UnbornTao

Another way of saying "I don't know". Good state to question one's self.

No. Who's the you that's claimed to be the source of existence? If it is your self, ay ay ay!

@Sugarcoat You are still considering suffering to be created by a source external to you. This disposition is the one that's worth challenging. "Yes, I am creating it. It isn't just that I'm participating in it, but rather that I'm actively doing suffering now." To be clear, I'm not referring to the pain of losing a leg or something along these lines, but conceptual-emotional suffering. For example, fear is implicitly suffered--it is enduring an unwanted experience. Yet it is produced by our imagining of the future, among other things. If we weren't imagining a future, fear could not occur. Easier said than done, of course. We obviously live as if self were an immutable reality. Where is it found, though? And can one get to a point where she recognizes that it doesn't exist on its own? Seems to be the result of an active process, hence if that process is stopped, we could postulate that self would be largely transcended. We could, for entertainment's sake, contrast the invention of language with that of self. There's valuable observations to be made with this exercise. Tricky and fascinating subject. And more profound than we think.

Cheer up. I never heard Newton complain

Again I don't get why any belief system would provide any consciousness into the nature of the self that is asking the question. In fact, it is an intellectual indulgence and a distraction.

Do both!

Cheer up, and don't make stuff up. All that you say is a fantasy, albeit a negative one. Get help. Dare to take on the challenge of mastering life. Consider that many enlightened beings have lived long and happy lives. It's not about ideals, but about enjoying what's in front of you, both figuratively and literally, like a child at play.

We take ourselves to be a self although we should leave the possibility open that it might not be the case at all--I'm distinguishing between our nature, or being, and our selves (self). Yes, that can be a minor example, and many more like that one abound. Also, it is much more profound than that. At the very core of self-persistence, surviving itself might be what suffering is based on. This is what the Buddhist phrase "No self, no problem" may be trying to point out. But personally realizing what it is actually saying is a whole different beast than hearing about it and understanding it. If we create the self, and if becoming conscious of how we do that is done, then it turns out that a lot of suffering can be transcended. As a reality, I'd imagine this would take some serious work and mind mastery, but it would be doable. We can move in that direction for sure, starting with little things, such as by becoming conscious of what activities such as worry and envy are.

It is round and this is a known (believed) fact. Yet... In order to practice radical honesty and openness: Notice that, in your experience, you have no personal experience of what shape the earth is. You've just been told it is a certain way by culture, parents, scientists--this is still a belief. Even if you've seen photos, that is not the same as a personal experience; it is second-hand knowledge. For all you know, it could be photoshopped. The Earth could be any shape, whether conceivable or not. What if it's a giant taco? But of course, our cultural arrogance prevents us from admitting that we actually don't know personally. We take matters such as this one to be immutable and unquestionable, and that's fine too. Yet, this exists in the domain of other culturally taken-for-granted "realities" of old--it is factual so long as it comes from scientific hearsay (again, consider the "personal experience" part).

Seriously though, in actuality, when you get absolutely honest with yourself, you already take yourself to be unique and special in some way. Your self is considered (by you) to be the center around which the world revolves. It's like the kernel of an operating system.

Just add some narrated nature commentary in the background as if the humans were wild animals. By GPT:

From Reddit.

Ego is the latin word for "I." I though that's interesting.

Also notice, although we don't grasp this (but we talk about it), the truth or condition of being is what's true now, so there's nowhere to go.

Could be. Yet, on the other hand, you seem to be implying that the self is based on suffering, which, if true, isn’t far from asserting that ‘you’ create suffering (as we confuse us with our selves). That’s an interesting perspective. I’d add that we might have made this decision unconsciously. It’s tricky not to position oneself in a reactive or victimizing stance about things we have more control over than we think. If it turns out that it is in fact generated by us, then what does it take to experience that as a reality?

Wikipedia entry on Self-pity At times, self-pity may be valid and useful, although more often than not, it is disempowering. It can prevent one from paying attention to, becoming responsible for, and consequently correcting their actions and their resulting consequences. This emotion can easily turn into a self-oriented, victimized disposition, whereas becoming objective and dispassionate would be a more appropriate response.

No, it is intellectual on my part, hence the use of "we" on my post above.

The mind is a terrible thing in how it can be used. See how one can completely make up worlds to inhabit.

My take is that he's saying that suffering itself is an activity you generate--it's like a mirage--and so it can be not done. He may be pointing to the central role we play in our experience of suffering. Currently we think we just encounter suffering somewhere out there, and that our only option is to endure it, manage it, ignore it.

A student, filled with emotion and crying, implored, “Why is there so much suffering?” The Zen Roshi replied, “No reason.” —Shunryu Suzuki

Does it? Might largely be a function of how one sees the world. Aren't there things being born and flowering all the time, too? Negative bias seems to have an evolutionary root--what needs to be managed takes precedence over what is present, as the latter quickly gets taken for granted. But we don't have to be stuck with it.

But what is it? What do we take the ego to be? What's our experience of it? Is it part of self? What is self?

Sounds good. Do you mean that ego is in your felt experience, though? To be clear, I do consider the truth as graspable. Faith can be useful for certain things but it might not have anything to do with finding out what's true. Do you mean faith that getting your nature is possible?

Jesus Christ, read 10 books in a day or something