Life

Do not take what I have said as argumentative, it is rather a flow of thought.

I like arguments, I don't like fights. I see an argument as a conflict of ideas. Conflicts mean change. Change is good (from my point of view). A conflict is not a fight. A conflict is the intersection of different points of view.

I also studied mainly from books but have tried to incorporate each system into my life at least for a time.

I never tried to incorporate various systems in my life. I simply went along with the ones that appealed to me, those that fit to my personality. I never tried to mold my personality to other systems.

I was never attracted by religions. I have a very independent and rebel personality, so I don't like when others tell me what to do. In the case of religions, gods would be indirectly doing that. In contrast, yoga is offering a way to seek the root of sufferance. It doesn't tell people what to do, it doesn't tell people what is right and what is wrong, it doesn't tell people what The Truth is.

The explanation of things you write about through science I have sought through religious writings of various backgrounds.

I have also studied Eastern philosophy, yoga. I was never much interested in physical exercise. I wanted to meditate but I am not patient enough. What attracted me to it was the way it dealt with the mind, with what is beneath everything we think is us.

However, I never liked all the metaphors used in it, I was never comfortable with its teachings about forcing the body or the mind to take a spartan path, and I never liked the way it promotes the dissolution of the mind. Well, certainly, I was never taught by a real teacher, I only had books, so I can't say if all these were my distorted understanding of the distorted information which reached me, or the real teachings of yoga. Anyway, I took from yoga what I liked, but for the rest I just let my inner nature prevail and I believe I have succeeded in removing the veil of illusion: conditioning.

There was a time when I was chasing "The Truth". Then came a time when I realized I was wasting my time. Nature forced me to see the Edge, it forced me to see the difference of points of view: Life and Death... and I saw no other truth than the lack of it. Nature simply is and it requires no beliefs, no truths.

To see the Edge one simply needs to renounce searching for the unfindable. There is no Truth, but only perception of Reality. Attempts to find the Truth result in the illusion that there is some item (some concentrated concept) which can be called Truth. In contrast, Reality is everything.

Do you think you could have known that "truth" was unfindable if you had not at least attempted to find it?

Well, I once thought it would be nice if there would be an absolute truth, but I also wondered how can something be an absolute truth. I wondered how it might look. It was like I stopped evolving in order to understand my goal, searching for this truth. Was it real or an illusion?

So, I had to stop wondering, if for no other reason then at least because I couldn't reach it.

How did you realize you were "wasting your time"?

Yoga's teachings say that a yogi must not waste his time trying to achieve supernatural powers. It also teaches that there are many ways to reach a goal, but it's important to keep in mind that goal instead of constantly stopping for something that's on the side of the path.

The reason is very simple: the goal is one, and that is what the yogi has to seek. Everything else is a distraction that slows down the yogi from reaching his goal. Thus, stopping to look at these distractions is a waste of time. However, each individual has his own path to follow.

Once I realized that absolute truth was not my goal in life, I stopped wasting my time.

I personally don't think any struggle which produces growth inside is a waste of time.

Yes, but how do you know when you've grown?

How do you find your path?

You stumble on it. It's personal for every individual.

I would have loved to see you write about Beauty.

Beauty and ugliness are linked to our (feeding) needs / instinct. Most of what represents a threat against our health is considered ugly / disgusting by our brain. Beauty is whatever brings us an advantage.

For example, a human is disgusted by a corpse or by blood flowing from the body (or by the inside of the body - think at a surgery). In such moments, most humans suddenly feel sick at the stomach. These things are a threat to our health or life; they represent the danger.

On the other hand, when a human is sexually involved with another human, he feels the need to touch, lick and kiss his partner.

The stars, for instance, seem to relax us. Sleeping under the open sky, looking at the stars has a soothing effect on us. That's why we consider them beautiful.

This may be non-poetic, but it's reality. We use the words beautiful and ugliness to indirectly refer to things that are either good or bad for our health and lives.

Beauty also seems to exist within our collective unconsciousness as a vision of paradise - how does any culture seek to define it except by an end to suffering and the beauty within it.

What people think doesn't reflect how the human mind works. The mind has a few common limits, but beyond those humans can think fundamentally different. The essay about the human mind is not about philosophy, is not about how people regard things, but about how our mind is built to work.

In this case, Beauty is an illusion, a non-existent paradise where one can rest after having to deal with Reality's problems. The content of the illusion doesn't say much about how the mind works, but the fact that it exists does say a lot.

What is reality if not something we consider to be objective?

That kind of objectivity is not absolute. I see no absolute system of reference in Nature. I see only relativity, probability. Nature has no preference for life or death. It contains all aspects. We care about life because we are alive.

Everything people think they know about what surrounds them is through their perception. There is absolutely no way to change that. This means that every individual sees things through his own conditionings. With the Human mind I am only trying to destroy myths and illusions.

Humans can believe as much as they like in absolute (objectivity). It's all an illusion. Every aspect of Nature is relativistic. Absolute systems of reference make things rigid (since it's absolute), which Nature is not. To the contrary, Nature exists exactly because of diversity, because it contains all aspects of all concepts. There is no right, wrong, good, bad, beautiful or ugly. There simply is... All.

For example, species evolve not because they are intelligent (and know what they should do) but because they are diverse and those that fit the best to the environment survive. There is everything: right, wrong, good, bad, beautiful and ugly. There is no absolute system of reference.

This doesn't mean that there is no right and wrong or beautiful and ugly inside a system of reference, for example humans, but there is none which is absolute.

You're saying that even our understanding of reality is not reality itself since it is always distorted by our individual perception.

There is a difference between the words "truth" and "true". Science deals with reality, not with "truths". Science does not try to prove truths, but merely to explain our perception. Science makes statements that are true in a given context. However, these statements are not truths. They are just true / correct / right in the specified conditions.

A truth is an absolute system of reference.

Truth is unknowable. Reality is perception.

The stars currently serve us no purpose.

Of course they do. They are our origin. We exist because of them. Without them we would not exist. It is not important if something serves us a purpose this moment. It is important if that something could serves us or has served us (us, the biological beings). Our subconsciousness computes all scenarios.

It hurts to be on the outside looking in because you can't believe the illusion once you know its there.

Yes, the flock instinct. It binds individuals in groups and increases the chances (or the individuals and of the group) to survive. Of course, those individuals who are independent, suffer. They must simply fight more than those who accept the flock instinct.