Thinking about thinking to be free of thinking.
Vadim Golub
Karma: 9
I consider even the existence of suffering to be alright.
I think you mash up two things into one—pain and suffering. Pain is inevitable and a useful indicator for maintenance of the body. But suffering is an added layer to it which can be reduced or got rid of completely. You accept the intention to be free from suffering. It means that you tend to some homeostatic state and find it preferable (otherwise, you would not have the intention to “play the game”). You state that without such dynamics of pleasure/suffering one would atrophy into oblivion. But I think it is not so. Pain is there as an indicator to keep the body going and it will be there after awakening. What you get rid of is self-ruminating mode of the brain to be obsessed with the body’s integrity. That’s what researches call self-referential internal narrative (SRIN). That’s what goes away. But inputs from pleasures and pains are still coming.
I somehow separated the raw feeling of suffering from the meaning component.
That sounds like an insight. But you were happy to reduce it, see? We tend in the direction of reduction of suffering.
On the topic of “free will”, I see where you are coming from. But I tend in the direction of superdeterminism (latest discoveries by Zeilinger et al, didn’t rule it out). How does it affect my macro level axiomatic system? I tend to relax — it’s all out of my hands and release the malady of thinking that I have to somehow change the world or even my (often dead-end) circumstances. So meta-level thinking often helps on a local macro scale.
Transcendence is not a property of a thing.
Oh, I don’t care about the thing before I’ve figured out how to transcend myself (unless it helps me to do so). It would be contradictory in my perspective. The truth as you highlighted is a property of subjective experience. Even if it applies universally, one has to discover it first in oneself. How do we know if we are not Boltzmann’s brains at all? Objective “reality” is one of the most harmful fictions.
For you, your brain is the judge.
I don’t trust my brain that much. Only locally and superficially. What I meant is the standard against which we evaluate our experience. If that standard is an average normal, it’s almost certainly unhealthy. I have high trust in people who transcended their self. And orient in the same direction. That creates the necessary friction or challenge (but I avoid the word conflict) for development. I think that such questions and examples give the right meta-level perspective so they are healthy for thinking. There most certainly is truth that I’m not aware of, but like the blind who wants to fix his vision, I tend to fix my perspective constantly and not on the level of thinking (so not theoretically).
I reversed an error.
And I’ve personally experienced the state where the world and the self were totally dissolved into the space of “dark electricity” which felt like the only thing that there is. It might be called Consciousness. So I know there is background, but I so far haven’t figured it out nor can I return “there”. But here I contradict Buddhists who deny any such background and more in line with Advaita practitioners who claim that that field (they call it Brahman) is all there is. So for me the question “what was first the chicken or the egg” has an answer—the chicken, i.e. Consciousness. But I cannot express it in better terms.
Would this not require immersion in the moment to the point of self-forgetfulness?
The point of dhyana/meditation is to train immersion to one’s breathing or being, that nothing can remove you from it, not even pain. Then paradoxically you are more engaged with life as your old algorithms of self-subversion and self-rumination break apart and you are more open to what’s really happening. Neurophysiologically it’s deactivating the DMN by some autotelic process without crutches.
All these things getting in your way are likely constructed by your mind in order to protect you, or by your ego in order to protect itself.
They are exactly built by the ego, but they are not healthy nor useful, just “vestigial tails” of past ancestors. They must be factored out somehow, or I don’t stand a chance with life.
What concerns sores. Playing a video game is fine but I’m sure you would not choose that your happiness depend on it, right? Imagine how many things have to be right to play a video game: safe environment, healthy brain, free time, physiological needs satisfied, relative security and so on. Imagine if that house of cards falls apart and if your happiness depends on it, it’s on a shaky ground. So I want to win over my self and get rid of it (read here to get rid of SRIN).
The anxious brain tells the self “I just need more information, then everything can be resolved”.
You think that the questions can be answered only in thinking. But they can be like zen koans that set up thinking with unsolvable riddle, which can only be transcended holistically and experientially. That’s what I meant. Right questions can be like hot coals, that tend to shut down the excessive thinking and collect the attention to a riddle or contradiction.
…to accept that you’re simply a being who prefers virtue over injustice, and prefers enlightenment over ignorance
That’s exactly the case. I happen to prefer that. And it’s not my virtue nor my fault. Pre-set configuration of this brain.
Yes, but you need conflict in order to have force at all.
Not conflict. A challenge. Conflict is dissipation, it’s heat and no free energy, just increase in entropy. A challenge is a structured contradiction usually feasible to solve. When you have an enemy, it only divides you inside and dissipates energy. But a sparring partner is different. See, where I’m going with this? From all expected outcomes the information has to be structured and complex enough to provide surprise to extract the useful relations from it. Otherwise, it’s garbage. The same applies for physical interactions with others. Conflict is just heat and dissipation.
The layer below thought is an animal like state of sensations and sensory impressions.
It’s exactly the opposite — the state of tranquility and peace, where obsessive thinking subsides and the brain is in the state of alertness and readiness. It is very active! But in silence. Some refactoring is going on there at that time, some rewiring. Animals as a rule don’t do that, they are always “on”, they constantly live in simulacra.
One more note, when I asked you “How do you know that there is no background?” it was a trick, as to know there is no background requires you to be outside of foreground at least for a moment, see? It’s a meta-knowledge. How would you get that knowledge if you were constantly immersed in the foreground? You would not know anything but foreground. But you obviously reflect over this matter, which shows you do it from a different space.
I’m not sure if methods for reaching enlightened states can be communicated.
Yes, it’s a well-known conundrum. Eventually, nothing works… Sages accept that. I tend to think it in the way of an analogy with the Feynman’s path integral. I believe there is an equivalent process in thinking. Our thinking goes all possible ways before the optimal solution is reached. And if your brain is complex enough and you feed it the right puzzles (contradictions, koans, whatever), it will come up with the experiential solution at the right time. And it will be the optimal path for it. The trick is to find (or guess) the triggers.
Let me try to experiment with one trigger (that works for me). Forgetting all the concepts. How would you answer the following question: how do you know that you are?
I’m less interested in Buddhism itself than in learning new insights that I can use to reprogram myself with
Actually same here. I only resonate with some of their thinkers who made me think and ponder over questions/triggers that work for me (Nāgārjuna is one such example). If you wish you can share your experiments, I’m always curious about interesting stuff that comes my way unsolicited...
All problems are with the map, the territory is perfect.
If you experience it in this way you are already liberated! That’s what Buddhism points to as well.
Is that not reduction?
Oh, no! Reduction is a process in thinking, and transcendence is holistic experiential insight into the nature of suffering’s emptiness (in Buddhist sense). It’s like writing down a formula for coffee and drinking it. One has to transcend suffering first to get what it is all about.
I think “the middle way” means a balance between extremes.
Superficially it is so. But the roots go much deeper. In short, it is the middle way in our tendency to live in absolutes in “something exists” and “nothing exists”, in “everything matters” and “nothing matters”. It is basically mental relativity stressing out interconnectedness of all “things” and their having no sense outside of relations. If you are interested what the middle way is, read my post on emptiness, I tried to express it there as best I could.
But truth exists, locally. Meaning exists locally, and free will exists in that it’s experienced.
For me “free will” never made any sense, and I’ve been observing my thinking since my teens. All I see is the blind intention that is arising out of the blue and then the body acts, and sometimes it acts first and then the intention arises! You no doubt have heard about Libet’s experiments. Ivan Sechenov, a physiologist, also factored out “free will” out of equation.
Concerning the truth. What if the truth of the default state is different from the one of transcendence? Who is the judge of what is true? What I mean, if I’m blind and someone tells me of colors, it will sound gibberish, but if I’m capable to fix my vision, I will get what he was saying all this time. The state of transcendence according to the liberated is similar.
Only the foreground is real!
How do you know that?
There’s no “being”, only a continuous “becoming”.
I would not agree with that as there are states where the concept of “becoming” looses meaning. But in the end run that’s what works for you and how you call that is secondary (although better maps help to navigate the territory in healthier ways).
But you cannot transcend something in the sense of going beyond it. Have you ever tried to transcend your own humanity?
That’s exactly what it means: going beyond it. As for myself: not only I’m trying constantly, but I’m already sure that “the other shore” exists, it’s not a figment of imagination, liberation is a real deal. And what you imply by super- or less- human is still on the human level. The goal is to go beyond these concepts altogether. It’s exactly to be one with the flow of life. To the point that there is no one, just the flow of life remains.
Him who has compete freedom is not engaged with anything.
On the contrary, it’s to be one with life as it goes. Your concept of freedom is somewhat different from mine. You imply that freedom is independence. But that’s not freedom, it’s a fiction (as no one can be truly independent). From my perspective freedom is the freedom from the self, i.e. from the associations that are built with regards to the body as the self, i.e. self-talk, desire, anger, hatred, delusion, etc. That which prevents me complete immersion with life as it is, instead of how I perceive it and regard everything through the prism of my body.
It transforms the negative into something positive.
I agreed that it has its place. But still sure it’s not the final solution. It’s like in the metaphor: itching helps with the sore temporarily, but to be without sores is more pleasurable. We prefer the state of being without sores than chronic condition of itching and scratching them, don’t we? The same applies here.
One cannot optimize for multiple things at once.
The thing is that they are not essentially multiple. But represent different aspects of the same dynamics: the freedom reflex. Only superficially it seems they are about different things. Virtue is the foundation that helps one to ask deeper questions. And life cannot be integrated until such questions are pondered and resolved. All about the same dynamics.
But the more you shield yourself from life, the less alive you will be.
Again, we have a different understanding of freedom. In my perspective freedom means openness to what is. I believe that’s what Buddhists also pursue. One cannot be outside of relations, but one can get beyond the travails of them. Which basically means to stop self-talk. Not by separating oneself, but by immersing in what is. The constant flow state.
The idea that nobody was to blame for anything. But it’s the concept of morality which makes this liberation impossible…
Buddhists exactly say that eventually there is no one to blame for anything, only the set of causes and conditions. But it doesn’t mean one cannot change conditions to more favorable for awakening, and one of the ways is the morality, as it frees the energies which are otherwise dispersed. E.g. to be cunning requires more energy, than to be truthful, etc.
The goal is to keep the comparison mechanism rather than destroying it
The trouble with it is that comparison operates in thought. Thought is limited by definition and operates by division. When you discover something that is beyond thought, free from thought completely, how will comparison match it? Freedom from thought is possible, it is not a state of zombie but full immersion in what is. Then the baseline will change accordingly (what would one need, if one gets happiness just from being, that lowers the baseline to the ground).
Ideal states should be sustainable over longer periods of time
It is possible to reach those states but very-very hard (that’s why so few succeed). You can check the post Myths about Nonduality and Science that explores this question in depth.
Nothing is fundamental, it’s all our own sloppy constructs. Even this word, “is”, is a linguistic construct.
You are close to the middle way here…
First of all, I am not at all an authority on Buddhism and not apologetic for it. These are just my limited understanding and thoughts. As I view some of their models helpful on my path.
They do not remain indifferent to positive sensations. They are all about developing virtues. What they say, is to choose those positive sensations wisely with discernment. The whole of the eightfold noble path is about developing proper positive sensations irrespective of circumstances.
But the real goal is the reduction of suffering.
The real goal is complete transcendence of suffering through experiential insight. And Buddhists (as many others) are not above illusions of the self and the self itself, only awakened individuals among Buddhists are. They were those who wrote the texts. Describing the way to this state the best they could. And the awakened individuals exactly state that seeing through the mechanism of suffering experientially makes it illusory (not just theoretically accepting it). So they recognize the second axiom as such, but that’s only true for the awakened. One has to transcend suffering to see it as illusory. And no amount of theorizing will help.
With regards to nihilism, it’s not entirely correct that they are nihilistic, it’s deeper than that. They respond with the Middle Way, a way between nihilism and eternalism. Which basically states that all interdependent phenomena lack intrinsic nature (or essence). That is, to begin with. Nihilism assumes the absence of intrinsic nature but implicitly presupposes existence of such intrinsic nature. What Buddhism says, there is no intrinsic nature to begin with, that can be intrinsically absent or negated / ‘nihilized’. The thing is they recover the relative meaning exactly in terms of such non-existence of intrinsic nature and make claim that meaning can only exist if there is no intrinsic nature (I wrote a post about it in details). If there could be intrinsic nature change would not be possible (as essence doesn’t change) and meaning would not make sense as it would be either absolute or non-existent. Other absolutist errors would follow.
So they are not saying that what is not permanent is not worth the effort. They are exactly saying use one’s locally true environment to transcend it. And yes, they will claim that it will seem as an illusion in the result (again, not as a theory, but as experienced reality). But illusion in a sense that it appears in one way, and exists in another. One will still operate in terms of cause and effect. But one will see the illusory structure of absolutes in one’s thinking. Things neither have intrinsic nature, nor they lack such intrinsic nature (exactly because no intrinsic nature exists to begin with). Because of that the self, clinging and suffering are transcended if one gets insight into emptiness.
When one finds meaning in suffering that is only a palliative to cope with, not the final solution, that is the transcendence of suffering. And in its place it has its value, I don’t see they are denying that. They just direct in the way of complete transcendence by insight into emptiness of suffering.
Food taste better when you’re really hungry.
They do say to neutralize the paroxysms of joy and sorrow, but in order to have tranquility and one-pointedness to enable insight. All is tampered to this end only—to get the insight.
I do not agree that freedom is empty, it is empty of the absolutes of intrinsic meaning, but full of tranquility and peace. Something that has a positive meaning and value. That they don’t say about it much is their pedagogical choice. Life will not loose oomph, it will flow unruffled not depending on circumstances anymore. Pleasures will still be pleasures. Joy will still be joy.
Concerning the expectations (I may not get what you mean here), they approach them through the moral instructions, which kind of gamifies the whole experience, and train themselves to be happy with what comes one’s way naturally. That’s lowering the bar to the minimum. However, they also set up the scene for the epic win—the enlightenment. Also according to the doctrine one cannot “live in reality” pre-awakening, one will get lost in one’s cognitive models of it. That’s why they are lowering the bar for the “necessities”. Ideally you will feel joyful just by renouncing the concept of ‘how life is supposed to be’. Self-perpetuating joy (and yes a feedback loop) is implied.
What concerns immersion. When one is not immersed in suffering (or joy), one tends to immersion in being itself. And that’s not something ‘empty’ but indescribably full. It’s like you get the flow state just from being! The baseline of where you get your joy from changes. Instead of externally-driven it becomes autotelic, coming from the inside.
I don’t compare it with the first Jhana as it lacks paroxysm inevitable for all joyful states. In words I can describe it as all-permeating peace for no apparent reason. When it happens, you want to repeat it and are ready to do whatever is necessary to get there (sadly it’s quite unpredictable and rare in my case).
Concerning that what one needs strong concentration and doesn’t need Buddhism I cannot argue with that. Who said anyone at all needs Buddhism. If one gets strong concentration out of any activity, hopefully autotelic, that’s helpful for the brain to switch from the DMN to the TPN network, - that’s the way to diminish suffering. But that’s what Buddhism also says in different words… But eventually, whatever works!
They may tell me I’m a fool, I’m not bothered by that, but what they generally say, e.g. ‘craving leads to suffering’, they don’t prescribe one to get rid of suffering. That’s left up to oneself to decide what to do with it.
Concerning the denial of reality as an illusion based on theory. It is not entirely correct. They stress out experiential insight into the nature of reality. To see things as they are, and not as we perceive them in the default state. And based on that experiential understanding use the map wisely. They are not nihilistic, they stress out the need for the Middle Way between the opposites of ‘is’ and ‘isn’t’, they are quite utilitarian in that sense. Their task is to dissipate the views, not to establish new ones.
It is true, that we are not in control. But the illusion that we are keeps us tense, i.e. clinging to it results in suffering. So, yes, letting go is freeing. That’s why Buddhists express truth in apophatic terms. Always as a negation to what is experienced.
What concerns that Buddhists have a problem with pleasant sensations, it is not entirely correct, they have a problem with clinging to them. They acknowledge that some pleasant sensations (like joy in meditative absorption) are superior in the sense that they are enabling insights into impermanence, suffering and absence of intrinsic nature. So their approach is utilitarian in that sense. They even say that cultivation of joy through meditative absorption is a healthy way to reduce suffering.
It is not that they prefer a flat landscape, they are set on relief from clinging and suffering. In that scheme they even acknowledge that joy from meditative absorption is preferable to other pleasures. But eventually even that has to be transcended. As it is impermanent and lacks substance. It is not like they say, “Pleasure is evil”, they are saying, “Use it skillfully to get insight and transcend clinging”.
Nibbana is usually described in apophatic terms to avoid building concepts about it, so it is always in the negative, e.g. freedom from clinging, freedom from desire, etc. But. The texts don’t say what it is. In one place it is called “the highest bliss”. So it is preferable to mind laden with clinging, even if this clinging is of very subtle form (e.g. for joy of meditative absorption). It is also supreme freedom and relief from what we consider to be ‘normal tension’. But it is not flat. Experiences are still registered, pleasures are there, they just don’t lead to clinging and craving anymore. The inner tension is not there.
So although it’s described in negative terms, it is not flat but “the highest bliss” that results from freedom from craving and compulsive thinking.
And what concerns the second point, it is simple: freedom from suffering is better than suffering. It doesn’t mean pleasures will be absent, they will loose the oomph (clinging and craving) beyond them. In our usual state we cannot imagine how deep the roots of suffering are, only when we experience even temporarily relief from it (e.g. by experiencing the state of stillness in meditative absorption and absence of problematic thoughts), we start to notice how unhealthy our default state in comparison to it. Only then we start wishing to change the default state, when we’ve experienced the other mode of being, of stillness beyond thinking.
What you describe about the human body where the present and future states are compared, it is indeed how we operate by default. We now know it is the function of the DMN which builds an image of “self in time” and performs comparison. But the loss of motivation is not what happens after liberation. We won’t become a zombie. We can judge about it by experience of liberated people. What happens is that the image-building mechanism collapses and actions flow spontaneously in stillness. The body still feeds itself when it has to. Planning and problem solving happens when they have to. What’s different—there is no commentator on top of that, that appropriates the experiences to itself. No inner dialogue, ‘I should do this’ / ‘I shouldn’t do that’.
The model that is helpful to understand it: we can divide the brain operation into an elephant and a rider, where the elephant is highly complex sub-conscious mechanism that performs all computation and solves all problems, and the rider is the conscious part of it, that appropriates the results to itself and claims that it decided to solve a problem and has solved the problem. After awakening the rider is wiped out, but the elephant still functions very much (as it always has done). In the end, it’s all about letting go and letting the elephant do what it does. As you yourself mentioned in the beginning, the control is only imagined and beautifully stated:
It merely feels as if we’re holding up the world through our cognitive strain, but it’s possible to just let go of everything and discover that it was holding itself up all along.
That also applies to ourselves! We are not in control of our thoughts or we do not choose what to desire (“You can do what you will, but not will what you will”, Schopenhauer). All that happens is out of our hands, we only imagine we have control.
What concerns the enlightenment—it’s anyone’s guess until one reached it. But some experiences with meditative absorptions tell me that:
The experience is not neutral, it is blissful beyond compare! It is like everything is permeated by peace and thoughts stop (self-referential ones, which are about 95% of them). It’s like you are high just on your own being! Nothing else is required (which doesn’t mean the body won’t feed itself when hunger is felt, but even not feeding the body feels alright, if it happens).
Peak pleasures are experienced more deeply and feel more pleasurable than ever. But. There is one but. Pain is likewise experienced more deeply. It’s like there is no dissipation to other thoughts and current experiences are being amplified and you cannot hide from them. I think that transfers to liberated state as I’ve heard many liberated people describe it in the same way.
What concerns the answer to ‘Is it better to love and lose than to never have loved?’ as ‘No.’ It is not what they say. They just express the law that if one has great clinging, one will suffer a lot. They don’t prescribe ‘not to love’ (in fact the opposite is true, as loving-kindness and compassion are virtues to be cultivated). They say: love, but love wisely, without clinging and craving. And use such love (as that’s superior to pleasure) to come to insight concerning the insubstantiality of self. Love is a potent portal to understand ourselves.
To sum up, Buddhists are not prescriptive (what concerns laymen), they are descriptive. They say “do as you wish, but that’s how it works”. And for those who are already keen on removing the suffering they give directions on the best way to do it (that they knew of). But in the end, you yourself described everything beautifully in the first paragraph! To the extent to which we let go of illusory control (clinging), to that extent we are free.
To sum up the reply in simple terms to all raised questions concerning pleasure in the Buddhist model: for the unliberated all pleasures are concomitant with suffering.
That includes “positive pleasures” such as pleasure derived from the beautiful art or profound scientific thinking. It happens due to the fact that for the unliberated all pleasures imply craving (tanhā) of some sort and corresponding mental states bear the three marks of existence: impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha) and the absence of substantive nature (anatta). Even pleasure derived from well-being as a result of craving (bhava-tanhā) is not free from the three marks. As it is a subject to change (impermanence).
That said, some pleasures are higher in the scheme of things as they might lead to insight into the nature of the self (or rather non-self, anatta) or directly to the non-dual state (Nibbana). Those pleasures include joy states (pīti and sukha) experienced during deep meditative absorption (samādhi). Deep absorption states might arise during the periods of contemplation on a scientific problem or profound art form as well. Stillness of the mind which is the result of deep meditative absorption is propitious for insight into the nature of reality. In that sense it’s a preferable state. Albeit still not free from subtle craving therefore subtle suffering.
And for the liberated the mechanism of craving is absent. So pleasures (and sorrows) don’t lead to clinging (upādāna) and are experienced with equanimity and peace independent of the outcome. Whatever the pleasures may be. It doesn’t mean that the sensations are not registered or action is avoided. The key words here are equanimity and peace. Action flows naturally in accordance with the circumstances.
Sorry to bother you again, but I was wrong about joy (pīti and sukha) all this time! They are mental factors in Buddhism, so they have three marks of existence: impermanence, suffering and no substantive nature. When I was writing I was thinking about the term ananda from Advaita tradition. Which is usually translated as bliss and concomitant with liberation. I thought they were synonymous. And they are not!
Buddhists don’t use a positive term to describe that state, they only point to the unconditioned nature that results out of extinguishment of the fires of delusion, greed and hatred. Profound peace and freedom that results out of that extinguishment may be described as happiness. The happiness of release from craving. In one place they describe it as “the highest bliss” (parama sukha).
The stillness of the mind that I was referring to comes from Advaita tradition and called there sahaja sthiti (natural state or innate state) and may be partially experienced during the meditative absorption (samādhi). When the mind abides in the meditative absorption thoughts and craving cease and what is experienced is deep peace beyond description. I wrongly called it “joy”. But it is called bliss in Advaita tradition and Buddhist tradition in general describes it in negative terms, i.e. the absence of craving, etc.
Therefore, what I meant by “joy” was the extinguishment of craving and the resulting “highest bliss” (parama sukha). And what I meant by “stillness of the mind” was the pointer to that natural unobscured abiding—called sahaja sthiti in Advaita, which finds its ultimate consummation in the realization of Nibbana in Buddhism.
To sum up. Stillness of the mind is bliss. Craving is turbulence in the mind. As long as there is craving there is seeking for pleasure (or avoiding unpleasantness) to still the mind. Satisfying pleasure is not bliss, only a spasmodic glimpse of it, a temporary relief. The highest bliss is possible if we reach effortless stillness of the mind by getting rid of craving. Whatever we do in that state of stillness is unblemished by craving and excessive thinking. Until then we are subject to craving of one kind or another.
So to answer your initial question in terms of the Buddhist doctrine: all pleasures are concomitant with suffering (for the unliberated and for the liberated the mechanism of craving is absent).
To put it simply: everything we do with a still mind is pure joy (based on the doctrinal assumption and some personal experience). Craving is turbulence in the mind. We crave to be free from suffering or satisfy a desire. As long as there is craving there is seeking for pleasure (or avoiding unpleasantness) to still the mind (at least temporarily, to have a glimpse of joy the still mind entails). Pleasure is not permanent joy (happiness) only spasmodic glimpse (if at all). So craving and pleasure are interrelated. The Buddhist doctrine states that permanent joy is possible if we get rid of craving or still the mind.
What concerns great music, art, science and so on—they mostly come from deep absorption and one-pointed concentration to the point of detachment from everything else where craving subsides and the mind becomes still (at least for some time). Stillness of the mind or the absence of craving are the same.
This is a fascinating dialogue, thank you for sharing it! I want to jump on board of the Reassuring Voice and add some comments.
First, nirvana is not extinction of a person, life or experience. What is extinguished is suffering (dukkha) and its cause—craving (tanha). It’s the extinction of the fire of ignorance, clinging and aversion—not of consciousness or life. The result is described as the highest bliss, supreme security and freedom. All are positive terms. It is the end of problematic mode of being and not of being itself.
Second, the first noble truth doesn’t say “everything is suffering”. It says that life as conditioned by clinging (upadana) is pervaded by suffering (dukkha). It’s a statement about a process (clinging to the five aggregates), not a condemnation of pure sensory experience itself.
Eliminating the ‘knots’ (craving/clinging) is not like trimming a tree branch by branch until nothing is left. It’s like untying a knot in a hose. Once the knot (the obstruction) is gone, the water (life, energy, consciousness) can flow freely, without distortion or blockage. The goal isn’t to stop the flow; it’s to remove the distortions that cause the “painful pressure” and “blocked functionality”.
Third, the Buddhist path is about cultivating positive qualities, not just negating negatives (even more so!) The four noble truth, the noble eightfold path is a training in skillful action, not inaction. It cultivates: wisdom (prajñā), ethical conduct (śīla) and meditative absorption (samādhi). These states represent a re-orientation from “scratching itches” (craving-driven action) to skillful, compassionate and clear engagement with the world.
Last, on present day Extinctionists R is right to dismiss them. Extinctionism mistakes the problem (suffering born of craving and ignorance) for the vehicle of experience (life itself) and seeks to destroy the vehicle to solve the problem. The Buddhist solution is to repair the flawed navigation system of the driver (the mind), not to crash the car.
Your dialogue beautifully resolves the issue. The ‘knots’ metaphor is perfect. We aim to untie the painful, self-reinforcing knots of craving and aversion so that the muscle of our being can be strong, flexible, and capable of healthy, responsive tension—not perpetually knotted up in suffering, nor limp and atrophied in a pseudo-nirvana of inaction (stupor really).
The goal isn’t the extinction of life but the transcendence of a specific flawed operating system (the ‘itch-and-scratch’ or ‘knot-forming’ system) and its replacement with one of wisdom and compassion. That is the opposite of extinctionism, it’s about making life actually work.
This is a crucial question, thank you for asking it! It challenges the model’s boundaries and forces us to be precise about what we mean by ‘suffering’ (dukkha) and ‘craving’ (tanha).
Short Answer: The model does not necessarily deny the existence of such pleasures (they would be in a different category though, more on this later). It invites us to inspect them more closely. Are they truly free from the mechanism of ‘scratching a sore’, or do they contain subtle elements of it? The framework suggests a spectrum rather than a binary.
Distinguishing dukkha (the ‘sore’) from acute pain. First, it’s important to clarify that dukkha in the first noble truth is not just gross pain or misery. It encompasses a subtle, pervasive background of unsatisfactoriness, instability, or ‘dis-ease.’ This can include:
- boredom: seeking stimulation (music, study)
- existential restlessness or meaning-seeking: pursuing beauty (art) or truth (mathematics)
- a sense of incompleteness or lack of accomplishment: the drive to create
If the activity primarily functions to relieve that kind of background tension, then it fits the ‘scratch’ dynamics, even if the activity itself is sublime. The pleasure is, in part, the relief of that subtle lack.The concept of ‘non-craving joy’ (pīti, sukha). Buddhist sources themselves acknowledge states of joy that are not born of sensual craving. In deep meditation (jhāna and samadhi), one experiences rapture and happiness that arise from stillness, concentration, and letting go, not from fulfilling a lack. This is closer to the ‘no-sore’ state manifesting as positive affect. This is what Nāgārjuna means by “more pleasurable still”, abiding in this state is pure joy.
Could listening to Bach or contemplating an elegant proof trigger a similar non-acquisitive non-lacking joy? Possibly, if it is experienced with a mind free from craving—free from the ‘itch’ to possess it, to use it for status, to escape something else, or even to prolong the experience itself. The pleasure then is not a relief from a negative, but an appreciation of a positive that arises in a still mind. Then it should be called joy, really.The model itself might serve as a litmus test. To distinguish between pleasure and non-contrived joy one might ask:
- is it addictive? Does its absence create a craving or a sense of loss? (Suggests a ‘scratch’ dynamic.)
- what is its emotional aftertaste? Does it lead to contentment and release, or to a craving for more? (The former suggests satiation; the latter suggests the ‘sore’ remains.)
- could I enjoy this equally if no one ever knew I experienced it? (Helps isolate it from the ‘sore’ of social validation).
Creating great art or mathematics often involves immense struggle (a ‘sore’), but the moment of breakthrough can feel like a transcendent release from that very struggle. Yet, the appreciation of the final product by a still mind might be different—a pure non-contrived joy.
Therefore, the model doesn’t automatically categorize all pleasure on the same level (there is a non-contrived joy which is beyond the scope of pleasure). What it does: it asks us to discern the underlying mental state. A huge portion of what we chase is relief-driven (‘scratching’), and that a state of peace (‘no sore’) is superior and can itself be profoundly positive. So the pleasures you list could sit anywhere on this spectrum between pleasure and non-contrived joy. The final litmus test is whether there is craving or not.
Thank you for this comment! It’s an excellent response that gets to the heart of the matter. You’re absolutely right to focus on the metaphor, as its validity determines the model’s usefulness.
Let me clarify the intended meaning, because I think we use ‘pleasure’ in two different senses, which is exactly what the metaphor is trying to reveal.
Distinguishing ‘pleasure’ from ‘well-being’. The claim isn’t that the sensation of scratching is less intense than the sensation of neutrality. The claim is about the overall state of the system.
In a ‘scratching state’ the system has a problem (a sore/itch). The scratch provides a high-contrast relief from the negative state. This relief is intensely felt and is certainly ‘pleasurable’ in a hedonic sense. But the system’s baseline is compromised.In a ‘no sore state’ the system has no problem. There is no negative state to relieve, so there’s no high-contrast ‘pleasure event’. Instead, there is a steady unobstructed peaceful functionality. This is what Nāgārjuna calls “more pleasurable still”, not in terms of peak sensory intensity, but in terms of well-being and the absence of background suffering.
The metaphor argues that what we often chase as ‘pleasure’ is the first kind: the intense signal of a problem being temporarily solved. The second kind—the peace of a problem-free system—is quieter but constitutes a higher quality of existence.
A way to test this: would you choose to have a mild chronic itch in order to enjoy scratching it? Probably not. The pleasure of scratching 100% depends on unpleasantness of the itch. The pleasure is fundamentally parasitic on the problem. If you could magically have no-itch state, you would certainly choose that! This reveals that at a meta-level we value the problem-free state more, even if scratch provides a momentary peak experience of pleasure.
Translating this to worldly desires: the model suggests our worldly cravings often work the same way. The pleasure of satisfying a craving (for food, distraction, status, etc.) is often most intense when it relieves a background state of lack, anxiety, or boredom (the ‘sore’). The point is not to never scratch an itch—that’s impractical, the insight is:
To recognize the itch. In other words: is this craving arising from a genuine neutral need or from a background ‘sore’ I’m trying to pacify?
To aim to problem-free state. Prioritizing movement to ‘no sore state’ (by insight, resolution of conflicts, etc.) over optimizing for the most efficient ‘scratching’ routines.
So you point is valid, if we equate ‘pleasure’ with raw hedonic intensity. The model invites us to consider a wider perspective of well-being, where freedom from the need to scratch is superior (if less intensive) outcome.
I also would like to clarify a point about mindfulness meditation and insight practice (vipassana). As they are sometimes mixed together. And while insight practice works, mindfulness, a stripped down version of it, doesn’t.
I’ll start by referencing a paper mentioned in the post, namely “Meditation experience is associated with differences in default mode network activity and connectivity.” [7] There the authors have shown that Theravada monks clearly shut down the DMN by what they call “mindfulness meditation”. And describe three methods of mindfulness meditation: breathing meditation, Choiceless Awareness (the term coined by Krishnamurti Jiddu), and loving-kindness (metta) meditation.
That might confuse things a bit. But let’s look at the basic source for monk’s training—Pali Canon. The basic instruction for insight and concentration practices in the tradition of Theravada is Satipatthana Sutta and Anapanasati Sutta which are unfortunately translated as “The Foundations of Mindfulness” and “Mindfulness of Breathing”. The word “sati”, which is translated as “mindfulness”, literally means “recollection”. And it is a term there that is used in developing concentration.
What do those texts say about practice? Is it only recollection of breathing and awareness? No. They are clearly set to contemplate the Four Noble Truths, the Five Hindrances, the Seven Factors for Awakening and so on. So they are loading contradictions in thinking to contemplate upon (e.g. “I suffer” / “Freedom from suffering is the goal”, “I feel desire” / “Desirelessness is the goal”, etc.). I would suggest that those act as koans to contemplate during practice. So both concentration is developed (samatha) and insight is cultivated (vipassana). In one practice!
So what does it say about the monks from the paper? First of all, they have selected monks who are awakened (who can switch off the DMN). Knowing the protocol of their practice they most likely have come to awakening through insight and concentration practices. And after that they can naturally abide in this place by just about any stimuli. But for the monks “mindfulness” means long-long years of vipassana and samatha practices. While for researchers it means the stripped down version of it (without accounting for the details how they reached that state)!
Long story short, mindfulness practice as noticing thoughts and sensations and coming back to awareness on itself seems to be not enough to shut down the DMN. It has to be full scale insight and concentration practices as described in the text (i.e. going through all the truths, factors, contemplating them, releasing attachments, etc.). And that’s what monks from the paper supposedly did.
There is a good video with one illuminating comment (pinned), Does Mindfulness Lead to Persistent Nonduality? In the comment it is said that the traditional vipassana practice by itself has a missing component:
He [the Dalai Lama] essentially gave his blessing to the Goenka retreats but said he felt that there was a missing element. He advised practitioners to look back and try to find the one doing the meditation.
So basically the Dalai Lama recommended self-inquiry practice on top of vipassana.
Why I decided to articulate those nuances? I feel like most of the time people confuse mindfulness meditation with insight practice and do it for years (I did so myself). I hope that clarifies things a bit.
Not necessarily. There are two points of interest here. First, it depends what one means by meditation. If that’s mindfulness meditation, there are studies that have shown that it doesn’t deactivate the DMN. If we add here the fact that some people dedicate 4-8 hours per day to meditation that’s a recipe for disaster as the ruminating network is working all those 4-8 hours under the hood. There is a useful post by Gary Weber, mindfulness meditation—religious vs secular—does it work? - new research that discusses this point.
Second, if the shift has occurred without the proper preparation (i.e. the “I” is not deconstructed enough) or suddenly during the insight practice, the DMN network might try to win control back and there will be a conflict as the DMN is not shut down. That might happen if awakening happens “out of the blue” and the ruminating network is strong. That might even lead to the Dark Night of the Soul. Here is another useful post by Gary, Dark Night of the Soul?...who/why/what to do.
The key point in both is that “I” has to be deconstructed enough, which means one has to learn to shut down the DMN properly. As even after awakening it might cause trouble if one didn’t learn to shut it down. A book by Suzanne Segal, Collision with the Infinite is an example how a person might struggle to integrate awakening after it occurred.
So in the end I would guess (and please keep in mind that it’s a speculation of a layman) that given the proper conditions it’s not meditation itself that causes psychosis but the DMN that is hyperactive. The issue with mindfulness meditation is that it doesn’t address the activity of the DMN.
Depression is a real challenge. It’s difficult to explain what it is until you’ve been through one. I’ve found the method of self-inquiry to be of help (e.g. “Who is depressed/suffering/cannot move?”, “Well, I am.”, “Where does this I come from?” and keep looking for the source of the “I”).
It is postulated that self-inquiry helps to deconstruct the “I” and as a result to pacify two subnetworks (of the DMN) that are responsible for building the images of “self in time” and “self and other” (as most thoughts are build around them). So it helps in reducing self-rumination and thoughts which are supporting the depressive state. There is a nice video on that topic—dealing with thoughts by Gary Weber.
Yes, I’m only re-quoting Wittgenstein from another book (Jay Garfield, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way), so my understanding is only approximate in that case, I could not process the Tractatus as it’s way over my head. And I’ll check the sequences.
A little example how one can apply this. I have near to zero expectation about this post being understood or liked (not that it doesn’t matter at all, I’m serious enough to elaborate the concepts as best I can, but beyond this it’s not under my control). I also know that disappointment is dependent upon expectation so they are both empty of intrinsic nature. Therefore, I’m not anxious about people liking that text, nor I’m disappointed if it’s being disliked. In that case I see that disappointment and expectation are both empty. So I’m free from both!
What if it wasn’t so? And my expectation was high (i.e. I would approach it like it had intrinsic value). I would be disappointed because of low karma. But how to get rid of that disappointment? It is to see that it’s empty. How? To analyze that it depends on the expectation, and if I can let go of my expectation, I will be free from the disappointment.
And how does one let go of the expectation (or any negative feeling)? There are many ways. First, by observing one’s mind impartially and seeing it clearly for what it is (what in Buddhism is called vipassana meditation). Second, I can imagine myself on my deathbed and ask the question, “How important would it be then?” Third, I can apply a technique like The Sedona Method. In this way I can see through my constructs on the conceptual level and the level of feeling and be free from them.
That’s how the concept of emptiness might be used in practice.
Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comment!
It wasn’t meant to sound mysterious. The way I see it is that our process of thinking by default creates intrinsic entities and processes (whether we are aware of it or not) and almost becomes metaphysical with respect to our inbuilt ontology. In simple terms, we give too much credit to “how things really are”. And I attempt to question that in order to deconstruct such an attitude (not only on conceptual level, but at the level of feeling). It’s the same idea Wittgenstein expressed in the Tractatus:
6.371 The whole modern conception of the world is founded on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena.
6.372 Thus people today stop at the laws of nature, treating them as something inviolable, just as God and Fate were treated in past ages. And in fact both are right and both are wrong: though the view of the ancients is clearer in so far as they have a clear and acknowledged terminus, while the modern system tries to make it look as if everything were explained.Why am I writing this? In part, when I want to understand something better I try to express that to other people. It helps to consolidate thinking. So I it’s out of self-interest. In part, I really find thinking about it interesting so there is an impulse to share it with others (the interesting part). In part, I’ve figured out that by contemplating such matters makes me grasp my concepts and feelings about the world less. It leads my thinking to pacification. So I thought maybe it will also lead someone else thinking to the same result if they contemplate emptiness of phenomena.
I wholeheartedly agree with that point. And it’s indeed what the concept of emptiness points to, that there is no such thing as “empty space” or “just nothing”, but, “The void is pregnant with infinite possibilities.” It’s the conceptual understanding of emptiness which helps us to unravel our grasping for something tangible and real. And indeed that’s the question of physics. But one can marvel at that even outside of the physical perspective.
I haven’t seen the blog you’ve mentioned, I’ll check it out. I liked your examples. The concept of emptiness is exactly directed to our meaning making process. How does it help to contemplate that? If we set absolute meaning and expectation to our life we suffer. We turn nihilistic when we expect life to have intrinsic meaning with regard to our values and become disappointed when we are faced with the way things are.
In order to be free from that we have to question if meaning that was built really does have that intrinsic nature or it’s just conventional. Contemplating emptiness helps us to disassemble our beliefs and release our absolute expectations not only on conceptual level but on the level of feeling.
It also helps us to be free from the nihilistic stance. As we take ourselves and our meaning making less seriously (in a good sense). We can see that our previously set intrinsic meaning was empty to begin with, so there is no reason to despair because of that. And by seeing that all meaning is conventional, we can let go grasping for sand castles and make the best of it.I agree that these are all useful questions to ask. And I keep them in mind. Maybe, it doesn’t transfer through the text.
One more reason I wanted to share this is to start a conversation on emptiness (not necessarily between myself and other people, but for people just to stop for a moment and ponder this, like you did!) I think when we’re contemplating something abstract, we’re releasing our attention from purely pragmatic and material matters and enter some other space or mode of thinking which helps us to disentangle with our worries of everyday life. To put it simply we stop thinking about politics, wars, catastrophes, etc. and think about something entirely different. Which brings a release to thinking.
I like another related Daoist concept of “worth of worthless” or “usefulness of useless knowledge” (reference to Abraham Flexner’s article). If we only think about issues of the day or only about practical matters, our thinking is caught in the loop of worries and concerns. If we start and think about seemingly unrelated to anything matters, first, we relax as nothing is at stake (we can be silly if we like), and second, we might find solutions to our problems we couldn’t have predicted. It serves as a link or a bridge between seemingly unrelated areas of our experience. Maybe I will develop this theme into another post or maybe LW is not the place for such reflection.
Having said all this, I wanted it to be an open question and an exploration into emptiness and the self. What does emptiness mean? What do I really know? What is the ground of my experience? What does it mean to be empty of the self? Who am I? etc. Not “transferring profound truths”. To start a reflection (as it worked in your case). Whether or not some people find it interesting or useful that’s for them to decide. I personally find contemplation over emptiness useful as it disentangles my thinking from everyday matters and helps to release stress. But it also has a light touch to it which is not unlike John Cage’s piece 4′33.
And (probably most importantly) to highlight that having an insight into emptiness may open the door to awakening.
To finish this with another Wittgenstein quote:
6.54 My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)
Sorry for the disappointment. But you’ve discovered something—the emptiness of content! It is not sarcasm. Fundamentally, even the disappointment is empty as it’s dependent on the expectation (but to get this far one has to contemplate deeply). Any phenomenon—external or internal—can be approached this way. That’s the payload.
EDIT: It’s not a cheap trick! One can think of it this way. First, there is a conceptual understanding of emptiness (you’ve heard of it somewhere and have discovered conceptual emptiness of constructs). Second phase is to apply it on the perceptual level (as in the example with the disappointment, one can actually be free from it but it’s an advanced level of insight into emptiness). And the final phase is to understand the emptiness of intrinsic meaning we set to our life, or our “intrinsic” expectation from life. The last phase is non-trivial. If one gets insight into it, one awakens. In this way our “intrinsic” disappointment with life disappears.
Thanks for the compliment! :-) But I’m not a philosopher.
I look at it differently. Something has caught your attention. And if the text has made you stop and ponder for at least a tiny moment on any word/question/relation, then it’s played its function—to gleam at things from a different perspective.
It’s like in the parable about the blind men and an elephant. We look at life from different perspectives or different levels of abstraction. What we compress from it turns into our understanding. If we like, we can operate at different levels of abstraction constructively in complementary fashion. Every kind of knowledge contains in itself potential for some understanding (even if it’s negative). Not always and not everything can be formalized and reduced to simple logical rules without contradictions (think about Gödel’s theorems). And there was no intention to do that.
Here the intention was to share something that I find to be interesting and which may lead other people to reflect. What concerns my skill to do that—that’s entirely different point. And understanding is a little miracle when it happens, but it is not a necessity.
Thank you for your kindness and time!
Do you have a teacher?
No. It’s impossible to find one where I am.
What type of meditation do you do / have you done?
Currently: self-inquiry practice, sometimes meditation on breathing. Previously: meditation on breathing, mindfulness meditation.
How long have you been doing it for (both time per sit and calendar time)?
Since 2013. 1-3hr per day (no more than 1hr per sit).
What books and other material have you read?
Too many to mention. I’ve read the first two books from your list. I will list books that affected me deeply and directed/direct the practice:
- Ramana Maharshi: Who am I?, Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, The Collected Works, Day by Day with Bhagavan, etc., all books by him or about him.
- Philip Kapleau, The Three Pillars of Zen. Bassui’s letters are all gold!
- Gary Weber: Happiness Beyond Thought, Dancing Beyond Thought, Evolving Beyond Thought.
- Krishnamurti Jiddu: Commentaries on Living, Krishnamurti to Himself, Krishnamurti’s Journal, A Wholly Different Way of Living, etc., many books and videos.
- Chögyam Trungpa: The Sanity We Are Born With, Meditation in Action, The Sacred Path of the Warrior, Smile at Fear, The Mishap Lineage: Transforming Confusion into Wisdom, etc., many entry books on basic sitting meditation and Dharma in simple terms.
- Nisargadatta Maharaj: I am That.
- Nāgārjuna: The Ornament of Reason (translation by Mabja Jangchub Tsondru), The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way (translation by Jay Garfield), Letter to a Friend, Precious Garland. Used for reflection.
- Longchenpa: The Precious Treasury of The Way of Abiding, The Precious Treasury of the Basic Space of Phenomena, The Precious Treasury of Pith Instructions, etc.
- Alfred Korzybski: Science and Sanity, Manhood of Humanity, etc. Used for reflection.
- Alexander Piatigorsky: The Buddhist Philosophy of Thought, Symbol and Consciousness, etc. Used for reflection.
- Henepola Gunaratana: Mindfulness in Plain English.What have you tried that you like and dislike?
- mindfulness meditation[1]: it worked in the beginning, was reaching Access Concentration, but now I lose interest quickly;
- repetition of mantras and looking for the source where they come from: worked during really dark times, but now feels off;
- chanting: working but I take it more like a plaything;
- meditation on breathing[2]: it works leading to Access Concentration, ok with it;
- self-inquiry[3]: grappling with it, previously led to mystical experiences, sometimes hits “the sweet spot” and Access Concentration, can do it while walking, waiting in queues, etc, it’s my preferred practice as I deeply resonate with the question;
- relaxing into awareness[4]: it does miracles when it works, but it’s not consistent and depends on external factors (like the state of the mind and weather);
- just sitting (shikantaza): as a rule it doesn’t work but occasionally it hits “the sweet spot”, i.e. Access Concentration;
- counting breaths[5]: it works and leads to Access Concentration;
- kirtan kriya[6]: it works for short periods of time (like 15 minutes), gets to Access Concentration quickly;Set up a video call with this teacher. He is legit. You can set up a video call with me too, if you like.
Thank you for your kindness! I’ll keep that in mind.
Don’t attempt to consciously shut down your DMN. Don’t even worry about it. Getting into a state where the DMN is shut down by default temporarily feels like a side effect of concentration. Changing the DMN’s default state comes from insight and/or mindful living practice, not mere concentration. Even people with normal DMNs feel like thoughts are running galore when they begin meditation. This is normal.
I have a medical condition which I’m uncomfortable of sharing but which suggests that the DMN is overly active in my case. In practice it means more self-rumination and less clarity.
Did a teacher you respect give you the koan? If not, I recommend against koan practice entirely. (If you like koan practice and feel koan practice is working for you, then disregard this bullet point.)
Yes, Gary Weber in personal correspondence suggested me to continue with the koan/self-inquiry and also suggested a mantra/breathing practice to switch gears.
If you have a mystic experience and then it goes away due to something like “I could not stay there long as ego reappeared”, that isn’t a failure of the practice. It actually means things are going correctly, because it is giving you insight into what your ego is and how it operates.
If possible, find a local community of good practitioners who do lots of sitting (not too many trappings of religion) and who don’t ring any culty alarm bells. They can be any denomination.
It’s problematic where I live.
Finally, a warning: This meditation stuff can make sensory overload worse [for months] before it makes it better.
Yeah, that point is loud and clear to me.
- ^
Simply coming back to awareness when noticing thoughts.
- ^
Coming back to breathing when noticing thoughts.
- ^
“As each thought arises, one should inquire with diligence, “To whom has this thought arisen?” The answer that would emerge would be “to me”. Thereupon if one inquires “Who am I?”, the mind will go back to its source; and the thought that arose will become quiescent. With repeated practice in this manner, the mind will develop the skill to stay in its source.” / Ramana Maharshi, Who am I?
- ^
Simply letting go all strife and practices and abiding in awareness. I have distilled it from Longchenpa and Dzogchen.
- ^
Counting breaths every inhale and exhale, or just exhales.
- ^
Kirtan Kriya by Gary Weber.
Oh, I wasn’t trying to solve a problem (except for subconscious few). I think philosophizing has its own value, an end in itself and “random insights” are what makes it interesting. It’s rare when someone takes it seriously enough for it to be interesting. And it was interesting for me so far. Your brain is more sophisticated than mine but I will still try to entertain you, especially considering that I see many things differently.
I think he exaggerated a bit. As many philosophers reflect due to this very reason—to reflect oneself out of the system. To see oneself from the side as an object, as a stone. In order to get an insight and transcend it. And yes, for the attentive such thinking is the most intimate reflection of a person one can think of. For example, here is the first clause of Alexander Piatigorsky’s testament:
No need to be afraid here. All-permeating tranquility takes its place and its very life-affirming and accepting, it’s like saying “yes” to everything. I can say so because I’ve experienced those moments when the narrative stops and they are freeing. It’s like you get a complete wonder out of things you previously deemed mundane. But the total shut down of the narrative is my goal and, yes, it’s possible (the post I mentioned above about nonduality discusses this in detail). You say “you need” to “feel meaning”. Who told you about the need? And the meaning-making changes when the brain turns to different modes of being. It’s not obliterated. Kegan invented five stages of development of the self and the meaning-making mechanism where each stage crushes before new begins. It’s a helpful map, when your mind is in a transitional stage.
That might mean two things. Either you deem the very question flawed because the concept of reality is like our belief in ghosts. Or you have to define what you mean by reality, or at least describe it the way you see it.
But it would be a compassionate thing to explain to me that demons don’t exist or direct me to seek a professional help. Not that anyone says someone has to be compassionate. It just would be such an act.
First, I call development everything that helps me to get rid of the self, to transcend it completely. Second, I disagree with that because suffering doesn’t lead to development in the usual sense as well, it only increases entropy of the situation. Some strong individuals may learn from it, but most won’t. It’s just an explosion, no free energy involved as it doesn’t have a structure.
That’s why in ancient Advaita texts they mention two types of consciousness: objectifying consciousness (or empiric) and Pure Consciousness, that which lights up the screen of the theatre (or the cave). From the standpoint of objectifying consciousness, Pure Consciousness is either a fiction or a concept. But from the standpoint of Pure Consciousness, objectifying consciousness is an illusion. Think of the moon that reflects in many waters in pots. Every reflection thinks it has light of its own independent of other pots and of the moon. Until the pot is broken and water drains. Only the moon remains.
But you are already 100% grounded at that point. Meaning when not even pain can distract you from pure being.
I assess my coping strategies as subpar and the internal narrative as overly anxious. I rarely think in terms of society as such complexity is beyond my brains, but I tell you this: do you think it could have been otherwise? It’s a rhetorical question. On that note, I also don’t think we create things or that they are sloppy concepts or ours, we indeed discover them, nobody chose to be born with 10 fingers (which leads to decimal arithmetics) or bilateral vision (which basically gives you trigonometry), Theory of General Relativity or the Universal Turing Machine is practically inevitable for observers like us. ”… we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper” / Einstein.
First, one has to come to that place. Everything that needs fixing will be fixed. When you are happy you still tend to homeostasis, not only when you are in pain.
Conquering oneself is tantamount to finding out the reality.
But you’ve said yourself, that the point is in playing the game not winning it, so the intention to avoid suffering is there, you accept it, it’s only that you don’t believe it can be done (or is healthy), so you play this game. That is which surprises me. As one thing can be generalized to living beings (and I’m very cautious with generalizations usually) and that’s tendency to be happy. But in your model you refuse to seek an antidote for the sore. I don’t say I don’t believe you, but find it surprising.
I don’t agree with Nietzsche here. I’ve already described the way I see it. It’s increase in entropy and the absence of free energy. The energy is there, it’s just cannot be used constructively (i.e. to lessen the entropy increase). So it leads to dissipation of heat (both metaphorically and not).
And what’s wrong with that? Or who has the choice over preset conditions of one’s makeup? You see you say you don’t want to win the game but tend to think in terms of conflict and power, as if you do.
And I think understanding is not a guaranteed outcome even if one is intelligent (and more so if not), but that doesn’t mean you must necessarily remain silent, some will see it from another angle, some won’t. Every way to solve a Zen koan is an error, yet it is helpful in order to lead beyond the mind.
A cartesian answer. But what about the deep dreamless sleep? You could not think there, but you know that you are somehow. You don’t doubt your being in your deep sleep, do you? If there were no thinking there, how so?..