The Princess Diaries

[Princess Arabia]

Regarding suffering, I don't look at the contents of suffering I don't see it as a necessary part of survival. I look at it from the pov as to why are there so many that suffer. What is suffering. Looking to reduce "my suffering" doesn't cut it for me. I don't care to reduce my suffering. It's not my suffering to begin with. I look at what induces feelings of suffering. It's not a why as in why the heck so many are suffering and I need an answer for that particular question but where did it come from. 

I look at happiness also, sadness, hopelessness, hope, joy, all these to try and understand what suffering is and why so many humans suffer. I think every human has felt every emotion there is. No emotion is off limits. Why would suffering be any different. Why does it feel so painful, VS feeling happy. Why does even sadness feel different from suffering or why is sadness different from depression and why depression varies and has stages and severities. 

Most are only concerned with their own suffering. I'm looking to reduce my suffering, we say. We rarely refer to happiness as my happiness. We just say I'm happy or I'm sad. Suffering, though, loves to be owned. My suffering VS I'm suffering. The former is more used. We don't say, my jealousy, my envy, we say I'm jealous and I'm envious. Why is the ownership of suffering so deep. Anger is another emotion that loves to be owned. My anger is used a lot. I'm angry is usually just in passing and used when telling a story about the anger. I was angry when and it caused me to say or do so and so. When it's a deep issue and regarded as a serious problem, then it's referred to as my anger. 

Seems like the my in my suffering makes the suffering seem more personal and deep. More intense and painful. More of an issue than just I was suffering and now I'm over it. Seems to come with it ownership that needs to be displaced and let go of. My happiness isn't used as much because it's not problematic so it's not owned as much because the attachment isn't there like it is to how suffering feels. 

These are the kinds of things I look at not how can I reduce my suffering. That's selfish and egotistical. Who cares how to reduce my suffering. I wanna know why is it there to begin with. After all I'm the knowing energy and I wanna know. Knowing is fuel for my being. No fuel and I'm dead. An unwanted guest in the house, why is she there in the first place. Who invited her, not just simply get rid of her. How did she get there. Was it after an invitation and then her actions made her unwanted, or was she unwanted to begin with. Was the suffering invited and now I'm trying to get rid of it. Idk. I'm trying to find out. Is it really unwanted or am I just pretending to not want it there. Is it fueling me and I then self-sabotage to induce more suffering on an unconscious level. Idk. Can I just say go away suffering, you're not welcome anymore and it just goes away.

Can I tell the difference between suffering and feeling bad. Is it thought induced. Circumstances induced. One thing I've recognized is when I feel the feelings of suffering, it's usually a thought that goes with it and not what is happening. I'm usually just sitting, walking, standing or doing something else other than what I'm suffering about, and when I catch it and the thought goes away (consciously), the mood changes then and I feel differently in that moment. It comes back again and I say, what am I doing now, sitting, why worry about that and the state changes again to a more positive state. 

I'm not suggesting it's thought induced; i'm only saying what I've noticed within myself. Don't think I don't have things I can suffer for, most of them I just don't think about. I noticed in the past every worry, just about resolved on it's own or was looked at differently and stopped being a worry all on it's own. Idk. I'm still in the process of experimenting with this so I'm not sure, on a practical level how it comes into play. I can sit here and say it's not owned all I want, which is the case, but the feeling is still felt. I'll leave this be for now.

Edited Sunday at 04:19 AM by Princess Arabia

[Princess Arabia]

What's interesting to me is how people are so quick to call God/energy a "he", even though I'm aware for some it's just a figure of speech but some actually think God is a male/man, and refuse to see themselves as an it or energy or that there's no actual person inside. Some will go as far as to say they were made in the image of God and say they're a person/human while God is a whatever they see God as except as a person. 

I'm a human/person and I'm made in the image of God. What image is that, I wonder. They'll use the word "he" in sentences when talking about God (i do too, that's not the point), but when it comes to themselves they can't see themselves beyond human or a person. God is not a person and neither are you. There are no real persons. There are personalities and that's being referred to as a persona or a person. I'm not denying anything, how can I be denying personhood when all I know about being a person is that I was born into this and was told by someone that I'm a person. These are just labels anyway and really doesn't matter and yes I do live my life as a person/human with likes, dislikes, traits, characteristics etc. I don't need to write about being human, but I can surely write about not really being human, makes for a more interesting topic. 

Ask most what does it mean to be human they won't even be able to tell you or just name off a bunch of humanistic traits. No clue, but they'll fight you over that label and insist that's what they are and say they live in a relative world when relativity is an illusion. So therefore what they're saying is they live in an illusion but they are real. Relativity is the Absolute being relative and doesn't have a reality on its own, so yes it is illusory. This is not a denial of relativity, it is acknowledging it's illusory nature

. People insist on dragging you down with them in the pot of boiling water because they are delusional and cannot see pass their delusional nature. I'm delusional too but I won't insist on being something that someone told me that I was. Where else did you learn about humans being humans from, other humans. They'll ask for proof of everything under the sun but believe humans must telling them they're humans. They'll say how DNA, genetics, having a body and so and so proves this or that but when you ask them who is having a body, they can't answer you. They'll parrot some spiritual saying about I'm not the body but then can't say what they are other than being human. I'm not saying I know this or that about being a person or not a person or human or not human but I'll never run anyone down about it either way because I don't fucking know what I am and I can't know what I am because knowing is separation and there's none. 

 

[Princess Arabia]

You see, all these arguments and going around and around on solipsism, hallucinations, imaginary and all this stuff would be solved by the realization that there's no one in these bodies. Would tie in nicely and we'll all go sipping margaritas on the beach while singing kumbaya.

Imaginary because there's no one, hallucinating because there's no one and solipsism because there's not two. No one in these bodies so you're imagining other to be real because you think you're a real person. Hallucinating because you're not a person but the dream itself. I mean all Leo is trying to say fits in perfectly that there's no one in these bodies but when I say it, it's like why bother there's no benefit. Hehe. I love it. This energy rocks. Lots of drama and it never gets stale. After all, nothing else to do right but keep chasing the donkey's tail. I like donkey, dogs are smarter than donkeys.

[Princess Arabia]

I just pretty much learnt/heard of Indras Net. I heard the term twice in a couple days and decided to look it up. I think, maybe once, I've heard the term a few years back because the term doesn't seem 100% new and sounds like some term i've heard before but I never researched or explored it. I was trying to explain something on the forum yesterday about the moon's reflection and they mentioned something about indras net. They probably assumed I 'm familiar with the term but i'm not. Infact, it's between that interaction and Olber's comment about it today on the solipsism thread, that prompted me to check it out. 

I'm writing about this because my previous post, the one exactly prior to this which I made yesterday about my sister and Paris and me being in my bubble and everyone in their bubble and so on sounds a bit similar to the indras net concept. The difference I believe is that I think each person isn't connected to the other and is their own individual net but only as a reflection. 

Anyway, this post isn't to try and figure anything out but to say how I'll be coming up with things all on my own all the time just to see it explained somewhere else or is a thing in some well-known philosophy - true or not, is the case or not. I see it happen all the time. Now I'm starting to wonder if I'm spiritually gifted or that I'm truly alone doing this all by myself. I know the terms "all alone" and "by myself" sounds solipstic(sic) sic means not sure of the spelling, but I don't really mean it like that; infact, i'm not sure what I really mean. 

I was like a virgin to spirituality when I found Leo's channel. I never knew about any of this stuff prior which has been about 5-6/7 years now. I know it was before covid but not too long before maybe 1-2yrs before. I was listening to and watching law of attraction videos and stuff like that for like a year before that but that was it. Then yt recommended Leo's channel and I never looked back. Sure I've watched tons of other videos since, had my share of questions and confusions and all that, but ilve never subscribed to any particular ideologies or philosophies knowingly; meaning knowing this wzs so and so like say Buddhism and then I ascribed to it. No, I'd find out later that what I've said was a Buddhist tradition or belief or advaita or something like that. If it weren't for people telling me how what I'm saying is advaita or other mentioning the name, I would have never known about that tradition or whater it is philosophy. I would probably watch a video and see advaita in the description but it's not because I searched out advaita and deliberately watched because of that, I may just be resonating with something said and liked to watch the video for it's own sake.

I get accused of advaita stuff all the time but I'll just be saying stuff on behalf of my own accord and what I 'believe' to be the case; I put belief in quotes but it's beyond belief but for the sake of writing I'll just say believe. Sure, I was introduced to non-duality and I got a bit fixated on that because it answered just about every unanswered question I had in the past but I'm not even all over the place as much with that and stick to just two or three speakers. I never watch Tony Parsons but have been accused of mimmicking him in the past. Advaita is not the same as non-duality and they are teachers, I'm not into teachers of non-duality only speakers. People who aren't giving you a call to action. Do this or that. It wasn't until I was being accused of advaita stuff that I really even realize there was a thing called advaita (about 2yrs ago), so I'm not it's brand new to me now but I don't know much about any of these common philosophies and what they teach prese and what belongs to which and why. All I know is that from all the things i've heard, seen, experienced, intuited, thought about feel, idk, whatever, and from listening to what sone speakers have to say (yes, there are influences, but they tie in with my own) I just speak from my own gut influence and that's how I'm able to speak with my own words, give my own analogies and can speak so indepth on the topics I speak on. Not saying I know them to be true or that everything I say is the case, no, what the heck do I know, but I'm saying most of it isn't just from someone else's saying, it is coming from what I say and sometimes feel to be the case, then I'll get accused of following some philosophy. I'm rambling on, I'll break this thought up. 

 

[Princess Arabia]

I know I speak of "no one" a lot and how there's no one in these bodies and how life is doing life, etc. It's not that I get a kick out of this or I'm just parroting non-dual speakers or whatever else it might seem like, but it does make for a better understanding of things in general. I mean, the amount of 'clarity' and understandings I've gained from this notion alone is incredible. So many unanswered questions answered to the point where things are starting to fall into place from this realization. 

I don't try to apply this and I don't use it as an excuse to or not to, (even though no one would be doing that even if it was the case) and I don't need to keep saying no one is doing that or even constantly refer back to that once it's fully 'established' (hard to find the right words to use in these kinds of statements, but i won't get hung up on words here). 

I don't live my life as a no one nor do I not feel as a someone, that sense is still here; it's that something else is also here that (again, not sure of the word) intuits or maybe 'counter senses' the sense of self. Not sure that's even a thing, but it's irrelevant if it's a thing or not. Ut's kind of a weird sense but it's there and I can't really explain it. It's not an intellectual sense, not even a felt sense, not sure how to categorize it, but anyway that's not the point of this post. I don't really want to go too much in depth about that because it's all stories anyway will be too intellectualized and loses it's freshness and rawness and seem like I'm explaining away something that can't really be explained. I don't mind a little here and there, but even now I can feel a sense of forgetting what this post was really about and I can feel the self sense hitting hard. I lost the flow. That's what I mean. It goes in and out, in and out. Of course, it's not really there but the sense is and that's what's driving the show. The sense is there as much as a sense of smell is but just as one can lose their sense of smell, it's nit that they've lost anything, it's that the sense was never really there to begin with; smelling was happening to no one and now that part of the sense of someone smelling no longer is. That's what happens in dementia, sense of self isn't there. I'll start another post on what I really wanted to write about here before this one gets too long. Don't care the length, but I'm losing momentum.

 

 

[Princess Arabia]

I just watched a very interesting video on the forum posted by Integration Journey with Rupert Spira speaking on conscious relationships. Really nice video. When it comes to what I'm about to say here, I'd rather speak on it here rather than taint someone's thread with non-dual talk (hate the term non-dual but I use it for clarity and expression), especially if the thread isn't about that.

When it comes to relationships with other, sexual/intimate relationships, we seek them out and yearn for them as a sign of unity and wanting to feel the oneness that we are. Afterall, love is the absence of separation so if we feel separate, it's only natural that that energy would want to engage in activities that would make it feel whole again. Doesn't work because it's not really separate but it's a nice try and well worth it if the relationship turns out to be a flourishing one and one of love, understanding and compassion. Nothing can truly take the place of what is already which is no separation.

What he's really explaining in that video, is because there's no one really in these bodies, the sense of self (ego) is more likely to taint that relationship and turn it into a needy one, one of 'seeking for' and now nature cannot really do it's thing without the seeming interruption of the natural flow of the essence of oneness. It's not really but only seems to and only in appearance. When that sense is present, it can get very neurotic and seems to be imbalanced and ungrounded and will project that unto everything including the relationship. He's (Rupert) not going to say there's no one really there and that relationship is just happening, who says that (but me, hehe) but that's really the case. The sense of self is the one that seeks for this unity; and if it's into spirituality, then it's more likely to want to seek out a more conscious one, one that's more likely to be compatible with that energy flow so to has a better experience which is all that sense seeks for - a better experience.

The reason why our natural essence is peace and tranquility and all that jazz is because there's no one in these bodies already. It's not that the person's natural essence is peace, etc, it's that the sense of a self is not peaceful, at a dis-ease, neurotic, never satisfied and all that jazz. When that's not present, which it's not already but felt as if it is, it's just what's happening but to no one. How can that not be peaceful and bliss. Saying to someone who seeks bliss and harmony that there's no one really there, they'll look at you crazy, but will continue to do practices and processes to attain that state. That's the dream. We hear all the time how our natural state is peace but never really understanding that it's because there's no one there. That's what that really means, the absence of the neurotic and dis-eased self. Even when there's anger and rage and sadness and all those what we call negative things are happening, because there's no one processing that and claiming ownership of nothing and doesn't see other but just what's appearing and doesn't see objects, it doesn't affect the energy as in someone where that sense is present, that's the natural peace that's being spoken about. It's not that those other things won't arise because they will, it's that no one senses them to be personal. 

This is why the sense of self feels the need to do processes and practice itself away in these contexts because it doesn't feel natural and is trying to feel a sense of naturality. It's a life-long practice because the effects doesn't last forever. Thousands of hours and decade long practices, when stopped will go right back to homeostasis and that's what 'never getting anywhere means'. It's already not happening so how can it change anything for real. This is the freedom I speak about but for no one and it's already done. Not suggesting one stops anything but it's just energy's attempts at unity for something that's already not broken. Nothing wrong either way, again, but only in appearance and to the one observing. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 22 hours ago by Princess Arabia