Bliss is the absence of struggle.
Will arose to conquer struggle.
Will is a struggle, therefore, will fights itself.
Bliss is the absence of will.
Our life is will. Our life is struggle.
Lose the will, lose life. Lose the struggle, lose life.
We will for bliss. We will for death.
Life is struggle.
Death is bliss.
To ignore death, is to ignore one’s will.
To ignore one’s will, is to ignore one’s life.
To ignore one’s life, is to ignore one’s struggle.
To ignore one’s struggle, is to find bliss.
To find bliss, is to find death.
In an attempt to join your chosen style, some creative editing to your piece…
Bliss is the absence of struggle.
Thought arose to conquer struggle.
Thought is struggle, therefore, thought fights itself.
Bliss is the absence of thought.
Our life is thought. Our life is struggle.
Lose thought, lose the struggle, gain life.
We will for bliss. We will for death.
Thought is struggle.
The death of thought is life.
To ignore death, is to ignore one’s life.
To ignore one’s thought, is to gain one’s life.
To ignore one’s life, is to be lost in thought.
To ignore one’s struggle, is to find bliss.
To find bliss, is to find life.
All roads lead to all roads.
Reality is a circle, not a line.
I think it may have been a post you made, that enabled me to see the ‘death’ we experience in life on a frequent basis. You reiterated your thoughts in the Addiction thread I made, and I appreciate it. Due to your post, I now see that bliss is a type of death. The death of struggle.
Thanks!
Thought is but one rung on the ladder. To reach it, one must have already climbed prior rungs.
The source of our struggle does not originate from thought. It originates from being. It is a reaction.
The idea that one can stop reacting, simply by altering thoughts, is an (re)act(ion) of ignorance.
No answers can satisfy us. If they did, thought would have to rest in the answer, but that would destroy the process of thought because then it cannot seek an answer any more in its attempt to perpetuate itself. In other words, thought does not want any answer to put an end to itself. If any answer really satisfies the question, it must end the question. But if the question is the thinker, then with the end of the question the questioner must end, and that is the last the thing we want. We really don’t want an answer to our questions.
What good does all this do for anyone who hears it? To ask that question is to fall again into the trap of fishing out a directive. When it dawns on you that whatever thought does is only an attempt of thought to perpetuate itself, that there is absolutely nothing you can do to free yourself from your state, and that the very idea of freedom is an illusion created by thought, then perhaps the question burns itself out. And with the question goes the thinker. You as you know yourself will end. What happens to you after that is no concern of yours. Listening to this again gives us a ray of hope.
We hope that by doing something, by trying to give up thinking or whatever, we can make this dawning happen. But unfortunately we cannot do anything to make this dawning happen either. You have to accept the fact that this life of thought, so-called unfreedom, may be all there is, and there may be, as far as you are concerned, no other life. This again gives us hope, and we start our “travel” again: What can we do to accept this life as it is? To ask that question is to want to change what is, and not accept what we in fact are. Obviously we missed the point again. Why do we, in spite of guarantees to the contrary, keep trying to change the given? Or, why do we think we can use what someone says to get to a “better” state?
You never question the solutions. If you really question the solutions you will have to question the ones who have offered you those solutions. But sentimentality stands in the way of your rejecting not only the solutions, but those who have offered you the solutions. Questioning that requires a tremendous courage on your part. You can have the courage to climb the mountain, swim the lakes, go on a raft to the other side of the Atlantic or Pacific. That any fool can do, but the courage to be on your own, to stand on your two solid feet, is something which cannot be given by somebody. You cannot free yourself of that burden by trying to develop that courage. If you are freed from the entire burden of the entire past of mankind, then what is left there is the courage.
One of the mods talked about being charitable. Being charitable means trying to understand another’s position. My answer to your position is posted directly above you. If you’d read it, I don’t see how you could propose what you have, without addressing my points.