SOUL

Yes, attention on the self identity distracts from awareness simply being present. The path is the product of the body just as is the sense of self identity a product of the body. Even if we don't focus on the self identity the body will still produce the sense of self and is part of the part. Simplifying the path to just being present and only addressing what the body needs to survive as the body creates the sensation to motivate us it ceases to feed the self identity as a distraction on the path. The body creates the sensations to keep it alive but we don't have to create and believe the story about the body to be alive.

Self identity creates separation, not words, even in the absence of words there can be a perceived separation in awareness from the self identity.... words are the result of this separation, not the impetus to it. The body spontaneously creates self identity which results eventually in words. Even if we clarify awareness of the perception of separation as long as we have the body, it generates the self identity in our consciousness so we can be aware of it but not necessarily distracted by it. Well, there isn't duality, that is just the mistaken impression of our mind from separation coming from our self identity but it doesn't really exist as duality even if the sense of self creates a perception of separation, The body spontaneously creates the sense of self which causes this perceived separation in our consciousness. There really is no such thing as inattention either, it is distraction so we still have attention but it directed to the body and it's sense of self with the perceived separation. See how that's a false duality? It's not like we either are attentive or have no attention as opposites but our attention is distracted from being on the unity and instead it's on the separation, At no point are we without attention/awareness, it's just focused elsewhere, it's distracted from the holistic presence of being. All that movement stuff you talk about are examples of what distracts of the separation from self identity. I try not to get too complicated in my own experience of the path because I have found that attempting to understand it can be a distraction as well and understanding it isn't a requirement for liberation, Well, multiple words at least, that is what I was suggesting. As long as we have a body and we are alive in that body we are on the path and yes it can be a distraction....it evolved to capture our attention so we behave in a way to keep it alive. Regardless of whether it's simple or complex we walk it and it can be a distraction from being present which is why I simplify mine own path, less to be distracted with. The body spontaneously creates the existential yearning that manifests as psychological craving, emotional desire, physical hunger and everything like that to keep the organism alive. As long as we have the body we will have the yearning in all it's forms. Yes, they can all serve as a distraction from simply being present, that's what the body does. The food doesn't come to our mouth, we have to go get it, hunger is a physical discontentment to motivate us to eat or we die. That last little bit is you getting distracted by the path, more specifically by the words again. I did say "realization" and you substituted 'seeking of finding' then tried to make a point about the words. Should I now tell you running around telling others 'not it, not it', neti neti is 'not it' and a distraction as well? Nah... that's 'not it' either, I don't want to be distracted by the path. Haha.

Well, from a dualist perspective there is the opposition positions of attached-unattached and attention-inattention. This would also apply to awakened-asleep, reality-illusion, truth-false and all of the other spiritual ideology rooted in the dualist mindset. Although, to transcend the dualist mindset there is another perspective to gain insight with and allow me a moment to illustrate it. Let's take light....a single particle of light, a photon and it's traveling through space on it's way to earth. While it is still in space there is no atmosphere for it to interact with so it is invisible, it is unseen even though it exists. This is like our awareness as it manifests in the observerless observation expression and it is our awareness in it's purest form but it isn't what would be called enlightened which I will get to next. When the photon reaches our planet it first encounters the atmosphere so now it has something to interact with so becomes visible as light. It still isn't blocked until it encounters something more dense but this is the first time it can be compared to enlightenment. This is like awareness as it is in our consciousness without the self identity to interfere with, obscure or block it. Then this photon encounters the solid mass of earth and that is when the light is blocked and a shadow is created. The earth is like our self identity that blocks the light creates the shadow and is when we search out the enlightened state of consciousness. The dualist mind sees this only as the opposition position to the shadow but being a separated mind perspective it will always contend with the shadow. Some may recognize this fruitless mindset and seek out the illuminated state of the photon in atmosphere as awareness in consciousness. They remove self identity, the shadow disappears and they glow in this blissful state of enlightenment... but wait. There is still another state that can be realized, the observerless observation of the photon without the atmosphere. That is the unseen, the unity of infinite, absolute wholeness, the holistic expression of awareness in it's purest form. So much so that even to call it enlightenment is to fall short of capturing the nature of it's essence. Yes, my illustration also falls short of communicating the nature of it's essence but it is the best I can do with the language I have and a conceptual mind.

@Mu_ If you actually did read the discussion that you call good you would have noticed we did discuss the different words that could be used so why make that a point of contention. Whether one prefers to use craving or suffering or desire it doesn't matter really since they all stem from an existential yearning that appears to be what disturbs our peace and contentment. Much of the rest you talk about to me is the ceremony and adornment of the path but for my own experience I am a minimalist with regard to the path. Too much complication and complexity in the path appears to distract a very many from the genuine purpose of it, the cessation of this existential yearning that manifests as the craving, suffering and desire in us. I have found from decades of being in spiritual circles of seekers that the monkey mind wants to mentally masturbate over the complicated complexity of the ceremony and adornment along the path as a distraction so that the cessation of yearning gets lost or ignored in favor of the path to it. They become attached to the complex ritual of the path. This attachment quite often is cultivated by seeking 'understanding' expressed as the direct insight of the complicated path instead of that direct experience of being present in peace and equanimity. Once I did have direct experience of being present in peace a sense of bliss and fulfillment quenched the existential yearning and I realized the attachment to the complicated ritualized path is what was keeping me from it. @Emanyalpsid Contemplate your own experience, couldn't it be said that the deepest and clearest insights come from those moments when the clarity of the unattached awareness is perceiving reality without the veil of self identity obscuring it? How can we have genuine and clear insight with the conditioned self identity filtering our perception? So it seems that attachment doesn't lead to insight but it is liberation, unattached perception, that leads to insight.

Liberation is not an understanding or insight into suffering or the 'nature of reality' even if it's transcendental or direct. It is freedom from suffering so even without any understanding or insight one can be liberated. The lure of understanding becomes a 'truth' seeking distraction. There are plenty of examples of people on this forum and within the 'spiritual community' having transcendental understanding and direct insight of the 'nature of reality' without them being free from suffering. Liberation isn't dependent on understanding or insight, it's freedom. Too much focusing on understanding the path distracts from the realization there isn't the need to walk it.

You only once mention that you don't 'suffer' from some things you list, this hardly speaks to what I am referring by the casual use of it. In liberation also called enlightenment the freeing from suffering is what it is, it does not exists apart from it. Of course the way you talk about the meaning of words it seems they have more value then liberation does otherwise you would have mentioned the freedom from suffering more often and not casually just once. That being said let's move on past that and on to the point of this. Truth, yes, it's meaning can be confusing and quite often people focus on finding truth instead of liberation. Even if you interpret it as realization in that context what is 'made real' is liberation and our freedom from suffering. It's not just being made aware of it or awakened to it, it is liberation made real in our exprience. Now if you also want to interpret suffering differently it influences the core of this because freedom from it is central to liberation, it is all that it really is and without it liberation is not what it is. Even seen as unsatisfactoriness, which can also be said as unsatisfactory, unfulfilled or emptiness and it is what gives rise to the craving and to desire of existential life. Whether we view this cessation as desire-less emptiness or crave-less fulfillment isn't the point but ceasing the cycle of that duality of empty and full is the liberation. The path is not the path unless it leads to liberation regardless of how we express that path in idea, belief, word and deed. So my question isn't seeking an answer and the answer shouldn't be inviting a question because that is an expression of duality but all discussion about this is pointing to liberation and if it is not it is just distraction from the realization of it.

Logic belongs to materialism and materialism belongs to logic, they are dependent upon each other to exist and trying to separate them is like trying to separate food from it's taste. So using logic to prove materialism is absurd is like trying to use the taste of the food to prove it has no flavor. Liberation is freedom from suffering which does not depend on logic, materialism or proving anything to be what it is. In fact liberation is freedom from trying to prove anything, it's not logic or materialism or spirituality or absurdity, it is being at peace regardless of these swirling around us in life. So trying to prove something likely will contribute to suffering, not free one from it.

I find it interesting you don't mention suffering once in your original post yet the Buddha himself outlined these as the foundation of enlightenment. What is the purpose and value of understanding if there is no ceasing and freedom from suffering? At best understanding is part of the path that frees from suffering, at worst is causes suffering but even if it merely distracts from liberation then it is of no use.

Believing that we are in a dream is an illusion....

The way many use the word awakening suggests becoming aware of something that previously wasn't aware of and enlightenment appears to be used for an imagined state of awakening into an ultimate awareness that no additional awakening will occur. The reason I call it an imagined state is because it is imagined to be this by those who seek to awaken to enlightenment when in reality it isn't that. Enlightenment or as it is also called 'liberation' is freedom from suffering, mostly of the self induced variety but can be realized in all types, so liberation doesn't actually rely on awakening to be what it is. Yes, awakening, especially to how our self will induce suffering in us, can lead us to ceasing the suffering but awakening to it isn't the same as freedom from it. On this forum there are many examples of people awakening to all sorts of self suffering yet unable to be free from it and actually are perpetuating suffering through their seeking it as a form of awareness. People tend to equate spiritual enlightenment to scientific enlightenment as if it's an understanding, insight and knowledge about things spiritual like the scientific version of it is for the natural world but this is why they seek it without fruition.....which often can cause even more self suffering. Enlightenment is freeing from self suffering and any understanding, insight, knowledge or wisdom gained by us is a byproduct of liberation but the primary product of it is the freedom from suffering, our inner peace regardless of whether we gain anything else in awareness. So... Awakening is expanding awareness Enlightenment is freedom from suffering Yea, I know almighty Leo said it's exactly the same but ...well, yea.

It's not us loving the specific thing for what it is, it's us with love as a presence in our being. We aren't directing emotional energy for each individual thing or person or circumstance, this love is an unconditional presence we exist in and not an emotional impulse towards something or someone. So whatever arises in us it rises into a presence of love that permeates our being. Becoming aware of the distinction between the emotional impulse we associate with 'love' and the 'love' that transcends the emotional impulse we have for something/someone can be challenging but is crucial for it. Another way to say it is the emotional love is a subject loving an object just like emotional hate is a subject hating an object, those are emotional impulses. What people call 'unconditional love' is without the subject/object of the emotional love, it's a presence in our being that transcends the conditional. Does this clarify it?

Observe the self feeding thought loop of the self feeding thought loop that some people believe is truth because it is their self feeding thought loop that informs their perception through the fear they believe motivates it. The rest of us who don't believe in that conceptual framework aren't bound by their self feeding thought loop belief paradigm and because the belief bias has such a strong hold on their perception they are unaware of this.

No, it can't be seen because there is no seer and nothing to see.... so there's that.

I really do feel compassion for people who are awakening to the inner work of ceasing the self induced suffering since there is so much contradictory information coming from so many different directions all of it purporting to be wisdom. The ego is this, no the ego is that, it's an illusion, you are the ego, you are an illusion blah blah blah. This here is practical advice, it isn't labeling or a conceptual framework of what ego is or isn't and you are one with the illusion psychobabble, it's something that in each moment can be realized. Love is more than just an emotional impulse bathed in chemical responses, it's a force for healing the pain and suffering within us and for our holistic well being. What Haumea mentions here that is a crucial aspect is loving all which arises in us without necessarily believing it. How self suffering finds a foothold within us is through attaching to all that arises in us and to cease the reflexive identity with it is to cease the source of self induced suffering. Love in this context is the psychological salve that heals the already existing suffering but ceasing the reflexive identity to what arises in us is the preventative care of our well being so self suffering will not manifest. We can still use what arises in us to navigate through the world successfully sustaining our lives but without the reflexive identity it has no mechanism to cause suffering. It doesn't matter what it's called or how it is framed, ego, self, illusion, separate, one or whatever. What does have influence is the moment by moment relationship of our inner life and what Haumea shares is advice for a present moment relation with our inner experience that is practical. Love what arises but not necessarily believe(identify with) it, in every moment. Indeed. Free from the self induced suffering. Thanks Haumea! @Amanda R Batista

To get it one ceases wanting it and once one does cease the wanting it is realized there is nothing to get. Then abiding in this presence of aware being while existing in the manifest reality is the man in the maze.

I am versed

Having any concept of what words mean and if they'd be understood by another is being a slave to the past. Typing something out and hitting 'submit reply' is being a slave to the future.

People will think they don't have a belief paradigm of thoughts while warning others about thoughts.......haha

@Charlotte Well, thinking about being aware in the present moment is a thought, actually being aware in the present moment doesn't require a thought... even though one can observe a thought while being aware in the present moment.

By using awareness in the present moment... @NoSelfSelf

Every thing we experience in every moment is accessing the subconscious, each moment is the drip drip drip that the accumulating effect of the present moment's experience upon the subconscious mind.

He really does embrace the self suffering ego narrative and if he was just teaching methods and practices to people for the cessation of suffering even if it is to a very specific cultural niche then more power to him. It's not anything I would encourage but the last thing I want to allow happen is my own being agitated by him or his people. Although, he surely goes full fundy extreme minded over ideological diversity that comes from his moralizing which he justifies the use of vitriolic intent towards others. I kind of like him though, I enjoyed his stuff, his lectures, before he blew up in attention from the other issues. I avoid his stuff now.

Wait... is that a 'no thank you' or 'no, thank you'.... the comma changes the whole meaning.... haha

Um...'meatego'? Or 'selfflesh'?

@cetus56 gave a very good simple explanation. Others gave more complicated ones to varying degrees. @Flow With Life gave the Buddhist tradition explanation which is very interesting even if it's old so sounds a bit archaic. It seems all the explanations have added to the confusion of it so I hesitate to still add even more but I will try maybe a different tact. Obviously it's difficult to describe the abstract although I think it can be understood in a simple way like cetus attempted. Think of awareness as gold in it's natural form, unrefined and as if we have found it as nuggets coming out of the ground in the natural state of it. Perception is a piece of jewelry made from that gold, the primary contributor of material to the jewelry is the gold but to be a piece of jewelry there is a process of refinement and crafting that includes other elements of jewels and skill to craft which brings it to be the piece of jewelry, to be perception. It's made primarily of the raw material of gold/awareness but it is not the raw state of material, it's been crafted to be perception through experience. It's not a perfect metaphor and I won't try to extrapolate it into a more complicated comparison but I think it's enough that it communicated the relationship between these two abstract ideas. They may not be the exact same thing conceptually but perception is 'made' from awareness. Maybe this helps clarify it some, if not, my apologies to @Ingit if I added to the confusion.