[removed]

My exact same thought!

Why do we need to trust our emotional experience, can't we just experience it without coloring it with what we think it is? We add false data to it if we try to develop a faith-based opinion on it. Real trust and fact will emerge with time almost unwittingly when certain unbiased data occur recurringly, we don't need to give special attention to trust it.

You say cancer doesn't have self knowledge or ego, but then claim Buddhism and religions can commit violations?

Consider that even though people with a self can live without committing physical violence, the reality of transgression against others are not just physical. There are 7 sins, violence being one. Physical reality is not the only place these violations can take place. Do you believe that 2 people who commit 0 violent acts in waking life, with one dreaming about rape, murder, domination, and the other dreaming about liberation of all beings are one and the same? Is the appearance of something, perceived by other conditioned egos, the totality of that things essence?

The real nature of the teachings as I understand them are that when you realise no self, you realise you are everything and everything is you. The person insulting you, the attractive woman, the merchant, the beggar are all consciousness trapped within matter, conditioned by samsara, acting out karma unconsciously. All transgressions come from ignorance of truth. All suffering comes from straying from the path of the creator. This is Satan, the ego, the desire to live in FREEDOM, outside of the divine reality of existence.

The belief that as an intellectual animal, distracted by 1000 things, you have the wisdom to make choices without harming others or yourself, is delusional. The man who discovered electricity that lets us read at night, is also responsible for the murder of children. Please realise that every thought or action you take, has a cause, and will have an effect. You, as an animal that can think, may not actually have the intelligence to discern even 1% of what objective reality is. The belief that you do is an ego, conditioned by a worldview prescribed to you since birth, within an economic, societal structure, all saturated in the arrogant BELIEF that materialist scientific dogma is the be all and end all of understanding existence.

You can still have all the knowledge and not connect the dots, just like a toddler that has the knowledge yet still throws a tantrum. Or racists that insist in theyr hate while having all the needed knowledge. Or hate towards those different ... you get the gist.

Theyr feelings are primal, uneducated. They hate just because they picked some cues here and there while they grew, emotional cues that now are defaults and bypass even routine checks.

I thiught this article is about that "self" you think you are, that noisy little bitch inside is prolly not the real you. You don't need to feed this ephemeral little bitch as it will lead to an attachment and suffering of both you and the outside world. I hardly see anything wrong with that.

Am initially confused as most comments reads like being defensive from a gut reaction. It is like that little bitch op was talking about. Most are mentioning something about we must respect the self, we need to put the self in the forefront since that's all we ever have, synonymous to everything "I" am, I think, I do. You don't need the little bitch to achieve that.

The definition of knowledge is justified true belief (Pierce i think). So we don't have acces to the world in itself. But we do create justified arguments and conclusion. Human brains simultanious create the world around us as well as the feeling of being a self (Joscha Bach). I would say that we are bound to belief or faith but we have to back it up by justified logic or feelings.

You are the main character in your own story. If you do not believe that then you will never get anywhere. You will just continue to follow the path set out by others.

I'm not sure how you read that as me agreeing, could you explain why you think I was?

Reads like a narcissist jealous of other narcissists that get attention for their narcissism. The writer needs to do a little more introspection on their “self” before evaluating others’.

Haha, I feel like that’s a bit wordy and flowery to get the point across to someone who says they don’t understand it.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Nah I think about that shit all the time and I’m perfectly menta…… oh wait

[removed]

[removed]

Interestingly, this is very, very close to parts of the core Buddhist principles, known as the four noble truths. Buddhism also has a lot to say with regards to the illusion of the self (see: Anatman), in that it holds that there is no fixed, unchanging self, but rather a constantly fluctuating combination of five components known as the five aggregates. So any attachment to your ideas of yourself will cause you to suffer, because you will eventually change enough or arrive at the right circumstances to falsify that self-narrative.

There's not a 100% certainty of the world not being a creation of my own mind or a mirage of some sort, but that conclusion leads to a bit of a dead end in terms of further philosophizing or further anything really... It would involve too many mental gymnastics and isn't a very "evident" idea... Can I suggest a reading?

Yes, you figured it out. We all live in Descartes' dream.

I have no issue with the quote you included. My only issue was with the idea that faith is a necessary part of having said sensory experiences. Whether or not it reflects a "real" world is immaterial.

Okay. The emotion part is pretty apparent but where is the intelligence part?

Evidence and my fallible estimate of probability.

Some have suggested emotions, in some sense, are a sensation of our internal homeostasis

Define self, glorifying, detrimental, true nature, and "your role" and where applicable prove they exist.

There might not be any meaningful distinction between the two