Princess Arabia

It takes a different kind of thinking to really see what I'm saying here. If one takes every emotion that comes and sees it as what's simply arising then no emotion will make them suffer. Doing a job regardless of what emotion arises, going about life not chasing one over the other then none can make you suffer. (Not referring to physical pain). It's the pursuit for a feel better state that causes the suffering because one doesn't suffer when happiness arises only when it's absent. So therefore, suffering is not the enemy in this case, happiness is. One doesn't like something because it doesn't make them FEEL good. In that quest to feel good that becomes the enemy. No quest for a particular feeling and all is well. The quest is to feel happy; so happiness is now the enemy.

Exactly. Do you know why? They chased happiness down and they found it. The success was because of the chase for happiness and because it's not sustainable now it's worse for them because they don't see any hope to cure their dis-ease. If happiness, the enemy, didn't do it, then all hope is lost.

The point of this post is not to say happiness doesn't feel good or that it doesn't serve a purpose for the seeker of it and so on. It's to point out that because it's not permanent, and will eventually pass like every other emotion or state, the person doesn't realize that by chasing it, you have made it the enemy. How? Without it, you suffer.

This is really the point of the post. Because this may be the case and pleasant moods aren't constant and are changing, the pleasant mood becomes the enemy when it's not present. If one works better in a pleasant mood then the lack of it puts them in an unpleasant mood which makes that pleasant mood not something that is working for them because it's not permanent. There's a subtle point to this message that you're missing. Money is the enemy for broke people who or are sad because they don't have it. If being broke makes one happy, then being rich would be the enemy. Therefore being in a pleasant mood is the enemy not being in a bad mood because being in a bad mood isn't being saught after. Both bad and unpleasant moods are inevitable. The one being saught after is the one causing the problem.

The reason is because they're not happy. Like the post says, you're suffering because you're not feeling happy. You're looking at it from one side. What is suffering really. Suffering can empower you and happiness can also disempower you. Suffering can also be a strong motivator for some. The point of the post, though shows how one suffers because they're not feeling happy and aren't comfortable with that feeling of lack of happiness. They're suffering happiness. One doesn't suffer because one is suffering. One suffers because happiness isn't present. There's a subtle difference and takes an understanding of what is really being said here

This is not a suggestion to stop chasing happiness but an exposure that when one chases happiness, they're also chasing pain because both are the same thing when collapsed and they will eventually collapse because that's the nature of both as one cannot exist without the other. There is no tutorial on how to deal with either as neither relies on a subject to appear. Same for anger. These emotions arises regardless of subject. They don't need an owner. The one that claims them is the one that suffers them, including happiness.

Suffering is not a blessing spiritually speaking no more than how happiness can be a curse spiritually speaking. You want to be happy? Go ahead search down happiness but when you find it prepare for when it goes away and suffering returns. That's when happiness really hits. The lack of it, that is. You're not running from suffering, you want happiness back. Stop chasing happiness and you'll never suffer.

Everybody thinks they're different. If someone says they're the same as everybody else, then that's different.

ok, I get it, thanks. God is a nut.

lol. Ok

Contradiction.

Nothing exists. Exists means to stand out nothing stands out. Nothing is everything and everything is nothing. Everything is an appearance. Just as the rainbow appears in the sky but it's actually not there. It's reflective of something else and that something else is caused by something else, and that something else is caused by something else, keep going until there is nothing. All those causations are actually not happening as it's nothing appearing as causations. This nothing is what we refer to as God/Absolute/and you, Allah. Allah is nothing that's why it appears as something. But of course, you won't understand this because it's not what your idol worshippers teach.

Exactly, so it is all delusions, clinging to thoughts, the past, future, the one doing whatever you say they're doing wrong, stillness, no stillness, all concepts, all ideas, stories, whatever it's all the Absolute appearing as...aka. the waves and the waves in the ocean has no reality of their own. Try grabbing a wave...can't. The wave isn't really there and neither are the appearances of which you speak of. There is only the Absolute. Everything else are simply appearances which makes them apparent and what that means it nothing is really happening..,,.only apparently so.

I thought you said there is no you, so who are you telling to be still.

With clinging there still is no "you". This is freedom, my love. It can appear as clinging to thought. Makes no difference. There is no waking up from the dream. The illusory person, the energy that thinks it's separate, that sense of self that's contracted and senses separation, that is the dream. There is no one dreaming. The end of the dream is the end of the person and no one's left to wake up. It is recognized by no one that the dream never happened.

I see this a lot. Who's conscious or not conscious of something. I'd like to explore this topic. We say direct experience is king and we also say what we're conscious of is the case; what is real, what's true, but is it? If we're conscious that solipsism is the case, then it must be the case. If we're conscious of the fact that we're God, then it must be so. (this is not a discussion on whether we're God or not, so please don't take it there, I use that as an example). We're sensing our lives away; meaning, we're using the senses to navigate our way through life and how we experience things, people, places and circumstances. A dog can sense things a human can't and also a cat and many other animals. A cat sees colors differently and a dog can pick up scents humans can't. Animals experience the world differently. I'm sure we can all agree on that. I'm conscious of my hand and feet. I'm conscious that I can see, hear, smell, taste and touch. I'm not conscious, however of how my heart is beating and how my inner body is operating, yet it is. Doing it all on it's own. I'm conscious of the fact that I perceive myself to be alive. When I'm dead, I will lose all consciousness. If you say, consciousness will still be alive and kicking after I'm dead, I'm not conscious of that right now so, i can't speak on that. If that's the case, then I can't use what i'm conscious of to decipher what's true, I can only speculate on things of that nature. Am I conscious of things, or am I conscious of my perception of what appears. If I do some drug and become conscious of whatever that may be, am I really conscious of what's true or how that drug altered my perception. People experience and perceive things differently. How is what I'm conscious of supposed to determine what's the case for everyone including dogs and cats when the senses are used to perceive things differently depending on what species i am and what state I'm in. So, the question is, is what I'm conscious of, the truth or is it just what I'm perceiving with the senses which can be altered depending on which state I'm in and is also different for other species so, therefore, cannot be true for everyone and everything but only to me.

🍌 🍓 facelift anyone.

You'😛re funny

I don't even know how to continue this thread anymore. Seems like most are saying that Consciousness is the same as what I'm conscious of. That the word Consciousness is not fundamental and means that i'm conscious of, say my experience and what arises in my awareness. I wasn't really discussing Consciousness as being fundamental. I was referring to what I'm conscious of as a person and when one says I can do the work to be conscious of...say solipsism or God or whatever claim there is that I can become conscious of. As far as I'm concerned that's not Consciousness itself being fundamental. If we say I can become conscious of something, how can that be the same thing as "big C" Consciousness as a fundamental thing and what is referred to as all there is. The post is about what I'm conscious of and most of the comments speak of Consciousness as that; and imo, both cannot be the same thing because what I'm conscious of is not all there is because that's a split called duality and there's no I to be conscious of anything without it being a dream. Is Consciousness called that because it implies I'm conscious of....or that Consciousness is all there is whether I'm conscious of consciousness or not.

Jesus, you make women seem like deer. Go hunt females? Get the rifles out please. Sharp shooters only please.😏

Ok

You've assumed I watch a lot of Neville Goddard. Sure, I've heard of him and seen a view videos back in the day and I'm aware of his story, but I don't watch Neville Goddard anymore. Plus, I don't consider him a non-dualist. Also, one cannot apply non-dualism, so whatever appears is what appears with no one's doing. A question asked is a question asked and a statement is, just that, a statement with no one behind it.

Nice explanation.

No need to make it any clearer. I'll re-read your post. No biggie. It's all done.

I don't have to ask myself anything. It's just words on a screen. Why do I have to ask who is James. Only a deluded person would ask who is a word on a screen.