Persistent Obsession

In My Humble Opinion
21

Perhaps this will help you with your dilemma…

If this article were really rock solid, incontrovertible, unassailable proof that the claims of Buddhism are true and correct, then it would be readily apparent to any philosopher or scientist with an open mind (indeed, any right-thinking individual interested in the truth), and spread like wildfire. This has not happened, and while I have my doubts about philosophers, I do believe that there are enough scientists and other thinking individuals with an interest in the spiritual (one way or the other) that the absence of a nigh-universal acceptance of Buddhism among the scientific community is strong evidence that the article you’re looking for is not, in fact, all that and a bag of chips.

I remembered once, as a kid, watching an SNL musical guest with a performance that simply captivated me. The music was so beautiful, but as it was over a decade since I’d seen it, I had no idea who the guest was, and indeed all I could remember as far as lyrics from the song was something like “abba abba dit dit ahh-ahh” or something like that. On and off, for many years, I searched for this song, but I never could find it.

Until I just went all out, went through every SNL musical guest of the mid to late 90’s (I was aided by a recollection that it was roughly contemporaneous with when Sisters was on the air—that stuck out in my mind for some reason), and found out that it was Annie Lennox, and the song was “No More I Love Yous.” I found the song on YouTube, listened to it, and it was as beautiful as I remembered.

I feel like there’s a parable in there somewhere, but maybe not one with the best lesson. I mean “if you’re searching for something to the point of obsession, and try as you may you just can’t find it, then don’t lose heart, just keep digging and you’re bound to find it and have your efforts rewarded in the end” is kind of the opposite of what I’m trying to convey to the OP.

All I can say is, Machinaforce, I just don’t see how something as groundbreaking as a proof of Buddhism could possibly exist, and yet not have convinced enough people as to be common knowledge.

Yeah, pretty much this.

22

Come to think of it, this may be the specific test that was chosen for you. If you can understand that possession of the physical wording of the half-remembered passage will not bring you enlightenment or peace, and if you can come to grips with letting go of the crafted passage of text, you can start your journey to inner peace.

23

Like the parable, “Before the Law” in The Trial?

24

That does make a lot of sense to be honest and I can’t really poke holes in it per se. My guess is that if it really was as great as I thought it was then it would likely be more popular than it is and much more buzz about it would be known. I mean it would be news if an article actually PROVED a religion.

But part of me thinks that Buddhism is a mire that I can’t leave and what it teaches doesn’t help or heal me but just hurt.

Like there being no self: https://www.lionsroar.com/the-ultimate-self-help-2/

Which to me would mean that there is no reason to help others if there are no “others”. Saying that we are perfect is depressing to me because then there is nothing to strive for or to seek or to do, since one is perfect and nothing needs to be added. Because according to them it would all be in service of a “self that does not exist”. Ever since I read about it years ago that one thing has haunted me and sapped the life out of my life. My “true nature” is not what they say it is. But they sound so sure and convinced, and the results seem to confirm that they are right, so how can I say no?

I want to just leave it behind, really I do, because it has done nothing for me. But it always claws back into my mind.

25

http://www.johnhorgan.org/why_i_gave_up_on_zen_23599.htm

And then there is other stuff they say about how language gets in the way of us experiencing/understanding reality as it truly is. Which sounds convincing, I guess. But then again I don’t think that trees, ice, or water changes whether I have a word for it or not. But then a part of my brain (like in the article) mentions that maybe I am just rationalizing again and trying to hold on to what is comfortable.

26

I guess I’m just not well versed enough in Buddhist philosophy. But on the face of it, it sounds like a lot of what you seem to be struggling with is doctrine contingent on equivocation and what Daniel Dennett and others familiar with the term might call a “deepity.” That is, to the extent it’s true it’s trivial, and to the extent it’s profound (or deep), it simply is not true.

The “self” does not exist only if you twist the definition of the self into something that it’s never really meant to the vast majority of people now living (or who have ever lived).

There are so many things (basically everything in existence) that we can’t necessarily demonstrate to exist with complete, meta-physical certainty, but then that’s never been a requirement for “certainty” or “existence” in the sense that we actually use those terms, whether we realize it or not. For instance, you could say you’re certain you know who your biological parents are, even as I’m sure you’re capable of entertaining the possibility that there is some slim chance that you really don’t (I mean, you can at least conceive of some far-fetched scenario involving a conspiracy or something in which you and or your parents have been misled this whole time, for instance).

Life is not meta-physics. Any philosophy that pretends that it (life) is or could be (metaphysical) and can only get its foot in the door to your mind by wedging it in the gap formed between “certainty” as commonly understood vs. “metaphysical certainty” is a crock. In my humble opinion. But of course that may completely miss what it is you find compelling (or potentially compelling) about Buddhism. Again, I haven’t concerned myself with it much. I don’t see any reason to.

27

My best friend is of the opinion that Annie Lennox’ voice is broken. I strongly disagree. It is like she takes her heritage, all the darkness and misery of the Albans, squishes it like plasticine clay and produces a haunting sound that echoes across the highlands to rattle and caress the very fibre of your being. I mean, if art is not about pain, it is pap.

So, whenever I hear her make that comment (like right after the device decides to play I Remember You, the Eurhythmics song that touches me hard), I just nod and grunt, because getting into a debate is a fruitless enterprise.

28

“If you couldn’t orgasm, you’d be orgasm-free and that would suck.”

Ignoring that your phrasing of the mystery quote has a pretty massive “excluded middle” issue, it’s basically saying, “There’s this thing that you, Machinaforce, really really love, and either this thing that you really really love (Buddhism) is correct…in which case wouldn’t that be awesome!? Alternately…what you love isn’t worth loving. Well…pfff. Let’s go back to option 1.”

The statement resonates not because it’s a deep statement, it’s because it’s extortion.

It’s basically saying, “I know you want me. So either pledge allegiance and be my faithful, devout little vassal… Or fuck off and die.”

Friendly.

If you find that sort of thing alluring, I’ll say that Buddhism is at least cheaper than a findomme.

29

I just personally wish I could erase this thought from my mind, because I don’t want to go on crazy sprees of trying to find this article again.

30

Do you remember anything else about the article? Like when you found it, whether it was print or electronic, from a magazine, etc?

31

Machinaforce: You say that you are autistic–you are aware that obsessions like yours are common with the condition, right?

32

The article is not the issue. What’s in the article is not the issue. If you were to finally find the article, it would not solve the issue.

The issue is the obsessive behavior. Put your energy and focus on learning how to manage your “persistent obsessive” behavior. That will serve you far better than any article or any philosophy.

I know you’re trying. Keep at it. Good luck.

33

I don’t know what it was about, all I remember was the line and I can’t remember where it was from. It’s driving me crazy because I can’t find it and it’s making it so I can’t enjoy anything else because all I can think about was that article, that one line that said that “if buddhism isn’t true, then our worries are confirmed. That we have to cling to things to be happy and fear death and loss.” (To paraphrase but in essence it was suggesting to do the opposite of what Buddhism is asking). I’ve tried to forget it, to let it go, but it keeps popping up and haunting me because I don’t have an answer to it or because I know it to be true. Because if Buddhism is false then doing the opposite of it would work right? But it doesn’t. Things don’t last and neither do people or connections and the like, so I can’t help finding it true. It’s making Buddhism sound like the only way because it’s “true” otherwise everything else would work.

34

Again, false dilemma. “Di” meaning two. It is not a matter of “it’s either all true or useful, or it’s all false and useless.” It is possible for certain elements of Buddhism to be true or useful (eg: it is possible that finding a way to overcome/set aside desire to a certain extent will reduce one’s suffering and anguish) without all of it literally being true. For instance, all that supernatural nonsense about Nirvana and reincarnation.

It’d be like if somewhere in the Bible, there was a passage admonishing people to wash their hands before eating a meal where bread will be served. Just because it’s a good idea to wash your hands before eating (bread or anything else) does not mean that if you reject the Bible, you must also reject the washing of hands. It is also,possible to embrace the washing of hands without embracing the Bible.

35

I guess that’s part of the area that I struggle with, that black and white thinking that it has to be all or nothing. So when I hear it put that way I just assume that it is so. It doesn’t help that the websites and magazines that are Buddhist based seem so sure about what they say that I end up getting caught. So when he says “if buddhism wasn’t true then…” I guess my brain goes on lockdown and I cannot see anything else.

http://whybuddhismistrue.net/?p=211

But when I see books like the above and read about how some of these people experience this, I don’t know what to make of it all. LIke they are so sure there is no self, but I hear other sources say that the self is an emergent property and that all their years of meditation do is change the brain. It makes me head spin as I don’t know who is telling the truth.

36

http://whybuddhismistrue.net/?p=258

Also this one too, but the title of the book doesn’t really help me out that much. It sends my brain into the same alarms all over again.

37

Asking “is buddhism true?” is like asking “is economics true?” It is not valid question. Economics exists, yes, and you can study it, and become familiar with it, and use it to your benefit, yes - all true.

But is it the only important thing? Probably not. Is all of it correct? Probably not.

38

How to determine who is telling the truth… evidence would help. Along that line of thinking, I’d be curious to know how those people determined that they were actually undergoing an experience that could not have been produced by the brain—the physical self—alone. That they “felt” like it had to have been some kind of interaction with or transition to the “not self” does not make it so. They have posited an explanation for why the feel as they do, that it’s something spiritual or supernatural, but they have not demonstrated it to be true.

Would it help if I could point you to either a website or a YouTube video that would discuss some ways in which so-called spiritual/supernatural phenomena relating to meditation or intense *prayer have been studied, and the gist seems to be that these are simply interactions occurring in the brain, and that such activity can actually show up on scans, much like a wide range of mundane phenomena?

*ETA: And I want to be very clear on this. If the hypothesis is, generally stated, “Buddhism is true” (though Isamu makes a good point, let’s just use that as a shorthand for what we mean to investigate for now), then shouldn’t it be the case that Buddhist meditation produces the desired result, but some other kind of intense focus, like Christian prayer with fasting, doesn’t produce that result? And if it’s something spiritual, beyond the physical, then surely drugs, which may be swallowed by the body and interact with the chemicals in the body in known/observable ways, should be right out, right?

39

I’m not an expert on Buddhism, but it kind of sounds like you’re doing it wrong.

40

A video explaining all this would help tremendously because I don’t know of the other ways. All I know is what I’ve read from Buddhism and it turns out to be convincing to me, mostly because I know nothing else. What gets me stuck is the no-self part: No Self or True Self? — Identity and Selflessness in Buddhism

That’s just one segment of that whole article, but reading it all sure makes it sound like they have it all figured out. What I question though is that saying we are not the body when we clearly are since all this is the result of a body, mostly a brain. We were clearly born and do die. But the effects they claim to feel and the peace that comes with it makes it hard for me to ignore all their words or question them, as though by doing so I choose to live in ignorance or suffering.