Flow With Life

Hmm.. an interesting perspective. Thank you for sharing. My current understanding is that in orthodox Theravada, the Buddha not only refused to talk metaphysics, he explicitly stated that metaphysics should always be put aside as being non-useful. I could be misinformed though, and I admit total ignorance of the Mahayana, Zen, and Tibetan traditions.

Ah, yes, this is a famous question which has perplexed Buddhist scholars and non-scholars and non-Buddhists alike for centuries. What is reborn? The short answer is: it doesn't matter. There is the experience called birth. There are the experiences called aging, illness, and suffering. There is the experience called death. Rinse and repeat. A causal loop governed by karma (intention). This is the wheel of becoming, Samsara, which the goal of Buddhism is to escape from. To no longer be reborn again. It matters not "who" or "what" is reborn, or "who" or "what" suffers. In direct experience, there is simply the knowledge that "There is this, and there is this, and there is this". A sense of self would just be another thing that can either be present or absent in direct experience. Erasing that sense of self would just be another event in the causal loop. A convenient, but temporary, relief from suffering. But that kind of enlightenment is based on the absence of a sense of self, hence it is conditioned. All that arises due to conditions, is subject to change.

Your tone comes across as rather antagonistic. I make no such assumptions as those you have stated. It matters not to me who was more enlightened than who, whatever that means. It matters to me whether following a path leads to desirable results. It also matters not to me whether the Buddha was real. No I don't find this stuff boring and predictable, thank you for asking.

Hmm... I suppose I would agree with this to an extent. It negates more than just that, but yes. Definitely "yes"? Sounds like there is some clinging to the idea that "my enlightenment must be the true enlightenment, so everyone else's enlightenment must either be fake, or they are also talking about the same enlightenment as mine". You leave no room for the possibility that people are referring to very different experiences, but which, due to their individual ineffable qualities, seem to be described in seemingly similar ambiguous, paradoxical language. Perhaps a better stance would just be to say "maybe, maybe not".

Buddha rejects also the notion that "there is no self". The issue is not the answer. The issue is the question. The mere fact of asking "Who am I?" causes one to frame potential answers in terms of a self, rather than in terms of one's own actions. And this, he says, it what leads to a "wilderness of views", entangling oneself, rather than leading to liberation. The soteriological goal of Buddhism, Nibbana, is neither perception nor consciousness.

I don't really have a specific point here. I'm just curious to see what people in this community think of the ideas I presented. I see an irreconcilable contradiction in the popular themes put forth on this forum, with the ideas in the Buddhist doctrine.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? Do you mean the path of dispassion towards all forms of craving & clinging? Then I would agree. Good 'ole "different paths up the same mountain". Are they talking about the same mountain though? Intention is everything. Things get subtle when you go deep... and if your starting questions and initial assumptions are different, then I'm driving west and you're driving east.

Just there, you have forwarded a view/definition about what the self is. This is precisely the "inappropriate attention" mentioned in the OP. Buddhism hard-rejects the notion of eternalism:

The Buddha speaks about non-duality as also a mental fabrication. Something to not cling to, to let go of: EDIT: Also see:

seconded. you need to put yourself in a survival-type life-or-death fight-or-flight situation. neither philosophy nor even meditation will stimulate the reptilian survival instincts like a hike or camping in nature!

From my current position on my spiritual journey, I have come to a certain understanding of reality (through a combination of intellectual masturbation + direct experience) which might be described with the following sequence of words: "The Infinite Oneness manufactured the illusion of being not-one, that is, it manufactured the illusion of being separate ego-identifications. I assume this was done so that they could be later killed so that the Oneness may once again realize its inherent oneness and so rejoice in the ecstatic union of opposites." Now my question is this: How could it be so cruel as to create us only to cast us aside later for its own pleasure? Is that not cruel? Is it really worth it to create Hell/Samsara and populate it with beings who will toil and suffer for eternity, just to have Heaven/Nirvana which is exclusively reserved for itself/no one? EDIT: so for clarification, I'm not asking why Man creates his own suffering, but why God chose to incarnate as suffering-Man (knowing full well what it was getting into... omniscient and all that)

I thought anicca leads to anatta (since no conditioned phenomena can be taken as the unchanging-self, since they are all changing), and then realizing that there is "suffering" but none who suffer, leads to liberation from dukkha.

Well that's a bummer for my mind Should I try anyway until my mind gives up, or not even bother with it as a tool?

But that just reinforces my OP's position of God as being cruel

Yeah, I guess I'm just taking this whole thing personally. Kinda like: "Why did God forsake me!" Guess I need to work on my "impartial witness"-game.

As a symbol-manufacturing engine, my brain can hypothetically create all manner of illusions me-thinks. But I am interested not in why man creates his own suffering (as far as I know, this is done in pure ignorance), but why God does it to itself (for God is the complete lack of ignorance).

I think I grok. It's great to look back at how much I've grown. Strangely, it is also sad in a way (for me), to look back at who I left behind. It kinda feels like I murdered past-me, and replaced him. I think I get the "death of the old to make room for the new" idea and how it's necessary, but at the same time sad. Maybe that's just residue of my old-ego still clinging on...

I think I understand what you are saying here. The "non-originated aspect of unity" is un-moved, and hence is not to blame for Creation. I guess at this point of your post, that just reframes my question as, why does Creation create itself, given its inherent characteristic of suffering? Although, perhaps "suffering" is not inherent, but only an illusion which can be seen through by enlightened beings who realize their true self as the light of the "non-originated aspect of unity". Looks like I have more work to do. Excellent post, the rational part of my brain enjoyed having its foundations loosened. Some points in your post spawned additional curiosities in me: "It's you, you are not it." Hmm... I don't fully grok. I get that it's me... but I am not it? My existing interpretation is that they are one and the same. Care to elaborate? I am curious about this so-called "stealing of the potential" of the "killing energy" in "everyday ordinary situations". I assume by "killing energy" you mean something like "that universal force which destroys form, in contrast to the opposite force which creates"? How do I go about learning more about such techniques?

OP, by any chance, are you doing S. N. Goenka's Vipassana technique? (I assume you are unless you've travelled to Burma to do the other popular Vipassana technique of Mahasi Sayadaw; or there is some third technique that I don't know about, I would love to know). I have done a retreat in Goenka's style, and I understand why they recommend NOT mixing techniques. The technique requires you to attune your attention to subtle physical sensations while maintaining perfect equanimity, without other distractions such as mental noting or visualization. The point is to ground your awareness in your body, rather than your thoughts. I would be wary taking too seriously the advice of people on this forum. Ad-hoc eclecticism of random techniques might be fine for the casual meditator who isn't serious about enlightenment and just wants some emotional benefits. But if you want to go deep, you must go deep with one technique, whatever it is.

Careful taking Buddhist ideas out of context. Neither-perception-nor-not-perception refers to the 8th Jhana, which is a state of intense concentration that is very difficult to attain. One has to pass through Jhanas 1 through 7 first, before entering the 8th. There are specific procedures to follow.

The Progress of Insight. This is used by the Buddhist Vipassana tradition of Mahasi Sayadaw in Burma. It details a series of stages that (supposedly) everyone must pass through as they practice meditation, all the way until enlightenment. Of particular interest is a series of stages in the middle called "The Dark Night of the Soul", which is supposedly very unpleasant and possibly even depressing and seems as if one has "regressed" on the path, but actually is just another stepping stone.

Harris is certainly one of the more spiritual and open-minded academics out there, because he is even willing to talk about not-self, no-free will, meditation, spirituality, and psychedelics.

A more direct way would be to be have experienced trauma or depression as a child, then one can skip steps 1 & 2, and go straight to step 3. Granted, one is never truly immune to societal conditioning, but damn if depression aint a great way to disillusion oneself of such conditioning!

I have read the book, in fact it was THE first book I read that got me into meditation, Buddhism, spirituality, psychedelics, etc. It is the perfect gateway into spirituality for someone who is skeptical. I was an ex-Christian anti-theist before I read the book. Philosophical curiosity was my main motivation for reading it, and I understood Sam Harris to be very anti-religion. Ironically, it was BECAUSE I knew that he was anti-religion, that his statements about no-self, praise of Buddhism, and spirituality/meditation had more effect on me. I've outgrown the book now, and I think that Sam is still stuck in his rationalist and materialistic paradigm, not to mention that his career is based off of that. But I thank him for introducing me to spirituality, it has changed my life.

I have no idea what your experience is like, and I'm no expert, but I can offer some tips. Maybe try asking yourself why you want enlightenment in the first place? It also seems that your metric for "progress" is "interesting spiritual experiences", which seems to indicate a desire for something other than what is. Maybe try reflecting on more subtle or gradual changes such as how you have changed as a person over these past 2 years, are you happier than normal? more peaceful? less reactive? I think these are much better metrics than "had cool spiritual experiences". It's also possible you just haven't found a technique that jives with you yet, so perhaps try exploring different techniques. Or possibly you haven't committed enough and dived in DEEP into one technique? As for psychedelics, try up-ing the dosage or find a better dealer?