The Work

[Playlife]

So, I'm dabbling at The Work... Well..

if I say that "life shouldn't be painful" and if it actually is, then according to KT, there's no reason why it shouldn't be painful - because that's how it is. So, does it mean that life should be painful? That it is all right? Someone can have a life full of pain and that's no problema?

It's confusing.

[Angela]

When you feel pain and you say, "I shouldn't be feeling this pain," you are arguing with reality. Reality doesn't care about your shoulds. That pain is not going to go away because you say you shouldn't feel it. In fact, the more you *should* it, the more tenaciously it's likely to hurt you.

If you feel pain and you say, "I should feel this pain because I am feeling this pain," then you are accepting the reality of your moment -- you're no longer resisting it. Fighting with the pain turns it into suffering, and it's amazing how once you stop fighting, the suffering stops, too. You may still feel the pain, but your resources are freed up to take your next right action -- maybe you will take a pain reliever, or maybe you will get out your heating pad, or maybe you will look inside for the lesson that the pain is trying to teach you, or maybe you'll learn to live with it. And maybe -- it was ALL suffering, and ZERO authentic pain, and when you let go of fighting with it, it *poof* disappears.

[Playlife]

What if it's not my pain? Ehh... does this one even qualify?

For example, "children in Africa shouldn't starve"? The reality is, they do. So, is their starvation then somehow justified? Deserved, even?

Are all "should"-s bad, then? I mean, if I say that sun shouldn't be hot, that's insane. But if I say that terrorists shouldn't blow up cars and buildings - while they do - that's also then insane? Terrorists should blow up stuff? Otherwise they wouldn't be terrorists, eh? Terrorists are like that, take it or leave it, you can resist it and cause yourself suffering, or you can accept it... Cooperate with terrorists, listen to them, maybe they ain't so bad after all...

Is famine acceptable? We shouldn't resist terrorists?

(Sorry for such political examples. I have others too though. )

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Playlife

What if it's not my pain? Ehh... does this one even qualify?

For example, "children in Africa shouldn't starve"? The reality is, they do. So, is their starvation then somehow justified? Deserved, even?

..Are all "should"-s bad, then? ....Cooperate with terrorists, listen to them, maybe they ain't so bad after all...

It sounds like you are still thinking that acceptance and condoning are the same thing.

[Playlife]

Originally Posted by Angela

It sounds like you are still thinking that acceptance and condoning are the same thing.

You're right. I get the impression that for example if my SO would cheat at me, it's me whose fault it is.

Or when someone is un-nice to me.

She should be nice to me. I should be nice to her? Or I should be nice to myself? I could be nice to her, but why should I be nice to myself? How do I know when it's right to be nice to myself? I'm kinda reluctant to turn the statement around so that it "favours" me. Being good to myself is so not me.

[Lauxa]

Anyone have good books or articles explaining the difference between accepting and condoning? That's something I'm struggling with.

Basically, I have come to the conclusion that I should spend less time thinking about the problems of the world. Then what to think about? Attention to the present moment. Gratitude. Prayer and intention-setting (which seem quite similar to me). The theory is that I will be able to do more to make the world a better place by focusing on these things.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Playlife

What if it's not my pain? Ehh... does this one even qualify?

For example, "children in Africa shouldn't starve"? The reality is, they do. So, is their starvation then somehow justified? Deserved, even?

Are all "should"-s bad, then? I mean, if I say that sun shouldn't be hot, that's insane. But if I say that terrorists shouldn't blow up cars and buildings - while they do - that's also then insane? Terrorists should blow up stuff? Otherwise they wouldn't be terrorists, eh? Terrorists are like that, take it or leave it, you can resist it and cause yourself suffering, or you can accept it... Cooperate with terrorists, listen to them, maybe they ain't so bad after all...

Is famine acceptable? We shouldn't resist terrorists?

(Sorry for such political examples. I have others too though. )

Punishing yourself will not help them. Feeling guilty never helps anything.

"You'll never help the poor by being poorer.
You'll never help the sick by being sicker.
You'll never help the suffering by suffering."

[DEEJ]

Originally Posted by Angela

When you feel pain and you say, "I shouldn't be feeling this pain," you are arguing with reality. Reality doesn't care about your shoulds. That pain is not going to go away because you say you shouldn't feel it. In fact, the more you *should* it, the more tenaciously it's likely to hurt you.

If you feel pain and you say, "I should feel this pain because I am feeling this pain," then you are accepting the reality of your moment -- you're no longer resisting it. Fighting with the pain turns it into suffering, and it's amazing how once you stop fighting, the suffering stops, too. You may still feel the pain, but your resources are freed up to take your next right action -- maybe you will take a pain reliever, or maybe you will get out your heating pad, or maybe you will look inside for the lesson that the pain is trying to teach you, or maybe you'll learn to live with it. And maybe -- it was ALL suffering, and ZERO authentic pain, and when you let go of fighting with it, it *poof* disappears.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[uberinquisitive]

Originally Posted by Angela

So, how long do you plan on being a dabbler in life?

Now turn that statement around.

Sorry Angela, I couldn't help it! Thanks in advance for being a good sport!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by uberinquisitive

Now turn that statement around.

Sorry Angela, I couldn't help it! Thanks in advance for being a good sport!

Boy, you don't know how right you are! I just had a little breakthrough in that area, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart for pointing that one out, Ubercore!

[uberinquisitive]

Originally Posted by Angela

Boy, you don't know how right you are! I just had a little breakthrough in that area, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart for pointing that one out, Ubercore!

It's all love, Angela!

While I still don't "get" The Work - the "turn it around" aspect has been one of the most valuable/important ideas I've ever come across.

Playlife, in your initial posts ("life shouldn't be painful" in the bigger and general sense) - maybe the fundamental questions you're asking are:

"why do I feel so powerless?"
"why am I warm and safe while others are in such pain?"
"why can't I reconcile my logic with my emotions?"

Now, I don't know the answers to these questions. But, I have a sense that your journey to find the answers will be very rewarding.

[Playlife]

Originally Posted by Angela

When you feel pain and you say, "I shouldn't be feeling this pain," you are arguing with reality. Reality doesn't care about your shoulds. That pain is not going to go away because you say you shouldn't feel it. In fact, the more you *should* it, the more tenaciously it's likely to hurt you.

If you feel pain and you say, "I should feel this pain because I am feeling this pain," then you are accepting the reality of your moment -- you're no longer resisting it.

"I should feel this pain because I am feeling this pain" is also "shoulding" though.

To me, saying that something should be like how it is means that the current situation is right and I approve it. Is it right that people get murdered?

I guess it'd be better if I stick with my own pain for now, eh?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Playlife

"I should feel this pain because I am feeling this pain" is also "shoulding" though.

Yes. You're saying, "what is should be, and what should be, is." That's a far more peaceful and effective way of being, as far as I'm concerned, than, "what isn't, should be; and what should be, isn't!"

To me, saying that something should be like how it is means that the current situation is right and I approve it. Is it right that people get murdered?

Once again, (Playlife! How many times do I have to say this?! ) accepting is not the same thing as condoning. But as long as you are arguing with reality, you are powerless to take effective action in the face of it. Let's say a guy is pointing a gun at your face. You could overwhelm yourself and say, "You shouldn't be pointing a gun at my face! This shouldn't be happening!" Or you could say to yourself, "okay, here I am, a guy is pointing a gun at my face. What's my next right action?" Which way of being do you think would be more effective in getting you what you want, and having the best possible outcome for everyone?

I guess it'd be better if I stick with my own pain for now, eh?

If you want to. I prefer feeling good on purpose.

[Playlife]

To me, the word "should" always means that someone or something has to be different than what it is right now. Not too often do I hear someone saying "You should be like you are at the moment." They're always "You should be like this and that, but gaaaa! not like you are at the moment. jeez.".

Originally Posted by Angela

If you want to. I prefer feeling good on purpose.

How do I do that? Would I then know what to do next?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Playlife

How do I do that? Would I then know what to do next?

Oh jeesh, I am feeling the pressure to get my website, .Mac Web Gallery, up and running now! I guess my vacation is over. Thank you for the inspiration/kick in the butt.

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by Playlife

So, I'm dabbling at The Work... Well..

if I say that "life shouldn't be painful" and if it actually is, then according to KT, there's no reason why it shouldn't be painful - because that's how it is. So, does it mean that life should be painful? That it is all right? Someone can have a life full of pain and that's no problema?

It's confusing.

Have you read the first book? It really helps. It also helps to just stick with questioning your thoughts. I wouldn't worry so much about any larger meanings just yet. Those tend to take care of themselves once you've examined your thoughts long enough. Besides, trying to figure out what the ramifications of The Work are beyond the thoughts you are questioning is very likely a way for the mind to retreat back into justifying its story as opposed to simply finding out what's true.

And ditto what Angela said!

[Angela]

Byron Katie has a new-ish book called A Thousand Names for Joy that I think is her best and clearest -- also the most confronting! I highly recommend it.

[Playlife]

Originally Posted by Ecce Homo

Have you read the first book? It really helps. It also helps to just stick with questioning your thoughts. I wouldn't worry so much about any larger meanings just yet. Those tend to take care of themselves once you've examined your thoughts long enough. Besides, trying to figure out what the ramifications of The Work are beyond the thoughts you are questioning is very likely a way for the mind to retreat back into justifying its story as opposed to simply finding out what's true.

And ditto what Angela said!

I'm currently reading "Loving what is". Haven't gone too far yet, only started it a couple of days ago(super slow reader).

I'm kinda bad at sticking with the four questions and not going into larger meanings. I think if I was a builder, I would go and try and build a house using just a hammer and a few nails... Oh, and no schemes or anything either.

And I'm afraid I'm also afraid of me being wrong. (If I have thought wrong thoughts all the time, what else am I doing wrong too??)

Very sorry of rambling. Looks like I'm having a BED(Bad English Day).

[Mewwy]

Byron Katie's intention is to dissociate feelings attached to actual situations. Feelings are more disastrous for a person's mental state because it's often uncontrollable, very insistent, and very hard to refute against. That's why The Work tells you to flip statements inside out.

How you can describe political situations or starvation in Africa, for example, aren't The Work's main approach. However, if I feel bad about these incidences from my first person point of view "Starvation makes me feel bad," I can go ahead to question it. "Someone else's starvation makes me feel good" because I'm grateful that I'm not born into such poverty and I have other challenges to face. "I make myself feel bad" because I didn't contribute anything to starving kids in Africa, so why don't I donate time, strength or money to people of poorer places.

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by Playlife

And I'm afraid I'm also afraid of me being wrong. (If I have thought wrong thoughts all the time, what else am I doing wrong too??)

Ok, you have given yourself a perfect example on how to do the work:

“I should not think wrong thoughts.”

1. Is that true?
2. Can you absolutely know if that’s true?
3. How do you react when you believe that thought?
4. Who would you be if you were incapable of believing that thought?

(I’d personally add more questions, like what would happen if I discovered I’d been thinking incorrectly, or what would it mean to find out I’d been thinking “wrong” thoughts, or what does it mean to think “wrong” thoughts, and so on.)

Then do the turn around. You could even go on to list three reasons why the turn around might be just as true if not more true than the original thought. AND THAT’S IT. Focus on the questions. If you start getting into the meaning of life, or why do people suffer, while you’re investigating the original thought, then you’re probably retreating back into more stories. Your mind will try to validate its opinions that way.

Of course, that isn’t to say that you can’t do the work on the particular thoughts you have surrounding suffering. (You could even write any of the “big” questions down with the promise that you’ll do the work on those thoughts AFTER you’ve finished with the original inquiry.) It’s just that you should concentrate on one thought at a time, especially if you’re a beginner. It’s way too easy to get lost again in whatever game your mind is attempting to play. Believe me, I know.

Angela is right again about the third book. It gets more into those "big" question issues.