Seeker of Wisdom

Alternative view - we are all part of a tremendous, elegant interconnected system in which everything and everyone has equal status as a product of the natural (which isn't synonymous with 'material') process taking its course. We choose our actions to benefit those/that which we are connected to, regardless of whether or not there's an objective purpose to it. If there were an intelligent Absolute overarching this process of existence, we would be insignificant as puppets of a scheme we can't understand, and it would make our actions and morality meaningless because harmful action would be part of the plan just as much as compassionate action. I think a product of chance consciously choosing compassion and wisdom is much more meaningful than a product of the Absolute doing whatever the Absolute made it to do.

Sometimes I'll briefly counteract each of the five hindrances: craving by contemplating contentment, malice by metta, restlessness by relaxing (developing the attitude of taking a break from noise), torpor by trataka (focusing hard on a spot on the wall or something to rouse energy), and doubt by taking refuge in the Three Jewels and contemplating the achievability of what I'm doing. Two minutes at each stage is a nice way to get in a balanced, inspired frame of mind in only ten minutes. Normally, though, I just start meditating straight off. IMO it's a key thing that the mind we cultivate with is also the mind we do everything else with. Spend the whole day feeding it junk, and you can't expect it to be serene and limber the moment you're cross-legged. One thing that really helps is finding a practice you can keep running all the time, outside formal sessions. Ideally, from the moment you wake up to the moment you fall asleep. That sort of momentum gets results. It might be the same as what you do on the cushion - in which case, that should be some great momentum if you can keep at it. The other thing that helps is virtue - thoughts, words and actions supporting rather than undermining what you're trying to do on the cushion. Not in some moralistic 'oh how shameful' sense, more in a 'getting irritable doesn't feel skilful, let's work on patience a bit', or whatever. Hope that helps.

If by 'sutric' you mean 'not tantric', IMO there's variation on that. My practice is largely Mahasi-style noting from Theravada, and the general attitude from what I've read seems to be 'shut up, sit/walk, note it, see how it is'. Becoming reasonably convinced through logic that there can't be a self can be an extremely important step - at least, it was for me - because it makes it so much easier to go about the practice without constant doubt and clinging to assumptions 'this MUST be me/mine'. Stuff like Chandrakirti's chariot analysis, reasoning through each of the skhandas not being self, or in self, or containing self, or being self collectively, is definitely worth doing. It clears leaves off the line. Learning that it isn't about whether or not there is a self, but whether or not one can be found, and the entrapment of clinging to views, is another leap in understanding. That's where practice takes off, and the practice itself is really the liberating thing, of course. I challenge anyone to give noting a good try and still be convinced that there is a self.

Mahaparinirvana sutra: "The Buddha-nature is in fact not the self. For the sake of [guiding] sentient beings, I describe it as the self." ^^^ Avoiding one extreme. Maha-nidana sutta: "To what extent, Ananda, does one delineate when delineating a self? Either delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and finite.' Or, delineating a self possessed of form and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and infinite.' Or, delineating a self formless and finite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and finite.' Or, delineating a self formless and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and infinite.' [in each case 'a fixed view of a self obsesses him'] ^^^ Avoiding another extreme. My conclusion - Buddhism isn't interested in metaphysical thought about self vs. non-self. What it's interested in is the effect of these views. The act of reading a self onto phenomena is problematic grasping. The act of obsessing over the opposite theory is problematic grasping. The solution is to see phenomena just as they are - not 'me' or 'mine'. This strategy is what anatta is really pointing to - 'in the seen just the seen', and all that. As Thanissaro says in 'Wings to Awakening': "According to the texts, the most insidious issues that can excite uncertainty are questions that center on the concept of "I": "Do I exist?" "Do I not exist?" In the cosmological or metaphysical mode, this concept leads to such questions as: "Does the self exist?" "Does it not exist?" In the psychological or personal narrative mode, it leads to a sense of self-identity, attachment to the object with which one identifies, and all the suffering that inherently results. In either mode, this concept leads to uncertainty about the past and future: "Did I exist in the past?" "Will I exist in the future?" "What will I be?" All of these questions obviously pull the mind out of the phenomenological mode; passage §51 shows that the Buddha regarded them as leading to mental effluents and thus unworthy of attention. The one time he was asked point-blank as to whether or not there is a self [sN 44.10; MFU, pp. 85-86], he refused to answer, thus showing that the question deserves to be put aside. What then of the well-known Buddhist teachings on not-self? [...] we're apparently safe in assuming that if we try to draw inferences from his statements to give either a categorical answer (No, there is no self; or Yes, there is) or an analytical answer (It depends on how you define "self") to a question that the Buddha showed by example should not be asked or answered, we are drawing inferences where they should not be drawn. A more fruitful line of inquiry is to view experience, not in terms of the existence or non-existence of the self, but in terms of the categories of the four noble truths, which §51 identifies as the truly proper subject of appropriate attention. If we look at the way the Buddha phrases questions about not-self [sN 22.59, MFU, pp. 79-80] in the context of the duties appropriate to the four noble truths [§195], we see that they function as tools for comprehending stress and abandoning the craving and clinging that cause it. Thus this line of questioning helps bring about the ending of the mental effluents. Rather than asking, "Do I exist?", one should ask, "Is this mine? Is this me? If these things are regarded as me or mine, will there be suffering?" These questions, when properly answered (No, No, and Yes), can lead directly to the phenomenological mode and on to release from clinging and from suffering and stress. Thus they are worth asking. When applied to the hindrances and factors for Awakening, this line of inquiry can bring the mind to the third stage of frames-of-reference meditation by calling into question the "me" and "my" assumed in the first step of questioning. This undermines any sense of self-identification, first with the hindrances — such as "I'm drowsy" — and then with the factors for Awakening — such as "My mind is serene" [§167]. All that then remains is the radically phenomenological mode that enters fully into the emptiness on the verge of non-fashioning [iI/B], where there are no longer any questions, but simply awareness that "There are mental qualities"... "There is this." This is the threshold to Awakening."

IMHO, I don't think interpreting these texts as saying that there actually is a Self fits with Buddhism as a whole. It's fundamental that grasping onto ANY view of self, from 'I am' to 'I am this' to 'I'm not this' to 'I'm not', is unhelpful, a view construed over the pure reality of 'this is'. http://thedaobums.com/topic/35341-lessons-in-buddhism/page-2#entry578123 http://thedaobums.com/topic/35341-lessons-in-buddhism/page-2#entry622578

I only do a little energetic stuff myself, but there are other people on here with a fair stock of experience. Detail what you've been doing and I'm sure they can help.

It's basic dharma theory that there are degrees of awakening. Theravada maps posit four stages. There are various models of Bodhisattva bhumis. Vajrayana systems have varying stages of vidyadhara. Etc. The concept of 'basic awakening' really isn't unusual.

But the placebo was still objectively a placebo. If you give someone a sugar pill and say it's aspirin, there won't be aspirin in their body. Just because the person believes it's aspirin, and their body responds as though it were, doesn't mean the pill contained aspirin. Someone believing a lie can have a similar or identical effect to if the lie were true - but the lie is still a lie. Whether someone is being truthful or not is objective quite simply because it isn't a matter of opinion. 'Supernatural is a great TV show' - opinion, can't be right or wrong, subjective. 'Jensen Tackles is one of the actors' - objective truth. 'Sylvester Stallone plays Castiel' - objective falsehood.

Anyhoo, I do agree that energetic work is helpful. A dash of qigong would do a lot of unhealthy monks good.

Tbh, I don't think this dogma is helpful. Never-reveal-attainmentism obscures the reality of real attainment I.e. the difference between the dogma/hagiography and what happens, encourages people to treat awakening as unattainable, ignores how common implied and outright claims have been (including in the early sangha) and still are worldwide, and makes things easier for scumbags by a) obscuring the reality that awakened people can be imperfect and hence b} encouraging worshipping teachers (increasing potential for abuse) rather than treating them as just people who've practised and got results. This may be a controversial opinion, but honestly, treating awakening as some mysterious thing which nobody can ever actually have helps nobody.

The question of what exactly nirvana really is and why anyone would want it is a tricky one. And the Bodhisattva ideal throws a different spin on this too. I doubt many people actually practice with the goal of ending all experience forever. But the path itself is clearly beneficial as far as I'm concerned, so it seems more likely to me that any final end result, if there is one, would seem 'good' to someone who gets there, even if we wouldn't understand why (just as adults love things kids hate), rather than suddenly taking a turn into unimaginable horror. I mean, if you're walking down a street of nice houses you'd be fairly surprised if all of a sudden there was a cenobite house at the end of the row and they dragged you in with a razor-wire net. You can reasonably expect the last house to also be nice. You don't even have to look as far as nirvana to get a 'wtf? Why do that?'. Consider the transition from 3rd to 4th jhana - dropping sukkha for complete equanimity. Apparently, at that stage, utter equanimity, neither pleasure nor pain, is 'better' than profound joy. Strange, huh? According to AN 9.34, this is how arhats think about it:

Along the same lines, there must be such a thing as objective truths or it wouldn't be possible for people to lie successfully and then confess later from guilt. For example - I stole from you, you ask if it was me, I convince you it wasn't. Let's suppose there are now two parallel universes sprouting from this choice - one where I was truthful about stealing, one where I lied. In the universe sprouting from the lie, I still feel guilty, so I finally confess. Consider - your opinion 'he didn't steal' didn't change the objective truth. We aren't aware of any cases of lies becoming true because of people believing them - but we are aware of lies remaining false. Therefore, whether or not someone is being truthful is an objective truth. And if this is objective, it's feasible for other things to be objective.

Objective reality is whatever is the case regardless of opinions about it. Whether or not someone is, or even can be, aware of it is a different matter. For example, only I can know what I'm thinking of in the present. However, it's an objective truth that I was thinking of _. If I'm thinking of apples but tell you I'm thinking of pears, your belief I'm thinking of pears doesn't change the fact that I'm thinking of apples.

I am the reincarnation of Julius Caesar. I know I'm right because you can't prove me wrong. See the problem? Any hypothesis has to be considered untrue until it's proved to be true or false. You can't treat a hypothesis as true by default, especially if it's unfalsifiable. The burden of proof lies with you to prove that there IS an eternal consciousness, not on Karl to prove that there ISN'T. As for the whole 'objective' thing - some things are subjective, some things are objective. Anything that's not a matter of opinion is objective. If anyone observes particles, they affect them - this is objective because all people have this effect. It isn't a matter of opinion whether observers influence particles, so this is an objective truth. People had differing opinions on what causes lightning, but it was always static, not Thor or Zeus. People believing lightning is caused by static doesn't cause it to be so - it just is. Similarly, whether or not biocentrism is true is an objective truth. It's either true or false. If you disagree on this, then there is no point debating whether or not biocentrism is true because the word 'truth' is meaningless.

Hardcore, you say? What you want is 'Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha', by Daniel Ingram. MCTB is freely available online, and the updated version 'MCTB2' should be out in the near future. Very much focused on practice, pragmatisim, states and stages, real attainment. We recently interviewed Ingram: http://thedaobums.com/topic/38892-tdbs-interview-with-daniel-ingram/ Kenneth Folk's unfinished book is also worth reading, it's the same sort of stuff. http://contemplativefitnessbook.com/

Accept your natural orientation. You don't need to become asexual any more than I need to become straight/gay/bi - sexual desire isn't inherently anti-cultivation or anything.

Interesting theory, but why then is it that neurological things can affect consciousness? IMO idealism (such as the above theory - consciousness having primacy over matter) doesn't stand up to neuroscience, but materialism doesn't stand up to the hard problem. My current view is that the mental and physical components of existence are ontologically equal, interacting in some way not yet understood. The whole area is very interesting and I'm sure in however long it takes to start proper inter-disciplinary research we'll be looking back on the current theories as incredibly backward.

This is going to be way too skimmy and shallow, but I can only be bothered to spend so long on this. Here goes: 1) Argument from change - let's assume that the conclusion 'there must be something outside the universe' is correct. Why God? Multiverse theories would apply just as well. 2) Efficient causality - there could be an endless series of caused causes (as in multiverse) because once A has caused B, B can exist without A. But let's assume there must be an uncaused cause. Saying 'this is God' is begging the question. Why couldn't the big bang itself be that uncaused cause? 3) Time and contingency - anthropic principle, and time would be meaningless if nothing existed. 4) Degrees of perfection - something that smells infinitely bad can only do so if it exists. Therefore, an infinitely bad smell exists. 5) Design - anthropic principle, argument from inability to imagine how chance could produce this stuff. 6) Kalam - a being outside time cannot make a decision, as this is an inherantly temporal process. There can be no free will without time to consider options. And applying the first premise to the big bang singularity is iffy. 7) Contingency - substitute God for BBS. 8) World as interacting whole - assuming the cause would have to be intelligent, and also a mind is composed of interacting parts itself! 9) Miracles - assuming they happen, it's still an argument from ignorance. Before we knew how lightning works, we said it was Thor. 10) Consciousness - is the universe wholly intelligible? I see no reason to assume God just because consciousness exists and we don't understand it yet. There are many theories besides God (however defined), so an argument for God based on consciousness needs to define God well, and consider other theories. What if 'chunks' of consciousness exist, in cause and effect, just as physical particles etc do, as part of a Mental + Physical universe, with no ontological absolute or summum bonum in any form? Better to be honest about not knowing for the moment. 11) Truth - "There is too much about the theory of knowledge that needs to be said before this could work as a persuasive demonstration." 12) Origin of idea of God - a human concept of perfection isn't equivalent to perfection, an imperfect mind can imagine its own idea of perfection. Different religions all say their God is perfect, but omnibenevolence looks very different even across the Old and New Testaments - different imagined perfect beings! 13) Ontological Argument - similar issue to 4). 14) Moral Argument - assumes an objective morality can only have a source in some form of God. Morality is only meaningful to a mind, which can reason morality based on how actions affect itself and others. 15) Conscience - let's assume that obeying conscience is a moral absolute. Evolutionary psychology and social psychology explain the conscience fairly well, and people can be obligatated by things less than themselves - when survival instincts overthrow suicidal desires, for example. 16) Desire - the desire for something eternal and absolute results from people wanting good things and not recognising dukkha (if some is good, I must get all!). With all loss of false hope for a summum bonum (oh, there's no all that I can get after all, and that's OK), one stops desiring it and finds profound peace with what is real. Perhaps that desire for an absolute is the real problem, not the lack of its' fulfilment? See Kenneth Folk's batgap interview. 17) Aesthetic experience - why is God necessary for Bach to be beautiful? 18) Religious experience - psychology, and perspectives and experiences like expressed in my response to 16) also exist. 19) Common consent - ref. my response to 16). So many people seek a summum bonum because of ignorance. 20) Pascal's wager - someone can't choose what they believe, and an intelligent God would be able to tell the difference between fire insurance and real belief. A merciful God doesn't punish people for something they can't control. Finally, the argument doesn't even attempt to prove that God exists, only that it is safer to believe that God exists - a subtle but important distinction.

Information on the stages practice leads through, including dark nights, are out there. But not nearly as openly and up-front as they should be! Daniel Ingram and others have written much on this.

Anapanasati (Alan Wallace - though he comes from a visuddhimagga-jhana perspective while I find the sutta-jhana perspective more reasonable) and Mahasi-style vipashyana, mainly. A bit of qigong (Damo Mitchell) occasionally. Not yet to jhana or awakening, but getting there. In the last few years my memory, understanding, concentration, emotional maturity, goodwill and stuff have got so much better. Though some of that is down to just growing up.

Don't overthink dude. Remember what an orange looks like? There, you just visualised an orange! Now visualise smoke leaving your nose when you exhale. No wrong way to do it.

"There's a lesson to learn from everybody, even if it's what not to do." - some guy in a cheesy TV movie.

Bump: This is really the best I can say without knowing you in real life. If you are in a valid dark night from good practice (option 2), keep going. If not, then IMHO you are just making yourself clinically depressed with nihilistic thoughts, and you need to see where you're going wrong with that. The Byron Katie method may be helpful, but really therapy such as CBT may be a good move. In any case, I wish you the best for getting to a better place as soon as possible. Reaching out on here was a good first step, and I hope some of the advice you've been given pulls you through.

OK, you're alone because you don't do anything. So why don't you do things? Music, forums and games are all just you distracting yourself from how you really feel and what needs to be done about it - they're you alone in a room not doing anything that will really fulfill you. Is there really no way for you to socialize other than partying? Any hobbies you could join a club for or something? Part-time job? Volunteering? What I hear you really saying is: A - I don't do anything because it's all pointless (per the OP - 'everything dies'), so I am alone, but don't want to be alone. B - this is making me suffer. C - so I will distract myself from the loneliness by listening to music and posting on forums and playing games. What I am saying is: A - you don't do anything because you think it's all pointless (per the OP - 'everything dies'), so you're alone. B - this makes you suffer. C - get some CBT or at least find some way to change your 'everything dies' mindset D - go do something with other people in real life.