SOUL

@BlueOak ...but the dog didn't call a suicide hotline, so not the same.

@Breakingthewall You have shown an incredible ability to say alot of stuff in a reply without actually addressing the point someone else is making, which makes discussion extremely difficult and I find it unproductive. Good luck with that. Peace.

The simple way is using the common definition of a word, not creating a different one that needs to be explained in esoteric terms. You are trying to portray that if an animal doesn't behave in your anthropomorphic prop it's not the same which you are using to avoid answering the question but it doesn't mean they don't have psychological reactions and distress from memories even if they are unaware that's what is happening. It is an example of the subconscious mind autonomously causing psychological distress, much in the same way it autonomously causes the sense of physical distress in the mind. That's where the sensation of 'pain' happens, in the mind, it doesn't happen in the toe you've stubbed. The mind projects the appearance of pain into the toe, but it's all happening in the mind, it's autonomously created by the subconscious mind. Exactly the same way it autonomously creates psychological suffering in the mind, suffering is pain, pain is suffering. Then, as you clearly understand by your reply, there is an element of conscious participation which is different from all those other autonomous subconscious mind sensations. It comes from our 'self' reflection, this mental anguish comes when we intentionally engage with the autonomous suffering. That is why I make the distinction of the 'self' kind of suffering as you described when we self reflect on the psychological suffering instead of transcend it in our awareness and being. It seems so obvious...and simple.

Again...I dare you to live 'out of the moment', go ahead, try to do it. I'm sure you are thinking that just because we can envision the future or the past or imagine circumstances that aren't presently happening it means we aren't 'in the moment' but welp, no, all of that takes place 'in the 'moment'. We are always in the moment, we are never 'out of the moment'. So you don't think that any animals, not even the mammalian ones, very similar to us, have any psychological reactions in the present moment because of memories from past experiences, though they may not be aware of it as such? All of which takes place in the moment because, alas, everything takes places 'in the moment'. No, I don't agree that suffering is purely psychological because I understand that suffering is all forms of pain, not just psychological. The common definition of 'suffer' is in agreement with that understanding, suffering is pain, pain is suffering, they are synonymous.

That's the type of logic you get when you're halfway through a 12 pack of BUDdha light... It's faulty logic easily exposed as such but I'm not in the mood to get into an epistemological argument on this forum about some hillbilly guru stumbling over the same mistake most of the rest of yall trip over when yall don't see it yourself. Hint...it's in between point 1 and point 2 that the mistaken representation reveals itself. In between, you might ask? How is that even possible?...therein lies the enigma. It is funny how much he resembles dear leader...baha

ShOw A littlE rEspEcT fOr tHe fOrUm bEcAuSe tHe iLluSiOn iS iMpoRtaNt. ^^^ Notice I used capitalization and punctuation! ^^^

There is a concept in the technical trading world called paralysis by analysis, which is when someone has so many variables that trigger a signal to a trade but there are too many that they say different things. In mysticism, there can also be this paralyzing effect when the infinite perspectives are perceived but in this circumstance it may benefit because doing nothing can be the perfect thing to do! So maybe simply lean into and observe, we don't always have to do something. Just be present. If it's a matter of something in life that does require some sort of action, the most suitable choice will probably reveal itself without us having to logically reason through the variables to sort it out. The lack of attachment to being the decider of choices often simplifies the choosing.

If your intention was to create a reply that was impossible to respond to then you are a master at your craft. Kudos.

Wait...what? Until now? But now? um...ok Sure, the ego is mental construction, yet it seems like an autonomous process of that construction. We don't have to actively construct it to happen in the mind, it just happens. It doesn't appear that the ego necessarily has to be 'damaged' to cause distress or suffering, it seems perfectly natural for it to use negative sensations to motivate behavior. That doesn't mean it cannot be damaged, it absolutely can, but it would seem that this would be considered the type of severe trauma that goes beyond just more common negative stimuli. Although, this is just side stepping my point and for some reason either intentionally or not nobody on this forum can actually address someone's point. They just use a keyword and take a detour off it which makes most of the discussion here unproductive. Yea, this is pretty common on the internet, but it seems even more prevalent on this particular forum. It makes the already abstract into something completely incomprehensible.

So you know exactly what animals think now? Science can't even explain or fully understand how human consciousness is produced and they possess it but you know what every animal can or can't think. Interesting. Wait...aren't you one of the I am god creating everything and nothing else really exists folk? Maybe you should have just created animals that can think...or better yet, humans that can't think, so you know...no 'suffering'. Well, in what is the appearance of this real world, different animals have exhibited the kinds of behaviors that would correlate to psychological reactions to things not actually happening. Although, since we can't actually know for sure what's going on in their consciousness, it's speculation. Yet, in your response, you have actually proven that you understand what I have been saying all along. In our conscious experience, there is a distinction that can be made between what could be called self suffering and other types of suffering. We can even see how our subconscious mind is more like physical suffering because it reacts without active participation by us, just like a throbbing toe. The autonomous sensations it produces from past events even if we consciously don't want them to appear in our mind, just like the throbbing toe. Yet the active participation the conscious mind does with those subconsciously produced sensations is what increases or decreases the 'self' suffering. We can even see a distinction of suffering between the 'ego' suffering as a subconscious agent and 'awareness' as a conscious agent. The ego can be described as creating a suffering identity narrative from the sensations produced by the subconscious mind. It is when in awareness we react to and interact with it by empowering it to be our 'truth', we believe it to be real. When we don't, that type of 'suffering' dissolves and dissipates. So in our psyche there is a range of autonomous non-participatory suffering from subconscious to ego conscious and a distinctly different active participatory suffering in awareness. I see value in having a simple phrase to point to these three distinctions as pain, suffering and self suffering. The reason I assign suffering to the subconscious/ego suffering is because it's closer to physical pain both having autonomous happening, so it aligns with the commonly accepted definition of suffering. The modifier of 'self' refers to the active, participatory suffering we choose to engage with. This also helps clarify the difference between the thought in the autonomous sense compared to our awareness with regard to any suffering that may happen and how we can cease the active participation with suffering the subconscious mind produces. I appreciate you responding though so we can explore this deeper. I enjoy it.

Are you suggesting they aren't omniscient gods which create everything? I just wonder if they are that why they keep running away from easily answerable questions.

@Inliytened1 Ah yes, we have another third person trying to explain someone else personal definition, I suspect it's another separate personal definition and not a perfect description of the first person's personal definition. Everyone needs their own personal dictionary linked in their signature. Everything done by every being, by us, animals, bugs, microbes, it all, everything happens 'in the moment' , I dare you to do anything 'out of the moment'... "Do animals have psychological reactions of distress to things that aren't happening because of memory?" That is the question.

The heavy bag symbolizes you trying to get meaning from dreams...it's ok, you don't have to carry that bag,

I tried it, wow, what a headache! I'm trying to figure out what this is all about. There are a couple lines in the quote of mine that I didn't write so not sure what happened. This is to let you know I saw the notification and would like to reply but don't know what to respond to.

Money god beckons it demands a sacrifice Mammon wants your soul

If it is true that money is distilled moonshine humans need rehab

It's a currency It flows like the current sea. Hold that frequency. /haiku

The artist formerly known as we...

Maybe you can explain why you think your 'spirituality' is real and the others are fake? Possibly you can explain what benefit you get from proclaiming this on a forum where there are many types of spirituality are shared? That was my point and I realize it was rather vague at first, yet now that I've clarified it for you, I wonder if you will address it. This is your chance to clarify to the forum why you would do it and what benefit you think you get from it. I'm sure there are more than just I who are interested to hear it. If you can respond to this query even after everything we have already said then it shows the nature of your 'spirituality'.

Almost as interesting as yours, I suppose...good luck with that, too. Peace.

You know my intent now? You are wrong. Did you mean I implied? Even then still wrong. It is belief. That you trust or have confidence you can perceive anything, that your direct experience is anything, that you can understand anything, know anything and that any of it is 'true' is belief in it. That's what belief is according to the commonly accepted definition of the word. Of course, you may believe that your belief is not belief, you wouldn't be the first or the last to. Try what out? Your belief system? You think it's like some vehicle one can test drive? Or maybe it's some clothes we can wear or remove as we choose to? That's not how belief works, if you don't trust it is true then it isn't belief. You trust that this thing you say I should try is true, otherwise you wouldn't believe it or tell me to try it. Did you choose when you were born? Where you were born? Who your parents are? What your body is and health it has at birth? What conditions you were born into? What your early life conditions and experiences were? How about the culture and influences you were living in as a child? There is virtually everything about our young lives we don't choose. Even as adults, there are so many things we don't choose about our lives. The only thing we really can choose is how aware of it we are, how we perceive it and behave through it, though some doubt this is even accurate to say. Observe what happens...that I abide in.

@Keryo Koffa Real mystics dig spinners btw

Did you use a new age bullshit generator for that or is it your own bullshit generator at work?

For context: my statement^ SOUL: There is at least one other alternative... observing. No ignorance, no pursuit, no stress, just simple awareness. @SOUL Interesting, let us say you engaged in mere observation or pure awareness of the present moment, for how long would you succeed at this before suddenly a certain perspective or connection were drawn, and once that is done what other options do you have than ignoring or pursuing the connection/perspective? And for how long would you sit purely aware like that before you experience stress from the chaos of pure being without knowing, connecting and pursuing? Surely we are interesting not only in fancy display of hypotheticals but to actually test whether all I say here unfolds. And if it does not unfold in your own practice the way I presented above here then I am all ears. By observing in awareness, it ceases the 'spontaneous' behavior of the mind. This is a crucial distinction because the spontaneous reaction a mind takes is an affirmation of those subconscious patterns of behavior which come from the past. The reaction model of mind. What is there instead of the spontaneous behavior? It's intentional behavior, it is not subconscious but is conscious. It's the action model of mind. We are setting a present moment pattern of behavior that when it finally falls into the past it becomes seed for the subconscious mind's behavior. This severs the attachment to not only the old behavior but the new behavior can also be unattached if we create the present moment experience of it as such. Regardless of whether the action we take has been informed by the past or not it is not a reaction to it when in the mind we don't spontaneously act on it. It is not ignoring, pursuing or stressing, it is a completely different way for the mind to behave, a different modus operandi. Yet to be quite honest, it's the actual prima operandi which has been neglected by us in favor of the reaction model of the mind.

Do you believe your own bullshit?