Dear Peter:

I am not focused enough to read ad reply, but reading your last line, the three questions, makes me smile, and again, feeling affection for you. It is a bit like dancing.. with you, is it?

More tomorrow morning, or if you prefer, Monday morning, as I know you prefer to take a break from the computer during the weekend.

anita

Dear Robi:

I am looking forward to read and reply further Sat morning (it’s Friday early afternoon here). oh, about the short hair, I might have shared long ago that I had short hair, and I did, for many years, but now I let my hair grow long (and grey) and wear it in a pony tail- makes me feel like a kid.

anita

Dear Peter:

Heavy Duty Bag of Chips Trigger Warning! 😊 Please feel free to stop reading at any time if the salt gets to be too much.

I found it amusing that you called your habit of analyzing “kind of masochistic.” I love analyzing too (as you may have noticed, haha). For me, analysis (not rumination) is enjoyable—it gives me clarity and relief, while confusion breeds chaos.

Taking a moment to differentiate analysis from rumination:

* Both involve repetitive thinking, and both can be emotionally charged.

* Analysis seeks understanding, problem-solving, and insight, whereas rumination dwells on negative experiences without resolution.

* Analysis is intentional and constructive, while rumination often feels involuntary and hard to stop, trapping people in negative thought loops rather than leading to solutions.

The challenge is recognizing when thinking shifts from analysis into rumination and steering it toward constructive reflection rather than endless cycling.

You noted that stillness before analysis is preferable to using analysis as a means to stillness. That makes sense—yet, for me, understanding often brings stillness. Perhaps this is why I struggle with your ability to be still and let things happen naturally.

You wrote, “I am uncomfortable with the wording of ‘your transcendence.’ That has a progressive feel, or something set as a goal to be achieved… My sense is that transcendence is a happening, rather than a doing, willing, or achieving.”- I see what you mean, and I appreciate your clarification.

Your distinction between happening and doing is compelling—transcendence, as you describe it, isn’t something pursued but something that unfolds beyond effort and will. That contrasts with how I habitually seek control through analysis and problem-solving. Letting things simply happen is difficult for me. My attachment to problem-solving makes it hard to embrace an approach that isn’t actively pursued.

You likened transcendence to dance, where leading and following merge—implying that the sequence doesn’t matter, only the experience itself. Perhaps that’s why I only feel comfortable in free-style dance, where I neither lead nor follow another person.

Reflecting on this (analyzing it, of course 😊), I wonder if part of my reluctance to engage in structured dance—besides my clumsiness—comes from a deeper fear of being taken over by another person, of being controlled. If I let someone lead (if let things happen), do I lose autonomy? There’s a threat in Together and in Letting Things Happen, and a sense of safety in Alone and in Control.

You clarified that you’re not trying to address trauma in the Eternal realm, because trauma belongs to the temporal world and must be engaged with here. However, experiencing the Eternal creates a foundation from which past trauma can be examined—viewed through the lens of weightlessness rather than as something demanding immediate fixing.

Yet, my trauma is still heavy, even after all these years. I can carry it better because I am stronger, but I don’t want to view it as weightless. That would feel dismissive of its reality, almost like a form of denial, and that wouldn’t serve my mental health.

Looking forward to the Eternal where there is no trauma feels—dare I say—similar to the idea of Heaven, where pain ceases. It’s comforting, but does comfort change the reality of the Temporal? Our suffering exists in our bones, our muscles, our neurons—woven into every minute of every day. Does envisioning a place without suffering help us process what is, or does it simply provide refuge from its weight?

This reminds me of the song “Somewhere Over the Rainbow,” where dreams come true and troubles disappear—the same longing for Heaven, the Eternal.

I do believe in the Eternal, but I question whether it is about Love. If love is tied to bonding behaviors, oxytocin, and attachment, it evolved in social species for survival and connection. Turtles don’t exhibit emotional bonding, nor do plants—so when we say “plants feel love,” we are simply projecting human sentiment onto them.

If love is purely biological, framing Love as a cosmic or Eternal force could be human wishful thinking—a way to assign meaning beyond survival and suffering.

Yet, you describe Love not as an emotion, but as a state—interconnectedness, openness, presence. In this interpretation, Love isn’t dependent on oxytocin or attachment but is the absence of division, fear, or resistance—a state of being rather than an emotion.

So how does the Eternal feel? You say it isn’t possessed or measured—it transcends time, language, and fixed definitions. Instead of presence, it is absence—the absence of clinging, suffering, resistance. Not an emotion, but a happening.

Yet, if our emotional experience in the Temporal shapes how we imagine the Eternal, doesn’t that mean our perception of it is colored by longing—perhaps even idealized as an escape? If we desire relief from suffering, do we unconsciously construct the Eternal as a place of peace and transcendence because our minds seek refuge?

Your philosophy resists framing the Eternal as a goal or destination—you say it just is, beyond measurement and possession. But can human consciousness ever perceive something free from the lens of desire?

Back to “Somewhere Over the Rainbow”: “Someday I’ll wish upon a star / And wake up where the clouds are far behind me / Where troubles melt like lemon drops / Away above the chimney tops… Birds fly over the rainbow—why, then, oh why can’t I?”- These words encapsulate a deeply human longing—the desire for a realm beyond suffering, where dreams manifest effortlessly. This longing mirrors the construct of Heaven and the Eternal, where existence is imagined as a state free from pain, limitation, and earthly struggles.

The song asks “Why can’t I?”—expressing the ache of being trapped in the temporal while yearning for transcendence.

Yet, your philosophy suggests transcendence isn’t an escape—it’s a shift in perception, not a removal of suffering. This contrasts with the song’s depiction of Heaven as a distant destination, a place requiring movement beyond reality.

Comparing Heaven & The Eternal:

* Both are imagined as beyond the Temporal, promising relief from suffering and a state that surpasses ordinary human experience.

* Heaven is a destination—a divine realm where souls go after death, often associated with reward-based belief systems (and financial contributions), while the Eternal is not something to be “achieved”, or bought—it happens outside of effort, possession, or hierarchy.

* Heaven is emotionally charged—a place of joy, reunion, comfort—while, while the Eternal is neutral, beyond longing or expectation.

* Heaven is depicted as hierarchical or governed by divine presence (God, angels, etc.) while the Eternal is not governed by external entities

Yet, even perceiving the Eternal as “beyond suffering” already implies human longing for peace—so can it ever be free from desire?

* Both seem to stem from human cognition—would they even exist without our brains wired for abstraction, existential reflection, and longing? If humans didn’t seek meaning beyond survival, would concepts like Heaven or the Eternal ever emerge? Likely not.

I imagine that the Eternal resonates with those who seek transcendence without religious doctrine. It strips away dogma, hierarchy, and anthropocentric views of life after death. So, in a way, the Eternal is the abstract refinement of Heaven?

I recognize, like you, peter, that analysis itself wasn’t the problem, but the desire to rid myself of shame and fear through analysis kept them strong. I will be sharing about this later, in my own thread.

Finally—Peter, I want to make sure my questioning isn’t disrespectful or confrontational. My intent is exploration, not refutation. You’ve found comfort in the Eternal for a long time, and I don’t want to harm you by shaking that comfort.

Does this feel like an open discussion to you, or do you sense tension or discomfort in my approach? I value your perspective, and I want to engage with it thoughtfully.

anita

Dear Peter:

I greatly appreciate your honesty about how my wording came across to you. I will process and get back to you tomorrow. And I will correct what I may have misunderstood.

Oh. And the song- I didn’t write it. It’s a song by Glen Cambell. I love watching the YouTube of him singing it with karoke captions, so I can sing along.

Anita

Is it that I was stuck analyzing shame and fear in efforts to chase them away via understanding that kept them hanging on tight, while trying to understand them with an attitude of befriending them would have made all the difference? In other words, it’s not the analysis itself that kept them strong within me, but my efforts to divorce myself from them through analysis that kept them powerful within me?

I think so.

And strangely, as I am now thinking of befriending fear and shame, I have no desire to analyze them further.

anita

Concluding:

I will revisit all this later, of course. But for now, as with all things in life, balance is key—stillness and movement, analysis and non-analysis. Just as excess motion leads to chaos and excess stillness to stagnation, too much analysis traps the mind, while too little leaves needed insight undiscovered. All things in moderation.

As to me, all my decades-long analyses of my childhood was fruitless until most recently, and the reason was simply that I perceived the analyzer (myself) as worthless, acutely worthless and shameful. Shame has been the most acute. And the fear too, the fear of the next time I will be shamed. No way in heaven or in hell, that I could have transcended these acute painful emotions+ cognitions without facing this Shame and Fear. I am looking these in the eye right now, so to speak. Strangely, befriending them. Not for the purpose of keeping them, but for the purpose of not trying to escape them, a quest I was never successful at. Wow.. befriending all that I am. All. What a concept.

Developing this a bit further: the more I tried to escape shame and fear, the stronger and more persistent they remained. Accept them, befriend them, and I can almost feel their lack of motivation to stay.

anita

* I think that my post was too long, so i will break it down to parts:

Dear Peter:

First, a few definitions:

Transcendence- In a spiritual or philosophical sense, transcendence refers to an awareness that goes beyond everyday perception—seeing things from a higher perspective, detached from ego or suffering. It involves a sense of oneness, peace, or enlightenment, where things like fear, desire, and emotional pain no longer control one’s experience.

Detachment- A calm and objective perspective, where one is not overly affected by external events or inner turmoil. In a spiritual or philosophical sense, detachment means letting go of attachment to desires, suffering, or ego-driven identification. It’s seen as a way to achieve peace, allowing emotions to arise without being consumed by them.

Ego- In spiritual and philosophical traditions, ego is seen as an illusion—the part of us that clings to identity, comparison, and separateness rather than a deeper sense of oneness and flow. Some teachings suggest that transcending the ego leads to peace, allowing someone to move beyond attachments and emotional reactivity.
Put simply: ego is the voice that says, “This is who I am. I need to protect, prove, or control this image.”. Detachment says: “I am not defined by my thoughts, emotions, or external circumstances. I can observe without being controlled by them.”. Transcendence says: “There is no separate ‘me’ to protect or prove—everything is interconnected. Love, awareness, and peace exist beyond the need for labels or control.”

* Control in the above refers to the ways the ego tries to shape, manage, or dictate reality to maintain a sense of identity or security. Examples: (1) If someone disagrees with one’s beliefs, the ego feels threatened and pushes back aggressively to prove it’s right. Transcendence would say, “I don’t need to convince others—truth exists beyond personal opinions.

(2) The ego resists sadness or anger, thinking, “I shouldn’t feel this way.” Transcendence would say, “All emotions flow naturally—I allow them without attachment.

(3) The ego insists that life should unfold in a specific way (success, relationships, status), leading to anxiety if things don’t go as planned. Transcendence would say, “I trust in the flow of life rather than forcing results.”

(4) The ego clings to labels (smart, strong, successful), fearing that losing them means losing self-worth. Transcendence would say, “I am beyond labels—my value doesn’t depend on external definitions.”

Next, I am simplifying my questions and your answers and processing them best I can:

Question # 1: Does detachment require acknowledgment and emotional integration first, or can transcendence happen immediately?

Your answer: Transcendence can be immediate. A person can shift into a higher awareness immediately, without needing to process suffering first. Detachment does not require acknowledgment and emotional integration first. Transcendence can happen immediately when one stops identifying with suffering. Detachment is an awareness shift—not something to be worked toward, but something to be allowed. Suffering is real in the realm of maya (time and experience), so emotional acknowledgment might still play a role in some form.

Question # 2: If trauma isn’t “real” in the ultimate sense, does suffering need full emotional acknowledgment before moving on?
Your answer: Full emotional acknowledgment is a valid path to healing, but it hasn’t worked for me (Peter). Instead, I see trauma as something experienced within time (maya), whereas the Eternal provides immediate relief from suffering.

* You are making a distinction, Peter, between two different approaches to healing—one rooted in time (maya) and the other in the Eternal (a state beyond time and suffering).

Full emotional acknowledgment as a healing path suggests that processing emotions thoroughly—feeling them, understanding them, and working through them—is necessary for healing. This is often the approach people take in therapy or self-reflection, engaging deeply with their pain before moving forward. However, you say that this hasn’t worked for you. Why? You imply that staying in the realm of maya keeps you caught in suffering. Even though acknowledgment is meant to lead to healing, you feel it hasn’t freed you from suffering in a deep way.

Instead, you see the Eternal as offering immediate relief from suffering—not because trauma doesn’t exist, but because in the Eternal, trauma no longer holds weight or control over the self. Identifying too much with suffering keeps it alive, whereas stepping into an awareness beyond time allows suffering to dissolve naturally.

It’s an unconventional take—rather than processing suffering as something to be worked through, you view detachment from the entire concept of suffering as a way to transcend it.

Question # 3: Has your perspective evolved since 2016, or was it already solidified back then?
Your answer: In 2016, you were searching for understanding through information but got stuck. Later, you shifted to living what you believed instead of just studying it, which led to a transformation in your perspective.

You described your journey in two phases: (1) 2016: Seeking Understanding Through Information- At this stage, you were “gathering words”—actively searching for meaning by accumulating knowledge. However, you later realized that information isn’t the same as knowing.
You acknowledge that during this period, you were “dealing but not healing.” In other words, you were intellectually processing ideas but hadn’t yet experienced a transformational shift in how you lived them.

(2) Later Shift: Believing and Living Truths instead of just learning them- Two years ago, you asked a different question—instead of continuing to search, you wondered: “What if I actually believed in the things I learned were Truths?”
This marked a turning point where you moved beyond intellectual inquiry and began embodying your beliefs. This shift allowed you to break free from past obstacles and experience a deeper understanding of life and healing. This shift came when you stopped viewing Truth as something to search for and instead started living it.

Thank you, Peter, for sharing all of this and for your contributions to the forums over the years.
And now, my little research and thoughts: I just looked it up and indeed some philosophical and spiritual traditions advocate for immediate transcendence, bypassing deep psychological processing or self-analysis:

Advaita Vedanta is a Hindu philosophical tradition that teaches that the self is already one with the Absolute (Brahman)—there is no need for gradual self-processing, only the direct realization of this truth. Quote (Ramana Maharshi): “You are already that which you seek. The obstacle is the belief that you are not.”

Some Zen schools emphasize instant awakening rather than gradual self-exploration. Quote (Huang Po): “There is only the One Mind. Why talk of realization? You are already enlightened.”- This implies that seeking understanding is unnecessary—one must simply drop illusions and recognize reality.

Taoist philosophy suggests that trying to process and understand oneself is counterproductive—true transcendence comes from letting go and flowing with the Tao. Quote (Laozi): “Stop thinking, and end your problems.”- This perspective sees analysis and effort as barriers to transcendence.

Some Christian mystics emphasize immediate union with God through surrender, rather than deep psychological work.
These traditions argue that seeking, analyzing, and processing reinforce the illusion of separation, whereas immediate transcendence comes from direct realization, surrender, or effortless awareness. (to be continued)