From: gdwill@earthlink.net (Garry Williams) Newsgroups: alt.healing.reiki Subject: Suffering WAS: Re: LEARN REIKI Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:21:37 GMT Lines: 134 Message-ID: <3fff5da7.2518845@news.Individual.NET> References: <3FFC5E3E.4AAC5A5B@mn.rr.com> <_h0Lb.6771$7U1.84060@amstwist00> <3ffd514c.4098006@news.Individual.NET> <3ffe1b9e.2577813@news.Individual.NET> <3ffea27e.1043184@news.Individual.NET> Reply-To: gdwill@earthlink.net NNTP-Posting-Host: user-37ka3c8.dialup.mindspring.com (207.69.13.136) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1073704657 9713476 207.69.13.136 ([218672]) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!user-37ka3c8.dialup.mindspring.COM!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.healing.reiki:12714 On 10 Jan 2004 10:39:16 +1050, Sean White wrote: >So if you torture a person you would say that they are choosing to be >sad about their suffering? That's absurd. It's certainly not what most people would answer. But let me ask you this: would you be able to forgive your torturer? Would you want to? Is there a good reason to? Can you forgive the torturer and still be sad about the suffering? >It's commonly called the serenity prayer I think. The prayer does not >however support your idea. For instance, although Jesus was crucified by >his own surrender to God's will, he did not choose to actually suffer as >he was scourged with a whip and nailed to a cross and crucified. In fact >he cried out for relief on the cross. He could not change the fact that >he would suffer from the pain inflicted on him, and he couldn't take >away his mother's grief at seeing him on the cross. Even when he cried >out to the Father in despair, he was given no relief. Just so we understand each other, I think of pain as the physical element, and suffering as the mental/emotional reaction to a physical or situational pain. I should have explained that from the outset. I'll try to be clearer going forward. >Your ideology is based very much on the fear that you don't control your >own life. By telling yourself that you somehow choose suffering, you >keep the imaginary wolves from your door. Interesting. I wasn't aware that I feared not controlling my life. How do you know I fear a lack of control of my life? AFAIK, I simply accept that my life is what it is, and accept each moment as it is, whatever may happen. >The victims of September 11 did not choose to leap to burn to death or >fall to their death. The brave firefighters did not choose to die in >attempting to resue the people in the towers. No they didn't. Nor did I say they did. What conclusion are you trying to draw? >It just so happens that among other things I'm a Zen student Garry, and >the Buddha in fact said that one should not speculate on karma as he >included kamma-vipaka among the four imponderables (acinteyya) that >transcends the power of thinking and so therefore should not be pondered >or speculated about. If what you say is true, Samsara (the wheel of >suffering) would not exist, and so enlightenment would not be able to be >obtained but merely wished away. The Buddha would merely have wished to >not have suffered. Thanks for letting me know where you are coming from. Enlightenment is not something you try to get in the future. It's now, in this moment, always. >Incidentally the Buddha died quite painfully. He suffered severe stomach >pain and passed blood from his rectum before going into shock and then >suffering painfully for about fifteen hours and then finally dying. We all die of something. And it's often not pleasant. It's a fact of life. Again I have to ask, what conclusion are you drawing? >Actually, no. You're falling into what is called "extreme view. If what >you say is true, then there is in fact an ego - just one big ego. This >isn't what the Buddha taught at all. He denied the existence of a self, >and said that everything was emptyness. Life itself is emptyness - there >are no exceptions. If it's not too much trouble, could you explain a little more about what you mean by this error of "extreme view"? What I'm saying is that there is one big Life, and everything, "you" and "I" included, are its manifestation. Life is that awareness that is sometimes buried deeply under the mind's busy work of creating its story, a story about separation, when really there is only One. >There is indeed suffering Garry, and that is why Jesus commanded us to >go and feed the sick, the comfort the lonely and clothe the naked. These >people do not choose to be poor, sick, naked or lonely. Jesus did not >say to us - it's their fault or choice, nor did the Buddha. In fact, the >first Boddhisattva vow says "Living beings are numberless, I vow to help >them all to cross over the sea of suffering, the sea of birth and >death." The boddhisattva does not say that it is their choice to suffer, >instead they vow to help them. In fact, the first truth of the noble >truths is that suffering exists. I already said that people do not choose the circumstances of their life. So obviously we are in agreement that people are poor, sick, naked, and lonely, and that they did not choose those circumstances. However, if everyone were fully present in the moment, fully awake, knowing that we are all One Life, there would be a lot less of that, because, I believe, we would not be inflicting these conditions upon one another, but would rather be helping one another. But we're back to the beginning: we are not the circumstances of our lives, we are Life itself. >Whether we accept our suffering or not, there is still suffering. It may >aleviate the pain that comes from the struggle against suffering, but it >doesn't take away the pain of poverty, of sickness, of death etc... We're back to differing on how we used the term "suffering" (and again, I take responsiblity for being unclear)--I agree that these things exist, and simply choosing not to create more pain by denying their reality, does not remove the original pains. Those require more direct action, because they are rooted in the physical world. And again, it may be that they cannot be removed, so we're back to change or accept. Which is all we can really do, ever. >All the people who were tortured to death by Saddam Hussein, or shredded >to death by his son suffered regarless of what they thought about it. >Your ideas are simplistic. They were forced to endure pain, and were in a situation not of their choosing. No human should do that to another. If that had happened to me several years ago, I would have felt exactly as you are saying now. But if it happened to me now, yes, I would still feel the physical pain, but I would try to stay present in the moment and not create any additional suffering for myself, right up to the moment of loss of consciousness or death. Granted, it's a whole lot harder to do under those circumstances than it is under the circumstances of being poor, hungry, sick, etc. It would be a question of putting into practice, "forgive them, for they know not what they do." But just because one experiences pain, does not mean that one cannot be awake and aware each moment, knowing the joy that Life is. >It's more likely to be hard to live in the world understanding that >there are many things that we can infact choose, but some that we can >not. Nonethless, if we are brave, we can continue regarless. Isn't that what I've been saying all along? >Thankfully, we can only die once. Is that a "glass half-empty" or a "glass half-full" statement? :-) Garry ###### Newsgroups: alt.healing.reiki Subject: Re: Suffering WAS: Re: LEARN REIKI From: Sean White References: <3FFC5E3E.4AAC5A5B@mn.rr.com> <_h0Lb.6771$7U1.84060@amstwist00> <3ffd514c.4098006@news.Individual.NET> <3ffe1b9e.2577813@news.Individual.NET> <3ffea27e.1043184@news.Individual.NET> <3fff5da7.2518845@news.Individual.NET> Organization: Your Company Message-ID: User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25 NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp148-129.lns1.mel2.internode.on.net Date: 10 Jan 2004 14:31:06 +1050 X-Trace: duster.adelaide.on.net 1073707266 ppp148-129.lns1.mel2.internode.on.net (10 Jan 2004 14:31:06 +1050) Lines: 240 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.ade.connect.com.au!duster.adelaide.on.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.healing.reiki:12720 gdwill@earthlink.net (Garry Williams) wrote in news:3fff5da7.2518845 @news.Individual.NET: > On 10 Jan 2004 10:39:16 +1050, Sean White wrote: > >>So if you torture a person you would say that they are choosing to be >>sad about their suffering? That's absurd. > > It's certainly not what most people would answer. But let me ask you > this: would you be able to forgive your torturer? Would you want to? > Is there a good reason to? Can you forgive the torturer and still be > sad about the suffering? I think forgiving a torturer or wanting to is aside from the actual issue that pain can be inflicted upon people that is not neccesarily mental pain. For instance, some people can be beaten on the feet for hours with batons. This doesn't leave any visible damage, however puts them in agony for the rest of their lives. In this case, it doesn't really matter what they think of the person who inflicted the pain upon them, they will suffer regarless of their personal opinions. > >>It's commonly called the serenity prayer I think. The prayer does not >>however support your idea. For instance, although Jesus was crucified by >>his own surrender to God's will, he did not choose to actually suffer as >>he was scourged with a whip and nailed to a cross and crucified. In fact >>he cried out for relief on the cross. He could not change the fact that >>he would suffer from the pain inflicted on him, and he couldn't take >>away his mother's grief at seeing him on the cross. Even when he cried >>out to the Father in despair, he was given no relief. > > Just so we understand each other, I think of pain as the physical > element, and suffering as the mental/emotional reaction to a physical > or situational pain. I should have explained that from the outset. > I'll try to be clearer going forward. > >>Your ideology is based very much on the fear that you don't control your >>own life. By telling yourself that you somehow choose suffering, you >>keep the imaginary wolves from your door. > > Interesting. I wasn't aware that I feared not controlling my life. How > do you know I fear a lack of control of my life? AFAIK, I simply > accept that my life is what it is, and accept each moment as it is, > whatever may happen. If you discount the existence of suffering in life, then would likely fear it. There is so much physical and mental suffering in the world for you to ignore it. Your opinions about it don't really make a cinch of difference if one of Saddam Hussein's sons had their hands on you. Any sane person would feel the pain - I certainly wouldn't enjoy it or be able to dismiss it somehow, nor would the Buddha or Jesus or anyone else. > >>The victims of September 11 did not choose to leap to burn to death or >>fall to their death. The brave firefighters did not choose to die in >>attempting to resue the people in the towers. > > No they didn't. Nor did I say they did. What conclusion are you trying > to draw? By saying that they choose their suffering, I think that you are subtly implicating them in something they had absolutely no control over. Those poor people for example did not choose any mental or physical pain, and yet they died terrifying and painful deaths. This illustrates that your idea doesn't hold up to every example I think. > >>It just so happens that among other things I'm a Zen student Garry, and >>the Buddha in fact said that one should not speculate on karma as he >>included kamma-vipaka among the four imponderables (acinteyya) that >>transcends the power of thinking and so therefore should not be pondered >>or speculated about. If what you say is true, Samsara (the wheel of >>suffering) would not exist, and so enlightenment would not be able to be >>obtained but merely wished away. The Buddha would merely have wished to >>not have suffered. > > Thanks for letting me know where you are coming from. Enlightenment is > not something you try to get in the future. It's now, in this moment, > always. Not exactly. The "present moment" is taught to people as a preliminary teaching. Later on, you find that even this moment is like a dream and can not be held or pointed to. The Diamond sutra says: "The mind of the past is ungraspable; the mind of the future is ungraspable; the mind of the present is ungraspable." > >>Incidentally the Buddha died quite painfully. He suffered severe stomach >>pain and passed blood from his rectum before going into shock and then >>suffering painfully for about fifteen hours and then finally dying. > > We all die of something. And it's often not pleasant. It's a fact of > life. Again I have to ask, what conclusion are you drawing? That pain is a fact of life, and that in many cases it makes no difference whether people are holy or not, enlightened or not, or what they think or do not think.I'm proposing that suffering is an undeniable fact of life. > >>Actually, no. You're falling into what is called "extreme view. If what >>you say is true, then there is in fact an ego - just one big ego. This >>isn't what the Buddha taught at all. He denied the existence of a self, >>and said that everything was emptyness. Life itself is emptyness - there >>are no exceptions. > > If it's not too much trouble, could you explain a little more about > what you mean by this error of "extreme view"? What I'm saying is that > there is one big Life, and everything, "you" and "I" included, are its > manifestation. Life is that awareness that is sometimes buried deeply > under the mind's busy work of creating its story, a story about > separation, when really there is only One. It's quite a difficult point to understand, but if you're interested you might want to read further about it. Emptyness means that even this "One" is emptyness. It means everything is not different/separate, but still not the same; that everything is non-dual: not two, not one. It sounds like gobidygook at first and is not like ordianary thinking. There's a good site at http://www.gileht.com/ that explains the whole thing better than I can. > >>There is indeed suffering Garry, and that is why Jesus commanded us to >>go and feed the sick, the comfort the lonely and clothe the naked. These >>people do not choose to be poor, sick, naked or lonely. Jesus did not >>say to us - it's their fault or choice, nor did the Buddha. In fact, the >>first Boddhisattva vow says "Living beings are numberless, I vow to help >>them all to cross over the sea of suffering, the sea of birth and >>death." The boddhisattva does not say that it is their choice to suffer, >>instead they vow to help them. In fact, the first truth of the noble >>truths is that suffering exists. > > I already said that people do not choose the circumstances of their > life. So obviously we are in agreement that people are poor, sick, > naked, and lonely, and that they did not choose those circumstances. > However, if everyone were fully present in the moment, fully awake, > knowing that we are all One Life, there would be a lot less of that, > because, I believe, we would not be inflicting these conditions upon > one another, but would rather be helping one another. But we're back > to the beginning: we are not the circumstances of our lives, we are > Life itself. But people are not fully awake and it's not their fault that they are not. When you say "being fully present in the moment", you likely mean dealing with the reality of life as it truly is, but the reality of life as it is does not deny the existence of suffering. The present moment flies by before you can even see it, and yet people need our help. > >>Whether we accept our suffering or not, there is still suffering. It may >>aleviate the pain that comes from the struggle against suffering, but it >>doesn't take away the pain of poverty, of sickness, of death etc... > > We're back to differing on how we used the term "suffering" (and > again, I take responsiblity for being unclear)--I agree that these > things exist, and simply choosing not to create more pain by denying > their reality, does not remove the original pains. Those require more > direct action, because they are rooted in the physical world. And > again, it may be that they cannot be removed, so we're back to change > or accept. Which is all we can really do, ever. Now in this, I agree. My main point is that whether we change or accept, it may not always help them. > >>All the people who were tortured to death by Saddam Hussein, or shredded >>to death by his son suffered regarless of what they thought about it. >>Your ideas are simplistic. > > They were forced to endure pain, and were in a situation not of their > choosing. No human should do that to another. If that had happened to > me several years ago, I would have felt exactly as you are saying now. > But if it happened to me now, yes, I would still feel the physical > pain, but I would try to stay present in the moment and not create any > additional suffering for myself, right up to the moment of loss of > consciousness or death. Granted, it's a whole lot harder to do under > those circumstances than it is under the circumstances of being poor, > hungry, sick, etc. It would be a question of putting into practice, > "forgive them, for they know not what they do." But just because one > experiences pain, does not mean that one cannot be awake and aware > each moment, knowing the joy that Life is. Ahh, okay. In this, I agree. It seems that we needed to draw each other's ideas out somewhat. > >>It's more likely to be hard to live in the world understanding that >>there are many things that we can infact choose, but some that we can >>not. Nonethless, if we are brave, we can continue regarless. > > Isn't that what I've been saying all along? > >>Thankfully, we can only die once. > > Is that a "glass half-empty" or a "glass half-full" statement? :-) hehehe - indeed. I'll never say one way or the other. A very interesting conversation Garry. Sean > > Garry > > ###### From: gdwill@earthlink.net (Garry Williams) Newsgroups: alt.healing.reiki Subject: Re: Suffering WAS: Re: LEARN REIKI Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 04:59:19 GMT Lines: 20 Message-ID: <3fff84fd.12589901@news.Individual.NET> References: <3FFC5E3E.4AAC5A5B@mn.rr.com> <_h0Lb.6771$7U1.84060@amstwist00> <3ffd514c.4098006@news.Individual.NET> <3ffe1b9e.2577813@news.Individual.NET> <3ffea27e.1043184@news.Individual.NET> <3fff5da7.2518845@news.Individual.NET> Reply-To: gdwill@earthlink.net NNTP-Posting-Host: user-37ka3c8.dialup.mindspring.com (207.69.13.136) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1073710518 9702858 207.69.13.136 ([218672]) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!feed.news.tiscali.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!user-37ka3c8.dialup.mindspring.COM!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.healing.reiki:12721 On 10 Jan 2004 14:31:06 +1050, Sean White wrote: >>>Thankfully, we can only die once. >> >> Is that a "glass half-empty" or a "glass half-full" statement? :-) > > >hehehe - indeed. I'll never say one way or the other. A very interesting >conversation Garry. You should have said, "Yes! Have some!" And thank you, Sean, for making me organize my thoughts, and for the weblink. I've skimmed it just now--that should keep me entertained for a long time to come! Thanks again, Garry ###### Newsgroups: alt.healing.reiki Subject: Re: Suffering WAS: Re: LEARN REIKI From: Sean White References: <3FFC5E3E.4AAC5A5B@mn.rr.com> <_h0Lb.6771$7U1.84060@amstwist00> <3ffd514c.4098006@news.Individual.NET> <3ffe1b9e.2577813@news.Individual.NET> <3ffea27e.1043184@news.Individual.NET> <3fff5da7.2518845@news.Individual.NET> <3fff84fd.12589901@news.Individual.NET> Organization: Your Company Message-ID: User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25 NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp148-129.lns1.mel2.internode.on.net Date: 10 Jan 2004 20:13:34 +1050 X-Trace: duster.adelaide.on.net 1073727814 ppp148-129.lns1.mel2.internode.on.net (10 Jan 2004 20:13:34 +1050) Lines: 34 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!news.xtra.co.nz!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.ade.connect.com.au!duster.adelaide.on.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.healing.reiki:12729 It's quite a bit of reading, but the best site I know of to actual cut to the chase when it comes to the difficult stuff in Buddhism. Hope it's useful and you enjoy it. Thanks to you too - a very rewarding debate. Sean gdwill@earthlink.net (Garry Williams) wrote in news:3fff84fd.12589901 @news.Individual.NET: > On 10 Jan 2004 14:31:06 +1050, Sean White wrote: > >>>>Thankfully, we can only die once. >>> >>> Is that a "glass half-empty" or a "glass half-full" statement? :-) >> >> >>hehehe - indeed. I'll never say one way or the other. A very interesting >>conversation Garry. > > You should have said, "Yes! Have some!" > > And thank you, Sean, for making me organize my thoughts, and for the > weblink. I've skimmed it just now--that should keep me entertained for > a long time to come! > > Thanks again, > > Garry > > ###### From: "Deb" Newsgroups: alt.healing.reiki Subject: Re: Suffering WAS: Re: LEARN REIKI Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:00:14 -0800 Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: <3FFC5E3E.4AAC5A5B@mn.rr.com> <_h0Lb.6771$7U1.84060@amstwist00> <3ffd514c.4098006@news.Individual.NET> <3ffe1b9e.2577813@news.Individual.NET> <3ffea27e.1043184@news.Individual.NET> <3fff5da7.2518845@news.Individual.NET> NNTP-Posting-Host: sdn-ap-013watacop0381.dialsprint.net (63.191.193.127) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1073728267 10220097 63.191.193.127 ([120246]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!sdn-ap-013watacop0381.dialsprint.NET!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.healing.reiki:12730 "Sean White" wrote in message news:Xns946C990DE8789sean@203.16.214.244... > gdwill@earthlink.net (Garry Williams) wrote in news:3fff5da7.2518845 > @news.Individual.NET: > > > On 10 Jan 2004 10:39:16 +1050, Sean White wrote: > > > >>So if you torture a person you would say that they are choosing to be > >>sad about their suffering? That's absurd. > > > > It's certainly not what most people would answer. But let me ask you > > this: would you be able to forgive your torturer? Would you want to? > > Is there a good reason to? Can you forgive the torturer and still be > > sad about the suffering? > > I think forgiving a torturer or wanting to is aside from the actual > issue that pain can be inflicted upon people that is not neccesarily > mental pain. For instance, some people can be beaten on the feet for > hours with batons. This doesn't leave any visible damage, however puts > them in agony for the rest of their lives. In this case, it doesn't > really matter what they think of the person who inflicted the pain upon > them, they will suffer regarless of their personal opinions. > > I know a person who lives in extreme pain and yet is able to greet each day with thankfulness and wonder at what it will hold. I know several people who don't claim to be in pain and are full of negitivity and gripe about everything. It isn't the 'what' of our lives but how we choose to react to it. Deb -- (in Oregon, the pacific northWET) ;> ###### Newsgroups: alt.healing.reiki Subject: Re: Suffering WAS: Re: LEARN REIKI From: Sean White References: <3FFC5E3E.4AAC5A5B@mn.rr.com> <_h0Lb.6771$7U1.84060@amstwist00> <3ffd514c.4098006@news.Individual.NET> <3ffe1b9e.2577813@news.Individual.NET> <3ffea27e.1043184@news.Individual.NET> <3fff5da7.2518845@news.Individual.NET> Organization: Your Company Message-ID: User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25 NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp148-129.lns1.mel2.internode.on.net Date: 10 Jan 2004 20:57:36 +1050 X-Trace: duster.adelaide.on.net 1073730456 ppp148-129.lns1.mel2.internode.on.net (10 Jan 2004 20:57:36 +1050) Lines: 64 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.ade.connect.com.au!duster.adelaide.on.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.healing.reiki:12732 "Deb" wrote in news:btohu9$9nsi1$1@ID- 120246.news.uni-berlin.de: > > "Sean White" wrote in message > news:Xns946C990DE8789sean@203.16.214.244... >> gdwill@earthlink.net (Garry Williams) wrote in > news:3fff5da7.2518845 >> @news.Individual.NET: >> >> > On 10 Jan 2004 10:39:16 +1050, Sean White wrote: >> > >> >>So if you torture a person you would say that they are choosing > to be >> >>sad about their suffering? That's absurd. >> > >> > It's certainly not what most people would answer. But let me ask > you >> > this: would you be able to forgive your torturer? Would you want > to? >> > Is there a good reason to? Can you forgive the torturer and > still be >> > sad about the suffering? >> >> I think forgiving a torturer or wanting to is aside from the > actual >> issue that pain can be inflicted upon people that is not > neccesarily >> mental pain. For instance, some people can be beaten on the feet > for >> hours with batons. This doesn't leave any visible damage, however > puts >> them in agony for the rest of their lives. In this case, it > doesn't >> really matter what they think of the person who inflicted the pain > upon >> them, they will suffer regarless of their personal opinions. >> >> > > I know a person who lives in extreme pain and yet is able to greet > each day with thankfulness and wonder at what it will hold. I know > several people who don't claim to be in pain and are full of > negitivity and gripe about everything. > > It isn't the 'what' of our lives but how we choose to react to it. Perhaps, if we have a choice and within the small amount of things that are actually within our control. If we're in a coma, or falling to our deaths from a burning building, then I'm not sure if a cheerful disposition really matters all that much. Any way you look at it, it would really suck. Sean > > Deb > -- > (in Oregon, the pacific northWET) ;> > > > ###### From: stuv@cix.co.uk (Stuart Vernon) Newsgroups: alt.healing.reiki Subject: Re: Suffering WAS: Re: LEARN REIKI Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:12 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Lines: 7 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: stuv@cix.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: public2-bolt3-3-cust91.manc.broadband.ntl.com (80.2.124.91) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1073740350 10151985 80.2.124.91 ([41161]) X-News-Software: Ameol2 X-URL: http://www.ameol.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!public2-bolt3-3-cust91.manc.broadband.ntl.COM!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.healing.reiki:12734 Thanks Garry and Sean for an absorbing exchange ... :) And TVM for the weblink, Sean .. Stuart