Scholar

Is it possible, or is there already a practice, that combines martial arts and enlightenment work? I wonder if it is possible to use Martial Arts, or aspects of it, to achieve ego death.

@pluto @Michael569 Is chlorella and spirulina not dangerous due to it likely containing neurotoxins?

Max Richter is pretty nice for those melancholic vibes:

I have been contemplating morality these past few weeks, I read up on moral philosophy and the more I think about this topic the more confused I get. There are so many positions on this, and it seems like they are almost all linked to suffering. Previously I thought that morality was relative, that it depended on the (mostly sub-conscious) preference of the subject. Like when I say reality should not be a certain way, then I am really saying that I do not want reality to be a certain way, that I have an expectation towards reality to manifest in a particular manner I desire. For example when I say I do not want someone to be hurt, I say that, even if it is not articulated, because there is an expectation of suffering from the empathy I will feel. It's not just an expectation, but it seems like the idea of that possible manifestation of reality is making me suffering in the moment itself, and my inherent drive to avoid that suffering leads me to choices I make towards alleviating suffering of others. I have reached a point, just a few moments ago, where I am not sure anymore what suffering actually is. It seemed so self-evident a few minutes ago, but now I just do not understand it anymore. Why is suffering bad? What about the experience of suffering is intrinsically undesirable? Or is suffering itself "undesire"? But what are it's actual qualities? What is truly the difference between suffering and joy? It was unquestionable for me that suffering for all of eternity was inherently bad, but now I don't even know anymore what that would mean? Like all other experiences it seems to me like it is nothing but a driver for certain behaviors, but why does that matter? I know I will care about my own suffering, but I do not understand why that even matters? So what that I will suffer and resist reality? I would want to ask why it would be significant, but I am not even sure what significance means anymore. Does anyone have thoughts on this?

@SOUL I think I know what you mean now.

I don't know, the more curious I get about suffering the less able I am to investigate it. I did some strong-determination sitting in an uncomfortable position until my butt hurt so much that I was going to vomit, and the only reason I stopped is because I didn't want to make a mess. That might have been an excuse my mind made up, but as I watched the suffering I really couldn't find anything bad about it. All it was was a feeling that changed my thoughts and my attitude, or perspective. It made my curiosity disappear and I could feel myself being pulled towards a behavior that would make the experience of pain cease to exist. Though the more I looked the less badness I could observe in that resistance. I also noticed that it takes focus to resist to surrender to the resistance, I had to be conscious of the energy that was pulling me towards a certain behavior so that I would not actually act out said behavior. I noticed myself surrender to that kind of energy afterwards in multiple occasions, when I have been not focused on the experience of suffering and instead just let myself act out the way my mind set itself out to act. Though I still do not see the evil within suffering. In fact, the more curious I get about suffering the less it seems to affect me. I do not fear shame nearly as much as I did before, simply because I am actually curious as to what will happen if I actually experience shame. Before I was always trying to avoid suffering, even when I was trying to surrender to it. When I listened to gurus, or even to Leo, it seems like I was using the techniques and the advice as a way to free myself of suffering eventually. When I previously attempted strong determination sitting, it was terribly straining, I was not able to take it for long. After having read up on morality, what is truly good and evil, I think I have cultivated a true curiosity for suffering. I actually do want to know what will happen if I suffer, and what about it seems so intrinsically bad. I am not doing it for some greater purpose, to learn how to not suffer, or to somehow become a stoic person who can take anything. There is a part in my mind that truly wants to know what kind of suffering it takes for me to finally see it's nature, and whether or not it carries any significance. Can I truly know suffering if I am deeply curious about it? And how can I keep my curiosity alive in the presence of unbearable suffering? How do we go about the investigation of suffering? There is an uneasy feeling that seems to be actually more powerful than the suffering itself, it seems like there is a fear of the curiosity itself, rather than the suffering I am experience while investigating it. The kind of "Will I actually go insane if I keep going with this?"-feeling, which I remember I had when I was visualizing what it would mean to be actually dead, though that was years ago.

When I listen to spiritual teachers they usually talk about what is causing suffering and how to avoid it, but I have not yet seen someone explain why it is bad or what it truly is. Yes, attachment to things causes suffering, but is losing something you are attached actually suffering? That just seems like language games to me and it does not really explain anything but the mechanics of it. You are right, maybe it is a paradox and the mind cannot grasps it, but then why are we so certain of suffering being intrinsically bad? The problem with strong-determination sittings is that they are voluntary and that once the mind cannot take it anymore it will give in. But what happens when the mind cannot take it anymore but cannot give in? What happens when one knows that it will not stop? Aren't those drastically different forms of suffering? Like when you lose someone you love, you know that they are gone forever, and there is nothing you can do to make them come back. That is suffering that you cannot just give in to, it's not just a test. But maybe I don't even need to experience such intense suffering to learn about it. I would agree that suffering is well described as some sort of seeking-energy experience, after all that is what it actually does. It makes us do things that we otherwise wouldn't. It seems like this energy can become incredibly intense, so much so that it damages the structure of the mind. But it seems to me like Leo is going further than that, like this energy is something that should be avoided because after all it will make you act in a certain way that will make you avoid it anyways. It's like there is no escape of it. But then, I don't understand why that is. It seems so circular, we "should" avoid suffering because suffering will make us try to avoid it. When Leo says it's stupid to act this way I actually think he is making a moral statement, because stupidity implies that one acts out of order of how one ought to act to reach a certain goal. There is nothing stupid in the universe if there is no goal to anything that is happening, though as soon as you set up a goal, one can act stupidly because on can act in misalignment with that goal. And maybe when Leo says it's stupid, he means because programmed into my mind is the avoidance of suffering, as some sort of biological imperative, which by acting against it I create actions that might be deemed as stupid, because obviously it will put me in situations where I will act in accordance to my biological imperative either way. Though I don't understand why he deems this objectively stupid, how is this biological imperative actually valuable if that is subjective? And even worse, it's not even subjective, it's seems to be more like a stone rolling down a hill. It is just what is happening in the mind.

I am thinking about how I could cause suffering to myself but my mind is resisting it, and I don't know how I would do that without damaging myself. I don't think the kind of suffering where I know I am not actually damaging myself is the same as the suffering I would experience if I actually lost something important. I don't have access to psychedelics so that's not an option for me at the moment. But then I think I can predict the way my mind will react, because I see so many other people who react certain ways, and I know how I reacted in the past. It's just that I don't know what is beyond the reaction that makes suffering somehow bad. But then when I look at the suffering there is something about it that I cannot explain in words that makes it seem like it is bad. I just can't articulate it, but then there is also something that makes it seem like just another experience, that I cannot articulate either. I probably should do a solo retreat. The worst thing about this is though that it seems like suffering is not the same if you are being conscious of it. So when I want to learn about suffering, the learning about it is modifying the suffering in a way that makes it different from someone not being conscious at all and just suffering and being immersed in it completely. So how do I actually investigate it? Let's say one would want to measure a particle that changes when you measure it, how would one ever get to know what the particle truly is, if the creation of knowledge is modifying it? And to me it seems to be the same way for all experiences, when I focus on them they become a different thing, when I observe them they are not the same thing as the unobserved experience. How do I get past this?

I don't understand. I have had these kinds of things happen to me a lot when I did martial arts, nothing really changed. Every time I suffered it never really changed anything in the end, because the suffering always ends, and it will eventually for all sentient beings as we all have to die. But that is not even my question, I do know that my behavior changes from suffering, like these peoples behavior, but I do not understand suffering itself. If the experience is void of behavior, of reaction, then what is it that suffering is? Is suffering still suffering if there is no reaction from the mind? Or are these things connected? But then what is suffering other than something that adjusts aspects of the mind? I know I sound edgy but I am confused as to what it is. I can clearly see that suffering is motivating me to write this, and I do see that the behavior is linked to the experience, but what does any of that matter? Nothing can corrupt reality, nothing can harm it, nothing can make it suffer, right? Even if there is total immersion in suffering, nothing actually is happen to reality itself, it seems to stay the same. So what does any of it matter? Are you saying I should not create suffering because I cannot not be trying to avoid it, as my mind is structured in a way to inherently avoid and resist it? But this all seems like just another game that will end one day either way, and I do know that I will be playing this game either way. The more I think about this, the less I know what I am even questioning here.

I think my question is more of "What is negativity truly, and why is it stupid to stop avoiding it?". I never said I see nothing wrong with suffering, I am questioning the nature of wrongness.

Why would it be stupid to live life kicking yourself in the nuts everyday? You seem to be claiming that it is self-evident, but that is precisely what I am questioning. I am aware of the fact that I am not in a position of great suffering, and that if I was, there would be very different kinds of experiences manifesting in consciousness, such as an experience of regret, resistance etc. But why does that matter, truly? Why do you say is it stupid to suffer, and to regret suffering? Why is the experience of regret an inherently stupid thing to manifest in consciousness? Yes, all these thoughts I am having right now will disappear in an instant if enough of the experience of suffering manifests itself in consciousness, and as a result of that new thoughts and behavior will arise. I will rethink my position, of course I will, but isn't that only because my mind is made to do so? I know the behavior will happen, but my question is what is inherently bad about that behavior? Even if I experience the greatest amount of suffering possible, what is it that is actually happening? Is it truly something bad? And if not, why is it stupid to inflict it to oneself?

I think I have put the wrong question into the topic-header. I am aware of the philosophy behind how suffering is created, what it's purpose is and so on, but I am more curious about the experience of suffering itself and why it should be avoided? What about suffering is inherently undesirable in a way that a fully conscious human should strive to avoid it? I know that it's unpleasant, that suffering also include absolute terror, but why are these things any different from experiences like joy? I don't really believe in good and evil, but to me it seems like the experience of suffering carries what we would call evil in it because we find it intrinsically undesirable. How is that possible? Why is it that suffering is such an intensely negative experience, and what does that even mean? It becomes weird because it's kind of like trying to make sense of the experience of colors, I cannot really make any sense of it other than just saying it exists and it is what it is.

If I wanted to justify making others suffering for my pleasure I would probably not be a vegan. I am just interested in the nature of suffering and what makes it inherently bad, I want to know if there is something metaphysical about it that makes it somehow an experience that should be avoided, but to me it looks like it's just an experience that makes us avoid things, so the other way around.

I don't know if it would be good, I probably would not like it, but I don't understand why that matters? Me not liking something is just another experience, and I know it does not feel that way while I am experiencing it, but that is part of the experience. But why is that actually a bad thing?

No, but why does it matter what I like and dislike?

That is not true though, I can finance the suffering of billions of beings without ever having to deal with any consequences, so why would I not do so? And why is it important to avoid suffering at all? I know that I will avoid it because I am an ego, but so what? Even if I want it to stop and regret it, why is that a bad thing? Is the only reason to avoid suffering in others so that I myself don't suffer? And is the only reason why I should avoid my own suffering because I will not like it? I understand that suffering makes me behave and think certain ways, but what is inherently bad about these actions and thoughts, and the suffering itself?

Yes but then why should I not cause suffering to others?

That is what I am trying to do and it just confuses me. The more I look at it the more it seems to become vague. I know that I am avoiding suffering, but that seems to happen unconsciously. My question is: If I was fully conscious, why would I avoid suffering and why would I avoid inflicting suffering to other beings? All it seems to do is make me and them act a certain way... I don't see what's intrinsically bad about it anymore. But even worse, when I focus and try to be conscious of the suffering happening in me it seems like the experience is changing, that the suffering when not observed was different from the suffering that is observed, as if it changes in substance the more I observe it. But then how am I supposed to truly know what suffering is. How can I know that my suffering that I have become conscious of is the same suffering as for another who has not become conscious of it?

You can be lucky that Allah does not get offended, because you are equating Allah to ideas. Ask yourself this: Can you really believe in something other than ideas?

So you looking for an alternative perspective means you literally search for the comments which debunk the debunk of what you were looking for to debunk your own assumptions? How does that not make you worry about your cognitive bias? You could research on gut flora and how it effects the ability to digest plant material. Just because avoiding certain foods stops making you feel sick doesn't necessarily mean that they are actually unhealthy for you for some genetic reason. Imagine if walking made you feel pain in your ankle, would you say that walking is unhealthy for you or would you go and fix the reason for why it hurts you? Think about the kind of person who, without a clear understanding of the situation, would be willing to defend the slaughter and enslavement of billions of helpless beings who did nothing to deserve to be in the position they are in. Think about the kind of person who would stand in front of a fully sentient being, look into it's eyes and kill it just so that they could suffer a little less or feel a little healthier and stronger. Imagine the kind of person who would go out of their way to find perspectives which justify that behavior, to find only evidence that makes him feel better about the actions he is taking day by day. Do you believe that this kind of person is anywhere near the potential they could reach? Do you think they are leading by good example, that they are a reflection of humanity or goodness? The one obsessed with his own health, his own suffering and his own perspective? Accepting and surrendering to reality is very easy if you have blindfolds on that keep you from seeing the world for what it is. How good at accepting reality will you be when you are in the position of the cow which you have no problem of slaughtering? For me this is not even about the cow, this is about the ego, about our willingness to embrace corruption. It's not even about being vegan or not, it is about us not willing to recognize the lies that we keep telling ourselves.

I really do think you are biased, have you ever tried to google something like "Lierre Keith debunked"? If you are open-minded give it a try.

Don't you think you might have fallen victim to confirmation-bias? It is in my opinion telling when people stop their research right at the point when some evidence presented seems to confirm their preferred narrative. You could have easily made a google search and realized how absurd your train of thought in this particular instance is, do you not think that your mind is trying to skew reality to fit it's own interests?

You are right in that we cannot know whether they have an experience of life or not, but there is no reason for us to believe they do. As I said, they do not necessitate an experience of life, everything in a plant, all of it's reactions, can be explained on a simple "chemical reaction" basis. The speed at which plants react to their environment though does imply that they do not experience pain and suffering as we do, even if they did have consciousness. Suffering is all about urgency, and from a plants perspective urgency is very relative. Insects and animals move incredibly fast in comparison to plants, thus we can expect their experience of life to be more vivid and intense. Why would a plant feel terror and doom if it can't really do anything about it's situation? If you look at human beings and the way they suffer, when their life is on the brink of death they usually do not suffer either, because there is no reason for them to suffer. There is nothing they can do about it, just as much as there is nothing a plant can do about an animal eating it. With the argument of health I would challenge you as well and ask you if you would accept this positions if it was humans dying instead of animals. If let's say you weren't sure whether you had to eat human beings to be healthy, would you actually kill human beings instead of first trying your absolute best at an alternative diet? You don't know whether you will be unhealthy or healthy on a vegan diet, can you justify to yourself to harm other animals unnecessarily because you are not willing to try a vegan diet? Let's go back to the vampire scenario, if there were vampires who would kill and drink humans just because they thought drinking synthetic blood was unhealthy, would you accept their reasoning? From my position I would would need absolute proof to myself that the alternative to killing and eating a mammal it is my death. Otherwise I could make all sorts of excuses without ever trying it. It's kind of similar to killing someone you think is a threat without having any evidence for him actually being a threat. Are your assumptions really enough for you to end that beings life on the basis that you believe it to be unhealthy? It's not like you will just die if you go vegan, if you develop health issues you can just go back to eating your meats or mussels.

I do not deny they are conscious or do not feel pain, I think you have a hard time seeing what I am trying to convey to you. And there is no reason to assume that mussels have an experience of life, they do not have a central nervous system. The suffering of mussels, much like the suffering of plants, would be completely unnecessary as they are not as mobile as mammals are. The very reason why we suffer is precisely because we are mobile, because we have the ability to avoid danger immediately. It's not like pain is inherent to nature, pain is simply a tool to communicate to the agent what to avoid. A non-mobile being does not require pain because they cannot avoid anything at all. But yes, I can see why you would have the bias you do, it probably increases your quality of life because, again, you do not need to recognize the unnecessary harm you are causing to your surrounding and to sentient beings who have a far higher capacity for suffering and consciousness than for example insects do. Additionally, if you were worried about insects and plants, you'd have even a bigger reason to go vegan, as animal agriculture consumes and kills more plants and insects than the plant agriculture would do if you directly consumed the plants. Of course the destruction of habitat is significant as well. You are equating intelligence to sentience. Just because a plant can do things does not mean it has an experience of life. The experience of life really is nothing but a tool to react to the surrounding world in real time. By your logic, computers already have an experience of life, as they can do all the things that mussels and plants can do, theoretically. You can program a robot to avoid lots of things, does that mean the robot is suffering when he does so? It is very ignorant to assume that all life on this planet is structured the same way as we mammals are. Just because we suffer when we die, does not mean a plant does. Just because we suffer when we burn ourselves, does not mean a mussel does. In fact, when you are in deep sleep you are not sentient at all. There is no experience of life, even though you might still react significantly to your surroundings. Ask yourself this, if you had no memory of anything at all, ever, not even a short term memory, would you be able to experience the world? If every single moment that passes by you would instantly forget, or even better, it would never enter your memory, what would pain really mean to you? You would still react to it, but would you actually experience it as anything at all? It's an interesting question, and it's not obvious at all in my opinion. Even when your brain is active, it does not mean you are sentient/you have an experience of life. What does that mean for a plant or for an insect? Furthermore, if an insect has consciousness, why do you think your brain is limited to one experience of life? What if different parts of you brain have different, separate experiences of life, with you being the one that experiences thoughts and the ego. What if there are within you multiple beings that communicate with each other. You would never know.