# How do I reconcile my nihilism with my morality [Right forum this time]



## Illeist (May 2, 2013)

Okay. So, I accidentally posted this in the wrong part of the forum. The one for debate... Naturally I feel really embarrassed/anxious. I'm going to try this from the top.

I've come to the conclusion that life has no inherent point, other than its own propagation. I'm not here to dispute that; I need some advice. With that said, I've been thinking about my own morality. In particular, I've been thinking about the set of morals that I've crafted for myself. They seem pointless when I consider my nihilism. The thing is, I have an ingrained moral compass that's been a part of my personality for years. I've intentionally avoided certain activities, because I've established in my mind, a strict set of morals. What's to keep me from doing something terrible (relative to my own morality), and I'm not referring to some supreme being (I've been an atheist longer than I've been a nihilist). If life has no other point than it's continuation, than why should I bind myself to morality? If my morality is my own construct, why should I hold onto it? I'm afraid you see. I need someone to help me reason through this. I've been reading some of Nietzsche's ideas. If what I've read is correct, and I've interpreted it correctly, he suggests the abandonment of morals. While I'm not one to hinge a huge decision like this based on one person, (especially Nietzsche as some of his writings on 'higher men' sound sociopathic) I can't seem to find a firm argument for the continuation of my morality.

Please. I'm reluctant to abandon my morals, but the more I reason, the more I consider them pointless. I've been reading quite a few controversial topics as well. I've now discovered myself unwilling to pick a side. My conviction as to what is acceptable, and what is not, has disappeared. I feel terrible, but I don't see that as an excuse. How does one reconcile the two?


----------



## always starting over (Mar 15, 2013)

I read Nietzsche like the Bible, and I have to correct you and point out that the endpoint of his philosophy is not nihilism, it's the constant creation and re-creation of new values _in response_ to nihilism (the "death of God"/death of absolute values). Therefore the creative life is the highest affirmation of life. He thinks that nihilism is synonymous with passivity, weakness, and just basically giving up on life in general. You can still recognize the inherent meaningless of things, and nevertheless create meaning for yourself. Living passionately, according to Nietzsche, is more important than living according to reason, or living according to a code of morality.

I understand where you're coming from, but nihilism doesn't mean that there's no point to having standards or even having morals for that matter. They might as well be transcendental if they're subjectively grounded in your own real life experience, if they enhance your quality of life overall.

In a Nietzschean worldview, growth and creativity and strength are all basically the same force. The "will to power" is just a metaphor for life overcoming itself. Anything that leads to a feeling of joy/power/passion is good, anything that leads to weakness/degeneration/sickness/disease is bad. Again, this is a simplified view. He's a very nuanced writer, and he seems to sometimes promote mindless hedonism or sociopathy. Not true at all.

The poem at the end of Zarathustra sums it up:

O man, take care!
What does the deep midnight declare?
"I was asleep-
From a deep dream I woke and swear:
The world is deep,
Deeper than day had been aware.
Deep is its woe;
Joy-deeper yet than agony:
Woe implores: Go!
But all joy wants eternity-
Wants deep, wants deep eternity."


----------



## trolololololololo (Aug 12, 2013)

That's what happens when you're stuck in the mind. While it's true that there's no such thing as a good and bad action, when you fixate on it you're missing a vital part: yes, you don't need to label anything as good or bad, but if you're acting from your ego, it's very likely you will eventually end up stealing your neighbor's car or killing someone. Adyashanti calls it a "pathological, narcissistic ego that thinks there's no shouldn't." That is not what it's about.

Ego is basically a mind-made construct that most people believe themselves to be. But when you deeply look at it, you see that it's artificial, inconsistent and unstable. If you don't identify with the ego you simply won't do things you mentioned, because there will be no fuel for them.

Try Adyashanti's teachings. Watch "The Basic Teachings" first.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

The point of morality is to help ensure the survival and well-being of our species. As a conscious individual you're free to create your own meaning and pursue whatever makes you happy, however human beings are social creatures that generally need communities to thrive so morality is just the set of principles we agree to live by for both individual and the collective good.


----------



## Illeist (May 2, 2013)

I must clarify, I did not become a nihilist based on Nietzsche, but I'm not surprised you came to that conclusion based on what I've told you. I suppose I should read a bit more on him. I really only have a partial understanding. 

I must thank both of you tremendously though. This is what I needed to hear.


----------



## Illeist (May 2, 2013)

The Silent 1 said:


> The point of morality is to help ensure the survival and well-being of our species. As a conscious individual you're free to create your own meaning and pursue whatever makes you happy, however human beings are social creatures that generally need communities to thrive so morality is just the set of principles we agree to live by for both individual and the collective good.


I suppose I should rephrase my thinking:
I don't see a point in contributing to the good of the community, or myself, if life doesn't have a point. If everything holds no significance, then wether I contribute to this collective good is also insignificant. This is what I fear. I fear I may disregard this collective due to it's insignificance. That help any?


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

Illeist said:


> I suppose I should refrase my thinking:
> I don't see a point in contributing to the good of the community, or myself, if life doesn't have a point. If everything holds no significance, then wether I contribute to this collective good is also insignificant. This is what I fear. I fear I may disregard this collective good due to it's insignificance. That help any?


I think first you should clarify what you mean when you say life does not have a point. Do you mean that it wasn't created by an intelligent being with an expressed purpose in mind? Because if that's the case the only difference is that without a higher being telling us our purpose, we can create our own. Even if a higher being did exist, suppose you didn't like the purpose he had in mind for you, (a scenario we see play out in science fiction films all the time i.e Blade Runner). If that was the case would you really feel better? I actually think not having this sort of thing is very freeing even if there is a level of angst that comes with that freedom. And honestly, even if there was a heaven or something where we lived for eternity after this life, would that really have a point either?

On the topic of our significance, I feel that the very concept of significance is something that we as conscious beings place on things. I'm betting that your well-being and quality of life is significant to you and you likely feel the same way for those dear to you. Since you are all apart of a community, it is in your best interests to contribute to the good of that community even if that just means generally behaving in a positive way.


----------



## trolololololololo (Aug 12, 2013)

Illeist said:


> If everything holds no significance, then wether I contribute to this collective good is also insignificant. This is what I fear. I fear I may disregard this collective good due to it's insignificance.


If you don't identify with the thought that something is insignificant (nor the opposite of it), all that remains is what is. You just react to present challenges.

After all, morality, collective good and significance are thoughts. Now, let's say that all people disappear. Now, show me morality. Show me collective good and significance. Where are they? They're concepts, not realities. They don't exist anywhere but in peoples' heads.

Sure, what morality, collective good and significance point to has *some* truth to it. But to view these as _the_ guidance doesn't actually lead to harmony and peace, as you discover when you begin to actually apply these things in your life.



The Silent 1 said:


> Even if a higher being did exist, suppose you didn't like the purpose he had in mind for you, (a scenario we see play out in science fiction films all the time i.e Blade Runner). If that was the case would you really feel better?


If you don't identify with the thought "I don't like it" then there's no problem. There's thought "I don't like it", but there's no "I" that doesn't like it. It's disregarded.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

trolololololololo said:


> If you don't identify with the thought that something is insignificant (nor the opposite of it), all that remains is what is. You just react to present challenges.


I take the view that existence proceeds essence, so everything simply "is". You as the individual can determine what is or isn't significant for yourself. In a sense you can't completely escape this choice.



trolololololololo said:


> After all, morality, collective good and significance are thoughts. Now, let's say that all people disappear. Now, show me morality. Show me collective good and significance. Where are they? They're concepts, not realities. They don't exist anywhere but in peoples' heads.


I agree in the sense that morality developed specifically as a collective survival strategy, so naturally it wouldn't exist as a concept if there were no people. However I don't entirely agree that its all in our heads. That is to say, while morality is a concept its based on the consequences of our actions in our shared reality.



trolololololololo said:


> If you don't identify with the thought "I don't like it" then there's no problem. There's thought "I don't like it", but there's no "I" that doesn't like it. It's disregarded.


I'm sorry, I don't understand this. Can you clarify?


----------



## trolololololololo (Aug 12, 2013)

The Silent 1 said:


> I take the view that existence proceeds essence, so everything simply "is". You as the individual can determine what is or isn't significant for yourself. In a sense you can't completely escape this choice.


Of course, it's relatively more significant to eat a nourishing meal than to read a newspaper. Every person makes choices, that is decides that something is more important for him than something else. But they don't have to identify with their choice, which _determining that something is significant for someone_ seems to imply (if it doesn't, fair enough, just treat it as an addition.) See below for the elaboration.



The Silent 1 said:


> However I don't entirely agree that its all in our heads. That is to say, while morality is a concept its based on the consequences of our actions in our shared reality.


Yes it is, but what you're talking about now is what part of the morality is pointing to.



The Silent 1 said:


> I'm sorry, I don't understand this. Can you clarify?


Right. First, what I mean by "it's disregarded" is "the thought is disregarded".

Second, I'm talking about identification as pushing something away or grasping at it. In your example, there's a man grasping at his thought that he doesn't like something. The only problem here is him identifying with his thinking processes, not what they tell them. Because after all, where's the evidence that what he thinks is the truth?

It's shocking when you begin to question your thinking processes. It shows you that roughly 95% of what you think has absolutely no basis in reality, and the rest has just some, which is pointing to the reality. Which is not at all the same as *being* the reality, just like typing en.wikipedia.org is not the same as the actual experience of being on Wikipedia. Some would say that it's nitpicking. It's not! People mistake thoughts for actual things all the time.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

trolololololololo said:


> Of course, it's relatively more significant to eat a nourishing meal than to read a newspaper. Every person makes choices, that is decides that something is more important for him than something else. But they don't have to identify with their choice, which _determining that something is significant for someone_ seems to imply (if it doesn't, fair enough, just treat it as an addition.) See below for the elaboration.


Well, we can't control all of our desires, such as the desire for food since they are rooted in biological realities, thus we are more inclined to place significance on certain things. Still being inclined to place significance on something doesn't mean that we will, even your scenario that a meal is more significant than a newspaper is not an absolute it depends on the person and the scenario.



trolololololololo said:


> Yes it is, but what you're talking about now is what part of the morality is pointing to.


Thats what I mean when I say morality is not all in our heads, its based on the consequences of our actions. I feel like saying its all in our heads takes away from this fact.



trolololololololo said:


> Second, I'm talking about identification as pushing something away or grasping at it. In your example, there's a man grasping at his thought that he doesn't like something. The only problem here is him identifying with his thinking processes, not what they tell them. Because after all, where's the evidence that what he thinks is the truth?
> 
> It's shocking when you begin to question your thinking processes. It shows you that roughly 95% of what you think has absolutely no basis in reality, and the rest has just some, which is pointing to the reality. Which is not at all the same as *being* the reality, just like typing en.wikipedia.org is not the same as the actual experience of being on Wikipedia. Some would say that it's nitpicking. It's not! People mistake thoughts for actual things all the time.


When you say "grasping at it" do you mean understanding or comprehending it?

In my scenario, a man is pondering the thought that he doesn't like the purpose given to him by a creator. Whether or not he likes something isn't a matter of objective truth, but personal preference. Realizing whether or not he likes something is where his thought process leads him, not the process himself. When he realizes he doesn't like something the process has already taken place.

When you say that 95% of what we think has no basis in reality, I'm still not sure what you mean.


----------



## trolololololololo (Aug 12, 2013)

The Silent 1 said:


> Well, we can't control all of our desires, such as the desire for food since they are rooted in biological realities, thus we are more inclined to place significance on certain things. Still being inclined to place significance on something doesn't mean that we will, even your scenario that a meal is more significant than a newspaper is not an absolute it depends on the person and the scenario.


Perhaps the example I gave wasn't really on topic.



The Silent 1 said:


> Thats what I mean when I say morality is not all in our heads, its based on the consequences of our actions. I feel like saying its all in our heads takes away from this fact.


That's fair enough.



The Silent 1 said:


> When you say "grasping at it" do you mean understanding or comprehending it?


No, I mean grabbing it, identifying with it, saying "this is me, this defines me", or more accurately "I let this thing define me." Not necessarily _saying_ as _saying it out loud_, or even in your head, I mean _saying_ as _feeling it energetically in your body_, or _telling it yourself energetically._



The Silent 1 said:


> In my scenario, a man is pondering the thought that he doesn't like the purpose given to him by a creator. Whether or not he likes something isn't a matter of objective truth, but personal preference.


Right, but when you identify with something it energetically feels like it's "the truth", doesn't it? It doesn't matter if you label it as a personal preference then. And then of course, comes the question - is it really his preference, or was he just programmed by the society to have this preference, and then identify with it?



The Silent 1 said:


> Realizing whether or not he likes something is where his thought process leads him, not the process himself. When he realizes he doesn't like something the process has already taken place.


It doesn't really matter. There's still a choice of not identifying with it, unless he's not aware of that choice.



The Silent 1 said:


> When you say that 95% of what we think has no basis in reality, I'm still not sure what you mean.


Most of what we think is conditioned by what we've been told and taught. If you begin to question all of that, deeply, in a meditative way, asking "where's the evidence that this thought is true?" In this way you begin to see that every thought is either empty, or is using another thought to justify its existence.

The only fuel for a thought is our interest. If we do not engage in a thought, it can't possess us. Sadly, most people let their thoughts possess them completely.

We do have a choice to not identify with this stuff though. Awareness of this is crucial. Because if you're not aware of a choice, you'll keep thinking that you don't have a choice, which will manifest the experience of no choice - while in fact there is one.


----------



## max87 (Aug 7, 2010)

I am not a highly educated man and i do not understand about philosophy that much. 
But if i understood your question, then i believe i have a simple answer: we need morals because we live in a society, even if some of them are relative. An example: in a moral-free society (or amoral if you wish) killing would be acceptable. Hence the necessity of morals and values. 
Some of them are relative, but some others i believe are universal.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

trolololololololo said:


> Right, but when you identify with something it energetically feels like it's "the truth", doesn't it? It doesn't matter if you label it as a personal preference then. And then of course, comes the question - is it really his preference, or was he just programmed by the society to have this preference, and then identify with it?


From the moment we are born our preferences and desires are at least partially shaped by society and the people around us. I don't believe there is a pure, natural state that society takes us away from. Now I do think that we can experience cognitive dissonance when our desires are not what we think they should be or what society tells us they should be. Even then though, we are usually aware of this on some level and sometimes coming to terms with our true desires requires intense self examination.



trolololololololo said:


> No, I mean grabbing it, identifying with it, saying "this is me, this defines me", or more accurately "I let this thing define me." Not necessarily _saying_ as _saying it out loud_, or even in your head, I mean _saying_ as _feeling it energetically in your body_, or _telling it yourself energetically._


Ok, so with this in mind would I be correct in rewriting your original statement as:
_If you don't let the thought "I don't like it" define you, then there's no problem. There's thought "I don't like it", but there's no "I" that doesn't like it. The thought is disregarded._

Because if thats what you're saying then I disagree with you. I cannot choose my likes and dislikes anymore than I can choose my beliefs. These things are not subject to the will and whether I want them to define me or not, they will. If I don't like something, then that dislike in a small way is going to define me. I can't decide internally "this won't define me" and then suddenly have it so. All of our desires and beliefs define us, some in small ways others in big ways.


trolololololololo said:


> It doesn't really matter. There's still a choice of not identifying with it, unless he's not aware of that choice.


It does matter because and as I explain above, I don't think we have this choice you speak of.



trolololololololo said:


> Most of what we think is conditioned by what we've been told and taught. If you begin to question all of that, deeply, in a meditative way, asking "where's the evidence that this thought is true?" In this way you begin to see that every thought is either empty, or is using another thought to justify its existence.
> 
> The only fuel for a thought is our interest. If we do not engage in a thought, it can't possess us. Sadly, most people let their thoughts possess them completely.
> 
> We do have a choice to not identify with this stuff though. Awareness of this is crucial. Because if you're not aware of a choice, you'll keep thinking that you don't have a choice, which will manifest the experience of no choice - while in fact there is one.


Not every thought can be evaluated by asking if it's true because not every thought concerns things that are either true or false.


----------



## trolololololololo (Aug 12, 2013)

The Silent 1 said:


> From the moment we are born our preferences and desires are at least partially shaped by society and the people around us.


True, but that doesn't mean we can't see through them and change them.



The Silent 1 said:


> I don't believe there is a pure, natural state that society takes us away from.


Right, but that's just another belief, right? I believe that I don't believe there is a pure, natural state. Do you actually know it as a fact?



The Silent 1 said:


> Ok, so with this in mind would I be correct in rewriting your original statement as:
> _If you don't let the thought "I don't like it" define you, then there's no problem. There's thought "I don't like it", but there's no "I" that doesn't like it. The thought is disregarded._


Yes, that's what I wrote.



The Silent 1 said:


> and whether I want them to define me or not, they will.





The Silent 1 said:


> If I don't like something, then that dislike in a small way is going to define me.





The Silent 1 said:


> I can't decide internally "this won't define me" and then suddenly have it so.





The Silent 1 said:


> All of our desires and beliefs define us, some in small ways others in big ways.


Those are all assumptions. You haven't actually tried to not identify with your thoughts, have you? So how come you state something that you don't know is true as a truth. Ok, here you didn't do it:


The Silent 1 said:


> It does matter because and as I explain above, I don't think we have this choice you speak of.


Sorry for quoting this again, but seems that I have to:


The Silent 1 said:


> I can't decide internally "this won't define me" and then suddenly have it so.


Yes you can. Not suddenly, but gradually. That's done by seeing the unreality of letting something define you.



The Silent 1 said:


> Not every thought can be evaluated by asking if it's true because not every thought concerns things that are either true or false.


It can. You just have to try it. Otherwise you're debating about the link to Wikipedia without visiting the site - a quite useless endeavor.

Let's just talk about our lived experience, not assumptions and beliefs. Because unless you have schizophrenia or similar mental illness, direct experience always leads you directly to the truth of things. You just have to stop engaging in thinking and let everything be as it is. If you do it deeply, you see what truly *is*, as opposed to what you imagine to be.

If you're consistent with doing it, you don't need any assumptions and beliefs anymore. They're useless when the direct perception of reality is present.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

trolololololololo said:


> Right, but that's just another belief, right? I believe that I don't believe there is a pure, natural state. Do you actually know it as a fact?


Yes because human beings cannot survive without each other, and this is especially true when we are young. We need people to take care of us and the very act of being around them is going to influence and help shape who we are.



trolololololololo said:


> Those are all assumptions. You haven't actually tried to not identify with your thoughts, have you? So how come you state something that you don't know is true as a truth. Ok, here you didn't do it:


Basically it sounds like what you're saying is the equivalent of a pastor telling a gay man that he can choose not to be gay if he simply prays and doesn't identify with his homosexual thoughts. This has been shown time and time again to almost always fail. I actually have tried to identify or not identify with certain beliefs that I have and believe very strongly that they cannot change. For example can you decide right now to identify with scientology? Go ahead and identify with the thought, "I believe in the word of L. Ron Hubbard". You can claim to do it, but at the end of the day either his words convince you or they don't. Likewise are can you change your taste in food? What colors you like? Your sexual orientation?



trolololololololo said:


> Yes you can. Not suddenly, but gradually. That's done by seeing the unreality of letting something define you.


So can you explain how this process works?



trolololololololo said:


> It can. You just have to try it. Otherwise you're debating about the link to Wikipedia without visiting the site - a quite useless endeavor.
> 
> Let's just talk about our lived experience, not assumptions and beliefs. Because unless you have schizophrenia or similar mental illness, direct experience always leads you directly to the truth of things. You just have to stop engaging in thinking and let everything be as it is. If you do it deeply, you see what truly *is*, as opposed to what you imagine to be.
> 
> If you're consistent with doing it, you don't need any assumptions and beliefs anymore. They're useless when the direct perception of reality is present.


I feel like we're talking about two different things. Not everything is a true/false dichotomy so not all thoughts can be evaluated in this way. And direct experience can actually deceive you. Debating about something without experiencing it is not a useless endeavor.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

I kind of feel that this conversation should be moved to the other agnostic/atheist forum since this one is the support forum and we've kind of taken over Illeist's thread.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Illeist said:


> Okay. So, I accidentally posted this in the wrong part of the forum. The one for debate... Naturally I feel really embarrassed/anxious. I'm going to try this from the top.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that life has no inherent point, other than its own propagation. I'm not here to dispute that; I need some advice. With that said, I've been thinking about my own morality. In particular, I've been thinking about the set of morals that I've crafted for myself. They seem pointless when I consider my nihilism. The thing is, I have an ingrained moral compass that's been a part of my personality for years. I've intentionally avoided certain activities, because I've established in my mind, a strict set of morals. What's to keep me from doing something terrible (relative to my own morality), and I'm not referring to some supreme being (I've been an atheist longer than I've been a nihilist). If life has no other point than it's continuation, than why should I bind myself to morality? If my morality is my own construct, why should I hold onto it? I'm afraid you see. I need someone to help me reason through this. I've been reading some of Nietzsche's ideas. If what I've read is correct, and I've interpreted it correctly, he suggests the abandonment of morals. While I'm not one to hinge a huge decision like this based on one person, (especially Nietzsche as some of his writings on 'higher men' sound sociopathic) I can't seem to find a firm argument for the continuation of my morality.
> 
> Please. I'm reluctant to abandon my morals, but the more I reason, the more I consider them pointless. I've been reading quite a few controversial topics as well. I've now discovered myself unwilling to pick a side. My conviction as to what is acceptable, and what is not, has disappeared. I feel terrible, but I don't see that as an excuse. How does one reconcile the two?


How would abandoning your morals facilitate the propagation of life? It's our morals that help human life prosper. If nobody had any morals we'd have become extinct a long time ago.

Morality evolved in our social groups as a direct result of it's benefits to our continued propagation, so it has a very practical and real "point".


----------



## trolololololololo (Aug 12, 2013)

The Silent 1 said:


> Yes because human beings cannot survive without each other


As long as we think we need people we will manifest that belief. That's just another assumption to question: is it really true that I cannot survive without people?



The Silent 1 said:


> and this is especially true when we are young. We need people to take care of us and the very act of being around them is going to influence and help shape who we are.


True, but is it enough of a proof that there's no "pure" state? As far as I know (or was told), we are in the pure state in the first, let's say, 2-3 years of the life. Then the programming starts.



The Silent 1 said:


> Basically it sounds like what you're saying is the equivalent of a pastor telling a gay man that he can choose not to be gay if he simply prays and doesn't identify with his homosexual thoughts.


I don't know about that. By the way, you have to believe that being homosexual isn't "right" to want to change it, right? Here it would just be a matter of not identifying with the thought "being gay is wrong", and no praying for heterosexuality would be required.



The Silent 1 said:


> I actually have tried to identify or not identify with certain beliefs that I have and believe very strongly that they cannot change.


That's just because you have to be consistent with it. Every time a belief comes up, you question it. A belief is nothing more than a circular pattern of thinking, just like all thoughts that we identify with. And a belief is certainly a thought.



The Silent 1 said:


> For example can you decide right now to identify with scientology?


That doesn't really work this way. It does work with not identifying though.



The Silent 1 said:


> Likewise are can you change your taste in food? What colors you like? Your sexual orientation?


Those are preferences. I prefer to have sex with the same gender is also a preference. They're not harmful, as long as there's no identification.



The Silent 1 said:


> So can you explain how this process works?


Please watch at least the first part. I understand that it is not short, but unfortunately I can't explain it as well as Adya. I think you're treating this discussion seriously, so please don't disregard this.



The Silent 1 said:


> I feel like we're talking about two different things. Not everything is a true/false dichotomy so not all thoughts can be evaluated in this way.


And I think that you're misunderstanding me. Let me reword: I'm talking about seeing if the thought you're thinking has any basis in reality. In other words: if it points to the truth, or is it just a lie.



The Silent 1 said:


> And direct experience can actually deceive you.


Only when a mental illness is involved. Otherwise when there's no thinking, the possibility of deception disappears. That's most probably not something you can prove objectively, so here faith and trust are required to try this out for yourself.



The Silent 1 said:


> Debating about something without experiencing it is not a useless endeavor.


Unfortunately in this case it is, unless that debate leads the one that's debating to try out what's talked about.


----------



## Illeist (May 2, 2013)

The Silent 1 said:


> I think first you should clarify what you mean when you say life does not have a point. Do you mean that it wasn't created by an intelligent being with an expressed purpose in mind? Because if that's the case the only difference is that without a higher being telling us our purpose, we can create our own. Even if a higher being did exist, suppose you didn't like the purpose he had in mind for you, (a scenario we see play out in science fiction films all the time i.e Blade Runner). If that was the case would you really feel better? I actually think not having this sort of thing is very freeing even if there is a level of angst that comes with that freedom. And honestly, even if there was a heaven or something where we lived for eternity after this life, would that really have a point either?


Okay, I'll give it a shot. No, I don't mean purpose granted by a higher being. I don't really desire a 'heaven', but a lack of sensation or conscousness is pretty daunting to think about. I just think that any purpose I create for myself is meaningless. A useless attempt to occupy time in a series of experiences. I equate my insignificance with the lack of true purpose.

I apalogize for taking such a long time to respond. I've been avoiding my PC for the last week now. I had to type this on my phone.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

trolololololololo said:


> As long as we think we need people we will manifest that belief. That's just another assumption to question: is it really true that I cannot survive without people?
> 
> True, but is it enough of a proof that there's no "pure" state? As far as I know (or was told), we are in the pure state in the first, let's say, 2-3 years of the life. Then the programming starts.


I suppose you could consider babies a "pure state", but my point is that we cannot survive on our own until several years after we've moved beyond that state which means we will inevitably be influenced by our environment which shapes who we are. Once you become an adult then sure, you could likely make it on your own living in the wilderness as a hermit, however for our collective species to survive we do need each other.



trolololololololo said:


> I don't know about that. By the way, you have to believe that being homosexual isn't "right" to want to change it, right? Here it would just be a matter of not identifying with the thought "being gay is wrong", and no praying for heterosexuality would be required.


Someone may want to change their sexual preferences for all sorts of reasons, but the why they wish to do that is irrelevant to my point. I'm arguing that we cannot consciously change our likes and dislikes by choosing not to identify with them. If you believe this is not the case then are you saying sexuality can be consciously changed?



trolololololololo said:


> That's just because you have to be consistent with it. Every time a belief comes up, you question it. A belief is nothing more than a circular pattern of thinking, just like all thoughts that we identify with. And a belief is certainly a thought.


Beliefs are built upon each other yes, but this doesn't explain how I can choose not to identify with a belief I currently hold without being convinced or unconvinced of new information.



trolololololololo said:


> Those are preferences. I prefer to have sex with the same gender is also a preference. They're not harmful, as long as there's no identification.


What do you mean as long as theres no identification? It sounds like you are saying a person has preferences and they can make this choice to identify or not identify with them. You said before that identification meant saying "I let this define me". I'm saying its too late, whatever your preferences are have already defined you. In my earlier example you said the man could choose not to identify with the thought that he doesn't like the purpose his creator has given him and then there would be no problem. But there is a problem whether he chooses to acknowledge it or not.



trolololololololo said:


> Please watch at least the first part. I understand that it is not short, but unfortunately I can't explain it as well as Adya. I think you're treating this discussion seriously, so please don't disregard this.


I'll have to watch later, I can't stream videos right now as it is.



trolololololololo said:


> And I think that you're misunderstanding me. Let me reword: I'm talking about seeing if the thought you're thinking has any basis in reality. In other words: if it points to the truth, or is it just a lie.


Well this sounds like skepticism which I agree with. 


trolololololololo said:


> Only when a mental illness is involved. Otherwise when there's no thinking, the possibility of deception disappears. That's most probably not something you can prove objectively, so here faith and trust are required to try this out for yourself.


No, what I'm saying is that our perception can be easily fooled.



trolololololololo said:


> Unfortunately in this case it is,


Why?


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

Illeist said:


> Okay, I'll give it a shot. No, I don't mean purpose granted by a higher being. I don't really desire a 'heaven', but a lack of sensation or conscousness is pretty daunting to think about. I just think that any purpose I create for myself is meaningless. A useless attempt to occupy time in a series of experiences. I equate my insignificance with the lack of true purpose.
> 
> I apalogize for taking such a long time to respond. I've been avoiding my PC for the last week now. I had to type this on my phone.


Purpose and meaning are necessarily concepts that are placed on things by conscious beings like you and I. You say that you feel any purpose you create for yourself is meaningless, so ask yourself this: what would it take for your purpose to have meaning? You say you're not talking about purpose granted by a higher being so the only purpose that can possibly exist is the purpose that beings like you create. I think you should get rid of the idea of "ultimate meaning"(which is what you seem to be implying) because I not only think it doesn't exist, but I think its not a coherent concept.

In everyday language when we say that something has no meaning, we usually mean it doesn't have significance to us as a collective. But if you choose your own purpose then it has meaning to you. When you talk about your insignificance do you just mean your place as just a regular guy? If thats the case, I do believe that humans generally want to make their lives meaningful to others, but I think there a lots of ways you can get involved and make a difference in people's lives. Many people accomplish this through their careers or community work or through other means. You may not be able to do this to the degree that you desire, but you can make your life have more significance to others. I do hope you find what you are looking for.


----------



## trolololololololo (Aug 12, 2013)

The Silent 1 said:


> but my point is that we cannot survive on our own until several years after we've moved beyond that state


Yes, when you're very young you need people to take care of you. Or animals, I heard of cases of abandoned human children raised by animals. Their care is just as valid care. But either way, I agree.



The Silent 1 said:


> which means we will inevitably be influenced by our environment which shapes who we are.


Well, yes, but the fact that we can go beyond the conditioned self and come back to that "baby state" shows you that the mind-made self is not exactly _who we are._ In a sense it is, but it's just a part of us, a conditioned one.



The Silent 1 said:


> however for our collective species to survive we do need each other.


Relatively speaking, yes we do.



The Silent 1 said:


> Someone may want to change their sexual preferences for all sorts of reasons, but the why they wish to do that is irrelevant to my point.


For me the reason is *the* point. Because if you don't identify with the thought "I want to be heterosexual because..." there's no problem to solve.



The Silent 1 said:


> I'm arguing that we cannot consciously change our likes and dislikes by choosing not to identify with them.





The Silent 1 said:


> It sounds like you are saying a person has preferences and they can make this choice to identify or not identify with them.


Let's make a distinction here. For me a preference is something very transparent: if I get it, very good - I like it! If I don't get it, I don't care. I don't need this to be happy. Desire is something different: If I (don't) get it, it'll make me unhappy. More accurately put: If I (don't) get it, I will make myself unhappy. Desire in the way I'm defining it always implies identification with what is desired. And not wanting is just another desire - I desire that X doesn't happen. So it's desires that need to be primarily looked at, not preferences.



The Silent 1 said:


> If you believe this is not the case then are you saying sexuality can be consciously changed?


No idea about that.



The Silent 1 said:


> What do you mean as long as theres no identification?


I defined identification as clearly as I could. Fine, I'll repeat: identification is pushing something away or grasping at it, or both.



The Silent 1 said:


> You said before that identification meant saying "I let this define me". I'm saying its too late, whatever your preferences are have already defined you.


No, you let them define you every moment. I'm saying that you have a choice not to do it. It doesn't matter what was, since it's not here anymore, is it? If it is here, it's not what was - it's what is. We can deal only with what is, unless there's a time machine.



The Silent 1 said:


> In my earlier example you said the man could choose not to identify with the thought that he doesn't like the purpose his creator has given him and then there would be no problem. But there is a problem whether he chooses to acknowledge it or not.


Acknowledging the choice is the *only* problem here. All other problems will arise only if there's imagination of no choice.



The Silent 1 said:


> No, what I'm saying is that our perception can be easily fooled.


Yes and no. As I said (maybe not as clearly), in a state of deep meditation, when you let go of the ego, your perception is internal and external simultaneously, and there's no "I" to be fooled. And if there's no mental illness, the perception is pure. You see what is, and not what you think is. It doesn't matter that things change their shape and what not, it means that all mental labels drop off. Including the label "I'm a human being", which as it turns out you don't need to truly be a human.

Of course the second that mind grasps at what I've written it stops being true. You can't really turn what truly is into words, but as Adyashanti says "I'm trying to fail well at expressing something that cannot be expressed."



The Silent 1 said:


> Beliefs are built upon each other yes, but this doesn't explain how I can choose not to identify with a belief I currently hold without being convinced or unconvinced of new information.





The Silent 1 said:


> Why?


Please do watch the video. It'll answer these about as accurately as words can explain it. It may look like I'm avoiding answering you, but I'm not really. I'm just telling you where to hear words of a more experienced person in this.


----------



## HelpfulHero (Aug 14, 2013)

I have struggled with this as well. I don't believe you're going to be able to use in your way out of this. It is important to remember that we are physical beings. In order to have a sense of meaning and purpose we also need to feel good. Feeling good is biochemical. It sounds as though you are more of an intellectual sort. That is all very well and good and I respect that and relate to it. However you need to have dopamine and an endorphin rush is in order to feel good. I would suggest engaging and some mindless hedonism.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

trolololololololo said:


> Well, yes, but the fact that we can go beyond the conditioned self and come back to that "baby state" shows you that the mind-made self is not exactly _who we are._ In a sense it is, but it's just a part of us, a conditioned one.


I think this is where we disagree because I don't think we can go back to that baby state once our minds develop. To truly go back to that state would mean to unlearn everything you've ever learned.



trolololololololo said:


> For me the reason is *the* point. Because if you don't identify with the thought "I want to be heterosexual because..." there's no problem to solve.


 But its not relevant to _my _point, which is if we don't like (or desire) something, then it has already defined us.

To use another example a person who is being physically tortured cannot choose not to identify with the thought, "I don't want to be tortured". Humans have natural aversions to both physical and psychological torture. Whatever is causing us ongoing pain is already defining how we live our lives and is likely shaping who we are.



trolololololololo said:


> Let's make a distinction here. For me a preference is something very transparent: if I get it, very good - I like it! If I don't get it, I don't care. I don't need this to be happy. Desire is something different: If I (don't) get it, it'll make me unhappy. More accurately put: If I (don't) get it, I will make myself unhappy. Desire in the way I'm defining it always implies identification with what is desired. And not wanting is just another desire - I desire that X doesn't happen. So it's desires that need to be primarily looked at, not preferences.


Even accepting those terms, I don't believe we can fully master our desires. The reason why a psychology is even a field is because humans generally have similar desires, and we cannot choose not to let them define us, they are in our very nature.



trolololololololo said:


> I defined identification as clearly as I could. Fine, I'll repeat: identification is pushing something away or grasping at it, or both.


I asked again because grasping and pushing away seem like contradictory things, yet you use the same word for them. Your use of the word identification can be confusing and I wasn't sure what you meant in this context. Its like using a single word to mean hot, cold, and warm.



trolololololololo said:


> No, you let them define you every moment. I'm saying that you have a choice not to do it. It doesn't matter what was, since it's not here anymore, is it? If it is here, it's not what was - it's what is. We can deal only with what is, unless there's a time machine.


And I'm saying its not something you let them do. 


trolololololololo said:


> Acknowledging the choice is the *only* problem here. All other problems will arise only if there's imagination of no choice.


No, the problem is that the man is in a situation that is causing him pain or that he doesn't desire to be in. I'm saying that pretending that he can not allow that pain to define him would be the same as not acknowledging it which is not healthy.



trolololololololo said:


> Yes and no. As I said (maybe not as clearly), in a state of deep meditation, when you let go of the ego, your perception is internal and external simultaneously, and there's no "I" to be fooled. And if there's no mental illness, the perception is pure. You see what is, and not what you think is. It doesn't matter that things change their shape and what not, it means that all mental labels drop off. Including the label "I'm a human being", which as it turns out you don't need to truly be a human.
> 
> Of course the second that mind grasps at what I've written it stops being true. You can't really turn what truly is into words, but as Adyashanti says "I'm trying to fail well at expressing something that cannot be expressed."
> 
> Please do watch the video. It'll answer these about as accurately as words can explain it. It may look like I'm avoiding answering you, but I'm not really. I'm just telling you where to hear words of a more experienced person in this.


I suppose I'll wait until I watch the video before I respond to this so I can get a better idea of where your coming from.


----------



## trolololololololo (Aug 12, 2013)

The Silent 1 said:


> I think this is where we disagree because I don't think we can go back to that baby state once our minds develop.


But you haven't tried it. That's why I said that having a theoretical debate over these things leads nowhere. It's more or less like wanting to know how playing FIFA feels like by looking at a turned off computer.



The Silent 1 said:


> To truly go back to that state would mean to unlearn everything you've ever learned.


Exactly. That's what a true spiritual path is: unlearning.



The Silent 1 said:


> But its not relevant to _my _point, which is if we don't like (or desire) something, then it has already defined us.





The Silent 1 said:


> To use another example a person who is being physically tortured cannot choose not to identify with the thought, "I don't want to be tortured".





The Silent 1 said:


> we cannot choose not to let them define us, they are in our very nature.


All of these are assumptions. Please, let's speak primarily from our direct experience.



The Silent 1 said:


> Humans have natural aversions to both physical and psychological torture.


A natural aversion towards something doesn't mean that you have to identify with that aversion.



The Silent 1 said:


> Whatever is causing us ongoing pain is already defining how we live our lives and is likely shaping who we are.


It is shaping who we are only if we let it shape who we are.



The Silent 1 said:


> Even accepting those terms, I don't believe we can fully master our desires.


I'm not talking about mastering them, I'm talking about letting go of all your desires. It may sound totally impossible and even inhuman, but how sure can you be that your desire is truly yours, and not something that you've been conditioned to want? And if it's conditioned, why on earth would you want to behave like a computer? Isn't *that* inhuman?



The Silent 1 said:


> I asked again because grasping and pushing away seem like contradictory things, yet you use the same word for them. Your use of the word identification can be confusing and I wasn't sure what you meant in this context. Its like using a single word to mean hot, cold, and warm.


How come it's confusing?



The Silent 1 said:


> And I'm saying its not something you let them do.


Do you actually *know* it? Because I am talking from experience.



The Silent 1 said:


> No, the problem is that the man is in a situation that is causing him pain or that he doesn't desire to be in. I'm saying that pretending that he can not allow that pain to define him would be the same as not acknowledging it which is not healthy.


That's a misunderstanding. You don't _pretend_ something doesn't define you, you *see* that it doesn't define you. The former doesn't work, the latter does, if the seeing is deep and sincere.

Also, please remember that I don't think that anyone _has_ to do this, or even agree with this. After all, it's not my business what other people do. I can't control them, can I?


----------



## Illeist (May 2, 2013)

HelpfulHero said:


> I have struggled with this as well. I don't believe you're going to be able to use in your way out of this. It is important to remember that we are physical beings. In order to have a sense of meaning and purpose we also need to feel good. Feeling good is biochemical. It sounds as though you are more of an intellectual sort. That is all very well and good and I respect that and relate to it. However you need to have dopamine and an endorphin rush is in order to feel good. I would suggest engaging and some mindless hedonism.


I'll follow that suggestion wholeheartedly. You're right. I think I need to put this stuff on the back burner when it's too much to handle.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

trolololololololo said:


> Let's just talk about our lived experience, not assumptions and beliefs. Because unless you have schizophrenia or similar mental illness, direct experience always leads you directly to the truth of things. You just have to stop engaging in thinking and let everything be as it is. If you do it deeply, you see what truly *is*, as opposed to what you imagine to be.
> 
> If you're consistent with doing it, you don't need any assumptions and beliefs anymore. They're useless when the direct perception of reality is present.


This is totally wrong and an erroneous way to think.

Healthy human brains can easily be fooled in to believing things that aren't true. It happens all the time. If it doesn't, how could anyone believe in anything that isn't true?

You seem to be are saying people should stop thinking and just take everything at face value. That's the one thing people *shouldn't* do.

We get far closer to the truth by using our intelligence and critical thinking skills rather than just going on intuition and personal perception.


----------



## trolololololololo (Aug 12, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> This is totally wrong and an erroneous way to think.


Really?



ugh1979 said:


> Healthy human brains can easily be fooled in to believing things that aren't true. It happens all the time. If it doesn't, how could anyone believe in anything that isn't true?


That's a misunderstanding. We're not talking about anything conceptual, nor believing anything. It's about experiencing that which is beyond concepts.



ugh1979 said:


> You seem to be are saying people should stop thinking and just take everything at face value.


If they want to experience the reality, that's the only way. It is impossible to experience reality by thinking about it. After all, when you're thinking the only thing you're experiencing is a thought, isn't it? So how come a thought about reality is as real as the reality for you?



ugh1979 said:


> We get far closer to the truth by using our intelligence and critical thinking skills rather than just going on intuition and personal perception.


Not true. We get a better *idea* of truth by doing that. But by doing what I say we get the truth itself, we merge with it. I think you haven't tried it, and I have tried your method.

Thinking about something and analyzing it versus experiencing it are two different worlds.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

trolololololololo said:


> Really?


Really.



> That's a misunderstanding. We're not talking about anything conceptual, nor believing anything. It's about experiencing that which is beyond concepts.


Experiencing things which are beyond concepts would mean experiencing things which are beyond thought. How can you have an experience without thought?



> If they want to experience the reality, that's the only way. It is impossible to experience reality by thinking about it. After all, when you're thinking the only thing you're experiencing is a thought, isn't it? So how come a thought about reality is as real as the reality for you?


How can anyone know the experience is reality without thinking about it? Realising what is reality definitely involves mental assessment of it to establish justification of it's validity.

I think parallel to having an experience.



> Not true. We get a better *idea* of truth by doing that. But by doing what I say we get the truth itself, we merge with it.


That seems contradictory. You first say we get a better idea of truth by having experiences of what we think is it _and _thinking about it, but then you say the only way to get to truth is to abandon the thinking part?

What truths you are talking about? Not everything needs to be experienced first hand to be true.



> I think you haven't tried it, and I have tried your method.


Tried what? Not thinking about things and expecting them to magically reveal themselves to me by doing so?



> Thinking about something and analyzing it versus experiencing it are two different worlds.


They are, but experience and thinking about it is far better than experience and not thinking about it, otherwise you can't validate the experience as reality.


----------



## trolololololololo (Aug 12, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> Experiencing things which are beyond concepts would mean experiencing things which are beyond thought. How can you have an experience without thought?


That is a very deep question. Find out! Don't rely on me or some professor to tell you. You're the authority. Abandon everything you've ever learned, heard and saw and find out. This requires faith and trust, but only in the beginning. Later you don't need these and you just drop them.



ugh1979 said:


> How can anyone know the experience is reality without thinking about it?


That's not really something I can answer to intellectually. The closest one can get is saying that it's extremely in your face and so consistent, that it being something false is impossible. It's far more vast than that, so don't rely too much on these words.



ugh1979 said:


> Realising what is reality definitely involves mental assessment of it to establish justification of it's validity.


Not necessarily. It doesn't when you go beyond the mind.



ugh1979 said:


> That seems contradictory. You first say we get a better idea of truth by having experiences of what we think is it _and _thinking about it, but then you say the only way to get to truth is to abandon the thinking part?


An idea of truth and the truth itself are two things. They have nothing to do with each other. How come a thought "grapes are so tasty" and the experience of eating them are the same?



ugh1979 said:


> What truths you are talking about?


That is a great question, unfortunately I can't answer it in words. You have to investigate it yourself, in a meditative way.



ugh1979 said:


> Not everything needs to be experienced first hand to be true.


Reality does. Of course, you can't know that until you experience it first hand. Until you do, everything you say is a speculation.



ugh1979 said:


> Tried what? Not thinking about things and expecting them to magically reveal themselves to me by doing so?


Not magically, they do. Not necessarily things themselves, but their essence.



ugh1979 said:


> They are, but experience and thinking about it is far better than experience and not thinking about it, otherwise you can't validate the experience as reality.


That is true as long as you believe that you need thoughts to validate the reality. Thoughts only distort the reality.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

@trolololololololo 

This idea that one needs to experience something before they can accurately talk about it is one that comes up a lot in spiritual debates and I believe its a very erroneous idea. Its like telling someone they can't talk about psychedelic drug unless they take them. Well if a person does take them, they will be able to describe what its like first hand to experience them, however the person who doesn't take them, but simply does research on how the drugs effect the mind will actually be able to speak more knowledgeably about what is happening.

To use another example, the same thing would happen to me when I attended church. I was told that I needed to pray and give myself over the holy spirit. I would watch around me as people followed the instructions and reportedly experienced "something", an emotion they couldn't quite put into words. They were assured that this something was the holy spirit and accepted this explanation on faith.

What I'm trying to say is that direct experience will only give you knowledge of what it feels like when your body interacts with whatever it is your experiencing. So with your FIFA example, someone who is given a FIFA game plays it, but they don't understand what it is they just experienced. Perhaps they honestly believe that they were controlling real people through sorcery. Meanwhile a person whose never played FIFA, but has researched what a video game is and how they function would actually be better suited to describing how they game works. Equating experience with understanding is very dangerous.

On the subject of unlearning and my supposed assumptions, I will say that they are not mere assumptions, but are based on my understanding of the human mind. To return to the "baby state" would require you to literally purge your mind of every piece of knowledge you've acquired since you were 2. Not counting severe brain damage our studies of the human mind would lead us to believe this isn't possible and if it is we would need a controlled experiment to confirm this. The same with my torture analogy. Can I torture someone endlessly and excruciatingly without end and have them not identify with the thought "I don't want to be tortured anymore.". All of our research would seem to say no, its not an assumption. Even those who specialize in training against torture say this isn't possible.

I finally did get to watch the first video and parts of the other one and I remain unimpressed. He says that ego is a pattern of thought that makes you think you are separate. Then he goes onto to vaguely describe things like conscious spirit. How does he know this? If he's using experience as proof then his experience only tells me what the mind experiences when they follow his teachings, not what is actually happening. 

Back to my analogy with the man who realizes he doesn't like the purpose his creator has given him, the more I think about it the more your solution sounds wicked to me. Its like telling a slave, "Don't identify with thought, I don't like being a slave, and you'll have no problem". This is not only inhuman, but incredibly immoral. I do believe that we can question our desires and ask ourselves what the root cause of them are and whats influencing them. But on the topic of letting go of desires, I think the best we can do is to cope with them. If I go on a hunger strike, I haven't "let go" of my desire for food, I've simply chosen to cope with it for a greater good. The desire and my struggle against it is still defining me. But perhaps to you coping with is the same as letting go of.


----------



## trolololololololo (Aug 12, 2013)

The Silent 1 said:


> This idea that one needs to experience something before they can accurately talk about it is one that comes up a lot in spiritual debates and I believe its a very erroneous idea.


Ok, but it's still a belief of yours, is it not? Do you actually know that it's wrong? Because all evidence you've given me tells me that's just another assumption you make.



The Silent 1 said:


> Its like telling someone they can't talk about psychedelic drug unless they take them.


Because they can't. They can't talk about it accurately. They can only fantasize about how it's like to be drugged. That's very different.



The Silent 1 said:


> Well if a person does take them, they will be able to describe what its like first hand to experience them, however the person who doesn't take them, but simply does research on how the drugs effect the mind will actually be able to speak more knowledgeably about what is happening.


But unless they themselves take the drug, they can not talk about it accurately. I mean talk about it as talk about the practical side of it, how it's actually like to be drugged, not theorize about it. I'm not talking whether taking drugs is good or bad and what not, that's not the point.



The Silent 1 said:


> To use another example, the same thing would happen to me when I attended church. I was told that I needed to pray and give myself over the holy spirit. I would watch around me as people followed the instructions and reportedly experienced "something", an emotion they couldn't quite put into words. They were assured that this something was the holy spirit and accepted this explanation on faith.


I understand the example, but can't really comment on it. All I can say is that if you're guided by a person that doesn't really know what they're doing, chances of you hitting the "right" thing are remote.



The Silent 1 said:


> What I'm trying to say is that direct experience will only give you knowledge of what it feels like when your body interacts with whatever it is your experiencing.


Sure, but that is to assume that all we are is the body. Direct experience shows you that it is not.



The Silent 1 said:


> Equating experience with understanding is very dangerous.


Equating experience with mental understanding is impossible, not dangerous. You can't ever understand reality through mind. You can think you can, but that's just an idea - not a truth.



The Silent 1 said:


> On the subject of unlearning and my supposed assumptions, I will say that they are not mere assumptions, but are based on my understanding of the human mind.


Alright. How do you know that your _understanding_ is not just another assumption?



The Silent 1 said:


> To return to the "baby state" would require you to literally purge your mind of every piece of knowledge you've acquired since you were 2.


That's exactly what happens. I can tell you from my experience that it's perfectly possible, and I've done it.



The Silent 1 said:


> Not counting severe brain damage


What are you talking about?



The Silent 1 said:


> our studies of the human mind would lead us to believe this isn't possible


Believing something has nothing to do with knowing it. I can believe that something is not possible when I actually don't know it. That's not good enough.



The Silent 1 said:


> and if it is we would need a controlled experiment to confirm this.


I don't think that any experiment can confirm this. I don't know it though.

The same with my torture analogy.



The Silent 1 said:


> Can I torture someone endlessly and excruciatingly without end and have them not identify with the thought "I don't want to be tortured anymore.". All of our research would seem to say no, its not an assumption. Even those who specialize in training against torture say this isn't possible.


Again: how do you know that the research is even remotely accurate? And how do you know that these who specialize in training against torture have actually ever heard and applied what I'm talking about?



The Silent 1 said:


> I finally did get to watch the first video and parts of the other one and I remain unimpressed. He says that ego is a pattern of thought that makes you think you are separate. Then he goes onto to vaguely describe things like conscious spirit. How does he know this?


Direct experience.



The Silent 1 said:


> If he's using experience as proof then his experience only tells me what the mind experiences when they follow his teachings, not what is actually happening.


No, that's your interpretation of his words. How do you know that your interpretation of his words is what he actually meant?



The Silent 1 said:


> Back to my analogy with the man who realizes he doesn't like the purpose his creator has given him, the more I *think* about it the more your solution sounds wicked to me.


Stop thinking about it and apply it. You can't ever think your way through what I'm talking about.



The Silent 1 said:


> Its like telling a slave, "Don't identify with thought, I don't like being a slave, and you'll have no problem".


That person must do it by themself. You can't ever force it onto anyone. There must be openness, willingness to do it, faith and trust in that person. And then they just do it. As simple as that. If you're not ready, it's likely that you won't succeed. If you doubt too much, it's likely that you won't succeed.



The Silent 1 said:


> This is not only inhuman, but incredibly immoral.


How do you know that your (or anyone's, including mine!) idea of inhuman and immoral has anything to do with what's actually inhuman and immoral?



The Silent 1 said:


> But on the topic of letting go of desires, I think the best we can do is to cope with them.


That is still a speculation.



The Silent 1 said:


> If I go on a hunger strike, I haven't "let go" of my desire for food,


I'm not talking about the biological needs. That's not a desire for me.



The Silent 1 said:


> The desire and my struggle against it is still defining me.


That's another assumption.



The Silent 1 said:


> But perhaps to you coping with is the same as letting go of.


There is no difference, as long as there's no identification.

This discussion will lead you nowhere unless you're willing to go beyond your mind.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

trolololololololo said:


> Ok, but it's still a belief of yours, is it not? Do you actually know that it's wrong? Because all evidence you've given me tells me that's just another assumption you make.


Its not just an assumption as I'll further explain below, but of course you realize that everything you're saying is a belief as well. I can just as easily say that you're interpretation of whatever you experienced while following this man's teachings is but an assumption as well. Can you demonstrate that it is not?



trolololololololo said:


> Because they can't. They can't talk about it accurately. They can only fantasize about how it's like to be drugged. That's very different.


No, not just fantasize about what its like they can research and discover what is happening when the chemicals in those drugs interact with the brain. The person who simply does the drugs might come away swearing that they just visited another dimension and spoke with alien beings. When the person who didn't take the drugs replies that they were halluianting the other person could simply respond like you have that they can't accurately talk about what just happened because they didn't experience it themselves.



trolololololololo said:


> But unless they themselves take the drug, they can not talk about it accurately. I mean talk about it as talk about the practical side of it, how it's actually like to be drugged, not theorize about it. I'm not talking whether taking drugs is good or bad and what not, that's not the point.


The practical side of drugs _is_ the way in which it effects you. I've taken drugs when I was sick that caused me to feel sleepy. The sleepiness is what I experienced, but the practical effect of the drug was that it got rid of whatever sickness I had. Whether the drugs are good or bad is not my point either. Understanding how drugs affect the mind is not random theorizing its coming to a practical understanding of what is truly happening.



trolololololololo said:


> I understand the example, but can't really comment on it. All I can say is that if you're guided by a person that doesn't really know what they're doing, chances of you hitting the "right" thing are remote.


Exactly, so we have competing men with different ideas of esoteric truth. Each of them claims that their way is the way to truth, yet their method relies subjective experience and assertions about what those experiences actually mean. In science disputes are resolved through extensive peer review and experimentation that relies on quantifiable results. When it comes to spiritual claims how do would you propose these disputes are handled if you have multiple people using different methods swearing that they've discovered truth?



trolololololololo said:


> Sure, but that is to assume that all we are is the body. Direct experience shows you that it is not.


I think the fallacy in what you're saying reveals itself right here. We've shown time and time again that our bodies can be fooled. Your saying that direct experience shows us that we are more than our bodies. But direct experience entails the usage of our bodies. So basically you're asking me to rely on something that can be deceived to discover a truth with no other method of knowing whether or not the experience is reliable. The idea that we are the sum total of our bodies is not an assumption, its a belief based on evidence.



trolololololololo said:


> Equating experience with mental understanding is impossible, not dangerous.


I agree, but it sounds like this is what you're doing.



trolololololololo said:


> You can't ever understand reality through mind. You can think you can, but that's just an idea - not a truth.


Can you demonstrate this or is it an assumption?



trolololololololo said:


> Alright. How do you know that your _understanding_ is not just another assumption?


How do you? Direct experience with an easily deceived body?



trolololololololo said:


> That's exactly what happens. I can tell you from my experience that it's perfectly possible, and I've done it.


So you entered a state where you didn't know anything?



trolololololololo said:


> What are you talking about?


Severe brain damage can cause you to lose information.



trolololololololo said:


> Believing something has nothing to do with knowing it. I can believe that something is not possible when I actually don't know it.





trolololololololo said:


> Again: how do you know that the research is even remotely accurate? And how do you know that these who specialize in training against torture have actually ever heard and applied what I'm talking about?


I didn't claim to know, I'm telling you my beliefs based on my own research and my understanding of peer reviewed research. What you're expressing is a belief as well.



trolololololololo said:


> Direct experience.


I've already explained the problem with this. Saying we are more than our bodies is an assumption. Saying that we can know this through direct experience entails relying on our bodies which can be deceived.



trolololololololo said:


> No, that's your interpretation of his words. How do you know that your interpretation of his words is what he actually meant?


If that interpretation is wrong than what part did I get wrong? Is he saying there is more evidence for what hes saying outside of his assumptions and his direct experiences?



trolololololololo said:


> Stop thinking about it and apply it. You can't ever think your way through what I'm talking about.


Is this not an assumption?



trolololololololo said:


> That person must do it by themself. You can't ever force it onto anyone. There must be openness, willingness to do it, faith and trust in that person. And then they just do it. As simple as that. If you're not ready, it's likely that you won't succeed. If you doubt too much, it's likely that you won't succeed.


I don't see how this ties into what I was saying about the slave. If slaves followed these teachings in the past they would have simply chosen not to "identify" with their longings for freedom and would remain slaves.



trolololololololo said:


> How do you know that your (or anyone's, including mine!) idea of inhuman and immoral has anything to do with what's actually inhuman and immoral?


Morality developed as a system to ensure well being and survival. We can assess morality with this in mind.



trolololololololo said:


> I'm not talking about the biological needs. That's not a desire for me.


Let me ask you this then, do you believe psychological needs exist at all?



trolololololololo said:


> That's another assumption.


So constantly struggling against something doesn't define you? If you're answer is no, then we are using the word in totally different ways.



> This discussion will lead you nowhere unless you're willing to go beyond your mind.


How do you know this is possible?


----------



## trolololololololo (Aug 12, 2013)

The Silent 1 said:


> of course you realize that everything you're saying is a belief as well.


No, that's another assumption of yours. I don't care if you regard what I say as a belief, but the fact is that it has nothing to do with believing.



The Silent 1 said:


> I can just as easily say that you're interpretation of whatever you experienced while following this man's teachings is but an assumption as well. Can you demonstrate that it is not?


I can't demonstrate anything, because it's not about showing it to other people. You must discover it for yourself.



The Silent 1 said:


> (Drugs part)


Fine. Perhaps it works with drugs. Just another example of me having difficulty with... examples.



The Silent 1 said:


> Exactly, so we have competing men with different ideas of esoteric truth. Each of them claims that their way is the way to truth, yet their method relies subjective experience and assertions about what those experiences actually mean.


The experience that I'm talking about is subjective and objective simultaneously. It sounds totally paradoxical, but when talking about spirituality one _must_ allow room for paradox. Otherwise the debate is pointless.

No, I don't have any proof other than direct experience that this is true.



The Silent 1 said:


> When it comes to spiritual claims how do would you propose these disputes are handled if you have multiple people using different methods swearing that they've discovered truth?


I don't care about it. Those are just words. As Adya said: there's one proof that you're enlightened: Are you still in conflict? With anything.

Now, you may ask: where's the proof that this is true? There's none. Direct experience. Nothing more.



The Silent 1 said:


> The idea that we are the sum total of our bodies is not an assumption, its a belief based on evidence.


How come a belief is not an assumption? Believing something means assuming it is true, whether you're aware of that assumption or not. It's not different.



The Silent 1 said:


> I agree, but it sounds like this is what you're doing.


No.



The Silent 1 said:


> Can you demonstrate this or is it an assumption?


I can't demonstrate that to you, but you can demonstrate that to yourself.



The Silent 1 said:


> How do you? Direct experience with an easily deceived body?


Direct experience, yes.



The Silent 1 said:


> So you entered a state where you didn't know anything?


Yes.



The Silent 1 said:


> What you're expressing is a belief as well.


While this is an untrue assumption, I have no interest in convincing you otherwise.



The Silent 1 said:


> I've already explained the problem with this. Saying we are more than our bodies is an assumption.


No, it's an assumption that it's assumption. Direct experience shows you that we are not.



The Silent 1 said:


> Is he saying there is more evidence for what hes saying outside of his assumptions and his direct experiences?


What he's saying over and over again is that you can't possibly convince the mind to these teachings.



The Silent 1 said:


> Is this not an assumption?


No, it's how things are. I know it because that's a continuous experience of mine and many other people.



The Silent 1 said:


> If slaves followed these teachings in the past they would have simply chosen not to "identify" with their longings for freedom and would remain slaves.


Yes, that's what would happen. There would be no "I" to say "being a slave is bad" or "I don't want it", so there would be no problem.



The Silent 1 said:


> Let me ask you this then, do you believe psychological needs exist at all?


They're imagined in the mind by the conditioned self.



The Silent 1 said:


> So constantly struggling against something doesn't define you? If you're answer is no, then we are using the word in totally different ways.


It doesn't, and we're probably using it similarly. The struggle is not a problem as long as there's no "I" to say that struggling is bad. No identification = no problem.



The Silent 1 said:


> How do you know this is possible?


Direct experience.

I omitted some parts of your post, but only because I'd write the same thing twice, or just told you that I have no answer. I read the whole message.

It's probably one of the last posts of mine in this thread. Debating with a theorist is pointless, unless the theorist is willing to become a realizer. Let me tell you one thing:

*You can't get the proof that you're looking for. I won't give it to you because I don't have it. It doesn't exist in the form that you think it would.*


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

> It's probably one of the last posts of mine in this thread. Debating with a theorist is pointless, unless the theorist is willing to become a realizer.


Fair enough, as debating truths with someone not practicing skepticism is a pointless exercise as well. The system you're espousing is circular. You assert that we are more than our bodies. When asked how you know this, you claim direct experience. When asked how you know you're body wasn't deceived you once, you once again appeal to direct experience and how it revealed to you that you are more than your body. Furthermore you've already decided that your assumptions are true and need no further investigation, while your beliefs are not actually beliefs. Essentially your system is one that is conveniently free of any real analysis. Its designed to protect itself from inquiry, whereas in science belief systems are designed to be repeatedly challenged. The fact that you don't care about my question regarding how you determine the truth with competing spiritual claims is further evidence of this. That quote from Adya is his personal assumption of what enlightenment is, but of course his assumptions aren't assumptions because he said so. Meanwhile the other people who swear not to be in conflict and have found similar truths are the ones who have made assumptions.

To clarify what I mean when I use the word assumption in this context, I mean something you take for granted. Its a hypothesis, but not something that has been rigorously tested. The beliefs I'm talking about are things based on evidence. But regardless, I feel anything further would only lead us in circles.


----------



## trolololololololo (Aug 12, 2013)

If you want to continue the discussion, please do so directly with Adyashanti. I'm out of arguments, and writing such long messages unfortunately is too time-consuming.

Don't hesitate to ask him all of the questions you've asked me, he's quite a nice person and will try to answer these perhaps more satisfactorily than me. You can contact him via this site.

It was good to talk with you. Good luck with whatever path you choose. I don't think that you _should_ do anything, since everything is ultimately equally true.

And this also applies to *ugh1979*. Please send your questions to Adyashanti (if you have any), he'll try to answer them. Good luck to you as well, in whatever you're doing.

And to all people reading: I'd much rather have you call me an insane idiot for writing things that I wrote than apply them in the wrong way. Or worse: believe them and don't apply them. This has a potential to be a very destructive thing. If you're not ready to apply this, run away from it. Better blame it on me than ruin your life.

Of course, if you apply them and they do work that's another story.

I'm not going to visit this thread anymore so please don't reply.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

trolololololololo said:


> That is a very deep question. Find out! Don't rely on me or some professor to tell you. You're the authority. Abandon everything you've ever learned, heard and saw and find out. This requires faith and trust, but only in the beginning. Later you don't need these and you just drop them.


Abandon all credible knowledge and just start making my own stuff up based on personal experience?

What an awful idea. We'd still be living in trees if we all done that.



> That's not really something I can answer to intellectually. The closest one can get is saying that it's extremely in your face and so consistent, that it being something false is impossible. It's far more vast than that, so don't rely too much on these words.


Someone with schizophrenia experiences an apparent reality that is so in their face and consistent that they think it must be true, when it's obviously not.

The same can happen to anyone who believes what they experience to be reality without questioning, cross referencing and analysing it.

Children frequently do this for example, and readily believe all sorts of fantastical ideas before their minds develop the analytical skills that facilitate human adult intelligence.



> Not necessarily. It doesn't when you go beyond the mind.


You can think your personal experiences unveil the truth all you want, but you'll be judged and discredited accordingly by people that are far more intelligent than you or I.



> An idea of truth and the truth itself are two things. They have nothing to do with each other. How come a thought "grapes are so tasty" and the experience of eating them are the same?


I don't see how that relates to what I said. Of course thinking about an experience and actually experiencing it are different, but they are of course linked.



> That is a great question, unfortunately I can't answer it in words. You have to investigate it yourself, in a meditative way.


I already practice secular meditation, but if you can't even hint at what truths you are referring to your case can be readily dismissed.

If you can't describe them in anyway then I don't believe they can exist.



> Reality does. Of course, you can't know that until you experience it first hand. Until you do, everything you say is a speculation.


Untrue.



> *Reality* is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.



The fact that the earth is a globe is reality, yet you and I have never seen it.



> Not magically, they do. Not necessarily things themselves, but their essence.


What is this "essence" you speak of?



> That is true as long as you believe that you need thoughts to validate the reality. Thoughts only distort the reality.


You're anti-thinking mentality is unusual. It seems to be anti-intelligence.


----------



## NOS (May 9, 2013)

Hi Illiest, it was difficult to get to the end of this thread as the dialogue between some of the other posters, although extremely interesting, is quite long--I do love metaphysical debate, though. 
I have some suggestions, as I too have been an existential nihilist and started to read Nietzsche when I was probably a bit too young. First off, I definitely agree with HelpfulHero--from a pragmatic sense humans work best when they're happy, and happiness, like every emotion, is tied with biology. However, I would suggest a different kind of hedonism than the type inferred from above. Have you ever heard of Epicurus? He was a famous Greek philosopher who preached a simple lifestyle, although using arguments and goals similar to hedonists. His teachings were the foundations of Epicurean philosophy. Give him a read, and try going for a run.
The second part: a book that I find very helpful when questioning morality in the void of meaning is _The Myth of Sisyphus_ by Albert Camus. It is an excellent book and beautiful argument, although I've only fully read him and Schopenhauer so I'm not the best critic. 
I would say in my opinion, and this is simply laid out, so, it really doesn't do justice to the amount of thought and research I've put into it. Life is fairly meaningless, that I'm not going to contest. It's just as though you were pushing a boulder up a hill every day, the same damn hill, in the same way. Now that you know that this boulder pushing is 1) not accomplishing any permanent goals, and 2) not actually required as nothing is required, you could rationally come to the conclusion of not pushing the boulder any more, or, because you know this is all you'll ever have, you could push the boulder far up the hill, lie in its way and wait for it to crush you. Now does that sound pleasant? No, it doesn't. Imagine other people on the hill. Now that you have a boulder and no directions you could go and set up the boulder to crush all of them, but would that satisfy you? Unless you're a psychopath, no. You can or may do whatever you wish, but I don't think that you want to break your moral code. So don't, and just call them personal problems if you're in a group of nihilists and they call your morals into question.


----------



## Adiabatic (Sep 8, 2013)

I think it comes down to the classic story of the Scorpion and the Tortoise. 

A scorpion and a tortoise were on an island when it began to flood. The scorpion asked the tortoise if he could ride on his shell while the tortoise swam to safety. The tortoise objected, saying the scorpion would sting him and he would drown. The scorpion said he would not, as then they would both drown together. The tortoise agreed. Halfway to the shore, the scorpion stung the tortoise. The tortoise asked why he did that, now they would both surely die. The scorpion replied "I cannot help it; it is my nature."

Your nature is engrained in you and no matter how much you want to believe nothing matters, that nature is always stronger because it is instinct. 

I know because I have wanted to feel nothing matters as well; nihilism seems the most logical course of action. However when it comes down to it, like when I'm expected to hold the door for a perfect stranger even though in my mind it makes no difference, I still do it because of my nature.


----------



## Dysthymia (May 29, 2013)

Illeist said:


> Okay. So, I accidentally posted this in the wrong part of the forum. The one for debate... Naturally I feel really embarrassed/anxious. I'm going to try this from the top.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that life has no inherent point, other than its own propagation. I'm not here to dispute that; I need some advice. With that said, I've been thinking about my own morality. In particular, I've been thinking about the set of morals that I've crafted for myself. They seem pointless when I consider my nihilism. The thing is, I have an ingrained moral compass that's been a part of my personality for years. I've intentionally avoided certain activities, because I've established in my mind, a strict set of morals. What's to keep me from doing something terrible (relative to my own morality), and I'm not referring to some supreme being (I've been an atheist longer than I've been a nihilist). If life has no other point than it's continuation, than why should I bind myself to morality? If my morality is my own construct, why should I hold onto it? I'm afraid you see. I need someone to help me reason through this. I've been reading some of Nietzsche's ideas. If what I've read is correct, and I've interpreted it correctly, he suggests the abandonment of morals. While I'm not one to hinge a huge decision like this based on one person, (especially Nietzsche as some of his writings on 'higher men' sound sociopathic) I can't seem to find a firm argument for the continuation of my morality.
> 
> Please. I'm reluctant to abandon my morals, but the more I reason, the more I consider them pointless. I've been reading quite a few controversial topics as well. I've now discovered myself unwilling to pick a side. My conviction as to what is acceptable, and what is not, has disappeared. I feel terrible, but I don't see that as an excuse. How does one reconcile the two?


I suggest reading some of Viktor Frankl's work:

http://www.spiritual-minds.com/phil...(psychology, psychotherapy, philosophy)-o.pdf

You think that if life has no inherent "point" that it must also have no meaning. I see no reason by something that is the product of random chance, must exist without meaning. If life is void of meaning, then we might as well kill ourselves.

I have very strict morals which i adhere too. I do so because i perceive every action as having meaning. If life has no intrinsic meaning, then we must find meaning ourselves. If we are to assume we are capable of making complex decisions, that we are not bound by causality, and that these things make us distinct from other life forms, then it seems logical that we should aspire to understanding and harmonizing with the world and each other.

Unless there is meaning in pain, then that pain should be avoided. Therefore being in conflict with each other should be avoided unless there is some real meaning in it. The best way to avoid conflict with each other is to maintain a moderate, balanced lifestyle. Conflict occurs when either lack of resources forces it, or desire for resources forces it. In reality, there are plenty of resources for everyone, so its our excessive desires that lead to conflict.

There is no point in being conscious, intelligent life forms if we are incapable of suppressing our base instincts.


----------



## BananaJoe (Nov 1, 2011)

that's an easy one to me, beings do suffer even if everything is pointless


----------



## Kujara (Sep 21, 2013)

As a nihilist you can simply view morality as what causes suffering and what doesn't.

There doesn't need to be an attached 'meaning' to moral or immoral decisions that gives it any definition. Morality is simple what tries to cause suffering and what tries to quell it.


----------

