tsuki

@now is forever If I knew that, I wouldn't be this lost. I know nothing.

@now is forever Frankly, I'm so lost that I may be beyond help.

Thank you for your kind words.

What does it mean that I remember something? How is it possible to be familiar with anything? let's look at the above picture. It is obvious that the two sides of the tree are different. This difference is apparent because they both appear in the visual field simultaneously and I assume I am an unchanging reference frame. But what happens if I add time to the equation? How do I know that the picture did not change between consecutive observations? Because I think that I remember what it looked like. Memory is also rooted in comparison. I can compare what I experience to what I remember. I can always perceive difference or sameness across time, but can I really tell what changed? Memory is not constant after all - I remember new things and forget old, so is it really so strange to pose such a question? So, is it that the picture is the same across consecutive observations, or does it change along with my memory? In order to tell whether my memory did not change - I would have to compare it to something. In order to tell the difference, I would have to have the memory of my memory. But how do I tell if my memory changed, or that my memory of my memory did? I would have to have memory of memory of memory and it would not help one bit because it just delegates the problem.

I find that relative understanding (explaining things in terms of other things) is nonsensical. If that was the case, then you could never understand anything new, unlike anything you've ever seen. That is the reality for most people, as they cannot manipulate themselves but are in reaction to their own image. The moment that you can change yourself, relative understanding is nonsensical. There is no such thing as human attributes when you are a baby. Absolute understanding presupposes relative understanding.

@now is forever And you found the middle one?

I find that honesty is central to wisdom. How do you benefit from having privacy and how does it contradict having nothing to hide?

It is absolutely impossible. Just impossible. How can something know itself?! It's just like it is with language. The moment we have a concept of 'language' and can talk about talking is the moment that nothing makes sense anymore. If we can define what a word is, all words become meaningless. Because what is a definition other than a bunch of words? In order to understand language you have to understand language. But how did the first word come about? Did somebody point a finger and say 'you'? No! Pointing a finger is also language and you cannot point a finger at pointing a finger to explain it. The only possible conclusion to make is that understanding is a priori and it cannot be understood in terms of anything else. Understanding is not rooted in thinking. Thinking is what is being understood. What does this mean? Does it mean that I cannot understand understanding? If that was true, then why does it feel like I've made progress?

Yesterday I meditated in front of a mirror. My realization was that just as animals freak out in front of it, I freak out in front of the mind.

No response from Leo would be able to convince anybody, given this question. If he really was a master manipulator, would he admit it? If he did admit it, then only to fuck with your head.

Here's a funny thought: When I talk with a friend, I know where to look to see where the sound is coming from. When I read this text, the mental chatter is associated with this sight. However, when the usual idle mind-chatter occurs: there is no place to look at that has this directionality associated with it. I think that I think "from" the direction that is always opposite to where I look. This is why I think that I "think from inside of my head". Because the inside of my head is always in the opposite direction to where I look. It is the direction of "not-that".

This is very important: Manas-vijnana It describes the three last consciousnesses of eight and their relationships to each other. Specifically, it describes the difference between Yogacara and Zen views on these matters.

Hmm: peer pressure, habitual tendencies, intoxicants, infatuation, immaturity, general lack of consciousness. Who said it's your fault? It's your responsibility though. Sure, let's see if that helps.

Here is a talk related to karma that explains that it is neither personal, nor collective. Karma is related to storehouse-consciousness by seeds (Bīja). If this talk is taken seriously, then it seems like shadow work is indeed compatible with Buddhism and is a method of raising consciousness. --- Interesting fragment about storehouse-consciousness. It seems to imply that it is the base form of consciousness that holds potential energy in the form of seeds (Bīja). It is also transformed into other seven kinds of consciousness. So - there is only one kind that changes form. It seems to be compatible with the talk in the previous video.

In this video, Thich Nhat Hanh explains consciousness (Vijñāna) as having twofold structure. What he designates as 'the mind' is what seems to come together with the sense bases during contact. The storehouse (ālāyavijñāna) is what retains imprints of previous experiences that condition our experience. This whole consciousness thing still seems to me like something logically inferred and not directly experienced. I've been trying to experience it somehow and when I shift focus away from the senses, they flicker and alternate in to each other. For example, when I become mindful and my attention focuses on sight, I eject myself out of it and it enters sound. Then, I try to eject myself out of that and it goes someplace else. It is funny when I notice these moments that I've been focusing on sounds and try to observe where did sight 'go'. Sight then reappears, and yet - something still seems to be missing. It's like consciousness is some kind of computational power and I don't have enough of it to perceive all of the senses at the same time.

There are no perfect solutions. All solutions are temporary and turn to problems eventually. You made yourself perfectly clear, and yet - it didn't work. Maybe the fact that people acknowledge what you say does not mean that they will follow through? Maybe the root cause of this problem lies in your attachment to privacy? By all means, go talk to her like @Krisena suggests and see if it helps. If it doesn't, however - it is a perfect opportunity to practice having distance towards your self-image. The only thing that matters in the end is whether you suffer consciously, or not.

Yogachara is the Mahayana school that deals with consciousness. It identifies eight kinds of it.

So, here is how cognition seems to work in Buddhist model: There are 6 sense bases. A sense base in the Buddhist model consists of two ends: inner (sense organ: eye, ear, etc) outer (sense object: sight, sound, etc.). There are the following sense bases: Eye and sight Ear and hearing Nose and smell Tongue and taste Body and touch Manas and mental objects Manas is one of three parts of the mind. It's sense object is dharma, which seems to be analogous to Logos / Tao / the order of things / consistency. Mind in Buddhism has three overlapping names: Manas - the part of the mind that is responsible for volition Vijñāna - consciousness Citta - disposition / attitude / mood (to be explored yet) Consciousness (Vijñāna) seems to be the part that 'glues' the inner and outer end of a sense base. Each of the sense bases has its own related consciousness (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc.). The coming-together of these three (inner and outer sense base + related consciousness) is what is called contact (Sparśa). So, consciousness is that 'space' that transforms when we shift attention from sound to sight for example. Contact is one of mental factors and it is a base for feeling/sensation (Vedanā). Theravada mentions millions of them, so I'll stick to seven universal ones: contact (Sparśa) feeling/sensation (Vedanā) perception/discrimination/cognition (Saṃjñā) volition (Cetanā) one-pointedness (Ekaggata) life faculty (Jīvitindriya) attention (Manasikara) From the point of view of the dependent arising, the important ones are: contact (Sparśa), feeling/sensation (Vedanā). Feeling is our reception of the contact. It is analogous to what I've been describing as meaning in this journal. It can be either positive, neutral, or negative. It gives rise to Saṅkhāra, which is related to volition. I'll get to that deeper later on.

It fascinates me how Buddhism builds this body of knowledge just to tear it down like that. It's like Stoicism on steroids.

Did leaving the online groups help to solve your privacy problem? Doesn't it hit you as strange that people around you always seem to disrespect your boundaries? Are you sure that it is actually a problem with all the people around you?

Do you think that your friends value their privacy as much as you do? Do you think that your friends understand privacy the same way as you do?

Outline of Buddhism <~ That's just beautiful.

Skandha - This is a goldmine. It seems like the thing I've been looking for. The mind = Citta + Manas + Vijñāna

@Ampresus So, basically: privacy is a tool to control your self-image. Is it important to you that people see you exactly the way you want them to see you? Do you value the privacy of other people as much as you value your own privacy? How would your friends react if you told them that you ask us for advice on how to deal with this situation? Are you sure that this doesn't violate their privacy? What you describe here are still various ways to block people. Cut ties with them. Do you cut ties with online people when they do not perceive you the way you want them to perceive you?

Saṃjñā - perception, cognition, conceptualization, distinguishing. This sounds very reminiscent of what I usually think of as memory. Buddhists approach this as the possibility of repeated recognition. Marking. Noting. The mechanism seems to be: distinguishing characteristic features. Woodcutter marks wood to know its kind later on. For example: this mug is different than that mug because of its color. The left hand is different than the right hand because it has the thumb on the other side. I wonder whether 'location' is also included in perception? Like: this mug and that mug are not the same mug, as they stand next to each other. I'll have to dig into that deeper later on.