suffering advocates the roles of isolation, at affect status,
a premise of revenge and overwhelm of blame,
as prominent to play.
the healer of the self does not need suffering as conundrum
for those roles provided to participate in
but can use each of them as a working premise
to demystify the source of that contentiousness of self
and then address the deeper conscious premise
behind each of them as needed,
to be the healer going forward
and the life of expressing just that.
note the difference between overt experience
and inner eminent experience.
overt experience features cognition and nominality.
inner eminent experience is more of mood and feel
and has an ambient language to it.
the cultural indoctrination is
so overwhelmingly exterior experience.
we created all of this activity and entertainment
and involvement to feature exterior experience.
and yet what everybody is chasing as love
is internal eminent energetic inner experience.
these two approaches are tremendously diverse
but overlap to some degree yet no one seems to see
that there are distinct and different rules
for how those two work.
pain is real but suffering is self induced self-consciousness.
the two are essentially radically different.
pain is nerve information,
suffering is experientially contextual.
pain is what you are feeling
while suffering is how are you feeling….
in the style of self consciousness,
the abuse of exterior experience dominates
the account of what is going on.
but exterior experience is really ongoing, after the fact.
in other words, one has to keep checking in
to keep feeling the interpretation of suffering.
then one makes a language base story about the suffering.
in internal experience, you may have a landscape
in which the pain is going on
but you have a wider, deeper frame in which
the suffering is the interpretation, happening to the self.
in external experience, you are the suffering.
so the way that that paradigm is set up to function ongoing,
is not in balance.