SOUL

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?

I'm no expert on Buddhism but from what I gather about the current view of those teachings is the English translation of the word used originally isn't an optimal one. It seems it's a complex word that is closer in meaning to conditional and impermanence. So I guess there is some more variable spiritual definitions at work and it doesn't appear to bringing clarity to anything if we are to be quite honest. Let's see if I can bring it back to the topic. The desire for emotions, also could be called the emotional conditions of our inner life, to be a certain way in line to what the ego would overlay onto it as 'good/bad'. When those desires aren't satisfied it causes suffering...where does it cause it? In the psyche, not the toe or the hand but the psyche, it's the self, psychological or the ego that is suffering. It doesn't hurt the toe or hand, unless that misery causes one to kick or slap something hard. When we have a well being that transcends the conditional, then that won't be challenged by the impermanence of life. So things come and go including emotions but our well being is still present. It is 'presence'. Our being is not disturbed by the changing conditions of life. It also doesn't matter if we have accurate perception of reality, we could be completely wrong about everything and still have well being because...it's not dependent on being right or accurately perceiving or any of those mystical experience confirmations. it just is.

@Keryo Koffa Who gets used to what? There is nobody here to get used to something that doesn't exist. This is all in your mind!!! Seriously though... When words common definitions are sufficient to explain the point there isn't a need to change them to suit some esoteric fetish, seems like egoistic appeasement to be separate and special...with 'specialized terminology'. Just some more complicated ego overlay on something that is quite simple in nature.

According to this forum's fixation with being god that creates our own reality, it would be consistent in saying we make it up as we go along as the 'source'. Although, therein lies the issue I pointed to with my initial response in this thread. If every one of us has our own perception as god creating reality which one considers 'truth' then how do we regard other's perception? Do we call it 'false' if it isn't identical to ours? Why is someone else's shit they made up any more real or fake than our shit we made up? This appears to be an example of limiting beliefs, someone trusts their own perception so devoutly they are attached to it, it becomes egoistic structure. Hence, why it causes so much self suffering to compare and contrast in a way that overlays the binary of true/false, right/wrong or good/bad. It's all just variable spiritual definitions...so to speak.

Does your variable spiritual definitions change the phrase 'that sounds about right' to 'that doesn't sound right'? You replied as if it had. I'm certainly aware that everything changes, including the self, the ego and the paradigm that the mind has. It is the sense of self that provides a constant feel to something that is changing. It seems to me, it's only the most oblivious or stubborn that would suggest we don't change, even though the evidence of evolution and transformation is abundantly apparent. Change is the only constant. Metamorphosis is the only lock. Variable spiritual definitions...the only thing that doesn't change on this forum.

@Keryo Koffa lol @ variable spiritual definitions...aka: make shit up as I go

Paradigm lock = metamorphic psyche? So the lock is it's always changing? That sound about right.

Do I need to type it out in another way for you to answer the question? Actually, I'll repost it again because it's clear the way I did the first time. Do animals have psychological reactions of distress to things that aren't happening because of memory? Since that is one of the ways you suggest we 'suffer' with ego that isn't physical pain.

@Keryo Koffa Well, since all of our experience is filtered through our mind and the 'story teller' of the mind is the ego it can take many forms to us. Although, it is telling the story to...who? What?...to our awareness. The observer in the mind. Abide in awareness.