Philosophy Discussion Forums

Samana Johann wrote: ↑July 8th, 2024, 6:57 am

Sushan wrote: ↑July 8th, 2024, 5:38 am

Samana Johann wrote: ↑June 29th, 2024, 6:17 am

Sushan wrote: ↑June 28th, 2024, 7:44 pm

I read the documents you provided. I agree that meditation is not merely for solving day-to-day life issues, and indeed, Lord Buddha has addressed such matters separately for those who came to him asking for help. We see numerous examples of this in the Sutta Pitaka, where practical advice is given for everyday living.

However, I believe that those who have meditated and improved their minds certainly have an advantage in facing common problems because they approach issues differently. A calm and focused mind, developed through meditation, can lead to more effective problem-solving and a better understanding of one’s emotions and reactions.

While the Buddha may not have suggested meditation as the sole solution for householders’ issues, he did advocate for mental cultivation as part of a holistic approach to life. The Anguttara Nikaya, for example, contains many teachings on right effort, mindfulness, and concentration, which contribute to a more balanced and resilient mind.

Regarding equanimity, I slightly disagree with your comparison to drug use. True equanimity, as taught by the Buddha, is not ignorance but a balanced state of mind that comes from wisdom and understanding. It is about seeing things as they are, without attachment or aversion, which is far from being akin to drug-induced detachment. Equanimity, when rightly cultivated, helps one to remain steady and clear-minded in the face of life's ups and downs.

So called "householder-equanimity" (equanimity of one not seeing the danger in the world, not beyond sensual desire) has been mentioned as grave danger by the Buddha, and being that, such as meditation has never been taught to those not at the stage of Brahmacariy, and right livelihood (renouncing life).
Further, equanimity isn't a tool on the path but it's last stage, renouncing-equanimity.

It's a drug helping people to still don't go after virtues, not doing their duties in relation and give way for even more consume and miss-conduct. What ever based on wrong view turns wrong: wrong conduct, effort, wrong samadhi, wrong liberation.

An ignorant mind (call one equanimity) is straight lane downward and even closes the doors to ever gain the good Dhamma.

All right effort means turning wrong to right view, and certain psychology increases wrong view, eg. rights, worth, ingratitude. end of the line.

I understand your perspective on "householder-equanimity" and the concern that it might lead to complacency rather than genuine insight. It is true that the Buddha emphasized the importance of understanding the dangers of samsara and not becoming complacent in the face of worldly desires and attachments. However, I think there might be a bit of a misunderstanding regarding the application of meditation and the development of equanimity for householders.

The Buddha did teach meditation to laypeople, albeit with different expectations compared to monks. For instance, in the Sigalovada Sutta, the Buddha provides comprehensive advice to the householder Sigala on how to live a virtuous and balanced life. This includes elements of mental training and right conduct, showing that laypeople are also encouraged to cultivate mindfulness and concentration.

Regarding equanimity, it's important to differentiate between the types of equanimity discussed in the Pali Canon. The equanimity (upekkha) developed through meditation is a wholesome state that arises from wisdom and understanding, not from ignorance or detachment akin to drug use. The Buddha described equanimity as one of the Four Sublime States (Brahmaviharas), alongside loving-kindness, compassion, and sympathetic joy. These states are cultivated through practice and are intended to foster a balanced and compassionate mind.

Your point about right effort is well taken. The Buddha indeed taught that right effort involves abandoning unwholesome states and cultivating wholesome ones. This includes the effort to develop right view and the other factors of the Noble Eightfold Path. Therefore, mindfulness and meditation, when practiced correctly, support this process by helping individuals see things as they truly are and respond appropriately.

Would you agree that while householders have different responsibilities and challenges compared to monastics, they can still benefit from meditation and mental cultivation in their pursuit of a virtuous and balanced life?

Good Sushan,

my person would be dare if telling something as taught by the Buddha, not being so, and viciversa.
People are entertained by a Buddhism-marked, a marxist idea from the last century in Burma. As people lost faith and socialistic ideas of Christianity entered, not so smart monks thought of "let lay people be equal" to get well provided by doing a lifing by teaching them. Also the texts where given away and lay people started to make a thief-copy with corrupt monks. Never had lay-people been taught meditation. There are 5 and 6 Anussati to clean the mind, if having the base.

Householder-equanimity isn't my persons name for what the Buddha saw as most dangerous. What ever development of mind based on wrong view, based on stinginess, based on non-metta, and that all are not just hypothetical ideas, leads to wrong release. As long as there is no right livelyhood, the higher path will not getting on.

And further, at no point on the path, except in states of higher Jhana, is equanimity a tool. The whole path is about right judgement, gives no room for equanimity at all, and even the most refined equanimity has to be abound. At least, as the Buddha taught, equanimity isn't the highest, but right discrimination.

People love to be equal toward what's right/wrong, good, bad, a pleasure, a joy, enemy. Equanimity is used to get not stuck in the refined joy of Jhana, and this is called nekkhamma-equanimity, renouncing equanimity, an equanimity that isn't ignorant toward right and wrong, good and bad, duties, but toward even highest pleasure.

So for now we could maybe agree that some writings on good householders traumatic experience of being cheated so long, have possitive impact?

I appreciate your perspective on the historical and cultural influences on Buddhism. It’s true that political and social shifts can impact religious practices, but it’s important to distinguish these from the core teachings of the Buddha.

The influence of political ideologies on religious practices can occur, but equating laypeople with monks in terms of spiritual practices is not universally accepted in Buddhist traditions. Historically, the distinction between the laity and monastics is well-established. However, the idea of laypeople practicing meditation is not entirely foreign to Buddhism. In texts such as the Digha Nikaya and Anguttara Nikaya, laypeople are encouraged to practice meditation to some extent.

Historically, the copying and dissemination of religious texts have been closely guarded by monastic orders to preserve their integrity. Unauthorized copying could indeed lead to corruption of the texts. However, in modern times, many Buddhist texts are made freely available to promote wider understanding and practice.

Laypeople were often encouraged to practice simpler forms of meditation like the recollections (Anussati) if they had a strong moral foundation. However, there are numerous examples in the Pali Canon where laypeople practiced deeper forms of meditation.

Equanimity is indeed an important factor in the development of higher meditative states (Jhanas). However, it also plays a role in daily mindfulness practices, helping practitioners maintain a balanced mind in the face of life's vicissitudes.

True equanimity involves maintaining a balanced mind while still discerning right from wrong. Misuse of equanimity to avoid moral judgment is a misunderstanding of the practice.

Would you agree that while political and cultural shifts influence practices, the core teachings of the Buddha remain relevant and beneficial for both householders and monastics?

Aside of encouraging devoted generous, who steady serve the monks, to seek seclusion from time to time (a single sutta), there is no, simply no mention of lay people practicing meditation, even get trained, like it's done this days. Lay people this days have neither a refuge nor do they even know how to address it, so do not even count as Upasaka. It's all just consume a copy-thievery. It's pointless here.

Yours like pseudoliberalism and marxism and so yours getting it. No idea of anything, but smarter as the elders and those actually do.

May your writings back and forward here help one or the other to seek for ways which are conductive, or at least serve as batch for traumatas.

Samana Johann wrote: ↑July 9th, 2024, 4:33 am Aside of encouraging devoted generous, who steady serve the monks, to seek seclusion from time to time (a single sutta), there is no, simply no mention of lay people practicing meditation, even get trained, like it's done this days. Lay people this days have neither a refuge nor do they even know how to address it, so do not even count as Upasaka. It's all just consume a copy-thievery. It's pointless here.

Yours like pseudoliberalism and marxism and so yours getting it. No idea of anything, but smarter as the elders and those actually do.

May your writings back and forward here help one or the other to seek for ways which are conductive, or at least serve as batch for traumatas.

I appreciate your insights on the evolution of lay meditation practices. It’s true that historically, the focus was more on monastic meditation, with laypeople supporting the monastic community through generosity and ethical living. However, as Buddhism has spread globally, its practices have adapted to meet the needs of modern practitioners.

In traditional texts like the Pali Canon, lay practitioners are encouraged to cultivate virtues and engage in practices that support their spiritual growth. While deep meditation was primarily reserved for monastics, laypeople were not entirely excluded.

Regarding the authenticity of modern practices, it’s essential to distinguish between superficial consumerism and sincere efforts to adapt Buddhist teachings to contemporary life. Many lay practitioners today seek to integrate meditation and mindfulness into their daily routines genuinely.

The political and social influences on religious practices are indeed significant, but the core teachings of the Buddha remain relevant. These teachings can guide both householders and monastics in cultivating a balanced and ethical life.

Would you agree that while traditional practices are foundational, adapting them to modern contexts can also be beneficial if done with sincerity and respect for the core teachings?

Sushan wrote: ↑July 9th, 2024, 5:14 am

Samana Johann wrote: ↑July 9th, 2024, 4:33 am Aside of encouraging devoted generous, who steady serve the monks, to seek seclusion from time to time (a single sutta), there is no, simply no mention of lay people practicing meditation, even get trained, like it's done this days. Lay people this days have neither a refuge nor do they even know how to address it, so do not even count as Upasaka. It's all just consume a copy-thievery. It's pointless here.

Yours like pseudoliberalism and marxism and so yours getting it. No idea of anything, but smarter as the elders and those actually do.

May your writings back and forward here help one or the other to seek for ways which are conductive, or at least serve as batch for traumatas.

I appreciate your insights on the evolution of lay meditation practices. It’s true that historically, the focus was more on monastic meditation, with laypeople supporting the monastic community through generosity and ethical living. However, as Buddhism has spread globally, its practices have adapted to meet the needs of modern practitioners.

In traditional texts like the Pali Canon, lay practitioners are encouraged to cultivate virtues and engage in practices that support their spiritual growth. While deep meditation was primarily reserved for monastics, laypeople were not entirely excluded.

Regarding the authenticity of modern practices, it’s essential to distinguish between superficial consumerism and sincere efforts to adapt Buddhist teachings to contemporary life. Many lay practitioners today seek to integrate meditation and mindfulness into their daily routines genuinely.

The political and social influences on religious practices are indeed significant, but the core teachings of the Buddha remain relevant. These teachings can guide both householders and monastics in cultivating a balanced and ethical life.

Would you agree that while traditional practices are foundational, adapting them to modern contexts can also be beneficial if done with sincerity and respect for the core teachings?

As already told, and good Sushan seems to be blind in regard of this, "Buddhists" have no refuge, aren't related to the Sangha, use a cultur-thieve for their ideas, eg. are focused on consume. Even if believing different, the teachings are total out of reach for them, having consumed without proper received. They don't do their duties, have no regards for the Gems, are far from virtue, not to speak of generosity.

Over all this particular traumata has lead since longer off-topic, as for even outwardly mindfulness, and it might be good to considef splitting it, maybe into "Has sociaty in general still any relation to religion, heavens, beyond?".

Samana Johann wrote: ↑July 9th, 2024, 7:53 pm

Sushan wrote: ↑July 9th, 2024, 5:14 am

Samana Johann wrote: ↑July 9th, 2024, 4:33 am Aside of encouraging devoted generous, who steady serve the monks, to seek seclusion from time to time (a single sutta), there is no, simply no mention of lay people practicing meditation, even get trained, like it's done this days. Lay people this days have neither a refuge nor do they even know how to address it, so do not even count as Upasaka. It's all just consume a copy-thievery. It's pointless here.

Yours like pseudoliberalism and marxism and so yours getting it. No idea of anything, but smarter as the elders and those actually do.

May your writings back and forward here help one or the other to seek for ways which are conductive, or at least serve as batch for traumatas.

I appreciate your insights on the evolution of lay meditation practices. It’s true that historically, the focus was more on monastic meditation, with laypeople supporting the monastic community through generosity and ethical living. However, as Buddhism has spread globally, its practices have adapted to meet the needs of modern practitioners.

In traditional texts like the Pali Canon, lay practitioners are encouraged to cultivate virtues and engage in practices that support their spiritual growth. While deep meditation was primarily reserved for monastics, laypeople were not entirely excluded.

Regarding the authenticity of modern practices, it’s essential to distinguish between superficial consumerism and sincere efforts to adapt Buddhist teachings to contemporary life. Many lay practitioners today seek to integrate meditation and mindfulness into their daily routines genuinely.

The political and social influences on religious practices are indeed significant, but the core teachings of the Buddha remain relevant. These teachings can guide both householders and monastics in cultivating a balanced and ethical life.

Would you agree that while traditional practices are foundational, adapting them to modern contexts can also be beneficial if done with sincerity and respect for the core teachings?

As already told, and good Sushan seems to be blind in regard of this, "Buddhists" have no refuge, aren't related to the Sangha, use a cultur-thieve for their ideas, eg. are focused on consume. Even if believing different, the teachings are total out of reach for them, having consumed without proper received. They don't do their duties, have no regards for the Gems, are far from virtue, not to speak of generosity.

Over all this particular traumata has lead since longer off-topic, as for even outwardly mindfulness, and it might be good to considef splitting it, maybe into "Has sociaty in general still any relation to religion, heavens, beyond?".

You've raised valid points about the disconnect between so-called nominal Buddhists and true religious practice. But, let's also consider the role of religious institutions themselves. The Sanghas, and indeed many religious monastic orders, have their own responsibilities. If they fail to make genuine teachings accessible or to offer support to those in need, can we really place all the blame on society or individuals who struggle to find true spiritual guidance? When people are unable to find or turn to authentic sources of healing, what other options do they have?

Your idea of splitting the discussion is indeed worth considering. This topic of whether society maintains any genuine connection to religion and spirituality is profound and timely, and I invite you to start a new thread on that. Meanwhile, let's continue to explore how writing about trauma might serve as a healing process, especially in the absence of easily identifiable and accessible spiritual guidance.

Sushan wrote: ↑July 15th, 2024, 3:11 am

Samana Johann wrote: ↑July 9th, 2024, 7:53 pm

Sushan wrote: ↑July 9th, 2024, 5:14 am

Samana Johann wrote: ↑July 9th, 2024, 4:33 am Aside of encouraging devoted generous, who steady serve the monks, to seek seclusion from time to time (a single sutta), there is no, simply no mention of lay people practicing meditation, even get trained, like it's done this days. Lay people this days have neither a refuge nor do they even know how to address it, so do not even count as Upasaka. It's all just consume a copy-thievery. It's pointless here.

Yours like pseudoliberalism and marxism and so yours getting it. No idea of anything, but smarter as the elders and those actually do.

May your writings back and forward here help one or the other to seek for ways which are conductive, or at least serve as batch for traumatas.

I appreciate your insights on the evolution of lay meditation practices. It’s true that historically, the focus was more on monastic meditation, with laypeople supporting the monastic community through generosity and ethical living. However, as Buddhism has spread globally, its practices have adapted to meet the needs of modern practitioners.

In traditional texts like the Pali Canon, lay practitioners are encouraged to cultivate virtues and engage in practices that support their spiritual growth. While deep meditation was primarily reserved for monastics, laypeople were not entirely excluded.

Regarding the authenticity of modern practices, it’s essential to distinguish between superficial consumerism and sincere efforts to adapt Buddhist teachings to contemporary life. Many lay practitioners today seek to integrate meditation and mindfulness into their daily routines genuinely.

The political and social influences on religious practices are indeed significant, but the core teachings of the Buddha remain relevant. These teachings can guide both householders and monastics in cultivating a balanced and ethical life.

Would you agree that while traditional practices are foundational, adapting them to modern contexts can also be beneficial if done with sincerity and respect for the core teachings?

As already told, and good Sushan seems to be blind in regard of this, "Buddhists" have no refuge, aren't related to the Sangha, use a cultur-thieve for their ideas, eg. are focused on consume. Even if believing different, the teachings are total out of reach for them, having consumed without proper received. They don't do their duties, have no regards for the Gems, are far from virtue, not to speak of generosity.

Over all this particular traumata has lead since longer off-topic, as for even outwardly mindfulness, and it might be good to considef splitting it, maybe into "Has sociaty in general still any relation to religion, heavens, beyond?".

You've raised valid points about the disconnect between so-called nominal Buddhists and true religious practice. But, let's also consider the role of religious institutions themselves. The Sanghas, and indeed many religious monastic orders, have their own responsibilities. If they fail to make genuine teachings accessible or to offer support to those in need, can we really place all the blame on society or individuals who struggle to find true spiritual guidance?

Most would have ways to ask for ordaining, if seeing the need. No, the Sublime Sangha is no social institution for common society. Who would give alms in faith if needing to fear that it would fall back, let's say, the evil neighbor, one without virtue.

If having build up relation, approach, if the right time, one might get be taught. Sometimes even out of good frame, like here...

When people are unable to find or turn to authentic sources of healing, what other options do they have?

If not related, no chance... Even if one would approach, they, she, would be incapable to take the medicine. If lacking the base, there is no way to benefit.

Your idea of splitting the discussion is indeed worth considering. This topic of whether society maintains any genuine connection to religion and spirituality is profound and timely, and I invite you to start a new thread on that. Meanwhile, let's continue to explore how writing about trauma might serve as a healing process, especially in the absence of easily identifiable and accessible spiritual guidance.

So what's the trauma leading to giving into such topic here? My person would not praise reading much books.

Writing about trauma can affect our defense mechanisms. By recalling repressed memories, writing might make us face emotions we've been avoiding. This can be both helpful and challenging. On the one hand, it can help with emotional healing by letting us consciously process our trauma. On the other hand, it might temporarily increase distress as we revisit painful memories and emotions.

In my opinion, Trauma only heals the ones who write them. The ones who have this trauma and read someone else's trauma has to go through their own journey to get their healing.

Samana Johann wrote: ↑July 15th, 2024, 6:48 am So what's the trauma leading to giving into such topic here? My person would not praise reading much books.

Well, FYI, following the assassination of General Murtala Muhammed in February 1976, Nigeria was thrown into a state of emergency, leading to frequent public executions. During this time, Jewish sentiments were particularly strong in the sub-Saharan region after Israel’s Entebbe Rescue Mission.

In this chaotic environment, Mr. Frederick David Nachman of the Nachman International Trading Corporation (NITC) disappeared on August 14, 1976, at the Federal Palace Hotel in Lagos. Mr. Nachman was in Nigeria to finalize a telecommunications plan with the government. On August 14, which was the Jewish Sabbath, he went for a walk and never returned. His disappearance was particularly alarming because he was a Jew in an area with rising anti-Jewish sentiments due to political tensions.

Mr. Nachman's wife, distraught over his disappearance, hired their attorney, Mr. Thomas Richard Spradlin, to search for him. Mr. Spradlin traveled to Lagos and faced numerous dangerous situations while trying to locate Mr. Nachman.

The trauma experienced by the author, Mr. Spradlin, lies in the dangerous and emotionally taxing search for Mr. Nachman in a hostile environment. Writing about this experience in this book has served as an emotional release, allowing the author to process and share the challenges and fears he encountered during this intense period.

AGBATA DONALD Chidera wrote: ↑July 28th, 2024, 6:28 pm Writing about trauma can affect our defense mechanisms. By recalling repressed memories, writing might make us face emotions we've been avoiding. This can be both helpful and challenging. On the one hand, it can help with emotional healing by letting us consciously process our trauma. On the other hand, it might temporarily increase distress as we revisit painful memories and emotions.

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

It's true that revisiting traumatic experiences through writing can help individuals consciously process and integrate their trauma. This process can lead to emotional release and a better understanding of one's experiences, ultimately contributing to mental health improvements.

However, the challenges you mentioned are equally valid. Confronting painful memories can indeed temporarily increase psychological distress, making it difficult for some to move forward. This highlights the importance of having proper support systems in place when engaging in such therapeutic writing. Mental health professionals can provide guidance and support to individuals who find the process overwhelming.

Considering these points, how do we strike a balance between encouraging expressive writing for its therapeutic benefits and ensuring that individuals are not overwhelmed by the process? What role should mental health professionals play in guiding those who choose to write about their traumatic experiences?

Stephanie Walker 11 wrote: ↑July 29th, 2024, 4:29 am In my opinion, Trauma only heals the ones who write them. The ones who have this trauma and read someone else's trauma has to go through their own journey to get their healing.

You bring up an important point about the individual nature of healing. While writing about trauma can be a powerful tool for the author, it’s true that each person’s journey to healing is unique and deeply personal.

Writing can indeed be a cathartic process for those who choose to share their stories. It allows them to process their experiences and emotions in a structured way, often leading to a sense of relief and closure.

However, for readers who have experienced their own trauma, reading about someone else’s trauma can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it might provide a sense of solidarity and understanding, showing them that they are not alone in their experiences. On the other hand, it can also trigger their own unresolved emotions and memories, potentially causing distress.

How can we create supportive environments for both writers and readers of traumatic stories? What resources or guidelines can be implemented to ensure that sharing and reading these narratives are beneficial rather than harmful?

Sushan wrote: ↑July 29th, 2024, 5:43 am

Samana Johann wrote: ↑July 15th, 2024, 6:48 am So what's the trauma leading to giving into such topic here? My person would not praise reading much books.

Well, FYI, following the assassination of General Murtala Muhammed in February 1976, Nigeria was thrown into a state of emergency, leading to frequent public executions. During this time, Jewish sentiments were particularly strong in the sub-Saharan region after Israel’s Entebbe Rescue Mission.

In this chaotic environment, Mr. Frederick David Nachman of the Nachman International Trading Corporation (NITC) disappeared on August 14, 1976, at the Federal Palace Hotel in Lagos. Mr. Nachman was in Nigeria to finalize a telecommunications plan with the government. On August 14, which was the Jewish Sabbath, he went for a walk and never returned. His disappearance was particularly alarming because he was a Jew in an area with rising anti-Jewish sentiments due to political tensions.

Mr. Nachman's wife, distraught over his disappearance, hired their attorney, Mr. Thomas Richard Spradlin, to search for him. Mr. Spradlin traveled to Lagos and faced numerous dangerous situations while trying to locate Mr. Nachman.

The trauma experienced by the author, Mr. Spradlin, lies in the dangerous and emotionally taxing search for Mr. Nachman in a hostile environment. Writing about this experience in this book has served as an emotional release, allowing the author to process and share the challenges and fears he encountered during this intense period.

Atma asked about good Nyom Sushans trauma which leaded her to give into this topic. And did it lead to release for now?

Just one think if animals in the forest could write down there stories... that all about the fifth heavenly messager. If wrong attention, meeting them wouldn't help. Maybe tomorrow starting to meet similar story? Who would write a book about life, if not still very deluded.

Samana Johann wrote: ↑July 29th, 2024, 6:38 am

Sushan wrote: ↑July 29th, 2024, 5:43 am

Samana Johann wrote: ↑July 15th, 2024, 6:48 am So what's the trauma leading to giving into such topic here? My person would not praise reading much books.

Well, FYI, following the assassination of General Murtala Muhammed in February 1976, Nigeria was thrown into a state of emergency, leading to frequent public executions. During this time, Jewish sentiments were particularly strong in the sub-Saharan region after Israel’s Entebbe Rescue Mission.

In this chaotic environment, Mr. Frederick David Nachman of the Nachman International Trading Corporation (NITC) disappeared on August 14, 1976, at the Federal Palace Hotel in Lagos. Mr. Nachman was in Nigeria to finalize a telecommunications plan with the government. On August 14, which was the Jewish Sabbath, he went for a walk and never returned. His disappearance was particularly alarming because he was a Jew in an area with rising anti-Jewish sentiments due to political tensions.

Mr. Nachman's wife, distraught over his disappearance, hired their attorney, Mr. Thomas Richard Spradlin, to search for him. Mr. Spradlin traveled to Lagos and faced numerous dangerous situations while trying to locate Mr. Nachman.

The trauma experienced by the author, Mr. Spradlin, lies in the dangerous and emotionally taxing search for Mr. Nachman in a hostile environment. Writing about this experience in this book has served as an emotional release, allowing the author to process and share the challenges and fears he encountered during this intense period.

Atma asked about good Nyom Sushans trauma which leaded her to give into this topic. And did it lead to release for now?

Just one think if animals in the forest could write down there stories... that all about the fifth heavenly messager. If wrong attention, meeting them wouldn't help. Maybe tomorrow starting to meet similar story? Who would write a book about life, if not still very deluded.

I'm sorry for any confusion. As far as I understand, you are asking if this forum topic was created because I had some trauma and whether writing about it helped me release my pain. The topic was actually created to discuss the cathartic effect of writing about trauma, as experienced by the author of this book after writing about his own traumatic experiences, and to explore whether that effect is universal. I did not personally experience any trauma that led me to create this discussion topic.

Thank you for your insights on life in relation to the Devaduta Sutta. The messengers indeed offer a clear understanding of what life is and how to serve its purpose. While the spiritual aspect is important, I believe people should first navigate their mundane lives with a clear mind, and coping mechanisms like writing can be very helpful in this regard.

I agree that writing about life without a proper understanding can be delusional, but writing about one's own life experiences and learning from them is quite different. It can provide valuable insights and help others in their own journeys.

Samana Johann wrote: ↑June 24th, 2024, 6:52 am Only people who don't overcome things are usually writting (telling) about it, at least publish it.

Don't yours write or tell quickly when someone had stolen your cellphone? What drives?

Maybe a helpful little story:The Healing of the Bull

Om mijn eigen mening te geven: we moeten ons op andere onderwerpen richten. Dit is nodig om uit de situatie te komen waarin we ons bevinden.

So did it help good Sushan here, the writing on a trauma over another's trauma?