Monday, August 14, 2006

“HOW CAN I HANDLE LOSS?” Part Three

F.: The key pointer is that the concept of “loss” is based in the concept of “ownership.” The next pointer is, “WHO is there to own anything?” There is energy which is real and there are assumed personas (ego-states, false identities, images, etc.) that are not real. First, see that energy can own nothing, then see that an image can own nothing. Can a mirage in a desert own the sand or the desert or a stretch of highway or the mountains in the distance? Since "personas" and "ownership" and "loss" are merely concepts, and since all concepts are lies, WHO thinks he/she has lost something?

Because “loss” is a concept (and since concepts are illusions and since illusions are always upheld by other concepts) see the illusory concepts that support any false sense of “loss”: (1) wanting to be comfortable, (2) claiming ownership (3) desiring continued ownership, and (4) experiencing the fear of “losing comfort” or “losing ownership.” Persons, as a result of that which drives them most—fears, wants and desires—will try to cling to the co-dependent counterparts that each ego-state requires in order to sustain the illusion that some false identity is real. For example, “The Spouse” must hang onto a spouse to continue to “exist”; “The Homeowner” must hang onto a house to continue to “exist”; “The One Who Has Worked for His Possessions” must hang onto the contents of an apartment or home in order to continue to “exist.” “Loss” is perceived by persons to be so dreadful not because of what is being "lost"—such as a spouse or house or possessions—but because “self” (some false identity) is seemingly being lost along with each “thing” or co-dependent counterpart that was sustaining that ego-state. “Loss” is never about a person that someone lost or about "stuff" that someone lost. It is, instead, about the perception that it is one’s very self that is being lost. It is the sense of losing one's identity (though the identity was a lie) that drives whatever pain persons claim to feel around "loss."
Next, consider how “the desire for comfort” affects persons who feel they've lost something or someone. Perceived loss is exacerbated when one’s “comfort level” is interrupted. That which “seems” most comfortable to persons is that which is most familiar. When two social workers arrived to take an abused child away from the mother who had used cigarettes to burn the child from head to toe, the child fought with all her strength to prevent the workers from taking her out of her mother’s arms. As painful as it was to be with that mother, it was familiar, so the false sense of “comfort” that came with "familiarity" overrode even the sane drive for survival or for avoidance of those who inflict pain. Similarly with persons all across the globe, when certain roles they were playing come to an end, they hate not having that which was “familiar” and that which they thought was providing the comfort they wanted. Even when certain ego-states had been generating levels of suffering that were beyond description, people mourn when their false (but familiar) roles can no longer be played. Persons love the phony roles they play because they believe those roles define who they are; therefore, a repetition compulsion will typically drive them to find another person to play the co-dependent counterpart that is required to re-establish their illusory roles.

Next, the effects of a perceived loss are also exacerbated when one’s belief in the concept of “ownership” is challenged. Energy can own nothing, and the realized do not use possessives such as “my,” “mine,” etc. How could manifested energy own a house or have something called “my spouse”? Ownership is the stuff of ego-states. The indigenous peoples of the Americas had no word for “ownership.” The land was for all to use. It was the Europeans who brought to the Americans the Aryan notion of “owning.” If you own nothing, you can lose nothing, but you must know the difference in “the false you” and “the Real You” to reach that understanding. Please enter the silence of contemplation. [To be continued]