That’s how anxiety works. The reasons you have seem valid.
You’re just making things up. How did you draw this conclusion?
First, he tells you that what he wants you to overcome is normal human stuff, then he says you can let go of it. Where did you find this one? Another con man.
I dunno.
IT’s stack exchange, I’m not really sure who is right or not on there.
At this point I just think I’ve been broken. It’s hard to like or enjoy anything because according to posts on there:
If it is temporary, doesn’t last, or can be lost then it’s not you. So that’s making things hard for me with identity, or describing what I want, or even when it comes to other people what I like about them.
Couple that with stuff like “you’re not the same person who went to sleep last night because you’re always changing” and I’m very rocky right now with regards to the self, especially with thinking about stuff like amnesia and how this is memory.
If I wasn’t born the way I am now can I really say it’s me? They seem to think it’s not true.
Me…I’m not really sure what to think anymore, but I feel like something might have been lost or broken and I’m not sure what to do. Or even how to relate to other people.
Add to that how “things don’t make us feel, it’s in our heads” like that comment by the Dalai Llama about how “if you think other people are bothering you it’s just your own mind” makes it sound like it’s my fault and not what they’re doing. Or if I like or enjoy something it doesn’t make me feel that way, because the emotions comes from me. That you’re in control and not being controlled.
I just…don’t know anymore…I really don’t and I don’t think it can be fixed.
How do you figure that?
Your body is temporary, constantly changing then you die.
That’s a simple physical fact of life, all life.
Westerners often use two words: ontology and phenomenology (whatever these words are supposed to mean).
From an ontological point of view:
- not-self is true because nothing in this world can be controlled, owned &/or held onto, permanently, forever. SN 22.59; AN 3.136.
- not-self is true because ‘self’ is merely a varied conditioned thought that changes & responds to changing experiences; and, importantly, can also cease in the mind. SN 12.20
However, this ontological perspective is not the ultimate purpose of the Buddha’s teachings.
From a phenomenological point of view, the thought of self creates suffering.
The thing is your self is produced by your body interacting with the world, and until you accept that fundamental starting point, you’re spinning in circles.
Yes you are the same person who went to sleep, try using someone else’s passport and identity card to get on a plane - if you disagree.
So definitions are critical, what do you mean by the same person.
Do you know that you cannot step into the same river twice!
Does that make it not a river?
You were born with a brain that’s like a sponge, and a body that needs to be taught and guided and that is formed by environment, nature via nurture (a great little book, you might find it enlightening in a real world kind of way.
You are the cumulative total of all your previous experiences, and people get broken all the time, consider the rape victim, and either they figure out with luck, help, insights, how to heal and move forward, but the hideous life changing experience, doesn’t make her not her (or him as the case may be)
We each need to find our own way.
Sometime we simply need to let things rest and settle, allow time to do a little sorting.
You are talking “irreducible complexity”, but that is a creationist perspective.
Nothing is created complete and everything is subject to change from chaos to order and back to chaos. That’s entropy and part of the timeless dynamics of the universe.
But perhaps this may be of interest.
According to the DSM-5, a personality disorder “is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment” (American Psychiatric Association, [2013]
Well when they use words like ontological I don’t really have a response. Or maybe I do but don’t have the confidence to stick with it.
Though given what they say in that quote I don’t think no-self is true, that’s just based on their definition of self.
Yeah I know that but apparently the goal in Buddhism is to cleanse all that:
“You will not understand what I am saying unless you practice Satipatthana to gain vipassana insight. Doing so dissolves our defilments gradually until they are permanently destroyed. It’s because you watch your own experiencial arisings and that causes you to realize that “I get a serene peaceful feeling every time X thoughts fall away from my mind” or “when this emotion happens , this bodily sensation arises” but it’s not conceptual.”
“Understanding is just a word trying to represent the Pali word “paññā”. It means “insight” or “wisdom” and trust me, it’s not conceptual. There are more faculties of the heart and mind than just intellect. Wisdom is not intellectual when it’s paññā vipassana wisdom.”
“There is no past or future, those are made up concepts. Are they not? There is no you in the present moment either, only conceptually there is a you in the present moment and that is a delusion. If you could cultivate the proper effort to watch your own moment by moment experience correctly, you would likely gain insight into what is beyond obvious right in front of you: That there is no you”
“Paramatta is ultimate truth. It is what it is. If you feel an itch, in that moment you feel an itch. We have to assign words to talk about it because we are 2 people but in the moment that you feel the itch as an individual, the perception of the experience has no word or idea on it. Yes, when there is no word on it then we are not confused about what is. It’s not complicated, it’s just too obvious that we look past it.”
“I never claimed that I was enlightened. I very much feel attached to a sense of self. When I communicate with words to you, I use the word “you” as a utility but “you” is inaccurate in the ultimate sense. Have you ever tried Satipatthana? It sounds like you’re speaking from words not from experience.”
Though in my view if I have to do a certain practice and interpret that a certain way then maybe it’s not such much insight as it is being led down to conclusions or just merely the result of the practice. That also doesn’t really explain what happens if you get a different result because you’re kinda expected to end up where they are.
I gave up at this point. If he thinks he was born as a 30 something adult, I don’t know how to talk with him.
And why comment on this guy he’s quoting? We don’t “make up concepts”. We conceptualize our experiences.
If it was obvious, then it wouldn’t be something we’ve been trying to figure out for thousands of years. This is the double speak of someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about so they tell you that you’re the problem.
And then throws out a word without defining it. Maybe Satipatthana is a good thing, but I doubt this guy tried it either. He just read somewhere that it’s an answer to something and now he goes around telling others, mostly to make himself feel better
No, you think it’s not true.
“YOU ARE THE SUM OF YOUR EXPERIENCES”
But if you avoid experiencing life then your sum total will always be that of questioner.
If you reject all of the many paths that lead to a maturing you, you will never be mature.
For what it’s worth:
Satipatthana is a central practice in the Buddha’s teachings, meaning “the establishment of mindfulness” or “presence of mindfulness”, or alternatively “foundations of mindfulness”, aiding the development of a wholesome state of mind.
In Theravada Buddhism, applying mindful attention to four domains, the body, feelings, the mind, and key principles or categories of the Buddha’s teaching (dhammās),[1] is thought to aid the elimination of the five hindrances and the development of the seven aspects of wakefulness.
Mindfulness being the key.
Not searching, or questings, or rationalizing, or doubting, or contrarianism, simply Mindfulness, paying attention to your moments.
Key word is practice. You do Satipatthana. You don’t go on forums and tell others they should, or aren’t doing it right, or that they need to, or if they did do it then they would understand. That’s what the quoted person is doing. Buddhism is being.
Thick Nhat Hahn told his students this once, probably a lot of times, but I saw it on video once. He said, “you are not special now that you did the training, just do the practice”
About 25 minutes in
Not like that, more like in regards to things I like and enjoy. I’ve asked this before about how could it be me if I wasn’t born that way as in characteristics. For some reason I just think that that makes it less genuine or real if it’s not inherent to me.
What’s the difference? But with that said I have my own reasons for knowing the future exists and it isn’t “made up”.
That was my thought too. If people say something is obvious it wouldn’t have to be explained but also just because it’s obvious doesn’t exactly make it true.
Maybe, I googled it and this came up:
Yeah that’s what I thought, but a lot of people there sorta challenged that notion:
"First, you have to look at the meaning of the word “exist”. In Buddhist reckoning, to “exist” means to ultimately exist, which means to be, but not depending on conditions. This would usually describe what people refer to as a soul, or in other words, a continuous being that does not change for a moment to moment or from lifetime to lifetime. Buddhism rejects that idea.
Buddhism says that nothing can be found that fits that description. So, it doesn’t mean you don’t exist, if means no thing exists that is you.
The “you” that “you” experience is a constantly changing but unique collection of causes and conditions.
If we say “my mind” or “my body” then who is the “me” we are referring to who owns this body and mind? It cannot be found.
I use the metaphor of two rivers such as the Mississippi river in the Amazon river. Compared with each other, we can say this is a unique river over here. That is a unique river over there. But within each river, there is no essence or river-ness that can be found that the components of the river belong to."
Well I do meditate every day to sorta calm down and stop being wired all the time. But a lot of this stuff doesn’t make sense.
There is a forum I use often and they said to find a teacher because all I’m doing is just mangling the teachings.
Glad you’re hearing it from others. I don’t know Buddhism very well, but I can tell (that you’re not getting it)
That’s nonsense it can be found.
Learn about biology and evolution!
Talk is talk, walk the talk.
I don’t really know much to argue against them, though the last time I tried they just stopped replying. It was like with free will when all they could just do is insist we have it without evidence along with some really bad arguments about it.
This kinda gives the idea they have about science: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=45201&sid=580ae8f1583f66a432d73b7030b0e2bc
Though from my view the self stuff is more word games and their definitions rather than saying anything about it.
Yeah I’m sorta aware of that.
The problem is when I’m alone and my brain twists this stuff to try and figure out how it’s true. I end up doubting my humanity because when I think about David Krakauer’s stuff I linked I wonder if the “subjectivity without identity” is just a collection of information that propagates itself but it’s like some observer entity like a self. Almost like some computer program. Then I got to thinking about systems theory and what it said about a less ego centric view of the world and I wondered what they meant. I then figured it means that we take us humans to be the arbiter of reality and model it based on our views with subject and object.
Though I haven’t really seen much about systems theory being able to explain reality apart from that. The argument is organisms are not static objects but more like ongoing processes since stuff is always happening.
Then I got to thinking that maybe what we regard as human is just some trick this organization of matter plays on itself and we are acting on some grand stage and drama with our created word where everything is so important but it only matters to us. So it’s like playing a game no else is in on or understands.
Like collections of matter referring to each other with names, and feelings, and emotions that seems so important and building a life to live, and everything else the drama demands. At times I can’t shake how fake it feels…
I’m often drawn back this this video to sorta explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPS5Yw_YsHA&ab_channel=urza
Or maybe I’m thinking too much. Maybe I’m reducing it too much and missing the point, I can’t really tell since I’m just by myself all the time.
You might consider starting a thread on Free Will, we’ve done it before, but that was then, this is now.
Great quote. Thanks for the link. Look in the description for this
Compare this to teachings of Yuval Noah Harrari • Bananas in heaven | Yu…
or more in his book Sapiens Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind - Wikipedia
…
Read the book. Books explain things better than random internet searching. Good books do anyway.
This may be of interest.
We argue that the dual hierarchies (physical, external elements and mental, internal elements) are potentially infinite sets—there is always more to know and more to experience . And that each individual is on its own dynamical learning (and, sometimes, unlearning) curve. Hence consciousness is relative and evolving, depending on experience and exposure, and there is no universal level of achievement.
https://direct.mit.edu/netn/article/2/1/23/5409/On-human-consciousness-A-mathematical-perspective
I can sorta get what he means by that and what Death meant by humans needing fantasy to be human. Though in my mind that’s bad and we have to live in truth and reality, which means no subjectivity. I’ve never been able to get over that one. All my life I thought “beliefs” just meant it was a fairy tale or a comforting lie and it wasn’t as strong as KNOWING. In fact even today I still don’t really get it.
The stuff about the self and Buddhism I’ve read before but I don’t know why it’s hitting harder now than back then, I had trouble but not like this.
“The Buddha also said you could start with a view of permanence - the real you is in a sense permanent, joyous, selfless and pure. While selfless is in that list just leave it for now (or you can approach it by asking yourself if your emotions ever change? If they change then you are in a sense selfless [although emotions are really a self, but you examine this on your own, over time].) One way to look at it is that there is a real pure you which is sleeping or not recognized and practice is to realize this and bring to the surface to make yourself and all beings happy (really). But most people also react negatively to the idea that they are ultimately pure because they don’t see it. But the fact that you have done at least one good thing in your life (and most people do many, many good things in their lives) proves that they can be pure.”
I don’t think emotions changing over time means “selfless”, I think that is to do with their notion of the self as some permanent and unchanging thing over time, as in everything about it is static.
I’ve never given much thought to the self per se but to me I just it’s…complicated. Right now though it’s very rocky.
I think most of this can be traced to having moved from Florida to Colorado against my will.