SOUL

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.

You didn't answer the questions I asked, you just regurgitated the personal definition again. In case you don't want to go back to find it I reposted it for you. ...and my ears aren't that big!!!

@Keryo Koffa Even 'ego' gets the binary overlay, as so many in the spiritual/mystical community think of it as a negative or bad. They try to fight it or ignore it or dissolve it or so many other tactics to counter it. It seems they actually empower it to be a more significant obstacle than it really needs to be if they just weren't giving it as much attention as they do. Ego just wants the attention, even if it's 'negative' attention...ironically, and people will give it that attention.

@Princess Arabia To respond to your topic, emotions are just stimuli in our mind to instigate behavior. It's just that people also overlay a binary concept of good/bad over the top of them that may not really exist. Although, it isn't necessarily a clear cut binary people employ, there's often alot of gray or mixed areas where the same emotions have both positive and negative conceptions about it or are inverted depending on circumstances. Even many of the 'nonduality' crowd uses a binary to describe their experience, though it seems like a contradiction. This isn't to criticize them but it just shows how ingrained in the psyche it is to frame experience and stimuli in this way. I can admit as I cultivate well being and there are expression dynamics from that I recognize it's also a nod towards this same type of framing, though it is less moralistic than the good/bad or right/wrong implications can be.

Sure there are 'books' to cure happiness...it's called social media.

@Breakingthewall That's quite a belief system you have created there. So, let's see if I understand. When we are talking about animals, then the accepted definition of suffer applies yet when we are talking about humans, which also are animals but don't let that distract you, the accepted definition doesn't apply. So animals don't also have memory of something, thus don't have psychological reactions to something that may not be actually happening? It isn't that they are not fully aware of this dynamic happening, it's that it doesn't happen at all?

@Breakingthewall Maybe you all can just link your personal dictionary in your signature so others know what you mean with the words you use, since you have personal definitions for them. You know, it seems the commonly accepted definitions aren't suitable for you. Let me ask...do animals suffer? Or is it only psychological for them, too?

Interesting, another person that has their own personal definition of a word and wants to instruct me according to their own personal definition.

@Keryo Koffa Mistaken interpretation of my comment but thank you for including me in your forum meme art.

Did I say that? Or is that just what you heard? Contemplate that. It's not the contrasting, which can often be a source of self suffering, it's the mindset of 'my belief=true, other's belief=false', which also can often be a source of self suffering, that I'm taking note of. I could expound upon the dynamics at play in that but instead I'll just let you think it through and figure it out for yourself. You seem like a smart person, I believe in you.

So you believe your ideas are true, are real and others that aren't like yours are 'pseudo', meaning they are fake? Hm...ok.

Well, if you want to have your own definitions for words and build a belief system around those personal definitions you are welcome to do so but don't expect anyone else to understand what you are talking about and be aware that when you are 'correcting' them according to your personal definitions there can be the possibility for misunderstanding. Good luck with that. Peace.

There is at least one other alternative... observing. No ignorance, no pursuit, no stress, just simple awareness.

Suffering is not pain? Dictionary disagrees with your definition. So you say suffering is the mind imagining something that isn't actually happening? Well, that's what I call self suffering because according to the dictionary suffering is the actual pain. Self suffering is the mind causing psychological pain and distress, it's in the mind. This is the reason I make this distinction and I find many get confused when it is said liberation is the cessation of suffering rather than the cessation of self suffering. Of course, we could also say that the body is part of the 'self' so it isn't completely accurate to make the distinction this way but it seems to bring more clarity than without it. I guess it could be called 'ego suffering' though it feels a bit awkward of a phrase, it might make more sense.

@Ishanga I see you mention suffering or more specifically the cessation of suffering as your focus not seeking truth and I appreciate this. Although, allow my to expand on this for a moment in a way that I hope will help. I focus on liberation which is the cessation of 'self suffering' and that modifier is a crucial one. As long as we have our bodies we will suffer, if we stub our toe it hurts, when we get hungry there is a pang in our gut, we can get a headache or sunburn, all these are physical suffering that don't go away just because we may have liberation from 'self suffering'. Self suffering is the psychological angst, conflict and misery one suffers in consciousness. It can arise from physical conditions and be about them, but they aren't those 'sufferings' itself. Often our self suffering isn't a direct result of our conditions but what we imagine they are and not what they really are, what they could be but aren't yet or from the past that may have had similar conditions. As well as all the searching we do for meaning, purpose, understanding and truth can cause self suffering. In fact, this forum is a prime example of those searches can cause self suffering, those pursuits are often obstacles to liberation and seemingly the reason why well-intentioned people separate themselves from liberation. The comparing and measuring of our perceptions and experiences with others in agreement or not can be an exercise of self suffering, Our self identity has a need to affirm and confirm our 'truth' with others or find another method, technique or conceptualization to help us attain something that the self identity is actually denying us. The very entity that is creating the separation from liberation through all sorts of ideas and activity is seeking more ideas and activities to solve it. There are always the endless supply of ideas and activities that are the distraction the ego believes are a solution to the problem it doesn't really want to solve because it doesn't serve its desire as self identity. The self identity is the truth seeker, the meaning maker, the purpose pursuer, the spiritual activity doer. It wants to 'get' the fruits of the spiritual path, it gets the reward of the work, it possesses the states of consciousness, it is the 'god'. It will even self identify as 'no-self' as long as it's desire for attention and justification is fed....but never satisfied. Except that liberation isn't an activity, it's not an idea, not meaning, not purpose, it's not even truth. it is just being it, being liberated is a cessation from self suffering and everything that would create self uffering in our awareness of the moment. Being in liberation is abiding in presence. So my reccomendation is not let all the things self identity uses in justifing itself to distract from being present in liberation. All the churning it does to imagine what it requires for 'freedom' is the root of self suffering and the chains that prevent liberation. It is just being it and that presence will fulfill everything we do, say, think, feel and believe no matter what it is.

If nature produced a virus that infected us and it doesn't kill us but it's byproduct was DMT the world would get infected with god consciousness so the 'world's consciousness' would be raised. Then the civilization would fall into chaos because few would be able to function with them alive perpetually like that. We'd turn back into monkeys running the savannas and living in caves. Back to monk

Yea but it's a free range cult... so everyone is god that doesn't exist.

Pulling it out...