John wrote:
I put the same question  with different words: 'If we don't see at all our immediate life, how could we see that very life at a deeper level?'

Daniel Paul : Yes very same questioning..

John quoted:

Daniel Paul. wrote:
there may be a logical step in into all that ??

Personally I don't think that logic could have something to do with 'all that' ...
Yes, I put it wrongly..what I meant was a chronological logical stepping into "all that" like if I do not solve somehow partially or not problems posed by suffering - dukkha , there will be nothing else taking place if so but sale old analysing...
again this is how it worked and "works" for me...it does not mean that it has more value, but you never know :-)
I must add to be define that often when mentioning suffering many think that I talk about a big huge unbearable pain, it can be yes but not only and far from it...like k suggested ( it was in John raica forum not long ago)there is too , there may be too this constant "background noise", that I find is the natural outcome of thought itself, mostly not perceived as such , this is a sort of suffering too, tiny but constant I am aware of all the time...
this is pushing hard.....then one fails ,half fails or whatever but it is there to be lived...and when it is this clearly turns on some of our other capacities ..
so missing capacities, missing awareness that there is , missing awareness to know what to do with that etc
Buddha and k are reminders of that and of their time beyond thought.

John wrote:
I feel the same, but who wants to go straight into suffering when a mere thinking on the possibility of 'me' having a cancer brings about a tremendous fear in 'me'? ...

Personally I've been observing suffering since I was 4 or 5 years old, when they tied my left hand to the small chair I sat down in the class room just because at that time it was not allowed to use the left hand for anything ... So 51 and a half years deeply observing suffering in me as well as in others without division ... And you know what, Dan? ... I still have not found someone that wants to go with me to the root of that suffering, because the conversation always comes to a point in which the other says 'That's enough! I will not go deeper!' and leave ...
Well , that speaks to me...for different reason suffering was at me since very young too, as well as a very good energy was there so I was not destroyed by it, just affected in a mild way, then when 14 ish I found my ways in it without really thinking about it nor searching , it just seemed obvious at the time...I was not mentioning that to anyone.
This had been the trigger of what is called kundalini and more ( I know it now but I did not knew the link at the time)...but then I lost all that for some time...then suffering won for 20 years until I rediscovered about that again out of the blue ,again not by searching ..etc
I do not go hunting the roots of suffering, there is the energy behind suffering , suffering is a mere word which says too little, I know it now that this energy must be left alone, we can agree that this is still in thought field, in thought capacity : I must leave this energy alone...!!
but before that I knew it by experience, what was taking place ? suffering won !!
and "I" without reaching the idea of the ultimate escape like suicide, or as told in today quote "without becoming cynical" , "I" sees its defeat and that is so, it this takes place a "miracle" takes place too.....nothing else takes place for some time but me in sorrow and not any more me AND sorrow duality is gone for some time leaving the space to something different, this is what suffering when lived teaches...and for one thought lives its real state which is to be in some sort of pain...and for that thought must be weak......meaning that its resistance to such life is getting thinner and thinner, weaker and weaker...up to the point where it can chose not to interfere anymore for some time, whatever happens...
it is a sort of total abandon of the constant fight-resistance-self assertion, we put up with....WHATEVER THE CONSEQUENCES ARE..thought must think something on that wavelength...
This is not a static point to function from.... so again k is right, there is no method but up to a point thought must do the right things up to its limits and this is a sort of method, anywhere where thought is still really concerned there can be some sort of method beyond thought there is not...