Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Some observations - need clarification or disputation
Just on a side note: A lot of my understanding comes from practice, talks by Shinzen Young and Alan Watts and studies in counselling and psychology. So if you see that in what I've written thats why.
Where to start.....
Words: What does the term "Human being" or being "a being" mean?
I use to read/hear that as, a person who exists or did exist. But thinking about its not that simple, its imho referring more to a process than an object or a static idea of a person. Its like calling a flame a "burning". Thus to be a "human being" is an activity not an object.
Need: I used to think of this in this way: Whenever I thought "I need this" It brought up the idea that it was of ultimate universal importance that I got what I need. Then It dawned on me that, everything I think I need is defined by what I want, which is not universal or even that important at all. You only need things to have/be/do what you want.
Which leads to..
Craving/Aversion: I run from things that I think will make me unhappy and I run towards things that I think will make me happy. At the same time, the running towards what we crave obscures the idea of the existence of what I run from.
The end of craving/aversion (or at least the objects of) doesn't really ever come. Only the end of the reaction to them. In other words the running stops, and in my understanding, the running is what suffering is.
Which then leads to...
Self/Ego/identity/Whatever you want to call it
What do we think of when we say who we are? What we do? what we like? what we don't like? What we've done? What we plan on doing?
But what is it that all this means?
To me Self/Ego/identity/Whatever is the book that has a list of things that you think make you happy and things that make you unhappy. We write in it daily, when we see/have seen something we like, that goes in the + side. And when we see/have seen something that makes us recoil, that goes on the - side.
But that can't be it, that wouldn't explain why some people define themselves using the negative aspects of their experience so far. But in a way it does, and this is when it gets complicated. Having ideas about yourself like "I am lazy" "Unlovable" "I am "insert negative" are capable of being relatively comfortable ideas to live in. Relative to what? Well, relative to the idea of the alternative.
"The road I'm on might be bumpy, but the other roads might end in a cliff edge"
The ideas we have of ourselves sometimes, even thought they feel bad, seem like they are more predictable and as such more secure. And in a world thats constantly changing and unpredictable, thinking you solidly know anything can be a relief.
So to summarize, in this way, everything we think about ourselves is defined by what we think we need to be happy and what we think we need to avoid to be free from unhappiness. The idea of you is a self written handbook on "How to be happy" that to a certain extent we treat as the universal word of god.
So how does it help to know this? Well when we start to realize that the blueprint for pretty much all our behavior is this, we can realize that all our activities are pointed towards + and away from -.
When you live your life constantly looking for something you can't really spend much time seeing anything.
So what happens when you don't follow this rule book anymore? No inhibitions? No desire to fulfill yourself? No desire to be this or that? and no desire to not do any of these things? Is there some fundamental nature underneath all this want and need and not want and not need?
That's enlightenment isn't it?
Where to start.....
Words: What does the term "Human being" or being "a being" mean?
I use to read/hear that as, a person who exists or did exist. But thinking about its not that simple, its imho referring more to a process than an object or a static idea of a person. Its like calling a flame a "burning". Thus to be a "human being" is an activity not an object.
Need: I used to think of this in this way: Whenever I thought "I need this" It brought up the idea that it was of ultimate universal importance that I got what I need. Then It dawned on me that, everything I think I need is defined by what I want, which is not universal or even that important at all. You only need things to have/be/do what you want.
Which leads to..
Craving/Aversion: I run from things that I think will make me unhappy and I run towards things that I think will make me happy. At the same time, the running towards what we crave obscures the idea of the existence of what I run from.
The end of craving/aversion (or at least the objects of) doesn't really ever come. Only the end of the reaction to them. In other words the running stops, and in my understanding, the running is what suffering is.
Which then leads to...
Self/Ego/identity/Whatever you want to call it
What do we think of when we say who we are? What we do? what we like? what we don't like? What we've done? What we plan on doing?
But what is it that all this means?
To me Self/Ego/identity/Whatever is the book that has a list of things that you think make you happy and things that make you unhappy. We write in it daily, when we see/have seen something we like, that goes in the + side. And when we see/have seen something that makes us recoil, that goes on the - side.
But that can't be it, that wouldn't explain why some people define themselves using the negative aspects of their experience so far. But in a way it does, and this is when it gets complicated. Having ideas about yourself like "I am lazy" "Unlovable" "I am "insert negative" are capable of being relatively comfortable ideas to live in. Relative to what? Well, relative to the idea of the alternative.
"The road I'm on might be bumpy, but the other roads might end in a cliff edge"
The ideas we have of ourselves sometimes, even thought they feel bad, seem like they are more predictable and as such more secure. And in a world thats constantly changing and unpredictable, thinking you solidly know anything can be a relief.
So to summarize, in this way, everything we think about ourselves is defined by what we think we need to be happy and what we think we need to avoid to be free from unhappiness. The idea of you is a self written handbook on "How to be happy" that to a certain extent we treat as the universal word of god.
So how does it help to know this? Well when we start to realize that the blueprint for pretty much all our behavior is this, we can realize that all our activities are pointed towards + and away from -.
When you live your life constantly looking for something you can't really spend much time seeing anything.
So what happens when you don't follow this rule book anymore? No inhibitions? No desire to fulfill yourself? No desire to be this or that? and no desire to not do any of these things? Is there some fundamental nature underneath all this want and need and not want and not need?
That's enlightenment isn't it?
0
Comments
Buddha advised all things are mind created. The view that there are "people" and the emotional baggage attached to that view is a creation of the human mind or ignorant thought.
This is a very basic Buddhist teaching, which the Buddha called "birth". Due to ingorance, craving, attachment & becoming, the mind takes "birth" is some state of ego identification and self-image.
Because all conditioned things are impermanent, when the objects of identification & image pass away due to impermanence, human beings experience sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, despair and the whole mass of suffering.
All of this stuff is merely mind created due to ignorance. Ending this stuff is also of the mind.
With respect, I didn't actually say anything I refered to in terms of emotional baggage was real. I just pointed out that this what we think matters.
I thought what i said was very down to earth and human.
But it means nothing!
That's the desire, or hope... but it's a false desire or hope, if that is what our thoughts/words/actions are based on.....
I'm just responding to points made, here.....
Even the most devout Buddhists are 'looking for something'.
It depends whether the 'seeking' is skilful or not.....
Dropping the Fundamental Nature, means everything else is dropped too.....
Or is it Nihilism....?
Enlightenment is realising everything is as it is because it is as it is, and dropping the desire to make it anything other than that which it is.