I cannot deny the colors I see even if it is just information in my brain. But I cannot enjoy that now knowing that color is illusory in a sense (on top of nothing being inherently awesome or beautiful).
In a sense of it isn’t universal then it isn’t “real” it’s like living a fiction, pretending that things are cool or awesome when in reality all you are doing is adding what isn’t there. They aren’t real, despite what you think or what I want to be true.
If I want to have an accurate view of the world (or as close as possible) then dropping such judgments about it would be a start. So in reality there is no wonder or awe, or beauty, it just IS and little else.
Its similar to the article I linked to earlier about how humans are just a collection of smaller parts but not a solid “whole”. It hurts but I guess that’s how it is.
We can only perceive what we are built to perceive, unless we have adaptive devices that expands our perceptive abilities. But let’s say we could perceive absolutely everything. What would that be like? I think, not very satisfying.
Or maybe if you could perceive just a wee bit more than you do now, about the nature of reality it would change how you feel about it all. And then when you learned a bit more, you became pained again.
Wherever you go there you are. Make the best of it. Don’t be miserable all the time. We are also built to experience emotions. Accept what you are and make the best of it.
They aren’t real, despite what you think or what I want to be true. --Xian
It’s been an interesting exercise in logic to have these conversations with you. I’m sorry that for you it’s so personal. In a way, you are right, the common use of the word “real” does not actually reflect reality as physics describes it. But more importantly you are very wrong in that reality as physics describes it is not intended to describe your experience. This is also why using Buddhism to conclude that you aren’t living in the real world is also wrong. And I know that people who claim to be Buddhist masters say that, they’re wrong too.
Buddhists figured out that our perception of the world is not quite right, and that we use that perception to create our own suffering. That’s pretty insightful for 3,000 years ago, but there are limits to how much you can do with that. Even now that we can describe how there is no inherent meaning to life, and no nirvana to get to, that we create meaning and we create heavens and hells, that still doesn’t make Buddhism “true” in the sense that it describes reality better than anything else.
If anything, you’ve discovered the flaw in Buddhism. It tells you the source of your suffering is something you create and gives you some tools to help switch that off but it doesn’t acknowledge that there’s only one switch and your source of joy is on that same circuit. I think it’s implied that you will meditate to calm yourself, but you will come back in to life and experience to find joy, and unfortunately joy sometimes leads to sorrow, so then you go meditate again.
Sorry you choose to be unhappy. Your fake pleas for help wore out their welcome long ago, but I still like to put in my two cents.
When you mature enough to honestly want to lose the “woe is me” attitude and learn how to be happy, let me know.
FWIW,
I truly know how it feels to want to change my thinking & feelings and be literally unable to. I’m sure that from the outside, it looked like I was choosing to be miserable.
Over the years, many people have tried to help me, often to no avail.
However, even when they weren’t successful, I was truly grateful for the time and effort they put into trying. And I told them so.
I guess that’s what makes me different from, well, narcissists.
Buddhism has been described by some as rational and non-dogmatic, and there is evidence that this has been the case from the earliest period of its history,[5] though some have suggested this aspect is given greater emphasis in modern times and is in part a reinterpretation.[6] Not all forms of Buddhism eschew dogmatism, remain neutral on the subject of the supernatural, or are open to scientific discoveries. Buddhism is a varied tradition and aspects include fundamentalism,[7] devotional traditions,[8] and supplication to local spirits.[9]
Okay I looked at the link and here's part of it. Were you trying to make a point? There is no religious belief you can't twist towards your own ends, knowingly, or obliviously.
But I cannot enjoy that now knowing that color is illusory in a sense (on top of nothing being inherently awesome or beautiful).
Hasn't someone else already suggested you go back and reread what you write. I wonder if you ever do that.
Sorry you choose to be unhappy. Your fake pleas for help wore out their welcome long ago, but I still like to put in my two cents.
When you mature enough to honestly want to lose the “woe is me” attitude and learn how to be happy, let me know.
Its not a woe is me, when you are ready to love beyond your myopic view of reality we can talk.
The “problem” with reality is that to live according to what is true would require me to sacrifice a lot of things that give me joy and to not pretend anymore (which means no beauty, meaning, or wonder and awe).
Reality as it is seems pretty heartbreaking. Or to put it another way you can either be right or happy
Xain, you said “…Or to put it another way you can either be right or happy.”
Not really. You will never be perfectly “right” no matter how much you learn, cause there will always be more to learn. If your best guess about reality, now, is that it is crap, then make something useful out of the crap, or establish an oasis within the crap, or build something that runs on crap, or write protest songs about crap. No matter what, you will still have the capacity for all your emotions, including happiness.
Its not a woe is me, when you are ready to love beyond your myopic view of reality we can talk.
Whoa, that was out of character. Did you mean "look" instead of "love"? Either way, you have never presented anything here that shows you have some wider view of reality that none of us have. You have consistently shown a distorted sense of what you think the consequences of physics are.
The “problem” with reality is that to live according to what is true would require me to sacrifice a lot of things that give me joy and to not pretend anymore (which means no beauty, meaning, or wonder and awe).
If you want to live as if you are a molecule sure, but you just stated that as a choice, so obviously it's not what you are. You call it true based on a concept of true that was created in your mind, then you say the truth is that your mind doesn't exist so you can't have what that mind gives you. You achieved enlightenment, then retreated into the security of despair because it was too scary. Enlightenment is realizing that you are just a meat sack with a tiny bit of electricity creating your experience, and, this is the important part, that doesn't mean anything. It just is. It's the sound of one clapping.
Reality as it is seems pretty heartbreaking. Or to put it another way you can either be right or happy
Not really. You will never be perfectly “right” no matter how much you learn, cause there will always be more to learn. If your best guess about reality, now, is that it is crap, then make something useful out of the crap, or establish an oasis within the crap, or build something that runs on crap, or write protest songs about crap. No matter what, you will still have the capacity for all your emotions, including happiness.
Except I won’t because such things are the product of your mind. When you don’t show like or dislike to the things you enjoy or hate then you see how fabricated your experience is. The objects don’t bring out those emotions, it comes from you and what you believe those things to be.
Hence what I said that you can either be happy or right. You are wrong about enlightenment Lausten because the point is that it does make a difference because you can’t go back to living the illusions. The masters you cite say the same thing, you can’t go back to seeing the world the way you used to. Like if you understand “no self” then you can’t go back to pretending there is “somebody”. Also your YouTube video isn’t really relevant.
Lastly you are wrong about the sound of one hand clapping.
Xain said: “Except I won’t (have the capacity for happiness) because such things are the product of your mind. When you don’t show like or dislike to the things you enjoy or hate then you see how fabricated your experience is. The objects don’t bring out those emotions, it comes from you and what you believe those things to be.”
Xain, You and your mind are the same thing. You seem to be rebelling against what your mind does as if you were a separate sentient entity. That is all you, dude. Be one with yourself. There is really not an option not to be. Thinking that you are that separate entity, who is a victim of some other part of you, is the biggest fail for you in succumbing to illusion.
Well according to the links I posted before the illusion is the mind. That what I take to me real is just fabricated. Apparently Buddhism also has modern science to back it according to the wiki link.
This just goes back to my point earlier about Buddhism not being like the rest because there is actual science to back it. It hurts.
Apparently Buddhism also has modern science to back it according to the wiki link. --Xian
Note this statement at the top of that page:
This article contains too many or overly lengthy quotations for an encyclopedic entry. Please help improve the article by presenting facts as a neutrally-worded summary with appropriate citations. Consider transferring direct quotations to Wikiquote. (August 2017)
This is telling you that the page was made by people who were not too concerned about accuracy. SO it’s a non-scientific approach, claiming science. Wikipedia can be a good start for many topics, but not this one. They have standards and so should you. In the opening, it also warns you
Not all forms of Buddhism eschew dogmatism, remain neutral on the subject of the supernatural, or are open to scientific discoveries. Buddhism is a varied tradition and aspects include fundamentalism,[7] devotional traditions,[8] and supplication to local spirits.[9] Nevertheless, …
So, any website you find could be one of the fundamentalist varieties. You need to check them before you believe them or share them. You don’t get to go around saying it’s scientific because someone you don’t know said it was based on data you haven’t seen.
One’s “self” is a construct of one’s mind. Constructed, I say, by the various mental behaviors required that form the sense of “self”. Also, our mind and body are part of the same entity. One’s mind perceives sensory input and interprets it. Sometimes the interpretation is an illusion. But these mental behaviors that occur in what we may call our mindscape (for CC’s sake) are all a part of us as a single entity. The mental behaviors that we do to create our sense of self, and the mental behaviors that we do that result in our perceptions, some of which may be mentally processed as illusions, and also the mental behaviors that we do as any other function, – all one entity. No dualistic self vs mind vs body (or would that be tri-alistic?) idk, but no - one entity.
So let’s say someone tells you that your mind is an illusion. Well, your “mind” (brain) or, more specifically, mental behaviors and processing, are what creates illusions. As it is also mental behaviors that comprise your sense of self. Anyway, the someone that said your mind is an illusion, is basically saying that that your mental behaviors (by which you perceive and process illusions) is an illusion. Just how does it make sense ??? that your mental behaviors are an illusion while thatis the mechanism by which you perceive illusions? An illusion that perceives illusions? Are you getting the picture here? Your thinking is goofed up on this.
Now no one is required to believe all of that. In fact, the parts about “mental behaviors” are not widely accepted, despite it being a parsimonious and internally consistent paradigm.
But, Xain, if you did buy in to what I said here, you might also buy in to my notion that you are mentally and illogically at war with yourself. I suggest you figure out a way to make a truce.
