Not sure where to go

[PadmaVonSamba]

But he didn't really answer any questions in regard to it. Like with desire. You say you can still enjoy the ocean without depending on happiness but according to him such a desire isn't mine. And if I wasn't dependent on it for my happiness then why would I seek it out or anything else? Seems to me like I would just do nothing at all at that point and I'm not sure I want to live like that.

You have everything backwards.
You are also accepting as true things that are not true (“we don’t control our thoughts and emotions”) so, naturally you will end up with things not working out. As the saying goes, that egg won’t hatch …because it’s a rock.
Try dialing it back a few on your assumptions, and then start again.

[SilenceMonkey]

So I read the last part of a book called 21 lessons for the 21st century and got to the part about meaning.

A lot of it made sense, that much of life as we currently know it are the stories we tell and that when we ask about meaning we are really asking for "tell me a story where all of this makes sense".

Sounds to me like this is what you've been doing with a lot of your posts on DW.

I can grasp that. Even parts about our personal narratives. We don't control what we believe or desire, same with emotions. We don't decide how we feel about something, and so it concludes that these things aren't us. And since everything changes that there is ultimately nothing that persists that could worry about an afterlife.

From what you're saying, it sounds like the author thinks that the reason our thoughts and feelings are "not us" is because we don't decide to create them, they just happen randomly. (Or spontaneously, anyway.) But if we think this, we might start thinking that there is something wrong because we are not in control of our thoughts and emotions. As if we should decide every thought and feeling that comes in and out of us!

Is this what is going on with you?

This seems less buddhist and more of a nihilist existentialism. The reason Buddhism says our aggregates (mind and body) aren't "me" is fundamentally different than this. Buddha says that it is merely an imputation (projection) of the "me" onto our entire experience that causes us to think it is "me." The imputation of the mind is what causes the fiction. But for all intents and purposes, we can say you are you and your experience is your own. The only thing that changes is how we think about it, right?

The reason Buddhists use the analysis of self (to find selflessness) is that illusions of self is what brings us suffering. So, we can understand any thought pattern or emotion that brings more suffering as the illusions that need to be dispelled. It sounds like you may be clinging so hard to your search for truth that this search is actually what is making you miserable most. Ironic, huh?

This is actually how you know that the thought pattern is not serving you, because it makes you more miserable. On the positive end, it does show you where the real illusions are that should be worked with -- ie. the ones that make you unhappy.

[MagnetSoulSP]

So I read the last part of a book called 21 lessons for the 21st century and got to the part about meaning.

A lot of it made sense, that much of life as we currently know it are the stories we tell and that when we ask about meaning we are really asking for "tell me a story where all of this makes sense".

Sounds to me like this is what you've been doing with a lot of your posts on DW.

I can grasp that. Even parts about our personal narratives. We don't control what we believe or desire, same with emotions. We don't decide how we feel about something, and so it concludes that these things aren't us. And since everything changes that there is ultimately nothing that persists that could worry about an afterlife.

From what you're saying, it sounds like the author thinks that the reason our thoughts and feelings are "not us" is because we don't decide to create them, they just happen randomly. (Or spontaneously, anyway.) But if we think this, we might start thinking that there is something wrong because we are not in control of our thoughts and emotions. As if we should decide every thought and feeling that comes in and out of us!

Is this what is going on with you?

This seems less buddhist and more of a nihilist existentialism. The reason Buddhism says our aggregates (mind and body) aren't "me" is fundamentally different than this. Buddha says that it is merely an imputation (projection) of the "me" onto our entire experience that causes us to think it is "me." The imputation of the mind is what causes the fiction. But for all intents and purposes, we can say you are you and your experience is your own. The only thing that changes is how we think about it, right?

The reason Buddhists use the analysis of self (to find selflessness) is that illusions of self is what brings us suffering. So, we can understand any thought pattern or emotion that brings more suffering as the illusions that need to be dispelled. It sounds like you may be clinging so hard to your search for truth that this search is actually what is making you miserable most. Ironic, huh?

This is actually how you know that the thought pattern is not serving you, because it makes you more miserable. On the positive end, it does show you where the real illusions are that should be worked with -- ie. the ones that make you unhappy.

But I thought that truth was supposed to hurt and choosing to live a lie was easier, like when he mentions about going back to the self because it's too hard. Honestly that part of the book didn't explain it at all. I always found it weird how people just said those things aren't us because we don't control them. But why? Who said they had to be in control for them to be us? It just sounded like an assertion and little else.

I'm not really seeing how the illusion of self brings suffering as it's really the only way I enjoy anything to be honest. Whenever I "lose myself" so to speak I lose the desire to really do anything or seek anything, it wasn't a good way to be even though you could find it as peaceful.

That's why I don't see how Buddhism is compatible with daily life, like enjoying things or wanting to go and do something, have a hobby, date, etc. Whenever I read on teachers explaining it it just sounds like cognitive dissonance, or having your cake and eating it too. To me it sounds like you have to choose between a "normal life" or peace.

[Kim O'Hara]

As SilenceMonkey said, "This seems less buddhist and more of a nihilist existentialism."

We talk about the 'near enemies' and 'far enemies' of the brahmaviharas - compassion and the rest - and you can read about them here - https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php/4_Brahma_Viharas

I suspect that you've found the 'near enemy' of the 'not-self' strategy and mistaken it for the real thing. The fact that the self does not exist in the way we usually assume it exists does not mean that it doesn't exist at all. Likewise, the fact that nothing in life is permanent doesn't mean that we can't enjoy life. If you see the people who get Buddhism right, they're happy.


Kim

[PadmaVonSamba]

But I thought that truth was supposed to hurt and choosing to live a lie was easier, like when he mentions about going back to the self because it's too hard. Honestly that part of the book didn't explain it at all. I always found it weird how people just said those things aren't us because we don't control them. But why? Who said they had to be in control for them to be us? It just sounded like an assertion and little else.

You keep referring to the “21 Lessons” book and then based on that, making assumptions about Buddhism. That doesn’t make sense. Yuval Noah Harari isn’t explaining Buddhism.

Why should truth hurt?
Why should living a lie be easy?
Please explain that if you have time.

I'm not really seeing how the illusion of self brings suffering as it's really the only way I enjoy
anything to be honest.

Okay, let’s really be honest. To be honest, you have presented what appears to be a personal dilemma. In Buddhism, a personal dilemma is regarded as suffering. If this personal dilemma is not the result of attachment to the idea of ‘self’ then what else is it based on?
So, right here, you are your own example of how dissatisfaction arises from attachment to ‘self’.

On the other hand, what you might be saying is that you enjoy being caught up in a personal dilemma. Either way, the personal dilemma is based on the attachment to the illusion of a permanently occurring ‘self’.

Whenever I "lose myself" so to speak I lose the desire to really do anything or seek anything, it wasn't a good way to be even though you could find it as peaceful.

Do you really ever lose yourself? Do you lose yourself the way an artists lose themselves in the act of creating art, or a musician loses herself in the playing of music? Athletes also experience it. Soldiers in battle experience it. Maybe you’ve just never really experienced it. Perhaps you are referring to being lost in a foggy and dull state of mind. That’s something totally different

That's why I don't see how Buddhism is compatible with daily life, like enjoying things or wanting to go and do something, have a hobby, date, etc. Whenever I read on teachers explaining it it just sounds like cognitive dissonance, or having your cake and eating it too. To me it sounds like you have to choose between a "normal life" or peace.

The reason why you don’t see how Buddhism is compatible with daily life isn’t because of Buddhism. It’s because of your misunderstanding of Buddhism. So, please stop assuming that “Buddhism says this and this” when it doesn’t.

Now, in all fairness, it is true that the Buddha, in his day, did encourage those who were suited to it, to give up the life of a “householder” and become a monk or a nun. So, yes, there is a line which can be crossed you might say. But the Buddha also gave a lot practical advice to farmers, kings, merchants, various “householders”. The sutras are full of examples of that.

Dropping everything to become a monk is certainly an option, if one wants to focus on meditation, study, and practice 24/7. But this is really no different than being a medical or law student in college and spending all your time studying rather than out drinking beer and playing frisbee.

The point that the Buddhist teachings make about a “normal life” isn’t about the events in that life, but about the mistaken assumptions that people make regarding those events, which is that most people assume that temporary things will bring permanent satisfaction. That’s the “normal” view, and it’s obviously wrong, because if it were true, everybody would be happy all the time.

So, you can enjoy a pizza. Totally enjoy it. Stuff yourself. But if you think that having stuffed yourself with pizza, you will never be hungry again, then of course that’s wrong and in a day or so you will be hungry again. But this is precisely what people do in their “normal” life. They think, “Oh, if I buy this then I will be happy” and for a short time they are, but then that happiness fades, not because of the object, but because the source of happiness isn’t objects, but is one’s own mind.

In the meantime, please stop evaluating Buddhist teaching based on “21 Lessons”. They are two different things.
It’s like plugging a TV set into a banana and then wondering why there’s no picture.
Stop trying to connect things that don’t happen to have any connection points to each other. It will save you a lot of time and frustration.

[SilenceMonkey]

Why don't you watch some videos from Ajahn Brahm? He is a very happy Buddhist and he teaches others to be happy too. Or Tsoknyi Rinpoche or Mingyur Rinpoche. It's true they are all monks, but almost all of their students are lay people so their teachings are all fully applicable for lay life. By listening to them, you can learn very fundamental principles about how to be happy. Such as "When you're always rushing around chasing after things, you will be making yourself unhappy." "Too much trying to be someone will make you unhappy." "Strong emotions like anger, desire and jealousy will lead you in the direction of unhappiness."



Here's a good one too:


Ajahn Brahm is speaking more from the perspective of a monk. Mingyur and Tsoknyi's teachings are more for lay people. Both are true! There are many perspectives on Dharma and many ways to practice. It's not just "my way (of monking) or the high way." All or nothing mentalities are bound to make us miserable.

Anyway... we should talk about this:

But I thought that truth was supposed to hurt and choosing to live a lie was easier.

You think truth is supposed to make us suffer? I think you've got it backwards, my friend.

Four Noble Truths:
1. The truth that we suffer -- We call this Truth because suffering is happening in us. We are to recognize that suffering is happening in us, not try to make ourselves suffer more!
2. The truth of where suffering comes from -- We call this Truth because all suffing has an origin, and once we see the origin of our suffering, the suffering in us will start to dissipate.
3. The truth of the end of suffering -- It's possible to end suffering. This is true for the final release of suffering that Buddha called Nirvana, but it is also true for all of our sufferings (in the plural). If we're thirsty, we can quench this by drinking water. If we have an itch, we can scratch it. If we have some inner sufferings like hatred and anger, there are ways to let that stuff go.
4. The truth of the path out of suffering -- The path that Buddha taught is supposed to lead us out of our suffering, not into more of it!

They are called Noble Truths because they release us from suffering, not because they make us more miserable than we already were. So if we call something Truth that makes us miserable, something is off... "The Truth will set you free." (Freedom from our misery, of course! Freedom is supposed to make us happy and light.)

[MagnetSoulSP]

Do you really ever lose yourself? Do you lose yourself the way an artists lose themselves in the act of creating art, or a musician loses herself in the playing of music? Athletes also experience it. Soldiers in battle experience it. Maybe you’ve just never really experienced it. Perhaps you are referring to being lost in a foggy and dull state of mind. That’s something totally different

But that's not really losing yourself. There is still a you there but without the thinking. You're just reacting to what is going on around you. Losing yourself is having none of that. I would almost call it paralysis in a sense. Those people don't lose themselves in those experiences, what they are describing is clarity or cutting out the "noise". They haven't lost themselves. Those who have, from what I hear, don't regard it as positive.

Okay, let’s really be honest. To be honest, you have presented what appears to be a personal dilemma. In Buddhism, a personal dilemma is regarded as suffering. If this personal dilemma is not the result of attachment to the idea of ‘self’ then what else is it based on?
So, right here, you are your own example of how dissatisfaction arises from attachment to ‘self’.

It's based on being unsure what is true or false, and what to do next, not really about me. It's not personal if that makes sense. And without personal dilemmas I would be consumed by indifference.

The point that the Buddhist teachings make about a “normal life” isn’t about the events in that life, but about the mistaken assumptions that people make regarding those events, which is that most people assume that temporary things will bring permanent satisfaction. That’s the “normal” view, and it’s obviously wrong, because if it were true, everybody would be happy all the time.

So, you can enjoy a pizza. Totally enjoy it. Stuff yourself. But if you think that having stuffed yourself with pizza, you will never be hungry again, then of course that’s wrong and in a day or so you will be hungry again. But this is precisely what people do in their “normal” life. They think, “Oh, if I buy this then I will be happy” and for a short time they are, but then that happiness fades, not because of the object, but because the source of happiness isn’t objects, but is one’s own mind.

I know that those things won't bring me permanent happiness, same with hunger. It will return. But if I get rid of my desire then what reason is there to do such things (or according to him that my desires aren't mine because I don't control them). I usually seek stuff like that because I'm bored or maybe a bit sad. So if take that away then I wouldn't do anything, much less enjoy it.

[Bristollad]

It’s simple really.

Stop doing and dwelling on stuff that makes you and those around miserable.
Start doing stuff that makes you and those around you happy.
Learn to use some techniques to handle and reduce your obsessive fears and desires, as well as your habitual knee-jerk responses that interfere with points one and two.

So, stop being lazy, put the books down, go and spend some time with friends or walking on the beach or helping out a local good cause, and use some of the CBT techniques you already know or establish a simple meditation practice to build some concentration and then contemplate the four immeasurables.

You have again and again explained how what you have read about selflessness has made you miserable and confused - so stop doing it! Put it to one side. Learn to be happy. Help folk. Learn to settle the content of your agitated mind rather than treating it like a cocktail shaker and work on feeling loving kindness towards yourself and others and so on.

[PadmaVonSamba]

But that's not really losing yourself. There is still a you there but without the thinking. You're just reacting to what is going on around you. Losing yourself is having none of that. I would almost call it paralysis in a sense.

If that was truly what was happening, you wouldn’t have any experience of it. If you had no experience of it, then it wouldn’t be a problem.

It's based on being unsure what is true or false, and what to do next, not really about me. It's not personal if that makes sense. And without personal dilemmas I would be consumed by indifference.

Sorry, but it does not make sense. If it’s not about you then who is it about?

But if I get rid of my desire then what reason is there to do such things (or according to him that my desires aren't mine because I don't control them). I usually seek stuff like that because I'm bored or maybe a bit sad. So if take that away then I wouldn't do anything, much less enjoy it.

First of all, you keep referring to the bad information from that book and then asking why it doesn’t work.
Second, you need to practice sitting meditation in order to see that you don’t have to rely on being entertained all the time. You can actually just be happy. You don’t need things to “make” you happy. But all of this was said before.
Third, you don’t need to get rid of desire.

“But I …. But I … yeah, but I… but that book says…”

As long as you rationalize your misery, you will always avoid dealing with it.

[frankie]

As SilenceMonkey said, "This seems less buddhist and more of a nihilist existentialism."

If you see the people who get Buddhism right, they're happy.


Kim

Wonderful! Perfect...so perfect.

[MagnetSoulSP]

It’s simple really.

Stop doing and dwelling on stuff that makes you and those around miserable.
Start doing stuff that makes you and those around you happy.
Learn to use some techniques to handle and reduce your obsessive fears and desires, as well as your habitual knee-jerk responses that interfere with points one and two.

So, stop being lazy, put the books down, go and spend some time with friends or walking on the beach or helping out a local good cause, and use some of the CBT techniques you already know or establish a simple meditation practice to build some concentration and then contemplate the four immeasurables.

You have again and again explained how what you have read about selflessness has made you miserable and confused - so stop doing it! Put it to one side. Learn to be happy. Help folk. Learn to settle the content of your agitated mind rather than treating it like a cocktail shaker and work on feeling loving kindness towards yourself and others and so on.

I have no friends, mostly from non attachment stuff. Walking down the beach doesn't really take my mind of it and neither does helping people.

I don't know what makes me happy either, and what's the point of not dwelling on it? Sounds like ignoring the truth to me. Like you're choosing to live in ignorance rather than face reality. That our desires aren't us nor our emotions because we don't control them (at least according to the book, then again the book pretty much lists problems, shoots down solutions and offers nothing in return).

Second, you need to practice sitting meditation in order to see that you don’t have to rely on being entertained all the time. You can actually just be happy. You don’t need things to “make” you happy. But all of this was said before.
Third, you don’t need to get rid of desire.

“But I …. But I … yeah, but I… but that book says…”

As long as you rationalize your misery, you will always avoid dealing with it.

What he said is essentially the cause of my misery. Also meditation doesn't make me happy, I can't just "be" happy. There is usually a cause to happiness. If I were happy just because then I would have no reason to do anything I like doing.

[Bristollad]

I don't know what makes me happy either, and what's the point of not dwelling on it? Sounds like ignoring the truth to me. Like you're choosing to live in ignorance rather than face reality.

Okay, so you don't know what makes you happy. However, you DO know what makes you miserable - being on your own, feeling sorry for yourself, ruminating on theories in books. So stop doing that.

I'm reminded of a line from a book by Richard Bach, "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours."

[PadmaVonSamba]

I have no friends, mostly from non attachment stuff. Walking down the beach doesn't really take my mind of it and neither does helping people.

I don't know what makes me happy either, and what's the point of not dwelling on it?

Sounds like maybe clinical depression.
This isn’t the place to get help for that.
You might want to see a professional counselor.

[MagnetSoulSP]

I don't know what makes me happy either, and what's the point of not dwelling on it? Sounds like ignoring the truth to me. Like you're choosing to live in ignorance rather than face reality.

Okay, so you don't know what makes you happy. However, you DO know what makes you miserable - being on your own, feeling sorry for yourself, ruminating on theories in books. So stop doing that.

I'm reminded of a line from a book by Richard Bach, "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours."

Or maybe it's just recognizing your limitations. You can argue for strengths but that doesn't mean you have them. Also being on my own isn't really something I can fix.

Sounds like maybe clinical depression.
This isn’t the place to get help for that.
You might want to see a professional counselor.

Maybe, but historically when something is bugging me nothing distracts me from it. Short of forgetting about it nothing really helps to solve that problem. Plus isn't that avoiding bad things which is what buddhism says to not do though?

[Natan]

Also what Camus saw. Once we realize this is absurd, we are free to create meaning, rather than be subject to all the contrived narratives. To my mind, Buddhism is a structured way to do that based on non nihilistic actions.

[Bristollad]

Also being on my own isn't really something I can fix.

And that's an example of arguing for your limitations.

Anyway, as PadmaVonSamba has mentioned, it sounds as if you should speak to a professional. But, I still suggest you put the books away, they are not helping you at the moment.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Some people ask for advice they do not want,
and the less they want of it,
the more they ask for it.

[frankie]

Some people ask for advice they do not want,
and the less they want of it,
the more they ask for it.

I'd like to make the point that people in a lot of pain and distress will often repeat and circle around and around a point in order to satisfy a deeply insecure, unsettled and mistrusting psyche that something is correct and 'safe'. In truth, it can never be fully satisfied - the malady being, itself, circular in nature.

Fortunately, it does eventually burn itself out and pass.

Courageous patience and a kind attitude is normally the best approach.

[MagnetSoulSP]

Also being on my own isn't really something I can fix.

And that's an example of arguing for your limitations.

Anyway, as PadmaVonSamba has mentioned, it sounds as if you should speak to a professional. But, I still suggest you put the books away, they are not helping you at the moment.

Except it isn't, it's reality. I don't have money and with my current job that I am starting I won't have the time to be around other people.

to those saying to speak to a professional I can't afford one, let alone have time to see on. I don't even know what makes me happy or what I want because my emotions are a mess. Long ago I read buddhsim saying that desire was wrong and leads to suffering so I took that to mean that wanting things was bad and wrong, which led to me emotions being a mess and not really knowing what to do. Well that and other things.

[narhwal90]

Perceptions and thoughts feel like reality but it is very interesting learning to see some of the extent to which one's own judgements and assumptions are accepted as true out of repetition and tendency.