Vince I haven't reached anything. I am not on a path nor have I lost my way.

I am not free from desire. There is no need to be free from it.

Vince, you are right! I am not free from desire. No need to be free from it.

I have not realised anything. I am not on any path nor have I gotten lost.

My ten years of experience don't mean very little...they mean nothing at all.

Yes and again it would show my attachments to things.

Wouldn't it be better to help without rage? Rage makes one not know what they are doing. In dangerous situations that can be bad.


That is dumb. If you have read anything worth a darn you would know better.

If you would like to continue this please start proving some of that learning that you are now dismissing. All I am seeing is a whole bunch of everyone is wrong, I am right just because. I have seen two pages of be present and now there is no present.

I think the conversation has run it's course.

Take care.

I've noticed some inconsistencies:


You say the problem is the attempt/desire to change. Then you say there is no problem. If there is no problem, then why is trying to change a problem? If there is no problem with the unhealthy desires that the mind ordinarily pursues, why would there be a problem with a healthy desire to purify one's mind? These are rhetorical questions, as the lack of logic is obvious.


The inconsistency here needs no explanation.


You say meditating from desire brings no nourishment. Then you say all meditation arises from desire. Then you say meditation brings health and relaxation, which is synonymous with nourishment. Talk about a loop of contradiction.


Many would call a ten year span of meditating 2 hours a day "a path" of sorts. You were certainly seeking something.


Then why is there a need to stop meditating? If desires are okay, and meditating comes from desire, then where exactly is the problem? Another rhetorical question, as the lack of logic is apparent.

You have proven yourself to be an unreliable source of information. Most would do well to steer clear of taking anything you have said seriously without first taking all the points I have made in response to you into consideration. I wish you well Argento, I simply want to ensure that the people reading are not misled. I'm not entirely sure you have the best intentions in mind either. It seems you think you have come to some sort of grand realization and want to let others know that they are wasting their time or ignorant to what you know, without stopping to realize the potential benefits that they are receiving from their own meditation practice and the potential harm that may come from taking anything you have said seriously and applying it. Not a very wise or thoughtful approach.

Take care

These aren't inconsistencies, you don't understand me.

Attempts to change are the root cause of the problem.
There is no problem. If there is no problem, there is no attempt to change.

It's not inconsistent...it's that you don't understand.

When I speak about my car, I know that the concept of a car is not real. There is no car...There is no spoon. I have to use the words car and spoon as if they exist in order to communicate

If there is no problem, then why do many of us not know ourselves? And why do we act and think in ways that are maladaptive? Please check out my previous comment. In many spiritual practices, it is said that "there is nothing to change" as a remedy to the mindset that one obtains spiritual awakening through struggling to obey precepts, analyzing sayings, rejecting the self, etc. As a result, many people end up running themselves ragged without any spiritual achievement. This doesn't literally mean that "there is no problem" or "there is no work to be done".

-TaoSandwich

Hi Tao,

People don't know themselves because there is no self to know.
The self is just a bunch of concepts that the body uses to help IT survive and reproduce.

(then you'll probably think, "ah, he wrote that the body exists, he's contradicting himself", haha)

Using the idea of, "there is nothing to change" as a means to change, lol. I would say that the person doing so doesn't understand the statement.


Sorry for not replying to your other post yet, I will read it later and reply, but I'm on my lunch break.

I understand what you have written just fine. If there is a lack of understanding on my part, it is due to you not expressing yourself clearly, as I have used your direct quotes in backing up my statements. I think you don't understand yourself, or rather, your understanding is based in faulty logic and false assumptions. You cannot see the blatant inconsistencies that are right in front of you and you refuse to take on the points I make which invalidate your claims. I don't expect you to change your mind, but perhaps one day this will all sink in. Good luck

But concepts are easy to know, right? :tongue: So if the self is simply that, it should be well within our reach to understand. Also, just like I said that people say "there is no work to be done" when this is only useful for some to hear... We say there is no self, but we use the terms "me", "I" and do self-based things like going to work, expressing our thoughts, etc. In one sense, there is no constant self... but in another sense, this thing that we call our self isn't entirely unreal either. I don't think this is hypocritical... Our concept of self isn't a lie, just a rough approximation. Anyways, the meat is in my previous explanation, so I look forward to your reply to that prior post!

-TaoSandwich

Thanks for the encouragement vince...All that inner work has obviously made you exceedingly kind.

You sure invalidated my claims, I do indeed contradict myself.
I admit that I might be wrong, because I truly don't know the answer.

You might be wrong too