The Root cause Of Suffering .

Hi Chris

What then does living in the Now offer by way of reduction of suffering?

Living in the now is not about reducing anything, it is in reality quite the reverse, by healing our past inner conflicts and dealing with our fears of the future, we are then open to fully experience everything as it happens within the now, without the judgements from the past or fears of the future colouring or shading the current experiences that are unfolding as we live them.

So if we are going to experience suffering as it happens in the now or real time, then we will fully experience it as it happens and then when the moment of the suffering is past, we are then free to fully experience something else, the now is about experiencing life to the full in the moment, it enhances each experience as it happens because we are focused within the current situation and not distracted by the past and the future.

Hi Giles,
Thanks for the comprehensive reply, I think I understand it exactly. It of course raises more questions but that is the nature of the discussion.
Let me try to play a bit back:

By living in the now one can recognise that past events that (perhaps) are painful for cause emotions that are painful are of no relevance in the now and so the suffering they cause can be stopped by only working within the Now and releasing them (let them go) in some way.

Once they are let go then even if at some time later the same issues give rise to further emotional suffering or whatever the initial release was such that the reaction is actually a new reaction, not a repeat of the old.

So long as one lives in the Now the then process continues to work, but if one reverts to the previous state then suffering resumes.

OK - perhaps that is my take on it, but even so...
Now perhaps this makes clear why some things have appeared strange to me. You see you say that this is the healing process, and it just comes from recognising that in the Now these issues have no relevance, then I still ask what it is that a healer does other than pointing this out and talking people into the state where they see this clearly. I know this is addressed to you but this is why I asked many times of Paul what it is that he does to the client, on the basis that he claims they do not do it for themselves. This is a fundamental question that has not been answered.
Given that it is the client who sees that by living in the now, releasing the issue and thereby being healed I do not think that this is a million miles from my description of identifying the issue, facing up to it, losing the fear of it and forgiving is so different, however this does not give rise to similar issues later from the same, original issue, for the issue has been dealt with, not just the current memories.

Also it perhaps explains why I see this process as having barriers or perhaps as a trap - for once you are in, and once you have seen the benefit of releasing old issues, and of living in the now, having felt the healing that it brings (and many of the other things I described), you cannot leave and feel that suffering 'related to' the original issue will not resurface, you may recognise that the original suffering has gone and cannot resurface, but what I called echoes of the issue may still cause further suffering. So in order to stay in a non-suffering state one is trapped in the Now.
I use this analogy, if I went to the doctor and said I had an infection, and he gave me antibiotics that cleared up the infection so that I healed completely, I would regard that as 'healed up', or perhaps better worded as cured. If what he did was put me on antibiotics for the rest of my life I would not, that is palliative care for a chronic condition, it is not healed, or cured, but treated to reduce the symptoms. This is what the now offers I think.
So although it appears that through the clever use of logic and words the issue is healed for good, it has not really been, merely the aspect of it at the time. Of course when one is in the Now there may seem no reason to leave so the issue seems unimportant, but that is a spurious argument, it does not change the fact that one is restrained if the desire to remain free of suffering is to be maintained.

Hi Paul,
The way you write it it makes it sound as if the only way to fully experience life is to do it in the Now, this is not so, it may well be one way, but that does not give it exclusivity.
love
chris

Hi Chris

Hi Paul,
The way you write it it makes it sound as if the only way to fully experience life is to do it in the Now, this is not so, it may well be one way, but that does not give it exclusivity.

Yes you are quite correct, people can choose to heal their inner conflicts so that they are free to experience the fullness that life has to offer as it unfolds for them within the now, or they can choose to become distracted from what is happening right now by locking themselves up in the self made suffering that they have created around past issues, or then again they can also distract themselves from what is happening right now by choosing to become locked within self made fears that they create around what might happen within the future, there are always choices to be made. 🙂

You said to Giles:

By living in the now one can recognise that past events that (perhaps) are painful for cause emotions that are painful are of no relevance in the now and so the suffering they cause can be stopped by only working within the Now and releasing them (let them go) in some way.

Once they are let go then even if at some time later the same issues give rise to further emotional suffering or whatever the initial release was such that the reaction is actually a new reaction, not a repeat of the old.

So long as one lives in the Now the then process continues to work, but if one reverts to the previous state then suffering resumes.

This understanding is coming from the understanding that the inner conflicts have not been healed so they are only hidden or being ignored and are still there awaiting something to re-trigger them.

Please consider that once the inner conflicts are healed, then they no longer exist, so there is nothing to create a repeat reaction of what was there before because they have been healed, that is the function of the healing process that is used to set them free to experience the Now as it unfolds, it is not the Now which heals them, getting into the now is made possible as a direct result of being healed.

I know this is addressed to you but this is why I asked many times of Paul what it is that he does to the client, on the basis that he claims they do not do it for themselves. This is a fundamental question that has not been answered.

I have actually answered you, but this is not something that I can give you through analytical head knowledge, I think that Jnani is the only person on the forums who has a conceptual understanding of the way that I heal, even though my way is completely different to the way that Jnani does it.

I have not got the words to accurately describe what happens when I heal within consciousness to create a shift within consciousness; the shift within consciousness is something that needs to be experienced in order to form some form of conceptual understanding which can only be formed around the personal experience, I do the same thing when helping people to learn what I do, I can't give them the words but I can give them an empowerment to work along side the shift in consciousness that I give them which enables them to do it them self.

This is what we have been attempting to tell you about the Now, it is not something that can be brought about by thinking about it and analysing the limited words that we can use to describe the experience of living within the Now, the Now is something that people need to experience for themselves, in order for them to comprehend the experience and through living the experience, they can form an understanding or inner knowing of what the Now is.

Chris,

short one this time...

I agree with Paul, you've gone back to the assumptions that suffering is simply supressed to resurface rather than 'ended' as we were talking about.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi Paul and Giles,
Giles - you say that I am back at the idea of suppression - but I am not - I have looked at what you wrote:

" No. Put simply, any suffering that arises will be newly created by the mind and such thoughts will have arisen because of associations with what is in this new present moment. Now you may say that "ah, but the suffering is based on the same past memory, so it's still suffering on the same thing". Now, apart from the small fact that the memory itself will have changed since the last suffering so it's not exactly the same memory, we have already associated the fact that the suffering last time was not real and this itself is remembered and associated with that memory. The suffering was previously ended (when recognised it was not real it ceased to exist), so any new suffering is being generated by some other factor."

This and the example you quote do demonstrate that although the original suffering is ended the underlying issues have not gone and further but different suffering from the same issues can still arise. The use of "the memory itself will have changed since the last suffering so it's not exactly the same memory" simply means that the conditions have changed, not the placement. What I see is the use of words to provide absolutes but they are also used to exclude similarities, and it is those similarities that matter.
It is like a person going to the doctor with acne, and the doctor prescribes some ointment, when the person returns and says they still have acne the doctor points out that the original acne has healed up but that new ones have arisen, so he was effective as a healer.
If a person can get healing for an issue that is permanent than there should be no need to qualify it like this, if an issue is solved then it should not have these 'similar but different' echoes or recurring themes.

I asked "if you heal someone in the now of the issues that arise from a past event, are they always going to be healed from any connection to those issues, if a year later someone brings them up will all of the emotions that used to be associated with the issue still be dismissed, no matter what has gone on in the meantime?"
Paul replied:
" Yes, the connections within consciousness are transformed, if someone talks about their own or a similar experience, then because it has been healed, then there are no emotions attached to the memories, they are just memories which can be discussed quite openly should they choose to do so, the same as any other memories of what has been, the conflict has been transformed and inner harmony is restored within the healing, that is the way we help them."
Now this does not sound like the same explanation.

So this leads me back to these orphaned issues and permanent healing, issues that have arisen in the past as a result of an original issue.

The questions I am unclear about what the answers are are:

Is only the original suffering resulting from the issue healed or is there ever going to be any recurrence of suffering in any form from the original issue?

If the original issue is healed in some way are all the sub-issues that have arisen also healed?

Is the healing only effective while people stay in the Now or will some form suffering happen related in any way to the original issue if they decide not to stay in the Now?

The answers have so far not been (in my mind) consistent, hence my asking just for the clarity on these questions. Adding clever qualifications by saying that the original issue is no longer as it was, or memories have since been further corrupted so it is a new issue does not answer the question.

And this from Paul perhaps make things clearer why:
" We perceive healing is applied in the now to heal what is being currently created in the present moment"
All of this seems to come back to living in the Now, it provides great relief from suffering, it allows focus, and all the things described, but if continued relief and all those things are dependent on remaining in the Now then it is a constraint.
love
chris

This and the example you quote do demonstrate that although the original suffering is ended the underlying issues have not gone

They have because the only issue that exists is whatever is in the mind at this moment in time. It's not the same issue and any suffering that arises is because of new factors in the present moment that have caused the mind to create it.

You were likening it to taking antibiotics, but having to continue taking them for life, implying that the original condition had not been healed. But it's not like that as, once the 'issue' has been recognised as a creation of the mind it is let go and no longer exists. Of course that doesn't stop new 'issues' arising in the mind, just as you can catch another infection and require more antibiotics later, but that infection is not the original infection that was eradicated.

and further but different suffering from the same issues can still arise. The use of "the memory itself will have changed since the last suffering so it's not exactly the same memory" simply means that the conditions have changed, not the placement. What I see is the use of words to provide absolutes but they are also used to exclude similarities, and it is those similarities that matter.

Which brings us back to choices and people can choose to let go of the suffering at any moment because they can recognise that the original 'thing' to which they perceive this similarity no longer exists.

It is like a person going to the doctor with acne, and the doctor prescribes some ointment, when the person returns and says they still have acne the doctor points out that the original acne has healed up but that new ones have arisen, so he was effective as a healer.

In a sense yes, but in a sense no. The doctor didn't recognise and treat the cause of the issue, just the symptoms, which would be like saying "I'm not going to suffer in this present moment" but not recognising that the cause of the issue is no longer here in the present and cannot be a true cause of suffering (i.e. recognising that the mind causes it)

If a person can get healing for an issue that is permanent than there should be no need to qualify it like this, if an issue is solved then it should not have these 'similar but different' echoes or recurring themes.

We're living life. It has many inputs from many different places external to the physical body and the limits of the mind. Of course this will generate new issues. Can you heal on some level so that a new issue can never be created for a person?

I asked "if you heal someone in the now of the issues that arise from a past event, are they always going to be healed from any connection to those issues, if a year later someone brings them up will all of the emotions that used to be associated with the issue still be dismissed, no matter what has gone on in the meantime?"
Paul replied:
" Yes, the connections within consciousness are transformed, if someone talks about their own or a similar experience, then because it has been healed, then there are no emotions attached to the memories, they are just memories which can be discussed quite openly should they choose to do so, the same as any other memories of what has been, the conflict has been transformed and inner harmony is restored within the healing, that is the way we help them."
Now this does not sound like the same explanation.

It is. The recognition that the issue is non existent in the present moment and that the suffering is caused by the mind means that any time in the future, the person is perfectly capable of recalling the memory and 'knowing' that it's just a memory and that any 'issue' that arises from that recall is something being created by the mind right here and now, and isn't the same as any previous issue and therefore can be equally let go.

So this leads me back to these orphaned issues and permanent healing, issues that have arisen in the past as a result of an original issue.

The original issue and the past no longer exist, only what we have right here and now, and that's something different.

The questions I am unclear about what the answers are are:

Is only the original suffering resulting from the issue healed or is there ever going to be any recurrence of suffering in any form from the original issue?

If I read that in my own terminology, I would say that an event may involve an issue at the time, and that suffering is an issue created at a future time when the mind is attached to the memory of that past event. The original past event doesn't exist any more (it's gone! it's in the past!) and neither does the original issue. Suffering in the present moment should be recognised for what it is and how it's been created by the mind and then it will be known to be false.

There is a meditation practice that goes along the lines of... If you experience any 'issue', 'dis-ease' or whatever whilst meditating, place all of your focus on that thing and you will become aware of what it is... if you can focus on it, then it can't be you and must therefore be created by the mind. This recognition/awareness will make the issue dissolve away.

If the original issue is healed in some way are all the sub-issues that have arisen also healed?

If you reach an awareness that the original issue isn't existent any more then that may also relate to what you call 'sub issues'. It could depend on how tightly they have become associated in the mind. For example, you may have been involved in a car crash in which your passenger was killed. When you remember the car crash, you feel a fear of driving and you feel sadness or whatever for the passenger. You can become aware that the car crash is no longer here and that this event has passed and that can allow you to be free of your fear of driving whilst at the same time being free of the sadness for the passenger and instead know that you can go in a car again now as it's not the same situation and that you will always have the memories of the passenger and the 'good times and love' if you choose to bring those emotions up. Alternatively, you may have been involved in a car crash and your friend involved in a seperate car crash that killed them. Just because you reach awareness that your fear of being in a car is not necessary because your own crash was in the past, you may not have associated your car crash with your friends (they could have taken place at completely different times) in your memory, and you may still feel sadness at your friends death.... a seperate suffering that you could become aware of seperately to be free of.

Is the healing only effective while people stay in the Now or will some form suffering happen related in any way to the original issue if they decide not to stay in the Now?

If the memory exists then of course people can associate new things with it and create issues that they believe ARE caused by it. The truth is that the original issue doesn't exist, so any suffering created is new suffering for a completely new reason.
The concept that the new suffering is related to the original issue is a false creation of the mind, simply because new things have been associated through the way the mind stores and retrieves memories.

The answers have so far not been (in my mind) consistent, hence my asking just for the clarity on these questions. Adding clever qualifications by saying that the original issue is no longer as it was, or memories have since been further corrupted so it is a new issue does not answer the question.

Well it is the answer, though we will do what we can to clarify it for you so it makes sense to you. That's all we can do.

And this from Paul perhaps make things clearer why:
" We perceive healing is applied in the now to heal what is being currently created in the present moment"
All of this seems to come back to living in the Now, it provides great relief from suffering, it allows focus, and all the things described, but if continued relief and all those things are dependent on remaining in the Now then it is a constraint.

Are you perhaps expecting that a person can be healed of their 'past' issues in such a way that they will never have new issues in the future?

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi Chris

Is only the original suffering resulting from the issue healed or is there ever going to be any recurrence of suffering in any form from the original issue?

This is where part of your reasoning is creating a misunderstanding.

Please consider that if something is not occurring to someone right now, then it cannot in any sense be blamed for creating their suffering right now, so the original suffering which occurred as the event was happening say 20 years ago, ceased to exist when the event ended because it was no longer happening to cause them suffering.

Now we can't heal something which is not here right now, then the only suffering which is in evidence right now, is what they are personally creating within their own consciousness, so since what is happening right now is the only thing which can be healed, then that is what we heal.

If the original issue is healed in some way are all the sub-issues that have arisen also healed?

Same answer as above, we deal with whatever is in evidence right now, if there is no original issue then there can't be any original sub-issues, everything is being created in the moment, so we heal it in the moment.

Is the healing only effective while people stay in the Now or will some form suffering happen related in any way to the original issue if they decide not to stay in the Now?

The healing which is performed within the Now, only allows them to function within the Now should they choose to do so, the Now is not the healer although healers should function within it once they have healed themselves, it is something that healing makes available to people once they are healed of their inner conflicts.

If someone wishes to create a new scenario, so they can become angry or sad or whatever other form of self suffering they choose to create for themselves, then they are free to do that, the consequences of that will be that they will once more find it very difficult to remain focused within the Now because of the distractions that they are creating through their self suffering.

The now is always there and people do create their realities within the Now whether they realise it or not, the difference is how we perceive things when we have no inner conflict to distract us from fully experiencing life and everything as it is unfolding around us all of the time.

All of this seems to come back to living in the Now, it provides great relief from suffering, it allows focus, and all the things described, but if continued relief and all those things are dependent on remaining in the Now then it is a constraint.

No, living in the now will not give you any relief, if you are experiencing something which gives you discomfort right now, you will experience every pain as it happens because you are focused within the Now and that is the reality of what is happening right now. So no living in the now is about being in the moment to experience everything which is happening right now, not avoiding things, but fully experiencing them without internal distractions.

The constraint, if you can call it that, is that we must be free of the internal problems which will stop us from experiencing the Now, in other words we need to become healed of our inner conflicts and embrace self in an open and nonjudgmental way so we can become whole within self.

Thank you Giles - finally I think I am beginning to see what lies behind the descriptions you give.
You see I understand that you say that the suffering being experienced is healed, but that further (different suffering) can arise still related to the original issue. This is not what I think I heard Paul say "if someone talks about their own or a similar experience, then because it has been healed, then there are no emotions attached to the memories" - and this I took to read that the connection to the original issue had been healed, but this is not what I think you are saying.
In terms of the infection example I would say that Paul's explanation says that the infection due to the specific bacteria will never recur, while you
say that there could be further outbreaks, but they may be (say) a different strain to the original one.
The suffering is being healed, it is the specific suffering that is healed. The issue (which I accept no longer exists) still remains and may give rise to symptoms of suffering later.
Does this explain why I have sounded confused? Two fundamentally different explanations that sound similar.

Now you ask "Can you heal on some level so that a new issue can never be created for a person?" and the answer on many levels is of course no, but I do think that people can heal themselves in such a manner that no further suffering will occur from an individual issue, ever. The final stage of this is forgiveness and I believe that this allows no further suffering to arise from it, because it is the issue not the suffering that is faced up to and without fear, it is the issue itself that is healed.
New issues may arise that are not connected at all, as you say this is life. However when people come for healing (and I think this is true in your system) there are often many issues stacked up needing healing, once these are cleared, and the process of healing is understood, then new issues are relatively infrequent and dealt with as they arise - the queue is gone and the time between the issue occurring and being healed is very small.

Now while you appear to agree with Paul you say "perfectly capable of recalling the memory and 'knowing' that it's just a memory and that any 'issue' that arises from that recall is something being created by the mind right here and now, and isn't the same as any previous issue and therefore can be equally let go." And this is consistent with what you say above - I translate it as there can be further suffering from the memory, but this too can be healed, in much the same way as before. The problem is that the issue remains, it is not just the memory, and it can continue to create new forms of suffering that will need healing. I see the suffering as a symptom, or perhaps an indication, rather like pain, but it is not the cause, the original issue.

Yes- I agree that these 'sub-issues' are differently associated by the mind. This has been one of the points I have been trying to make about the difference between a person healing themselves (facilitated by the healer) and someone doing things for them.
Take for instance someone who was abused as a very young child, they may not even actively remember the event. As they grow up they have many episodes where this affects them and their relationships, they shun some people, their sexual relationships may be very difficult, marriage and bonding all affected.
Now individually each one of these is an issue, the broken marriage, the disturbed relationship, the harsh words, all related in some way to a memory that is not accessible. If one heals the original issue in some way, all of these others are still existent, still creating suffering, each on their own merit. I think that self-healing deals with this, for the web is understood, and the healing works back towards the original issue, one sub-issue at a time, it leaves no orphaned sub-issues (these are a real problem for they seem to have no source to deal with, just an event), and in the process will eventually uncover the original issue and allow it to be healed. This is why I say it is a loving and gentle process.
If someone on the other hand steps in a heals the original issue, many of the sub-issues are left orphaned. They are not symptoms of the original issue, the events were sparked by the original issue, but they have 'issue status' all of their own.

So to your question "Are you perhaps expecting that a person can be healed of their 'past' issues in such a way that they will never have new issues in the future?" the answer is a sort of yes in that they will not have issues related to the healed issue, but each day may bring a new issue for us to face - these are not part of the original issue or related, just as you say part of life.
love
chris

So to your question "Are you perhaps expecting that a person can be healed of their 'past' issues in such a way that they will never have new issues in the future?" the answer is a sort of yes in that they will not have issues related to the healed issue, but each day may bring a new issue for us to face - these are not part of the original issue or related, just as you say part of life.

But, whilst the memory remains of the past event, the mind can always associate something new to it, and can create new suffering in relation to it. This is what the mind does and why we need to recognise that the mind takes us away from living in the Now. When we recognise the mind for what it is and what it's doing we can see these new issues arising and recognise they are not true as they are falsely associated with the memory of the past.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi Chris

I am a little perplexed by the way that you are assessing the answers that Giles and I give you against each other's answers and expect them to be the same as each other!

Giles and I have never met and the only conversations we have had with each other is on this forum, we do not do the same things in our practices, but I believe that we are both working towards the same end of healing people's inner conflicts and helping them to become free of their self limiting thought patterns and beliefs which are stopping them from experiencing a fulfilled life within the Now.

Even if you talked to 10 people who are supposed to do exactly the same thing, they will all have a different conceptual understanding of what they are doing and why they are doing it, this can be further complicated by the type of teachings they have received and by who they have received their understanding from.

I think that what I am trying to say to you here, is that you need to take what each of us is saying to you as our own conceptual understanding which is only relevant to the person who gives it to you, and not to attempt to analyse one against the other as our understandings might be similar but they are not the same. 🙂

That's a very good point Paul and I hope Chris takes that on board.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Respect for a client's wishes is different to respect for the client, fabricating ritual in order to either experiment on them or simply fool them into some kind of accepting state does not show respect. This as much as anything perhaps clarifies why I see your system as being only self-serving for itself and why it looks as if there is no respect for the client. Time and time again you have demonstrated this by the words you use

This is a bit strong isn't it Chris? What proof have you of this? I should imagine you will ignore that question like you have ignored all the dozens of others. I have proof to the contrary because I have been a client of Paul's there was no ritual, I did not feel anything was fabricated at any time, I certainly did not feel 'experimented on' I went into asking for Paul's help with my eyes wide open, nor did I feel as though I was being fooled into some kind of accepting state, last but not least I did not feel a lack of respect, you type as though Paul is tieing people up after clubbing them on the head and dragging them to his retreat lol I will ask you for a third time what about all those people for whom it feels right and have not experienced any of the above that you mention?
IMO there is nothing wrong (and everything right) with wishing to understand that which we don't understand but what's all the mud slinging about?

Love

Rebecca

Hi Giles,
Yes the memories remain, but if the issues are healed fully then the change in viewpoint of the client to the issue will not allow new suffering to arise from the original issue - this is the whole point. If one only heals the current symptoms (in this case the suffering arising from the issue) then it is almost inevitable that further suffering will arise in some form, a different suffering from the original because time has moved on, but similar.
If the issue is actually healed, fully and completely by the client, then the issue will be healed, not the suffering, this will go when the healing is done. This is why self-healing is so powerful, it is done in the order that the client needs, at the rate which the client needs and is complete.
Your description sounds ok, but the way I translate it (again) is that it relives symptoms and does not heal issues.

Hi Paul,
I see that you both work with the Now, that you both heal in the Now, and so you should be talking about the same Now. When I described a different viewpoint of the Now you both told me that I was wrong, or that I was not experiencing the now correctly - if you and Giles have different views of it then one of you at least, by the same argument, must be wrong. Perhaps you should be discussing those differences in order to understand why they are apparent - I still see it as a prison, I see the barriers clearly so I think that both of you are blind to them.
However there are enough similarities, just as there were in my description, that make discussing both together reasonable as well.
Perhaps for a start you can tell me where you do not agree, what are the points that I should be looking at separately, and why do they diverge.


Hi Rebecca,
The text quoted primarily referred to Paul inventing a ritual in order to placate a student with serious issues, it was invented, fabricated and it seems applied. I see this as disrespectful towards what in this case is essentially a client. This and the use of comments such as clients 'can procrastinate on their own time' and several others mentioned in this thread as demonstrating a lack of respect to clients. I have no personal experience as a client, I have only played back what has been said.
love
chris

Hi Chris

You said to Giles

Yes the memories remain, but if the issues are healed fully then the change in viewpoint of the client to the issue will not allow new suffering to arise from the original issue - this is the whole point. If one only heals the current symptoms (in this case the suffering arising from the issue) then it is almost inevitable that further suffering will arise in some form, a different suffering from the original because time has moved on, but similar.

You keep on coming back to this and it is your lack of understanding based upon your next paragraph to Giles which is causing you to not understand.

If the issue is actually healed, fully and completely by the client, then the issue will be healed, not the suffering, this will go when the healing is done. This is why self-healing is so powerful, it is done in the order that the client needs, at the rate which the client needs and is complete.

The core issue was inadvertently created by the client, it is the client who is perpetuating their own suffering because they only know how to create it and do not know how to heal it, if we were to rely upon them to heal themselves as you are suggesting, then what you are describing in the first paragraph will happen, it requires someone who understands how to resolve the inner conflict, which they are recreating all of the time, to heal it for them so that they can become free, they are locked within a prison of their own making.

We have to understand a problem before we can come up with a solution to fix it.

You then said to me.

I see that you both work with the Now, that you both heal in the Now, and so you should be talking about the same Now.

We are.

When I described a different viewpoint of the Now you both told me that I was wrong, or that I was not experiencing the now correctly - if you and Giles have different views of it then one of you at least, by the same argument, must be wrong.

Perhaps you should be discussing those differences in order to understand why they are apparent - I still see it as a prison, I see the barriers clearly so I think that both of you are blind to them.
However there are enough similarities, just as there were in my description, that make discussing both together reasonable as well.

The only time that Giles and I would have to get together and iron out the slight differences between our conceptions of the Now which you are misrepresenting, would be if Giles decided to come and learn to become a Gaia-Now transformational healing and personal development practitioner, otherwise Giles's concepts work with what he does and mine work with what I do.

As for your own perceptions, please remember that we are not responsible for your self limiting thought patterns and beliefs, I did offer to help you to become healed of them on another thread, but you do not believe that it is possible for a healer to heal someone else, so that path is not open to you.

If your thought processes are leading you to perceive prisons and barriers where none exist, then the barriers and prison are being created out of your inner conflicts within your own consciousness, perhaps when you heal yourself of your inner conflicts and learn to embrace things in an open and non-judgemental way, then you will become free from your self created barriers and prisons and be able to perceive things in a different way and will understand what we are talking about.

You then mentioned me again to Rebbecca

The text quoted primarily referred to Paul inventing a ritual in order to placate a student with serious issues, it was invented, fabricated and it seems applied. I see this as disrespectful towards what in this case is essentially a client. This and the use of comments such as clients 'can procrastinate on their own time' and several others mentioned in this thread as demonstrating a lack of respect to clients. I have no personal experience as a client, I have only played back what has been said.

No actually I don't think you have ever just played back what was said, you turn what is said around and twist them to suit your self limiting thought patterns and beliefs, I have had to constantly correct your so called quotes and remove the extra words that you have placed into my so called quotes or replace the words that magically disappear from my so called quotes so that they fit what you perceive within your self made limitations and judgements.

I am not locked within a self made prison and your self made barriers and judgements have no impact upon my existence, I am free to heal people in the best way that I can, I do not place any restriction upon the healing that I do, I do not place any restriction upon the people that I help, I am in the business of setting people free from themselves, if I understand something that you do not, that does not make it wrong, the proof of the pudding is alway in the eating, if it works it works, if not then it does not, it is as simple as that. 😉

Oooo, this is like samsara... a never ending cycle of misinterpretations. 🙂

Hi Giles,
Yes the memories remain, but if the issues are healed fully then the change in viewpoint of the client to the issue will not allow new suffering to arise from the original issue - this is the whole point.

Agreed.

If one only heals the current symptoms (in this case the suffering arising from the issue) then it is almost inevitable that further suffering will arise in some form, a different suffering from the original because time has moved on, but similar.

You are treating symptoms and suffering as the same thing. The syptoms are a result of suffering but the suffering is more than that, it is an attachment to what the mind is creating. So living in the Now isn't just about healing the symptoms that the suffering creates, it's about recognising that the mind is creating the suffering itself and being free of that attachment, thus as you said in the first paragraph, the viewpoint of the client changes as they recognise that the suffering is being created by the mind and not real. If that viewpoint has changed because they became present and aware of what the mind was up to, then they have healed themselves of that 'issue', and not just the symptoms.

If the issue is actually healed, fully and completely by the client, then the issue will be healed, not the suffering, this will go when the healing is done. This is why self-healing is so powerful, it is done in the order that the client needs, at the rate which the client needs and is complete.

As Paul says, the client needs to learn the tools and understand how to heal, in order to be healed. Not sure why you believe that living in the Now would only heal the symptoms and why you believe that the suffering is not attached to the issue and can be healed seperately.

Your description sounds ok, but the way I translate it (again) is that it relives symptoms and does not heal issues.

I believe you are not differentiating some words from others e.g. symptoms and suffering and by seeing these things as the same, this could be the cause of the confusion? Just a thought.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

This and the use of comments such as clients 'can procrastinate on their own time' and several others mentioned in this thread as demonstrating a lack of respect to clients.

Hi Chris, I don't percieve this as a lack of respect for clients because in all helping/healing modalities there has to be a cut off point for the sake of the therapist and the client to do otherwise is unethical, I do counselling (person centred and existential) and psychotherapy (Transactional Analysis) I once had a client who came week in and week out for over two years, this client was procrastinating when it came to facilitating change(s) an issue I remained respectful about but sitting their listening to him whining and doing nothing at all to change was tantamount to me enabling his procrastination, this client taught me that from that point on I would include the time spent in therapy in our initial contract, it would not have helped that chap to continue with the therapy quite the opposite it would have been deeply disrepectful for me to continue taking money off him and direspectful of him to use me as a sounding board without any intention of changing any of the issues he originally presented with.

Love

Rebecca

Hi Paul,
Giles said "But, whilst the memory remains of the past event, the mind can always associate something new to it, and can create new suffering in relation to it." and his explanation was " If the memory exists then of course people can associate new things with it and create issues that they believe ARE caused by it. The truth is that the original issue doesn't exist, so any suffering created is new suffering for a completely new reason"
I think that my translation of these was reasonable.
Now on " it is the client who is perpetuating their own suffering because they only know how to create it and do not know how to heal it" I completely disagree, everyone know how to heal, whether they choose to do so now is different, but to state that they do not know how once again displays your poor view of the client.

Your views are different - otherwise why try to suggest that I should not analyse one against the other, it is that very process that brings about understanding, not everyone saying that they are the only ones to have the right view. I understand that this does not always suit you, but when I present my conceptual understanding you claim I am wrong, you can't have it both ways without appearing duplicitous.

Here we go again, pass the blame "please remember that we are not responsible for your self limiting thought patterns and beliefs" - anyone who does not see what you see or agree is self-limiting and wrong. And this is another example "perhaps when you heal yourself of your inner conflicts and learn to embrace things in an open and non-judgemental way, then you will become free from your self created barriers and prisons and be able to perceive things in a different way and will understand what we are talking about." - this just displays a self-serving attitude. Only you can be right according to this oh and of course " I am not locked within a self made prison" you are different. This is basically just arrogant and it displays the same attitude that I see you write about your clients (the thing in the room if I remember rightly). In actual fact it is your entrenched attachment to the Now that becomes self limiting and renders *you* blind to any issues that are not seen as self-serving. This is a choice you make out of fear. It drives you to call anyone who sees something other than that view that you cling to as exhibiting self limiting thought patterns, while in actual fact it is you that demonstrates those very charactristics that you seek to insult others with.


In terms of making up rituals
"just reverse the attunement procedure and remove the symbols in stead of inserting them, this will disconnect him from the Reiki modality." - was this fabricated or not? It was made up in order to solve a problem, made up as in fabricated - removing symbols in some manner.

Hi Giles,
Yes - I do see the suffering and symptoms can sometimes be the same. I do see that perhaps a physical manifestation may be as a result of the suffering (say), but also that the suffering is a symptom of the reaction to the original issue, it is a symptom in its own right, it arises as a result of an event.
From the freedictionary:
1. A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: "The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself" (Maggie Scarf). See Synonyms at sign.
2. A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.


Hi Rebecca,
I'm sure you do not see it as disrespectful, it arises from the same viewpoint as Paul, I would not claim that the client is a thing in the room, or describe them as whining. If they are in fear of something and so are putting off the changes needed then that is what is needed, simply passing them off as whining and then claiming respect for them is not what I see as respectful - in fact quite the opposite. These are people in need for goodness sake, where has the love and compassion gone, where is the caring and consideration gone, and where has the reverence and respect for the client gone with this process of healing in the Now?
love
chris

Hi Chris

Now on

it is the client who is perpetuating their own suffering because they only know how to create it and do not know how to heal it

I completely disagree, everyone know how to heal, whether they choose to do so now is different, but to state that they do not know how once again displays your poor view of the client.

No that is not a poor view of of people, it is my understanding based upon my own personal healing journey, I started the journey with a will to heal myself, I could not achieve that goal until I learned how to heal from within the fullness of self and within that process I learnt how to embrace self in an open and non-judgemental way.

If what you believe is true and everyone knows how to heal themselves, then we can safely dispense with all of the therapists, healers and non-emergency doctors, as well as hospitals, nursing homes and hospices and just retain the accident and emergency units to deal with the everyday accidents which occur and allow people to choose to heal themselves or not, as you say it is a personal choice, so people should be given the option to see if they are capable of healing themselves.

Your views are different - otherwise why try to suggest that I should not analyse one against the other, it is that very process that brings about understanding, not everyone saying that they are the only ones to have the right view. I understand that this does not always suit you, but when I present my conceptual understanding you claim I am wrong, you can't have it both ways without appearing duplicitous.

To analyse one thing against another requires like to be assessed against like, if we attempt to assess the similarities between chalk and cheese, then we are not going to get very far with our understanding.

Here we go again, pass the blame

please remember that we are not responsible for your self limiting thought patterns and beliefs

anyone who does not see what you see or agree is self-limiting and wrong.

No it is not about blame, it is about understanding, our understanding is formed out of our thinking consciousness which is assessing what we are thinking against what we already have within our memory consciousness and if it fits in with our core way of being.

From your own understanding you said

We are the product of our past, no matter that we exist in the present, we are still the product of our experiences and history and the journey that brought us to the present.

and

Focussing only on this life, or on this moment in time is just plainly restrictive. I think that it is important that one understands all the local (to this life and this time) issues, and it is important that they are dealt with, but to limit ones knowledge about oneself in any way feels wrong to me.

So to try and embrace the Now in the way that we understand it, goes against your core beliefs.

In actual fact it is your entrenched attachment to the Now that becomes self limiting and renders *you* blind to any issues that are not seen as self-serving. This is a choice you make out of fear. It drives you to call anyone who sees something other than that view that you cling to as exhibiting self limiting thought patterns, while in actual fact it is you that demonstrates those very charactristics that you seek to insult others with.

An inner conflict is the belief in two or more opposing thought patterns or beliefs at the same time, as you have already judged and created a belief that the Now is restrictive, it is almost impossible for you to contemplate it as unfettered and all inclusive, without creating an inner conflict.

Other beliefs that you have shared about healing on these forums, are around the concepts that you believe that you need to introduce people to what you can glean about their past lives for them, so that they can add them to the healing list, together with the concepts of being judgemental and requiring forgiveness, worrying about future lives and past events, that suffering is a good thing and should not be healed as its function is to teach them lessons which we will deprive them of learning should we heal them, healers are not capable of healing someone else, and the Reiki 'Just for today' does not relate to living in the present moment or Now.

I do not worry about the now, I have no fear of being in or out of the Now, I just acknowledge it and let other people know, who embrace the fullness of self and become healed of the past, that it is there if they should choose to exist in it.

In terms of making up rituals

just reverse the attunement procedure and remove the symbols in stead of inserting them, this will disconnect him from the Reiki modality.

was this fabricated or not? It was made up in order to solve a problem, made up as in fabricated - removing symbols in some manner.

No, I did not have to make anything up, I understand the Reiki attunement procedure and I also understand how to remove it. it is as simple as that.

I'm sure you do not see it as disrespectful, it arises from the same viewpoint as Paul, I would not claim that the client is a thing in the room, or describe them as whining. If they are in fear of something and so are putting off the changes needed then that is what is needed, simply passing them off as whining and then claiming respect for them is not what I see as respectful - in fact quite the opposite. These are people in need for goodness sake, where has the love and compassion gone, where is the caring and consideration gone, and where has the reverence and respect for the client gone with this process of healing in the Now?

Hi Chris you are doing that thing again where you miss the point is it deliberate? You also don't appear to like answering questions but like to ask lots then have an hissy fit when you don't like the answers, bottom line people do whine why pretend otherwise?? The issue/question is; "If it's apparent they are in healing to whine & are unable to move on then what good does allowing them to continue whining do"?
I don't see any love and compassion in allowing people to simply whine once it becomes obvious they are not moving on whatever the healing modality employed is whether it's Paul's way, counselling, EFT, Reiki or Bolivian marching powder and Jack Daniels it's pointless but I am interested in your explaining where you are coming from because I don't get it, surely the basis of all healing modalities is to empower the client, people who whine without change are not getting it so surely the most loving and compassionate thing we can do for them is refuse to engage in a process which is enabling their powerlessness?

Love

Rebecca x

or Bolivian marching powder and Jack Daniels

I had to look up the bolivian marching powder, I've never heard it called that before. :rolleyes:

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi Paul,
Healing is a perfectly natural process, we all do it all the time. Sometimes people need a bit of help and guidance, but intrinsically we all know how to heal. It is your view of clients that makes you believe that only you have the ability to heal them. This is just based in insecurity and a need to bolster your standing and your 'profession'. Your view of the clients as things in the room, as those who just procrastinate simply underlines how you feel about them. As long as they pay up you have no interest in them, no feelings for them at all. This is not caring, it is not about nurturing them or treating them like the individuals that they are. It stems from your own self serving process, as long as it serves you it is ok.
In terms of hospitals and even healers most people heal themselves and only a few ailments and issues are such that they need a bit of help or guidance, often this is by family or friends, sometimes by doctors or healers. Of course this is a worrying thing to say to someone who makes money from treating people, nevertheless it is true.

Your view of the now is deliberately self restricted, you render yourself blind to what I have seen out of fear, this is an attachment, to simply deny it merely perpetuates the illusion. It is not self serving to look too hard for it may well change what you see and that is not going to serve your constrained thought patterns well, you are attached to the picture you have of it. It is not my core beliefs that generates an illusion, I simply acknowledge that we arrived where we are by our own individual past, I simply acknowledge that we all plan, however small for the future, even if it is just grocery shopping, and that for each of us the now would not exist without a past and would cease to exist without some kind of provision for the future.
You say "An inner conflict is the belief in two or more opposing thought patterns or beliefs at the same time, as you have already judged and created a belief that the Now is restrictive, it is almost impossible for you to contemplate it as unfettered and all inclusive, without creating an inner conflict." And I say exactly the same back, you have created a Now that is boundryless and it is almost impossible for you to contemplate that it might be different to that, you cannot conceive that they are barriers, for this threatens your very structure of your self serving interest, so you close your perceptions to even the possibility, this is a fearful reaction.
You see I am not threatened by the now, I have no fear of it, I have no investment in it, my views are not devoted to it, I simply state what I see - it does not match exactly what you choose to see from within your attached state.


Now you have accused me of twisting your words a number of times - I suggest that you go back and read what you wrote, for in your need to try to counter what I have said you have done exactly what you accuse me of. This is done out of fear, I understand that, for each time you have tried to manufacture some kind of supportive evidence of the Now you have been shown to be only making wishes that have no foundation of actuality. I have largely stopped challenging them because Giles said I was being unkind, but they are still baseless and simply wishfulness dressed up in words to make them sound valid.


Hi Rebecca,
No hissy fit here, I simply see the words that you and Paul write as disrespectful towards the client. These are people in need and all that I see is that they are not allowed to procrastinate on the healers time, that they are the thing in the room, and that they are perceived to be whining. There is no love or compassion in any of these views, simply a disdainful regard for the clients, a patronising attitude that lacks respect, and certainly lacks concern for anything other than to show how effective the 'healer' is, it is all about the healer and the client is merely a requirement of the process.
love
chris

Hi Chris

Healing is a perfectly natural process, we all do it all the time. Sometimes people need a bit of help and guidance, but intrinsically we all know how to heal.

We use the same process to create our diseases as we do to heal them, both are a natural process, try asking the people around you if they understand how they create their own diseases, there are two sides to the coin, in order to understand one side we also need to understand the other side, all is one.

It is your view of clients that makes you believe that only you have the ability to heal them.

No, as per usual you have not read what I have said to you in earlier posts around the forums or have chosen to ignore them, I am quite happy to heal them, but I am just as happy to teach them how to heal themselves as long as they are prepared to wait until they learn how, obviously if they already know how to heal, then they do not require the services of a healer, so would not consider wasting their time and money coming to see us.

This is just based in insecurity and a need to bolster your standing and your 'profession'.

Wrong again, I have told you repeatedly that I do not have any fears, doubts or insecurities surrounding my healing abilities or my professional standing.

Your view of the clients as things in the room, as those who just procrastinate simply underlines how you feel about them.

Once again you are attempting to transform my words to mean something that I did not put, what I actually said in reply to statement that I only see the Now as important was

No, I see the person in front of me as being the most important thing in the room, the now gives us a way of working, but it is not as important as the person who requires healing.

When someone comes to us for healing, then yes they are the most important thing in the room, all of our focus is entirely upon them and what they are saying to us, so that we can give them the healing which they have come for.

As we only have to deal with them and what is happening to them right now, then we can maintain focus upon them and not allow our thoughts to be distracted with the possibilities of what they did 10 years or 10 lifetimes ago, or if they are setting themselves up for judgement and a lifetime of suffering next time based upon what they are doing in this life time, we are focused completely upon their present healing requirement which need resolving right now.

Procrastination is a manifestation of an inner conflict, as we have the ability to heal the underlying cause which is manifesting the symptom of procrastination, there is no point in encouraging them to continue in a negative self destructive mode for longer than necessary because that would not be healing them, if they should choose not to be healed, then that is their choice which we respect.

As long as they pay up you have no interest in them, no feelings for them at all. This is not caring, it is not about nurturing them or treating them like the individuals that they are. It stems from your own self serving process, as long as it serves you it is ok.

You see, everything you say is always negative and reflects you core way of being, thankfully your negative thought patterns and beliefs have no impact upon my reality, I healed my inner conflicts a long time ago, so my core way of being is positive and I am happy to share my core way of being in a caring and non-judgemental way with others and help them to become positive and caring people, who choose to do things because they serve them in a positive and self serving way.

What you have neglected to contemplate within your negative ponderings, is that it serves me in a positive and self serving way, to help others, which is why I learnt not only how to heal but how to become a healer, I still care for people as much as I did before I learnt how to heal them, but now I can do a lot more that just care for them, now I can care and heal them, its a win, win situation, there is nothing negative at all about what I do or the way I am, I am happy within the fullness of self.

In terms of hospitals and even healers most people heal themselves and only a few ailments and issues are such that they need a bit of help or guidance, often this is by family or friends, sometimes by doctors or healers. Of course this is a worrying thing to say to someone who makes money from treating people, nevertheless it is true.

I think that if anyone took a walk around a cancer ward or visit a hospice where people are suffering and dying of their inner conflicts, then they would find it a little difficult to embrace the concept that a little guidance from friends and family is all they require in order for them to heal themselves of their inner conflicts.

Believe me, if they knew how to heal themselves of their underlying inner conflicts, do you not think that they would have already done so and be out enjoying life in stead of suffering in a hospital bed.

I will now leave you to your negative poderings, as they are not helping anyone, least of all yourself, the saying you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink comes to mind, I wish you well on your journey.

Hi Paul,
Yes- I agree - we can think ourselves into being ill, and into being well. The point I make is exactly that, but sometimes we do need help, and that is when we go to the doctor or a healer. Most times we just sort ourselves out. For instance we hat many infections but hardly ever go to the doctor for antibiotics. In the same way In terms of healing for someone to become a healer needs training, for someone to activate or boost self healing only needs a bit of help for them to get the feel of it. Thus if we just channel the energy they will use it and each use feeds their ability to use it further. This is why people say the energy is intelligent - it is not but the client is.
I never see people as things - not ever - and if there is a negative view of this all I think that seeing people as things is possibly the worst.

In terms of procrastination, there are times when people put things off, and that may be a sign of inner conflict, but there are equally times when people just need time to prepare, in the same way that they perhaps decide over a period of time to seek help from a healer. This is not procrastination, they are not putting it off and not using the time, this period is important to them - and they need the care and understanding to help them thorough it.

love
chris

Your view of the now is deliberately self restricted, you render yourself blind to what I have seen out of fear, this is an attachment, to simply deny it merely perpetuates the illusion. It is not self serving to look too hard for it may well change what you see and that is not going to serve your constrained thought patterns well, you are attached to the picture you have of it. It is not my core beliefs that generates an illusion, I simply acknowledge that we arrived where we are by our own individual past, I simply acknowledge that we all plan, however small for the future, even if it is just grocery shopping, and that for each of us the now would not exist without a past and would cease to exist without some kind of provision for the future.

I think you are mixing up "the past" and "the future" with "the minds concept of past" and "the minds concept of future". The now cannot cease to exist because it's... well... here... and now... and always is. It's existing perfectly well here and now without the past existing and without the future existing. It is the attachment to ideas of the past and future that give you a sense that the now cannot exist without them, but that is not true, because the now is always here... right now... and now... and now.... 😉

You say "An inner conflict is the belief in two or more opposing thought patterns or beliefs at the same time, as you have already judged and created a belief that the Now is restrictive, it is almost impossible for you to contemplate it as unfettered and all inclusive, without creating an inner conflict." And I say exactly the same back, you have created a Now that is boundryless and it is almost impossible for you to contemplate that it might be different to that, you cannot conceive that they are barriers, for this threatens your very structure of your self serving interest, so you close your perceptions to even the possibility, this is a fearful reaction.

So, what is there that truly exists beyond these barriers you talk of?

This is like those who claim that the universe is a finite size... if that is the case, what is beyond the edge of the universe? Oh... more universe duh! The very term "uni-verse" refers to everything as one whole, so there can't be more than everything. The human mind has trouble contemplating an ever infinite universe so it is the mind that creates these barriers, not the universe.

You see I am not threatened by the now, I have no fear of it, I have no investment in it, my views are not devoted to it, I simply state what I see - it does not match exactly what you choose to see from within your attached state.

You can only see what is here and now, nothing else exists. If you claim it does then you are a magical time traveller. You're not Dr Who are you? :rolleyes:

Now you have accused me of twisting your words a number of times - I suggest that you go back and read what you wrote, for in your need to try to counter what I have said you have done exactly what you accuse me of. This is done out of fear,

Why do you always say that people speak out of fear? Do you have some affinity with fear that you chose to impose your view of it onto others? You are claiming to know the minds of others without even knowing them or being them.

I understand that, for each time you have tried to manufacture some kind of supportive evidence of the Now you have been shown to be only making wishes that have no foundation of actuality. I have largely stopped challenging them because Giles said I was being unkind, but they are still baseless and simply wishfulness dressed up in words to make them sound valid.

You still haven't shown us how you cannot be in the Now, except with your explanations that only serve to show that you have concepts in your mind of the past and future; but no evidence to show that you are anywhere but in the present moment except in your mind.

Hi Rebecca,
No hissy fit here, I simply see the words that you and Paul write as disrespectful towards the client.

I haven't read anything that would show Paul as being disrespectful to his clients. I think that comes down to personal interpretation and, I'm guessing, wrongful judgements.

These are people in need and all that I see is that they are not allowed to procrastinate on the healers time, that they are the thing in the room, and that they are perceived to be whining. There is no love or compassion in any of these views, simply a disdainful regard for the clients, a patronising attitude that lacks respect, and certainly lacks concern for anything other than to show how effective the 'healer' is, it is all about the healer and the client is merely a requirement of the process.

I would suggest that you are making slanderous comments about the practice of someone else without actually having had personal experience of it. If you have facts to prove such claims, then you should present them, and that would need to be solid evidence, not just a misinterpretation of someone elses written words on the forum, otherwise you are showing a complete lack of respect for other people yourself.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

I'm not learning much about the root cause of suffering here. I am curious to know whether anyone here has a qualification in clinical psychology or psychiatry? It seems I'm being told that if I suffer it's all my fault, I should sort myself out, and not waste the therapist's time. As for living in the Now; all animals do it. The difference between them and us is that we created the idea of time, but I wouldn't say that was the root cause of suffering.

Edward bach . 1886-1936

Hi Guys . 🙂

I don't tend to read anything much If anything (lol) and I haven't read Edward Bach's book Heal Thy Self, but I must quote a passage from It . . He was a wise soul .

Disease will never be cured or eradicated by present materialistic methods, for the simple reason that disease in its origin is not material. What we know as disease is an ultimate result produced in the body, the end product of deep and long acting forces, and even if material treatment alone is apparently successful this is nothing more than a temporary relief unless the real cause has been removed. The modern trend of medical science, by misinterpreting the true nature of disease and concentrating it in materialistic terms in the physical body, has enormously increased its power, firstly, by distracting the thoughts of people from its true origin and hence from the effective method of attack, and secondly, by localising it in the body, thus obscuring true hope of recovery and raising a mighty disease complex of fear, which never should have existed.

Disease is in essence the result of conflict between Soul and Mind, and will never be eradicated except by spiritual and mental effort. Such efforts, if properly made with understanding as we shall see later, can cure and prevent disease by removing those basic factors which are its primary cause. No effort directed to the body alone can do more than superficially repair damage, and in this there is no cure, since the cause is still operative and may at any moment again demonstrate its presence in another form. In fact, in many cases apparent recovery is harmful, since it hides from the patient the true cause of his trouble,and in the satisfaction of apparently renewed health the real factor, being unnoticed, may gain in strength.

Contrast these cases with that of the patient who knows, or who is by some wise physician instructed in, the nature of the adverse spiritual or mental forces at work, the result of which has precipitated what we call disease in the physical body.

If that patient directly attempts to neutralise those forces, health improves as soon as this is successfully begun, and when it is completed the disease will disappear.

This is true healing by attacking the stronghold, the very base of the cause of suffering.

x daz x

I'm not learning much about the root cause of suffering here. I am curious to know whether anyone here has a qualification in clinical psychology or psychiatry?

No, but why should we? Is it necessary to have a limited scientifically based concept of the mind? (not that science really understand the mind anyway). I've read a lot around psychology and psychiatry but find it very limiting and often full of "theories", "ideas" and lack of understanding, but nothing that can be personally put to the test. Those fields do have some good understanding and interesting models for the mind, but I find them to be incomplete. I also study other philosophies which are really just further models of the mind, and the one that stands out as being something we can test personally and understand from personal experience is living in the present moment, and observing the mind in action. Whether these concepts come from Buddhism, Advaita, religious teachings or classical philosophy is irrelevant as they all essentially talk about the same thing in different ways and all usually have some things that come down to 'beliefs' that can't be tested personally, that we can choose to ignore if we wish. Not being a believer in any particular God or gods, I simply go with what I can test and observe personally.

It seems I'm being told that if I suffer it's all my fault, I should sort myself out, and not waste the therapist's time.

If you read it again, I think you'll find that nobody is saying it's a persons fault, as it's not about apportioning blame. However the cause of suffering is created within one's own mind, so if your understanding is that your mind is You then you would believe that it's your fault, but if you understand that the mind is a tool that tries to make you believe it is You, you can recognise that because you can observe the mind in action you can't actually Be the mind, because you are the observer of it. With such a realization you can choose to take control back from the mind and also recognise that it is the mind that creates the 'issues' that we have and thus we can choose to let those issues go, especially once we realise how the mind is creating those issues from concepts of past memories, and ideas of the future.

That's it in summary, so I hope that helps to clarify somewhat.

As for living in the Now; all animals do it. The difference between them and us is that we created the idea of time, but I wouldn't say that was the root cause of suffering.

Mostly, animals do live in the now, but you can also observe when they don't e.g. they can show fear of going near a place where a previous event caused them pain or scared them etc. so they do have memories, and they do have a mind that can create a future fear, though often they do bring themselves back to the present moment to see if they can act now without the previous idea effecting them. Our cat is a prime example and also understands time. We can tell him to be back home by a particular time, and more often than not, he will be.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

It seems I'm being told that if I suffer it's all my fault, I should sort myself out, and not waste the therapist's time.

Hi. S.b .

I agree with much of what Giles has mentioned regarding the Incompleteness with the connection of ascertaining the cause root of sufferings by means of using psychologists or psychiatrists .

Just as It Is Important to understand how a healer stands within their own self In order to heal another a psychiatrist needs to know their own mind In order to evaluate anothers .

They say don't they In order to know the mind of a madman One needs to be mad!! .

"If a psychiatrist Is saturated/consumed by their own concepts of the mind they are no nearer helping you than they are themselves" . 😮 🙂 .

You mention that you are told the sufferings endured Is all your fault .

What happens S.b . Is that when you find/realize yourself you will understand that there Is only you . So Who else Is to blame?

There are no victims In life . It only appears as If there are .

x daz x

Hi Giles,
What lies beyond the barriers? I'm not sure, isn't that the point of barriers? However one thing that barriers do is to constrain, and that is what I see.
In terms of the universe being infinite there are a number of thoughts about this - there is certainly a theory that beyond the physical universe there is nothing, it does not exist and as the physical universe expands into the nothingness it creates the space needed for it to expand. This is a bit like particles behaving differently when observed, in this case there was nothing (literally) before the big bang and it was the bang that started to create finiteness.

In terms of time travel of course this week we have had the good news that the speed of light may well have been broken - and that of course leads to all sorts of time potential issues 😉

I'm not sure what you meant by this:
Quote: You see I am not threatened by the now, I have no fear of it, I have no investment in it, my views are not devoted to it, I simply state what I see - it does not match exactly what you choose to see from within your attached state." And your reply: You can only see what is here and now, nothing else exists. If you claim it does then you are a magical time traveller. You're not Dr Who are you?"
I simply make the point that this was what I saw, I have no reason to lie - if what I saw does not mathc what you see thet does not mean it is wrong, it may just be different viewpoints.

Fear of change and of having ones beliefs validly challenged is a great driver - that is my point.

The words I used about attitudes towards clients are based, and pointed at the words written in this forum, I have no experience other than that so that is what I have commented on - they are all in the threads.
love
chris

No, but why should we? Is it necessary to have a limited scientifically based concept of the mind?

I agree that there is more to knowledge of the mind than a scientifically based concept of the mind, but If I go to a GP I'd be happier to know that he or she had gone to medical college, than find out they were just an enthusiastic amateur. If someone here had qualifications in psychology I would have to bow to their superior understanding of the subject, though I do think the only people really qualified to tell me about the workings of the mind are those rare, enlightened people who have completely mastered their mind, and who are no longer subject to it's influence.

I've read a lot around psychology and psychiatry but find it very limiting and often full of "theories", "ideas" and lack of understanding...Those fields do have some good understanding and interesting models for the mind, but I find them to be incomplete.

That's what I've been reading on this thread. Until we attain liberation all of us are working with models of the mind that make sense to us, but they'll always be incomplete until we stop using the mind to analyze the mind.

However the cause of suffering is created within one's own mind, so if your understanding is that your mind is You then you would believe that it's your fault

The suffering being referred to always seems to be psychological. I don't know why. I believe in karma, and I believe karma largely dictates our circumstances, but I don't think just telling someone they 'did it to themselves' stops a person from suffering. Circumstances can be created by a first action; people can be made to suffer because of another person's actions (and I'm not just talking about psychological suffering).

Mostly, animals do live in the now, but you can also observe when they don't e.g. they can show fear of going near a place where a previous event caused them pain or scared them etc. so they do have memories

I didn't say animals didn't have memories. Knowing how to avoid events that cause pain or fear is an excellent ability that we also share with them. Evolution wouldn't be up to much if it had missed that out.

"If a psychiatrist Is saturated/consumed by their own concepts of the mind they are no nearer helping you than they are themselves" . 😮 🙂 .

I agree, but who does that not apply to?