in life cannot be enjoyed like that since we know that the entire life is a reality.

God may enjoy the tragedy in the life of a human incarnation, since, for God, everything is unreal expect Himself. But, for a human being, the situation is quite different.

Since the soul is a part of unreal creation, the unreal creation cannot be unreal for the unreal soul. Unreal for unreal is always real. This argument is ruled out because even the soul can feel the creation unreal.

The entire creation is a modification of the cosmic energy. Matter is a modification of energy. All the static items are different forms of the energy only.

All the actions are different forms of kinetic energy. Infact, the space, which we consider as vacuum is also subtle invisible cosmic energy only.
This point can be proven through science. The special theory of relativity says that space bends along the boundaries of an object. If space is nothing, nothing cannot bend. Only if it is something, it can bend.

Therefore, there is nothing like nothing. The vacuum acts as a source of generation of galaxies. Therefore, the entire creation is nothing but different modified forms of cosmic energy. Even the soul is a form of nervous energy, which is a specific type of kinetic energy only, since the soul or awareness is only transformation of information from the senses to brain.

Thus, the soul can realize that the entire creation is basically a continuous quantum of cosmic energy only. In that case, all the forms like objects and all the activities are unreal with respect to the basic cosmic energy. When this is realized, the entire creation becomes unreal since there is only one real cosmic energy.

On realizing the unreal creation, the soul can enjoy the tragedy of life also as a tragedy of the unreal cinema. This monism (Advaita) is preached by Shankara to all the human beings. In His preaching to the souls, the ultimate absolute reality is cosmic energy, which can be called as Brahman.
The word Brahman can be applied to the greatest item of any category. The Veda is called as Brahman in the Gita since the Veda is the greatest book among all the books.

Coming to cosmic energy, it is the greatest among all the items of the entire creation. The word Brahman perfectly suits the cosmic energy since it is the greatest among all the categories of the entire creation.

God is also called as Brahman because God is greater then cosmic energy. God is the ultimate absolute reality and with reference to Him, even the cosmic energy is unreal. As far as the forms and activities of the creation are concerned, they are unreal with respect to the immediate cosmic energy and they are also unreal with respect to the final God.

Cosmic energy is the ultimate absolute reality with respect to forms and activities of the creation. But, the same cosmic energy is a unreal relative reality with respect to God, Who is the ultimate absolute reality.

Therefore, both the God and the soul can realize the creation in the level of forms and activities as unreal. This point of unreality of forms and activities is common to both God and soul. The ultimate absolute reality may differ in the case of God and soul and that difference is unnecessary as far as the unreal relative reality of the forms and activities is concerned.

For God, the absolute reality is Himself and for the soul, the absolute reality is cosmic energy. The soul itself is a part of cosmic energy. It can never consider itself as unreal. Therefore, the soul can never transcend the cosmic energy.

Hence, the soul can enjoy the tragedy in the level of forms and activities like God in human incarnation. There is no difference between God and soul as far as the realization of unreality of creation in the level of forms and activities is concerned. The basis for comedy or tragedy in the life is only the level of forms and activities of the creation.

The soul can never transcend space and can never imagine the situation beyond space. Since space is energy, it means that the soul can never transcend space or energy. Therefore, God, existing beyond space becomes unimaginable to any soul.

The producer-cum-director is watching the entire drama from outside. The actor is a part of the drama.

The unreal drama, involving the created story of scenes, can be realized as unreal by the inside actor as well as the outside producer-cum-director. The unreality of drama is common to both and it does not distinguish the actor and producer-cum-director.

The monism preached by Shankara is one and the same from the point of the soul as well as from the point of God. The only difference is that the cosmic energy of which the soul is a part becomes the ultimate absolute reality for the soul, whereas for God the ultimate absolute reality is Himself since the cosmic energy is also an unreal relative reality in the view of God.

Therefore, the human incarnation of God and also the realized soul can enjoy the misery of the world since it is unreal to both.

Misery is misery. If it isn't miserable, then it isn't misery you're talking about, more like sadism or masochism.

[dattaswami]

Misery is misery. If it isn't miserable, then it isn't misery you're talking about, more like sadism or masochism.

This world consists of both happiness and unhappiness as in a drama or cinema. The meals also contain both sweet and hot dishes. Unless you develop the talent of enjoying both, you cannot have continuous bliss. It is foolish to think that you can have continuous bliss by involving in scenes of continuous happiness only. It is a childish thought because the child also likes to have continuous dishes of sweets only, avoiding the hot dishes. In such case, you get bored with the continuous happiness as in the case of eating sweets only continuously and this is not realized by the child.

The alternative scenes of happiness and unhappiness, can alone give you the continuous bliss through continuous enjoyment. This is the case with the God because He is continuously enjoying, deriving continuous bliss, consisting of both happiness and unhappiness, altering at regular intervals. You need not doubt that God may enjoy this world, keeping Himself beyond this world, just like a spectator sitting in the hall outside the drama or cinema.

You may think that such enjoyment is not possible if you are involved in the world as participant. This argument is also not correct because the actor, involved in a role in the drama also enjoys the whole drama, while participating and acting in it. Similarly, God also enters this world through a human role, called human incarnation and enjoys the world, while involved in it. But, again the difference between an actor in a drama and a human being in the world crystallizes on the basis that the actor knows the drama as unreal and the human being feels the world as real. God in human incarnation can also feel the world as unreal because the world is only imaginary day-dream for God.

Hence, the actor in the drama and God in human form have total similarity and there is no problem in the concept as far as both are concerned. But, in the case of human being, the world is real with reference to the human being. The human being is a part and parcel of the world. Hence, the unreal world must be real for the unreal human being also. The unreal world may be unreal for the real God just like the drama is unreal for the actor. Hence, you may argue that the human being in the world cannot be compared to either the actor in drama or human incarnation in the world. All this is correct but there is a point to be noted carefully in your words like drama, cinema and world. In all these three cases (drama, cinema and world), each has two phases.


In a drama, the king weeps because his wife died. Here, the actor in the dress of the queen and the dress belong to first real phase. The second unreal phase is the unreal bond between unreal king and unreal queen and that the unreal king weeps on the unreal death of the unreal queen. We, the spectators, assume that the real king is really feeling for the real queen as his real wife. But, the fact is that the king weeps externally based on your assumption. But, internally the king knows that this assumption is unreal since the actor in the role of queen is not his real wife.

Similarly, in this world, there are two phases. The first phase is the real energy, matter and various forms of energy and matter. This first phase of the world is real for the human being and the same phase is unreal for God only. The second phase in this world is the unreal bonds of the human being with other human beings and materials. The second unreal phase of the drama is exactly the same as this second unreal phase of the world. In the second unreal phase of the drama, both the spectators and the actor know that the bonds in the drama are unreal.

Similarly, if the human being can realize that its bonds with the other human beings and materials in the world are also unreal, now, there is no difference between the actor in the drama and the realized human being in the world. Actually, happiness and unhappiness materializes in the drama or in this world only due to the second unreal phase of the unreal bonds. When the human being leaves this gross body, it is like the actor sitting in his room after the end of the drama.

The actor may be under the temporary influence of the bonds during the period of drama and may exhibit real emotions of happiness and unhappiness. But, when the drama is over, the actor is with full clarity regarding all the unreal bonds of the drama and hence, realizes the whole drama as totally unreal. Similarly, the human being after leaving this gross body realizes that this world (second unreal phase) is totally unreal.


When Abhimanyu died, he went to heaven leaving the gross body and existed in the energetic body. He resembles to the actor after drama, existing in his real dress. Abhimanyu could not recognize the embracing Arjuna and asked the identity of Arjuna. An actor after the drama existing in real dress also may ask a similar question to the co-actor continuing as queen still in the queen-dress approaching him as king.

Hence, the second phase of the drama and the world is totally unreal. Shankara gives the reason for this by saying that whichever is temporary must be unreal in the past, present and future (Yat anityam tat kritakam hi loke…). Therefore, the influence of the bonds may induce the feeling of the reality of bonds in the mind of actor in the drama as well as the human being in the world. Such bond did not exist before starting the drama. The same bond will not exist after the end of the drama. Such bond exists in the present period of drama only. Then, such bond should be treated as temporary.

That, which is temporary must be unreal in all the three times (past, present and future) as per Shankara. If you analyze carefully, Shankara is correct because the bond between king and queen is also unreal during the time of drama also. Therefore, the second phase of the world is unreal in all the times for the human being. A realized person understands this fact and feels that the bonds are unreal even during the lifetime. Similarly, a realized actor may also feel that the bond in drama is unreal during the time of drama also and may not be influenced by the drama.

In such case, the human being can enjoy both the scenes of happiness and unhappiness during the life time also and can maintain the constant bliss based on the unreality of the present bonds. For the human being, after leaving this gross body also, the first phase of the world is real just like for the actor coming out of the drama also, the stage, the co-actor and the settings of scenes, dress etc., are still real. For God or human incarnation only, both the phases of the world are unreal. This does not bring any difference between the God and the realized human being because the first phase is not at all involved in the enjoyment of scenes of happiness and unhappiness.


The reason for your laughing and weeping is not the energy or matter or any item of the world. The reason for your laughing and weeping is only the formation and destruction of your imaginary bonds with the first phase of the world.
--

[Gary Childress]

Misery is misery. If it isn't miserable, then it isn't misery you're talking about, more like sadism or masochism.

This world consists of both happiness and unhappiness as in a drama or cinema. The meals also contain both sweet and hot dishes. Unless you develop the talent of enjoying both, you cannot have continuous bliss. It is foolish to think that you can have continuous bliss by involving in scenes of continuous happiness only. It is a childish thought because the child also likes to have continuous dishes of sweets only, avoiding the hot dishes. In such case, you get bored with the continuous happiness as in the case of eating sweets only continuously and this is not realized by the child.

A little spicy can be enjoyable. A lot of spicy is miserable. Ask anyone who brings a gallon of milk to a chili-eating contest. Next analogy.

[dattaswami]

A little spicy can be enjoyable. A lot of spicy is miserable. Ask anyone who brings a gallon of milk to a chili-eating contest. Next metaphor...

There are several illustrations to prove that the physical pain can be also enjoyed. In boxing, when the opponent embraces you strongly, you feel unhappy because such a situation leads to your defeat. But, when you are embraced by a beautiful girl, you feel more happiness and the degree of your happiness is proportional to the strength of the embracement!. Therefore, the physical pain in one situation is unhappy, whereas the same physical pain in another situation leads to happiness. Even when you eat the hot dish, your tongue is burning due to the vigor of chillies and your eyes are showering the tears. All these symptoms are the indication of unhappiness only.

But still you enjoy the happiness in eating the hot dish. Therefore, you cannot link the enjoyment with mere external material. Ofcourse, the external material gives rise to the feeling and the feeling may be pleasant or unpleasant depending on one factor, which is that whether the external material is interacted continuously or not. If you are interacting with any item or situation of the creation continuously, you become unhappy. Even the embracement of the beautiful girl becomes unpleasant, if such embracement continues without gap.

If you are exposed to the heat for a long time you feel happiness in cold as in the case of the Indian. If you are exposed to cold for a long time you feel happiness in the warmness and heat as in the case of a foreigner. Hence the process of enjoyment depends on the alternating interaction with the external items or situations in this world. Hence, any continuous interaction with the same item or situation gives unhappiness, whereas the change in the interaction gives happiness. God is the Father of the souls and hence arranges the life cycles of the souls with alternating pleasant and unpleasant scenes.

Even though you have done sins continuously for some long span of time and good deeds continuously in another long span of time, God does not arrange the life cycles with the continuous misery and continuous happiness proportionally in corresponding long spans of time.

[Gary Childress]

A little spicy can be enjoyable. A lot of spicy is miserable. Ask anyone who brings a gallon of milk to a chili-eating contest. Next metaphor...

There are several illustrations to prove that the physical pain can be also enjoyed. In boxing, when the opponent embraces you strongly, you feel unhappy because such a situation leads to your defeat. But, when you are embraced by a beautiful girl, you feel more happiness and the degree of your happiness is proportional to the strength of the embracement!. Therefore, the physical pain in one situation is unhappy, whereas the same physical pain in another situation leads to happiness. Even when you eat the hot dish, your tongue is burning due to the vigor of chillies and your eyes are showering the tears. All these symptoms are the indication of unhappiness only.

But still you enjoy the happiness in eating the hot dish. Therefore, you cannot link the enjoyment with mere external material. Ofcourse, the external material gives rise to the feeling and the feeling may be pleasant or unpleasant depending on one factor, which is that whether the external material is interacted continuously or not. If you are interacting with any item or situation of the creation continuously, you become unhappy. Even the embracement of the beautiful girl becomes unpleasant, if such embracement continues without gap.

If you are exposed to the heat for a long time you feel happiness in cold as in the case of the Indian. If you are exposed to cold for a long time you feel happiness in the warmness and heat as in the case of a foreigner. Hence the process of enjoyment depends on the alternating interaction with the external items or situations in this world. Hence, any continuous interaction with the same item or situation gives unhappiness, whereas the change in the interaction gives happiness. God is the Father of the souls and hence arranges the life cycles of the souls with alternating pleasant and unpleasant scenes.

Even though you have done sins continuously for some long span of time and good deeds continuously in another long span of time, God does not arrange the life cycles with the continuous misery and continuous happiness proportionally in corresponding long spans of time.

I disagree. Sorry about that. My bad.

[Iwannaplato]

But, you take the case of an adult. He enjoyed the hot dish and hence, he tries to taste the hot dish again and again. The difference between the child and adult establishes the fact that the enjoyment and non-enjoyment of the hot dish does not lie in the dish, but lies in the attitude of the enjoyer.

No. It is not an attitude, it is training. The adult has been trained, via small introductions of hotter food to find enjoyment of a different kind. The child is sensitive.

What you are doing is trying to override parts of the self you judge and dislike.

You may even think you are preacing a kind of acceptance, but actually what you are preaching is a hatred of the emotions, a hatred of the emotional body, a hatred of the self.

Accept everything that happens, all that is outside you, but hate parts of yourself.

I am sick and tired of these old tired voices, rehashing tired old spiritual beliefs you do not have the guts yourself to even look at, because it fits your own prejudices.

So, you come here to lecture people so you can feel superior and try to get them to accept these old hatreds of what is inside us, all in the fake smile of accepting things.

It is a religion of hate disguised as loving.

And it is so trite and boring

And it is really quite obvious that you cannot responde well to people here. You spew out things that their responses remind you of, but you cannot actually respond to what people write.

Trite on the intellectual level and hateful on the emotional and effect level.

Tired old trash recycled by a parrot mind.

Oh, that kid getting abused by that pedophile. Oh, he's acting just like a child. So attached to being happy. I won't intervene. That kid will become more like an adult faster with the raping.

[Dimebag]

A little spicy can be enjoyable. A lot of spicy is miserable. Ask anyone who brings a gallon of milk to a chili-eating contest. Next metaphor...

There are several illustrations to prove that the physical pain can be also enjoyed. In boxing, when the opponent embraces you strongly, you feel unhappy because such a situation leads to your defeat. But, when you are embraced by a beautiful girl, you feel more happiness and the degree of your happiness is proportional to the strength of the embracement!. Therefore, the physical pain in one situation is unhappy, whereas the same physical pain in another situation leads to happiness. Even when you eat the hot dish, your tongue is burning due to the vigor of chillies and your eyes are showering the tears. All these symptoms are the indication of unhappiness only.

But still you enjoy the happiness in eating the hot dish. Therefore, you cannot link the enjoyment with mere external material. Ofcourse, the external material gives rise to the feeling and the feeling may be pleasant or unpleasant depending on one factor, which is that whether the external material is interacted continuously or not. If you are interacting with any item or situation of the creation continuously, you become unhappy. Even the embracement of the beautiful girl becomes unpleasant, if such embracement continues without gap.

If you are exposed to the heat for a long time you feel happiness in cold as in the case of the Indian. If you are exposed to cold for a long time you feel happiness in the warmness and heat as in the case of a foreigner. Hence the process of enjoyment depends on the alternating interaction with the external items or situations in this world. Hence, any continuous interaction with the same item or situation gives unhappiness, whereas the change in the interaction gives happiness. God is the Father of the souls and hence arranges the life cycles of the souls with alternating pleasant and unpleasant scenes.

Even though you have done sins continuously for some long span of time and good deeds continuously in another long span of time, God does not arrange the life cycles with the continuous misery and continuous happiness proportionally in corresponding long spans of time.

I feel what you are either missing, or not communicating clearly enough, is that suffering is caused by clinging and aversion.

Aversion to the “hot” as you say, and clinging to the “sweet”.

So instead of hoping for bliss, simply not being averse to the “hot” aspects of life, not trying to push them away will take the edge off them.

Similarly not clinging to the “sweet” aspects of life means when they aren’t present, their absence is neither a problem.

What is also important is noticing clinging and aversion.