Results 1 to 3 of 3
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Chinese
      • Home Country:
      • China
      • Current Location:
      • China

    • Join Date: Jan 2014
    • Posts: 20
    #1

    Suffering is not necessarily good for the soul at all

    Suffering is not necessarily good for the soul at all, and left alone natural creatures do not seek it.
    I cannot understand this sentence. Does it mean "Suffering is totally bad for the soul and it is not necessary" or "Suffering is not necessarily good for the soul , but sometimes it is good."?

    The following is the context:
    The quality of life is important above all. Newborn animals either die quickly and naturally, painlessly, before their consciousnesses are fully focused here, or are killed by their mothers not because they are weak or unfit to survive, but because the [physical] conditions are not those that will produce the quality of life that makes survival "worthwhile."

    The consciousness that became so briefly physical is not annihilated, however, but in your terms waits for better conditions.

    There are also "trial runs" in human and animal species alike, in which peeks are taken, or glimpses, of physical life, and that is all. Epidemics sweeping through animal populations are also biological and psychic statements, then, in which each individual knows that only its own greatest fulfillment can satisfy the quality of life on an individual basis, and thus contribute to the mass survival of the species.

    Suffering is not necessarily good for the soul at all, and left alone natural creatures do not seek it. There is a natural compassion, a biological knowledge, so that the mother of an animal knows whether or not existing conditions will support the new offspring.

    Animals instinctively realize their relationship with the great forces of life. They will instinctively starve an offspringwhile its consciousness is still unfocused, rather than send it loose under adverse conditions.

    In a natural state, many children would die stillborn for the same reasons, or would be naturally aborted. There is a give-and-take between all elements of nature, so that such individuals often choose mothers, for example, who perhaps wanted the experience of pregnancy but not of birth where they choose the experience of the fetus but not necessarily [that] of the child. Often in such cases these are "fragment personalities," wanting to taste physical reality, but not being ready to deal with it. Each case is individual, however, so these are general statements.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Jan 2010
    • Posts: 1,696
    #2

    Re: Suffering is not necessarily good for the soul at all

    Quote Originally Posted by laujenny View Post
    Suffering is not necessarily good for the soul at all, and left alone natural creatures do not seek it.
    I cannot understand this sentence. Does it mean "Suffering is totally bad for the soul and it is not necessary" or "Suffering is not necessarily good for the soul , but sometimes it is good."? (It could be good or it could be not so good. It is not always good. For example, it is not necessarily a good thing to become very rich. I'm a bit confused why the author would call an animal "natural" and not call a person "natural".)

    The following is the context:
    The quality of life is important above all. Newborn animals either die quickly and naturally, painlessly, before their consciousnesses are fully focused here, or are killed by their mothers not because they are weak or unfit to survive, but because the [physical] conditions are not those that will produce the quality of life that makes survival "worthwhile."

    The consciousness that became so briefly physical is not annihilated, however, but in your terms waits for better conditions.

    There are also "trial runs" in human and animal species alike, in which peeks are taken, or glimpses, of physical life, and that is all. Epidemics sweeping through animal populations are also biological and psychic statements, then, in which each individual knows that only its own greatest fulfillment can satisfy the quality of life on an individual basis, and thus contribute to the mass survival of the species.

    Suffering is not necessarily good for the soul at all, and left alone natural creatures do not seek it. There is a natural compassion, a biological knowledge, so that the mother of an animal knows whether or not existing conditions will support the new offspring.

    Animals instinctively realize their relationship with the great forces of life. They will instinctively starve an offspringwhile its consciousness is still unfocused, rather than send it loose under adverse conditions.

    In a natural state, many children would die stillborn for the same reasons, or would be naturally aborted. There is a give-and-take between all elements of nature, so that such individuals often choose mothers, for example, who perhaps wanted the experience of pregnancy but not of birth where they choose the experience of the fetus but not necessarily [that] of the child. Often in such cases these are "fragment personalities," wanting to taste physical reality, but not being ready to deal with it. Each case is individual, however, so these are general statements.
    Gil

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Chinese
      • Home Country:
      • China
      • Current Location:
      • China

    • Join Date: Jan 2014
    • Posts: 20
    #3

    Re: Suffering is not necessarily good for the soul at all

    Thank you so much!I think the author calls an animal natural but not a person, because man usually has many bad believes which stops him from follow his nature.

Similar Threads

  1. necessary vs. necessarily
    By Nicky_K in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-Jul-2012, 08:49
  2. 'cured my suffering' vs 'cure me of my suffering'
    By Tan Elaine in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 13-Jun-2011, 16:13
  3. not necessarily
    By contiluo in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22-Nov-2010, 01:09
  4. necessarily
    By IMPSX-UE in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 25-Dec-2008, 08:24
  5. not necessarily
    By mylevt in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-Aug-2008, 17:21

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •