--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > > > Buck wrote: > > > Actually, does anybody remember what Charlie Lutes said about > > > suicide? His stories. > > > > I seem to remember Charlie talking about how suicide is looked > > upon as a bad thing in Indian philosophy but if suffering from > > cancer he could see why a person my want a way out. > > > > In Indian philosophy suicide leads to getting stuck in some > > kind of "purgatory", not quite dead but not alive either. > > And of course I've got a movie for this: "Wristcutters" which > > is well worth a watch. What really happens to someone who > > commits suicide we really don't know but telling folks they > > could get stuck in a "purgatory" might be useful prevention. > > Different story. A friend here re-tells > hearing Charlie Lutes getting a phone call from > a despondent friend threatening suicide. > > Charlie > tells him "Before you do that, let me tell you what is > going to happen". "With our bodies gone > the soul has no buffer but for the raw suffering and pain > it is experiencing". > (picture of hell) > "You could do that, its an option" The advantage of a human > body is that it buffers pain & suffering. Without a body & nervous > system the soul is exposed to the totality of the pain and > suffering." > etc. > The caller reconsidered.
While "stories" of what happens after death of *any* kind are interesting if you're in a state of mind from which you can appreciate them, I tend to think that all of them are "just stories." They appeal to you *if* you are in a state of attention to consider them, but *only* if you are in such a state. Again, I recommend the short RSAnimate video I posted the link to Sunday (but didn't appear until Monday): http://www.neatorama.com/2010/05/29/the-secret-powers-of-time/ "Stories" of the *future* appeal only to someone who is "future-oriented," in this rap's model. Someone considering suicide is very, very much in the negative side of "present-oriented," often with touches of the negative side of "past-oriented" thrown into the mix. They are often not open to considerations of the future and what will happen in it; they are over- whelmed by and overshadowed by what is going on for them in their present. I think one of the "dogma problems" revealed by this sad suicide is the inordinate glorification of being "present-oriented," especially when one has become convinced that his or her present is being perceived from the platform of enlightenment or realization. Whether it's physiological (there is some evidence that the subjective feeling 'I know The Truth' is just the result of one particular area of the brain getting flipped 'ON' and has nothing to do with any- thing 'spiritual') or has some philosophical aspect to it, I perceive a real danger in the *myth* about enlightenment that says it's a state in which one's very thoughts and perceptions and decisions and actions are reflections of The Truth. Believing that is true to some extent "relieves" the person caught in such a state from the need to discriminate or make the kinds of everyday decisions about the rightness or the wrongness of his/her thoughts and actions. It's a *lazy* state of mind, in which one has come to believe that one no longer *needs* to discriminate. Just act, and the action will be "right" by definition. Many of us have seen this on FFL in the past as Rory or Jim exemplified this belief system for us. It was *impossible* to get either of them to consider, even for a moment, that anything they ever did or said was inappropriate or wrong. The thinking seemed to have been, "If I said it or did it, it *by definition* was right. I'm realized...it *has* to have been right." I never knew Daniel, but from what I've read of his manic raps, he seemed to believe this, too. How are you going to "talk down" someone who thinks like this if they get so stuck in the drama of "present-orientation" that they set their sights on a course of action that not only doesn't seem rational to the people trying to "talk the person down," but seems crazy? Almost *by definition* in the mind of the person who has come to believe that *their* thoughts reflect "reality" and no one else's do, are they likely to listen? I think the "larger issue" at hand here are the *myths* surrounding enlightenment, and whether they are accurate or not. And one *of* the predominant myths promoted by the TM movement is that once yer muffin pops and you are enlightened (measured only by yourself, because no one in the TM movement is allowed to 'certify' or verify your supposed enlightenment), then everything you think and say and do is right, in perfect accord with the Laws Of Nature and the will of God. If a person who thinks this way decides to do *anything*, how are you going to talk them out of it? The myth they believe in trumps everything else. The thing is, as far as I can tell, the myth is a lie.
