gettoefl

Renounce then replace. Buddha did the former well but that is why he had to come back. To replace. Replace is, I do not know what this in front of me means but I renounce my silly limited mental ideas and I let this absolute meaning be revealed.

Some food for thought is that unconditional means you can't limit it to two people.

Santa and death are non-existent in a 2-person universe. Santa and death are existent in a 1-person universe. There is only a 1-person universe. Therefore non-existence is non-existent as its name suggests. I imagine santa and death however I wish and update based on life or not however I please. I may be stupid but that is the reality of my life experience so let's live and let live

Communication is simple. You get 60 seconds to speak or 6 sentences to write. That is all my bandwidth accords you. This is a imparting style known as parliamentary procedure - look it up - which was adopted by Toastmasters. Intelligence and respect for others, is how to speak in a minute folks. Set the buzzer and then stop your six sentences.

Needs are needed. Wants are traps. Want is: this will make me happy. It won't. Distinguishing between wants and needs is the tricky part since body is complicated. Do you need sex or do you want it?

No they are opposites. Love is to give. Attach is to take.

Mediocrity is seeing mediocre everywhere. Who made you judge and jury? People are happy. You are not. Yet you judge. People are incredible. You have work to do.

Attachment is the belief in the illusion of a thing increasing my happiness. I believe this makes me happy. So, why do I believe this? Because I believe in the illusion of a body that I claim mine. This body needs to be made happy. The belief, I am this body, needs dissolving. The truth is, I operate a body for the purpose of realizing my true nature. Next question is why did I attach to a body? Let's save that enquiry until we have given up on the above. One step at a time.

Love is what reality does: propagates ever more of itself, expands and extends, eternally and ecstatically. Good loves to beget good. Us mortals have taken a break from this to labor under apparent limitation and apparent separation. You just believe in limitation and separation and this makes them seem real not that they were ever real. Yet love is still available. And is the way home. Let go of imaginary separation (which is what spirituality is supposed to teach). Only if you are ready to my friend. You may think I have having a good time thanks. Well then keep on at it. Love is patient and everything is in hand.

In the world’s frame of reference, there is no true good. I act to benefit myself, another is going to lose, and all action will be rooted in self-interest, no matter the surface justifications. From the absolute perspective, however, whatever I do is not done merely for myself but to myself. To give is to receive and to take is to suffer. There is no win–lose, only win–win or lose–lose which is the exact inversion of the world’s logic.

Find out what meaning is. I explained it in the above. Step 1 of epistemology is, I do not know what anything is.

To judge well is to know I am - not I am that.

What is what's the meaning. There isn't inherently. There is meaning assigned by you. And all that is egoic. Stop foisting meaning onto everything. Live in epistemic humility. Then what will speak loud and clear.

Everyone I see, another struggling me.

To save yourself means you save everyone. Even a Trump will seem understandable, fine and necessary. If you still are triggered by him, you have more work. Forgive yourself. One step at a time.

Depends. Has he mentioned 4 more years yet? There's the litmus test. Notice I say yet not if to signal my self-bias,

How it looked today:

Lets it rise and stay firm instead of sludge. It's healthy and tasty. I made it out of all the ingredients I have, like, and don't use.

Thanks. Here is my 12-ingredient recipe I developed and eat a quarter helping of for my mid afternoon snack each day. 1. Banana 2. 2 Eggs 3. Tsp Vanilla extract. 4. Tbs Cocoa powder 5. Tsp Instant coffee. 6. Tsp Baking powder 7. Tbs Salted peanuts 8. 4 dates 9. Tsp Almonds. 10. 1/3 cup of milk 11. 2/3 cup of oats/muesli 12. Tsp cinnamon Add and subtract as to whatever is in cupboard. Stir/crush. Throw in microwave for 3 minutes. Cool one minute. Microwave for 2 minutes. Enjoy.

This is repression. It finds a way to emerge. Pain and horniness are fine. It is wanting them otherwise that is problematic.

Walking round without pain will kill you. Your body will attempt to press through seats and push through walls with no mechanism to stop it. Careful what you wish for. There are YouTube videos of people born without pain receptors and how precarious and perilous their life is. Pain is good.

Life is limitation, suffering and death. These aren't good it seems. You can escape them. That's why you're here. Life can be good. Why did it all go bad? Bad is just as allowed and likely as good. Limitlessness includes any possibility. So you stumbled here seemingly and seemingly got stuck. Escape if you please and when you are ready. Only knowing limitation suffering death will make you ready, Else why hurry be happy as the song goes.

I don’t think the issue is whether mental suffering is real, because clearly it is. Symbolic stimuli can trigger the same physiological cascades as physical ones. The nervous system doesn’t distinguish between fire and meaning. The key difference isn’t reality, but duration and reuse. A cell or animal responds to threat, discharges energy, and then returns to baseline once the stimulus ends. The human mind by contrast adds something new: it stores meaning and reapplies it across time. That doesn’t make mental suffering unreal but it does make it persistent. So the distinction is not biological vs imaginary suffering. Rather it is situational suffering versus self-reinforcing suffering. Both are real; one completes naturally, and the other loops and loops. Your gladiator example is a perfect case in point. The immediate physiological shock is unavoidable. What magnifies and prolongs the suffering is what the symbol is taken to mean beyond the moment namely annihilation, finality, identity-ending. That layer is by no means intrinsic to the thumbs-down; it’s interpretive, and therefore correctable. This doesn’t imply the mind is an evolutionary error. Instead it introduces a new capacity: continuity of meaning. That capacity enables culture and coordination, and also enables suffering to outlive its cause. And thus easing suffering isn’t about denying biology, symbolism, or mind. It’s about loosening the insistence that a symbol must keep meaning what it always meant before. When that insistence relaxes, the same energetic system functions as before, but without turning every signal into an existential verdict. Mental suffering isn’t fake. It’s just the only form of suffering that can be allowed to finish. Anyway that's it for me and I bid you Happy New Year brother. I appreciate our occasional joustings this year.

I do concur that life involves tension and self-regulation, but I am suggesting that suffering itself is not inherent to life’s forward movement. A cell adapts, repairs, and persists, yet it doesn’t suffer in any human sense. What seems to introduce suffering is not tension alone, but memory and self-reference, namely the carrying forward of experience as meaning. Indeed when life is filtered through continuity, comparison, and identity, tension becomes something personal. The Instagram example illustrates this well: the nervous system isn’t just responding to the moment, but to what the moment is taken to say about the self. Remove that interpretive lens and the energy remains, but the suffering now collapses. So suffering doesn’t look like a necessary engine of development so much as a signal that meaning has frozen. Adaptation and growth can happen through responsiveness without any anguish; anguish arises when interpretation hardens and can no longer update. Again I agree that denying suffering as “unreal” doesn’t work. But neither does assuming it is inevitable. What seems to ease suffering is not escaping life’s tension, but releasing the insistence that tension must be explained, owned, or resolved by a separate self. When that insistence relaxes, fear, even the fear of death, softens naturally, not through any belief, but through the loosening of fixed meaning.

I think what you’re pointing to here contains deep truth, especially around not denying suffering or bypassing it. Where I’d like to gently nuance things is in how suffering is explained versus how it is experienced. It seems to me that suffering is not actually inherent to life itself, but to a life interpreted through the mental modes of continuity, preservation, and memory. A self-regulating organism clearly repairs damage and avoids destruction, but suffering is what arises when these functions are experienced as personal threat, loss, or meaning. Repair and avoidance can however occur WITHOUT anguish; anguish appears when past meanings are carried forward and reapplied. In that sense, suffering is less a driver of life and more a by-product of remembered meaning being reused. On the physical / mental distinction: I agree with you that separating them too sharply doesn’t hold. Still, what seems crucial is not frequency but how meaning gets assigned. A sensation becomes suffering simply when it is interpreted as proof of danger, failure, or impermanence. The same sensation, without that interpretive overlay, might be intense without any being psychologically binding. So suffering isn’t in fact the energy itself but rather it’s the conclusion drawn from it. Regarding ego-mind: I fully agree that it’s not helpful to simply dismiss it as “not real.” It clearly functions. But function doesn’t mean final truth. An interface can be useful without being authoritative. The difficulty comes when the interface is taken as a reporter of reality rather than a translator with limits. When that happens, continuity, identity, and survival narratives harden, in which case suffering follows naturally. I also fully resonate with what you say about misalignment. Where I might phrase it differently is this: suffering doesn’t indicate a broken structure so much as a fixed one. It’s not that something is wrong, but that meaning has stopped being fluid. When interpretation is allowed to loosen, even briefly, suffering often reduces without denial, suppression, or transcendence. As for “opening to the absolute”: I will just add that this opening doesn’t always arrive as a dramatic recognition of totality. Often it shows up more quietly, as the absence of insistence, the release of certainty, or the willingness to not reuse old conclusions. Fear of death tends to soften not because one knows something new, but because the need to conclude anything at all relaxes. So perhaps suffering isn’t best understood as a necessary engine of life, nor as an illusion to be dismissed, but as a signal that meaning has become frozen. When meaning is allowed to renew itself in the present, suffering naturally diminishes, not because reality is denied, but because it is no longer filtered exclusively through memory. That reframing, at least for me, preserves the seriousness of suffering while also pointing to a way it can genuinely ease without bypassing, denial, or metaphysical claims that need defending.