If all tha we are is determined by biological means of our brains, and we have souls, are we trapped within our bodies?Could we find a symbiosis between soul and biology, control ourselves and our brains without the shitty existence of anxiety and what not?
>>42342252lobotomy does the job
>>42342258How so?
>>42342252Yes, except there is no 'you' trapped in a body and this 5 senses and mental phenomena are just Totality happening. No hidden levels, Totality is precisely this, limited by the boundaries of consciousness (knowledge of the 5 senses and mentality)Knowledge is always a limitation of consciousness itself, but there is no real separation.
>>42342450So what do I do then?
>>42342428try and see for yourself
>>42342252You dont HAVE a soul. You ARE a soul.>controlThis is what keeps you trapped.
>>42344411Stop trying to find answers. Smart people analyze everything. They predict, evaluate, optimize, and judge — constantly. And in doing so, they quietly lose the ability to live with ease. Intelligence tends to interfere with life instead of supporting it. Overanalysis disrupts emotional and physical flow. Judgment multiplies suffering. Wisdom lies not in thinking more, but in knowing when to stop. This is not an argument against intelligence. It is a reminder that intelligence, when overused, can sever us from the rhythm that makes life livable. Peace doesn’t come from understanding everything. It comes from releasing the need to.
>>42344783Wow. I thought I’d get answers from /x/ but guess I was wrong. Thanks for nothing.
>>42344783Having this problem. Can't remove myself from my own internal world enough to engage, or feel anything from the external world anymore.
All religions, all philosophies, all views—they seem so different that it seems like switching from one view to another is a significant and profound difference.But in essence, all views are about the same thing: there is someone who possesses agency and can do something. Practice, believe, disbelieve, think, accept views, reject them, do something, etc.Even religions like Buddhism, which formally deny the existence of a self, an "I," create a crutch for it, a functional agent that can do something, practice, choose, etc. Whether a functional agent or not, on a psychological level, every agent is experienced in the same way, as "THE ONE WHO IS...." as a true agent with true free will, who COULD HAVE DONE OTHERWISE or who COULD'VE NOT DONE IT, the possessor of true free will that is independent of everything—such is the psychological experience, as if IN FACTSomeone to whom demands can be made. And all these views, like a spectrum, stretch and intertwine with one another, like an infinite field of narrative, expanding and growing.But there is only one NO-POSITION, just one, no-position, which differs from all other positions in that:it doesn't even take into account the presence of an actor, an author, an agent. This is non-duality, where there is no division into two—no Self, no agent, no actions, no time in which it could live, no place in which the agent resides. There is only that which is, which cannot be known, because knowledge is merely the Agent-Self's relationship to something.And even attempting to capture this knowledge of non-agency, the absence of the one who, as some kind of stable knowledge—one that can be repeated and transmitted—is an illusion of KNOWING THAT HE DOESN'T EXIST—the same duality. The entire life of the Self is a cloud of knowledge. What this cloud represents cannot be known. And it is of no use to anyone.Of course, this “no I” is also just a pointer, and not the final truth, but a very good one.
Language consists of limited concepts—a classic example:"A river flows." The subject, the river, produces its own current.Although a river is a flow of water within certain boundaries, there is no river that flows itself!Animism, and the SOUL, and the gods, and all other additional entities—a River that flows river, a Fire that burns fire, etc.That is, on the one hand, it is a purely linguistic misconception, but it shapes a certain train of thought. On the other, language itself is, in a sense, shaped by a sense of agency—a certain complex of tensions in the body and mind, creating the impression that there is a River that flows a river, a certain "I" that "is.". When there is only "isness"If you ask whether there is free will or not, the answer is definitely no, but that is not the final one. There is no one who could have free will or not. But that is not the final answer. There is no space (outside EVERYTHING) where someone "WHO IS..." has or does not have free will could exist or not exist...The clarifications in language will never be precise, but the direction is clear.The only difficulty here is that this already exists— Everything happens completely by itself, without any agent, creating the illusion of agency, the illusion of "I." And there is no need to fight it. There is no room for "doing something" me
Why is understanding non-duality impossible?To understand the whole, one must extract from it the piece that comprehends all.To understand the infinite, one must draw a boundary between the infinite and that which comprehends the infinite.Once one boundary is drawn, the boundaries grow uncontrollably.The first boundary is the Self, the idea of Self—literally the very division into "self and not-self," and nothing more.When the Self is separated, an infinite multitude of "not-self" arises, incomprehensible to the Self, with which the Self cannot cope.Why?If we isolate and limit the finite realm of Self from the infinite, we arrive at the Self as finite, while the not-Self is still infinite, only it does not include the Self—it is a multitude.For perception, there is non-perception.For consciousness, there is non-consciousness.For understanding, there is non-understanding. Why, when you remember it, isn't it?Why isn't there an "experience" of non-duality that "belongs to me," that "was in the past?"Remembering—memory—imagination—is only a part of the totality, right here, happening right now.What's placed within it can't be the entire totality.Totality isn't an experience.It's completely open to itself because it's total, not hidden, but it's not someone else's experience.It's not some state of enlightenment that might come in the future.It's limitless.It has no "states of the past."It won't be different in the future.The future is simply a part of the totality now—imagination, fears, anxieties, hopes.The past is simply memory now, interpretations, a narrative about myself, my history.All of this is already part of the totality; no one possesses it; there is no "totality of the past" or "totality of the future"—it is a non-object, nothing, without characteristics, beyond concepts. It is precisely this—all of this—that is the totality
>>42342252>are we trapped within our bodiesI feel trapped. But I don't know. >Could we find a symbiosis between soul and biology, control ourselves and our brains without the shitty existence of anxiety and what not?I don't think we can. Sorry. But I can be wrong.
