hundreth

It was only a matter of time. It's sad, this is what many people truly believe about Jews.

That's true. If you did require your own backend, etc. I'd recommend going with something Node based so you don't have to learn yet another coding language since it's also based on Javascript.

The Buddha spoke extensively about there being no Atman, no eternal spirit. Even consciousness is impermanent. The Buddha teaches dropping all identifications, even to the "Absolute" ! So how do we reconcile this view with all the dialog here about the Absolute, Infinity, consciousness, God, etc? To go a step further, the Buddha teaches consciousness depends on the existence of sense organs! https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/#3.4 We like to conceptualize that brains exist within consciousness, but the Buddha teaches that all experiences are a result of "aggregates." The material depends on consciousness just as much as consciousness depends on the material! Talk about a mind fuck strange loop. My only take away from this is that we take a lot of what we're taught for granted. There's more investigation that needs to be done here. There's a lot of nuance here and it's not enough to simply believe the ancients had it all figured out, and all we need to do is trust "them" on x or y. They themselves disagreed on some extremely fundamental ideas.

Good question. So far I've mostly resonated with zazen and do nothing techniques. The self inquiry style meditations tend to turn into somewhat frustrating experiences where I feel like I'm spinning my wheels. I'll continue experimenting with different practices. Appreciate your insights!

Thank you. I took a more in depth look at what you wrote earlier. I'll continue studying, but will do my best to not allow this to interrupt the more important direct experience work.

This is the interpretation I've found from most experienced Buddhist practitioners. Any attachment to Self, higher or lower is yet another form of ignorance which leads to suffering. Which is exactly why I posed the question here. I've posted a few Wikipedia links and articles from various sources on the web, and some of you have questioned them - which is fine! I have not been studying primarily using these sources, they are just supplementary readings. Primarily, I've been learning from the book Walpola Rahula's "What the Buddha Taught." https://www.amazon.com/What-Buddha-Taught-Expanded-Dhammapada/dp/0802130313 "Rahula is a scholar monk who trained in the Theravadan tradition in Ceylon. His succinct, clear overview of Buddhist concepts has never been surpassed. It is the standard." He talks in depth about Buddha's interpretation of the Self, and is very explicit about the distinctions between lower self and Higher Self. He demonstrates through Buddha's own words how he taught not to identify with any idea of self. That nothing is permanent. I highly suggest this book. Thanks. I will check out his work. At the end of the day, I'm not here to create additional distinctions. I'm trying to reconcile all these different perspectives. For everyone else who commented, I thank you as well. You've all given me much to contemplate on. The discussion in and of itself is beautiful and very helpful. For better or for worse, I'm naturally a thinker, and while this can be detrimental to spiritual growth, reconciling these ideas helps me surrender further into direct experience.

It's not perfectly clear, man. I don't deny what you're saying about Absolute Infinity and it's certainly easier and more pleasant to accept it, but it's certainly not clear this is what the Buddha taught. It's a very negative theism, in that it's always removing. Perhaps emptiness and infinity are the same as you say, and this is our "Higher self" but the Buddha would never refer to this as a higher self. Here's a great in depth look at someone acknowledging these differences and trying to reconcile them. http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/atmsun.htm

The Buddha was very clear about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Buddhism)

Sure, but this is the core teaching of Buddha - that there is NO SELF. No self in any frame, not relative, not absolute. There is nothing impermanent in his philosophy. He's in direct opposition to the Vedic interpretation of the ontological self. Now we like to behave as if they all said the same thing, and it's just a given that there's an absolute self and we are it. Buddha would argue this is yet again, another attempt for our egos to grasp at a concept of self to help us fall asleep at night. There is nothing more terrifying than mortality, so much so that if we remove the concept of relative self, we invent an absolute self to cling on to.

Thanks for the response. I understand that consciousness is a loaded word, but the Buddha did not teach "Absolute Consciousness" unless you're arguing semantics. For simplicity, let's consider consciousness to be more or less synonymous with "Atman" or the "Para-Brahman" - the Absolute. But the Buddha explicitly speaks in depth about there being no Atman. No absolute or eternal soul to grasp to. All is Not Self: The Buddha’s Rejection of Atman https://inthewordsofbuddha.wordpress.com/2015/08/02/all-is-not-self-the-buddhas-rejection-of-atman/ Either I'm misunderstanding you, I'm misunderstanding the Buddha, or you both disagree on this. I appreciate your kindness in actually speaking to this.

Fair enough, if you're looking at it from the frame of reference of the root of the tree.

This is solipsism. I don't believe this is what is being taught here. The metaphor I like is many leaves off the branches of an infinite tree. It's all one tree, but each leaf is connected and experiencing it's own perspective. So "Fred" is just as real as you are.

Not a fan, I find his constant virtue signaling and smug arrogance off putting. He enjoys hearing himself talk more than he enjoys genuinely learning. He's aware of non duality, and an intelligent guy. You could do a lot worse with a role model, but you could do way better as well... I don't find him funny either, unfortunately. He takes himself too seriously to be funny.

You don't think the current state of affairs has become toxic? I believe they are a necessary force, and they do bring compassion and concern to an extent, but what kind of compassions is this public shaming and militant silencing? There's compassion, and then there's virtue signaling, identity politics, victim mentality, and power games. Here's an example of someone who is non toxic green. If you look at her articles, she's the one who wrote the article about the shrooms study disproving the self. "I’m already equal. So why do today’s feminists keep saying I’m oppressed?" https://qz.com/1210845/the-subconscious-sexism-of-todays-feminist-movement/ Her other article: "Scientists studying psychoactive drugs accidentally proved the self is an illusion" https://qz.com/1196408/scientists-studying-psilocybin-accidentally-proved-the-self-is-an-illusion/ Seriously dude? This is the conclusion you came to about this guy without ever meeting him or knowing anything about him, and you wonder why it's coming off anti-male?

Lol why all the posting and speculation? Do some basic research on the dude.

He grew up in Nepal around meditating monks. He didn't invent meditation. In fact a meditating monk was one of his greatest inspirations.

Bernardo Kustrap talks in depth about this from the standpoint of monistic idealism vs. solipsism. I suggest looking into his work. The simple explanation I can try to give for his ideas around this subject is that everything arises in consciousness, and each of our "personal" awareness fields is like a tiny branch or leaf on the giant tree of consciousness. So we're all part of the same consciousness, as individual nodes, each with our own "personal awareness." This is different from solipsism which suggests all experience is situated within my personal awareness.

So you're supporting the Islamic "movement" because they don't drink, they're a religion, and they makes sounds you like. Got it.

I recently read Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha and absolutely loved it. Amazing piece of literature, and a highly recommended read. With that said, Hermann Hesse is a German poet writing with a German romanticism flair about Eastern philosophies and Buddhism. Being from a Western background, I resonated deeply with the text and it's take on the spiritual journey. I wanted to take a closer look at this and do a deconstruction on the effect of our our Western filters being applied here. I came across this wonderful article and wanted to share it with you all: https://tricycle.org/magazine/romancing-buddha/ A few excerpts: Would love to hear your thoughts!

For someone searching, it appears you have more answers than questions. This is a pretty dark worldview. Go back to the basics. You have a wife and a family, there's much to be grateful for.

I don't believe we will ever get to a complete Utopia. That said, we are doing very well now. It's not perfect, but capitalism appears to be the most "stable" system out of all we've tried so far. Does that mean it's perfect? Far from it. Does that mean we won't come up with a new system that is more virtuous than capitalism? No, we may come up with something new. Right now there are more questions than answers. We have the issue of inequality, and too much inequality is destructive. You can't remove all inequality. The current system is stable because it allows human competitiveness to stabilize itself. If you try to remove human competitiveness as Marxism attempted, the entire system will destabilize and the most corrupt will gain power. So what do we do about inequality? For one, life isn't a zero sum game. Just because there is inequality, doesn't mean we aren't all benefitting from it. Our quality of life as a collective has improved. At the extremes of inequality, capitalism has flaws. What do we do about those who are unable to compete? What do we do about rampant consumerism and the psychological burdens of this idol worship? Unfortunately we don't know.

Let's say you came up with a board game, one of the rules is "no cheating!" Everyone starts cheating. It's not the personality traits of "marxist people" - it's just the psychology of people in general. You can put the same people in different environments, and different outcomes will arise. It's not about "bad people", it's about systems that bring out the worst in us. We all have this darkness within us.

Do you honestly believe we're supposed to have a Utopia here? You are an infinitely powerful being who can dream up anything. You asked the question earlier, why not dream up something more pleasant? Because it's perfect the way it is. It's also clear you haven't done a deep dive into history. Marxist ideologies don't work. This utopia isn't compatible with human psychology. An amazing lesson from the man you despise:

Earlier you referred to terrorists and school shootings as far more sinister than SJWs. I would definitely agree, but this propping up of one over the other is a criticism. Clearly infinity loves terrorists. Sure, alright. So let's just accept terrorism? There is no way we can consciously make a transformation here? Even acceptance and compassion can AFFECT CHANGE. So is that self agenda? Are all forms of self agenda bad? Yeah, terrorists conflict with my self agenda. Yeah, SJWs conflict with my self agenda too. I'm conscious of it, but I also believe I'm here to exercise my self agenda. Clearly infinity loves when we play out our agendas. Infinity loves to play games. So what if Jordan Peterson doesn't look happy when he's ranting against SJWs? Who said the point of life is to be happy all the time? There's also something called delayed gratification. Even if you believe happiness is the ultimate goal, the reason why you sit there struggling through meditation in the beginning is for some pay off down the line. Delayed gratification is the birth of spirituality. I'm challenging some of your points, but I'm legit working through these questions myself.