Not gonna happen in a capitalist society where wants are stoked and shamed into us through invidious comparison 24/7. Plus humans are naturally wanting. Still, working to reduce identification with the cravings and chattering of the mind is to our benefit.

Should have used "crave". It 's more appropriate. Buddhism is the middle path, which rejects nihilism & craving, the two extremes.

Works great until you run out of money and food

@Him Next Door lool. I had this experience on mushrooms...lots of them. Somehow" I am happy" became there is happiness ..I am dancing became there is dancing etc etc

@@TheSubpremeState correct ! Try meditation and mindfulness in some warzone or thirdworld fucking hellhole , you need a life philosophy to carry you through , something you are willing to live and die for otherwise its just mumbo jumbo ffs , the greeks were right 2500 yrs ago !

Totally agree

thank you very much for such an elaborate piece of writing.

thanks!!!

That was just a summary repetition of the video content. Were you aware of the implications in what was said?

Thanks🤓

hey, although I'm much younger than you, I'm also a big fan of this specific topic Sam talks about. As we share similar interests on this topic, maybe you are able to give some information on the following question: 'How is it possible that for example, Jordan Peterson, speaks so much truth yet personally gives me the feeling of being in a 'mind deficit, as in 'lacking something'. How can you find the balance between being the observer on one hand and being obsessed about achieving certain things through hard work. I do feel that rather compulsive thinking about a certain thing to achieve has a great effect in doing so (no, not really in Napoleon Hill's) way, yet the experience of doing so can be quite unpleasant. Is this maybe just part of the doubt that comes with engaging in stressfull situations that can be endured through meditation practice and further polishes your mind for the next obstacle or increase enjoyment in rather 'ordinary' situations?

@@MathieuVanbecelaere Sam's interest in meditation is realization of a fundamental change in conscious experience which he refers to as "self-transcendence." I wouldn't presume to speak for him, but my understanding of the topic is that it is the experience of "perception without a perceiver" or "witnessing without a witness." And it's just that aspect which I had not been clear about for so many years in my own meditation. From a purely secular point of view it's the realization (and acceptance) that what we view as "ourselves" is only a story, a narrative, that we create and repeat, and which we use to describe our experience as being that of an entity which causes and controls things. Indeed, you'll find a lot from Sam on the science supporting the idea that there is no "free will," and indeed, no substantial self to HAVE free will. Paradoxically -- for those interested in some of the more common varieties of "success" -- "erasing" oneself and experiencing consciousness that way has the effect of "clarifying" a lot of things we experience in life; and so that sort of meditation could indeed have the effect of enhancing "success." In my personal view, people like Jordan Peterson are missing out on a key aspect of being human by being ignorant about the changes in conscious experience which can be examined by a variety of "meditations." I believe the feeling of "lacking" is indeed evidence of a wordless understanding that there is more to experience than just thoughts and the integration of and use of thoughts. There is more to life than seeing oneself as a "thing" which may achieve "success." (even though, sure, we all gotta eat!) If you're interested in some more youtube videos that explore this without getting TOO religious (mostly) you might look at the channels of Richard Lang (representing Douglas Harding, whom Sam is a fan of) and Francis Lucille. A very small channel I find intriguing is the channel of Ilona Ciunaite. Her speech is rather new agey/spiritual sounding but in fact her work is PURELY practical and empirical and -- quite effective, IMO. She also runs a website called "liberation unleashed."

Thanks for the great answer. As you described, Jordan Peterson does indeed seem to hold a lot of tension, which also translates into the way he communicates. He comes off as somewhat demanding which is maybe because he is advanced in deconstructing the human psyche to find possible problems people could have. Its as if he walks into a 'maze' of thoughts. Sam's way of looking at it compares much more to floating in a boat. Both are essentially the same, you don't choose your destination, it's influenced by all the parameters involved which influence your brain to take certain turns. Yet the maze is very rigid and locks you up, you walk in loops 'this is the way I am, this is the way my mind is constructed, I need to go back to look at which turns I took and put meaning on it'. Floating in the boat on an infinite ocean gives the feeling of freedom, being in flow. Anyway, maybe this is a weird comparison, it came from the top of my head. Also, from personal experience, when I binge on Petersons videos, I get very analytical which kind of overrides my other senses and it keeps me from enjoyment. It makes me BELIEVE in things. I feel that the disciplinary believing mindsets makes you less adaptable to situations, it creates conflicts. Having 7 trillion neurons (or something like that) which make 95% unconscious calculations and supplies us with the 5% awareness should make us realise that the 95% is more important to influence than 'trying' to control the 5%. (if this makes any sense). I think that meditation, has a greater effect in influencing the whole package of the brain because it starts from the roots of our experience, it doesn't follow one strain of thoughts to try to change it (following a thought pattern makes in stronger, more likely to occur again). I feel as if the relaxing properties and the increased positive feelings (ime) that come with meditation just send you in a whole different strain of experience instead of trying to puzzle out the same old mazes. Or differently said: being able to choose which maze you enter, only choosing the one's that best serve you. Again this is me trying to put meaning on something debatebly unexplainable, but I do feel that these stories help to put us in the right state.

@@MathieuVanbecelaere The way I think of it is that humans evolved a "thinking machine" which overwhelms us with "thoughts" continuously. These thoughts are simply "generated" from a mix of emotions, memories, feelings, perceptions, etc., and (the way it's supposed to work) is that we then pick "relevant" ones (using an analytical process, and "double-checking" with higher functions), and this serves us well in choosing mates/friends, finding food, avoiding predators, etc., etc. But the way to view that, then, is that the thinking mind is a TOOL Should a "tool" be EVERYTHING to you? Is it the thing to use AT ALL TIMES, for all occasions? I wouldn't think so. But apparently, especially in the modern age, people see so much call and use for that tool that they begin to believe that they ARE the tool -- that's all they are. In fact it seems most people believe that thinking is the ONLY THING a conscious human can do. A perspective which opens up in following the path which Sam follows regarding meditation is that one comes to see that they AREN'T just that tool. In fact what one sees is that one is a "conscious field" within which thinking is just one thing. Seeing that is enriching and freeing, and gives one a feeling of a much expanded conscious experience (and thereby also fills that feeling of lacking).

LowEnergyWolf Sam is finally waking up. I wonder if he's slowly opening the third eye or just copying you know who?

Is it mainly for beginners? I am not a beginner, so that's why I ask.

I was a beginner when I bought it, but the author says that it is for everyone who feels like he's not making enough progress. It is really really really really good.

Thanks for the tip. Great reviews on goodreads. I will purchase for sure

Can you name the book please ?

@@sagarbaloni4872 the Name of the Book is: „The Mind Illuminated“

Sounds like you were not at all in the moment.

@@Fullyautomagic I'm not sure if any other human being is able to accurately comment on the experience another has in their own consciousness. To do so assumes knowledge a person simply cannot have, especially if they are diagnosing such a state over the internet with little to no personal information to draw upon. Sound familiar? Perhaps spend less time criticizing others journeys and spend little time meditating on compassion, humility, and the tragic flaw of spiritual arrogance.

@@jsnel9185 beautifully put

i call him Sammy "The Bull" Harris : ))))

Meditation is hard for me because for years I have deliberately distracted myself (to the point where I bring my iPhone into the bathroom) to keep intrusive thoughts at bay. I have a chronic degenerative illness so I am frightened of my immediate and longterm future. Coupled with that, I am consumed by thoughts of regret. I avoid thinking so much I don’t take a bath without a distraction device so as to avoid thinking period.

He actually agrees it is hard even for 2 seconds. It is just a way of talking.

Take a high dose of psylocibin and you will see what it's like to focus on one thing for an hour -- and I mean focus as if there has never been another point of focus in your past and will never be another in your future -- extraordinary. Even Sam admits that psychedelics taught him it's possible.

Elmo Blatch And where do I get my hands on a “high dose of psylocibin”?

Ich glaubs ja nicht, du hier 💙

I guess some people are just wired to be happy. But, for some like me anxiety, occasional sadness and mood swings are natural. Mindfulness has helped me before, but it's like a chore.

Pragmatic Entertainment I suggest that you look into it for yourself if the interest is strong enough. You could start with this m.kzfaq.info?q=adyashanti%20desire&sm=1

As for me? Happier and happier for no reason at all. There is a book by Jean Klein which. bears the french title, La Joie Sans Raison, which translates to Joy For No Reason ( translated to The Ease of Being if I am not mistaken). This points to the fact that you always have a reason to be unhappy but that no reason is required in order to be happy. Being alive is sufficient.

Been there.

Tibetan monk sets fire to himself, doesn't even flinch, he's dead before anyone knows it, the power of direct experience is severely underestimated even by masters

@@havenotchosenyet I think they did it out of protest

Everyone can apply mindfulness. There's no excuses. If anything the more horrid and hopeless you are, the more crucial mindfulness is to your life.

You can work at it and make great gains

@@MCJOHNSON95 Free Will is an illusion

@@ZiplineShazam I agree that it is an illusion. People can change their lives very drastically and they do all the time. It's just part of the script.

ixeqilibrium obviously

@Андрей Бахарковскй Explain why....

@Андрей Бахарковскй Now I want you to read this very carefully. I am a MBACP, and have also been a mental health/substance misuse social worker for 28 years. The book "Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy for Depression - A New Approach to Preventing Relapse" by Segal, Williams and Teasdale - 2002 was the very beginning of the use of this in the UK and elsewhere. When in states of high emotional distress Vipassana meditation is not recommended. The use of ACT'S mindfulness anchoring skills as described by Russ Harris is the best approach during these specific times. Look this up on KZfaq.. Sam has NO direct experience of working within the mental health or mental illness field, - I do know exactly what I am asserting, much more than you know & have made totally false assumptions. Yes Mindfulness (Vipassana or otherwise) is helpful - and is recommended to lessen relapses into depression. But also generally as a life skill for want of a better description. I could easily write so much more - but have better things to do.

I think it's from BigThink

It's edited excerpts of Sam's responses from his conversation with Robert Wright about Buddhism, from the Waking Up podcast: samharris.org/podcasts/is-buddhism-true/

How does one adjust to major change?

Do some just snap or are they mentally disturbed to begin with?

You only read the title of the video didnt you?

exactly .that's my problem with him.Sam seems to follow what he preaches.

Here is something to contemplate on. I am sure you have seen several doctors who smoke despite knowing very well the damages associated with it. They even tell their patients not to smoke. Assume you have a heart condition which needs surgery. Would you refuse to get operated by a surgeon who smokes? Highly unlikely. The point is, you just extract what you need from the source. This is what we do in our daily practical life. The scientist who discovered Oxygen, might have died by suffocation. Would you ever care? Contrary, would you object to someone who sells liquor simply because he doesn't drink himself? It is only when it comes to domain of religion / spirituality people somehow start expecting / checking if source practised / practises what s/he preaches.

Try Ajahn Brahm!

Pragmatic Entertainment: "If someone is so wise, why don't they use that wisdom in their own lives" the last reckoning: "exactly .that's my problem with him.Sam seems to follow what he preaches" I don't think he would give a damn about what people think about him, but he would certainly not want people to feel disenchanted with the teachings on account of wrongly judging his private life. I try to do some justice from this latter perspective. I understand your dilemma, though for anyone who followed his lectures (days and days of audio recordings, not 10 minute snippets now-and-then) his behavior was totally coherent. For egocentric minds it's impossible to understand eastern wisdom, they must necessarily see it as some means to make the ego better, stronger, more productive; any merit such "wisdom" might have is only measured in regards to what benefits it brings to the ego. But the point of eastern wisdom, and the meaning of its ultimate state (awakening/enlightenment), is an experience free from the ego! My brother once said, full of hubris after taking a good job: "I know it!! In 20 years i'm gonna buy two properties in two different countries and an yacht, and THEN i'm gonna be free!". Any wise mind (according to eastern thought) would laugh so hard after hearing him say that, just like after hearing a naive child say something silly. According to eastern wisdom, there is only one true freedom, and that is: freedom from being an ego. "The ego is the ball and chain locked at its own feet". The ego is a pattern that holds within it its own restraints and limitations and its own misery - you cannot ask for one that comes free from them. My brother will go on desperately working 24/7, worrying, getting angry when taxes and other problems keep intervening, and after 20 years he'll very probably still end up using his money to the same trivial ways we all do: kids, saving for their education, doctors, car mechanic, hair implant, daily groceries, house renovation, shopping, lawyers, paying taxes and debts, etc. Even if he does manage to get a private jet, a yacht and a castle.. ALL THESE THINGS ARE A MEASURE OF HOW CONSTRAINED HIS "FREEDOM" IS. This desperate clinging and dependence on EXTRAORDINARY conditions for "you" to be happy is proof of how imprisoned the poor soul is! An awakened being has no fear and requires no exceptional conditions that need to be met for its positive experience, hence no stress, no worries. Also, (s)he has no desire to live for 300 years in a certain body, under a certain identity.. for she's the great Dao, she's Brahman, she doesn't give a fuck on furthering one particular "ego-body", just like we don't seek to further indefinitely one particular outfit. Note that this is a wholehearted experience, NOT something you intellectually know. You can learn all the science and philosophy book there is, knowing how "you are the universe" and still have no idea of the awakening experience. Just like one could read everything there is on the evolutionary history of love, its biologic substrate, all the Shakespeare stories and poems by Coleridge, watch all the romantic movies, and still having no clue about what love is until he finds a person to make him fall in love. Awakened minds are free, having a very intense unutterable experience, one that's IMPOSSIBLE for us egos to imagine.. because it's something that's precisely involving the death of this thing that tries to imagine it. An ego is bound to wonder: "Hmm.. How would 'I' feel in such a situation?" instantly defeating the purpose :)) I've read on Shinzen Young's blog a paragraph where he states that 80 years of normal western living cannot match a day of what he's feeling now, and should he make a choice between the two alternatives, his choice is clear (he was saying that to assure people that he doesn't rob them of their time, putting them to work for something that doesn't worth the work). This is also encountered in David Carse's book "Perfect brilliant stillness", or in Gary Weber's talks, or in some of the old Zen writings. Awakening though is a process and different awakened minds could be situated in different places on the "phase space" of awakening, but even those with very similar emotional, or intellectual, or volitional, or perspectival awakening, they could still choose very different lifestyles. An awakened mind could very well choose to spread the teaching, or remain a recluse and keep the non-dual awareness in meditation for 12 hours a day, or make lots of sex, or.. drink himself to death! Behavior just presents itself! There's no doubt and there cannot be any regret! I can hear Watts' voice right now: "Why do you want to live? Why are you so desperate to keep on living?". Off course he wasn't seeking any answer, he wasn't having any quandary, all he wanted is to wake up a particular feeling into the listener, to make him perceive his own automatic unconscious predetermination to see, feel, think and believe in one way or another. It's not that there's anything wrong with anyone of us.. just as long as we don't go around blindly, sleepwalking through life without knowing "why we believe what we believe" and "why we do what we're doing". He only spoke about these things because, in his words: "i had nothing better to do than to speak about them"; also saying: "i wouldn't go to convince anyone who isn't coming to listen to my lectures or buying my books by his own accord". Which brings me to my final words: He wouldn't ever try to convince someone to give up drinking. He would instead try to see if he knew what he was doing, if he was a very conscious awake person. If so, than "by all means, do what you know and sincerely feel like doing". Also, he would never judge someone, not even for things that are unmentionable here, let alone for alcoholism. "Tout comprendre c'est tout pardoner".

Alan Watts knew too much :)

I wouldn't call his anti-theology crusade "egoistic". He's just trying to help others....I wouldn't call it a "crusade" either lol.

Marksy B Pretending to know things he cannot possibly know is certainly egoistic. Religious people have "faith", that isn't egoism. Agnostics admit ignorance, and that isn't egoism. Hard atheism makes the unsubstantiated claim that there is no God, and that it's possible to know that. That's egoism.

And this is one of fissures between the believers and the atheists. That atheists assert there is no god(s)... as a positively active endeavor. Certainly there are those folks out there... but if you listen to really any of the debates, read any of the books.. what you'll find is that the foundation claim of the atheist ... that the natural assumption is that there are no gods... is a hypothesis that can be overturned with sufficient evidence. That is not an active stance, its a passive stance of no until proven otherwise. Currently, that evidence is lacking in quantity and/or quality sufficient to convince the atheist. This approach is consistent with all religions, they all fail to provide sufficient convincing evidence in the same way. And it can be further pointed out to anyone of any religion how contradictory their treatment of belief systems are when they consider the nearly invariable situation they find themselves in, -namely- that if they think their own religion is justified with evidence - couple that with a dogmatic claim in that faith structure that it is mutually exclusive to other religions (i.e. that their belief system is the only way to heaven). So atheism is really a passivity toward the chaotic world of faith claimers and their claims. It's a measured approach at religion that works incredibly well for all other human endeavors (science). We only reject the null hypothesis when the evidence is sufficient... It is a very poor argument to say that claiming there is no god is "unsubstantiated" . You can live in the fringes of the idea that we can't know anything for sure... but exactly as Russell's teapot... an inability to prove a negative is not good reason to believe it is true. There are gradations of liklihood and believability that should warrant our beliefs about how the world works.... and one's beliefs should scale with the evidence at hand. Extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence. That is how humans operate in every other facet of life these days... science, medicine, economics, judicial systems, and every -ology worth a damn. Faith is faith for a reason... it is belief in spite bad or missing evidence... if good evidence existed, faith wouldn't be required. Your criticism of Sam (really any non-theist) is poor on this point. Frankly it's egotistical on your behalf to think your snippet of a comment is fair and thorough enough a criticism of his incredible body of work of the last ~15 years to perfectly summarize him and end the centuries of conversation on this topic (which it appears it was written in the spirit of).

Jon Culbert I fully agree with you that my snippet of a comment is grossly insufficient to debate a topic of this scale and which has been thoroughly argued about over the centuries. I acknowledge the atheist position and I'm familiar their arguments, but unfortunately I've rarely seen atheists attempt to address serious ontological proofs such as Kant's transcendental idealism or Aquinas' five proofs or Anselm's ontological argument. Bertrand Russel was one of the greatest philosophers to ever live but Russell's teapot is a weak philosophical argument, it starts with the incorrect assumption that atheists are being asked to prove a negative, when there is not a consensus between believers and atheists that the existence of God is not palpable through experience, unlike a teapot orbiting the planet. If a person of faith experiences God, is that the same as an unbeliever not experiencing God? If we see it that way, then it's the unbeliever asking the faithful to prove the negative. With this fundamental lack of consensus about the validity of the transcendent, I don't see how either side is arguing with the same terms. The world hasn't settled the argument between Plato and Aristotle and it probably never will, I'm sorry if my first comment appeared to treat the topic lightly.

Shiftless Lazycrat atheists don't assert there is no God, that is antitheist. Atheist is a lack of belief in god(s). Agnostic is a lack of knowledge. Nostic is a claim of knowledge. So the odds are that most theists are agnostic theists. They don't know, but believe. Sam Harris and most atheists I know, including myself, are agnostic atheists. We don't know and don't believe. The idea of a nostic atheist is rather nonsensical, how could someone claim to know if god(s) exist or don't exist but don't believe it. There are people who call themselves antitheist, but I find their claim as hard to believe as a theist's claim. In short, the common idea of what an atheist is among theist's is incorrect and being an egotist about saying you don't believe something is silly.

Living consciously and in the moment? Where else do you want to live for 70+ years? In never-neverland?

That's the entire problem. You could use faith to justify anything. How are you able to distinguish between all the so called different higher powers out there by using faith? Doing that means you're not living in reality.

The trouble is, if we let reason go, some people will come and use your faith for thier filthy business. That's how most of wars in human history worked.

Did you listen to a word he said...

Jairo Fonseca--people who know him well can. This is the core of his interest. He spent 11 years in India practicing meditation in his twenties up until his thirties before he finished his bachelors.

Wow that is quite ignorant. You should read his book waking up or atleast take a psychedelic like magic mushroom or LSD and then talk.people who dismiss these ideas without even trying or truly understanding what is being said are even worse than new age woo woo people. And this is not too work at all.

But, science is the path to knowledge, only through scientific practices and scientific research we come to know something as factual. We can't accept things based on someone's anecdotal experience.

It's not just meditation, but _individuation_ that your "self in the moment" is not the same as your "self thinking/self-talking/ruminating/confabulating in the moment." Mindfulness meditation (on the present moment) leads to that individuation. This will help a person whether they live in relative ease/safety, or desperation/danger. Crowding the mind with unnecessary thought/narration doesn't add to the authentic experience of either extreme of existence. It's ironic in a way because those who live relatively charmed lives (the opposite extreme you referred to) tend to have no reason to recognize the constant inner-narrative (defining/labeling their experience, confabulating a "specious moment" based upon past and future. For no other reason than it just feels good. Feels like we're in control, masters of our ship.). Its the sort of desperation you mentioned that leads to more realistic existence, appreciating the simple things, recognizing the inner delusion for what it is. Another way to think about this (although, ultimately, the goal is to think less, not more) is that all the self-talk we tend to engage typically won't do a thing to help the plight of the example you gave. But, we do it anyway (because it feels good to the ego). If we were actually in the desperate example you gave, it could be a relief to know what we can't change, and that the only thing we can appreciate is the unadorned moment (unadorned, without our inner narrative confabulating it into more than it is). In that environment, moments could be more fleeting and more precious than the person who has time to take a selfie, and check their "likes & subscribes." Who's really living? I think one big key to this is that the ego isn't what people think it is. Most people think of ego as conceited, selfish, cravenly seeking better, pride. But, the ego can actually be fed by over-mourning one's losses. It's all relative. "I should have been more, would have been, could have been, will be, won't be, might be could be... (and so the self-talk goes)" is all very egoic. It's not satisfied with what *is*. The slightest regret/shame (opposite of pride) is a form of pride. "I was destined to be more, and I should be, and will be, could be, would be... (and so it goes, endless narration).

You might want to listen to this again.

I don't think you understood a word Sam said. Anyone can be happy in a tranquil forest -- true mindfulness is the ability to find that same happiness in the noisy, dirty, crowded city.

Woo woo? It's scientifically proven to work. No woo woo. Facts.

One Card Short-wow.. you might want to look into the science of mindfulness. Also, I have a very busy life but still practice meditation daily. And honestly, I could not imagine anyone affording not to meditate. It’s honestly like sports; I couldn’t imagine anyone going without that either.

I feel you. Don't bother with it if you think it's a waste and it's not woo woo by the way

I see what u did there

@John, I would have had the same reaction 10 years ago. I had my own mindfulness awakening without these videos. I knew something was not right with my thinking. Eckhart Tolle (who is more new-age'y than Sam) described his first awakening experience one day (after ongoing suffering, dissatisfaction, confliction) "I cannot live with myself." Probably everyone has such a moment, but he immediately wondered, "wait a second. If I can't live with myself, who am I compared to the self I can't live with? Are there two me's?" In essence there are. I had that same sense 10 years ago and began my own mindfulness attention to my thoughts, how my mind worked. It was 4 years later I watched my first Tolle video and instantly "that guy knows what I know!" That was like an epiphany. But, even more was realizing how I would have *never* gotten it if I'd started with him. I would have gotten hung up on "what is this? It's new age. What's new age? Maybe buddhism's better. I need to spend years understanding the difference, and which branch of buddhism is better, and who's translation is more accurate, and...." That's the always-thinking mind. It has to be in control, labeling, defining, explaining, rationalizing. That's the "myself" people find they can't live with. Mindfulness (on the present moment) individuates the "self in the moment" from the "self thinking/narrating in the moment." We go through life thinking habitually, more than necessary. We believe it's us, who we are, and everyone exists this way. We never question it. But, there is a you who exists without thought. It doesn't depend upon thought or explanation to exist. If you stop thinking, it remains (and most people tend to not have much familiarity with that state of being themself in the moment, without the moment being filled with past/future.). Another way to think of it: the only thing that's real is this moment. Everything else is a story we tell ourselves (about how we got here, where we're going, where we should be, would be, can't be... and so on... endlessly). So, I absolutely agree with you. I would have the same reaction to these things. But, Sam is probably the most science based awakening guy out there. The others are much more trappings of new-age or buddhism/hinduism. I think awakening has more to do with psychology than anything else. It's reducing an ingrained/normalized delusion, more in the present (not past/future). It can lead to questions of what is consciousness, do we share consciousness, etc. When you take the narrative away, what remains is a great mystery. Some try to define that in religious/spiritual ways. Sam never does. He's pretty reactive to that. He stops with "it's a mystery -- but it's REALITY." That in itself is where 80% of the benefit comes from. The larger, non-duality religious-type stuff doesn't yield as much benefit, but enters the realm of potential delusion again.

Maybe... It'd be great if I somehow managed a synthesis between Petersonian ideas of self-improvement and self-responsibility and appreciation of hard work and then Buddhist ideas of being present and aware, mindfullness and the ideas about the origin of suffering and how to end suffering. It just seems so difficult to reconcile these two ideas that I both find immensely helpful in my life. So I just sort of flip between them in a schizophrenic way. Usually I'm on the one end in the morning and day when I need to be active, and the other end when I need to relax.

How do I know when I'm properly oriented? So far, I feel like I need to orient myself every single day, that my destiny is in my hands all the time, in every moment I'm responsible for my future.

Thank you

It's the frantic, involuntary madness that accompanies dissatisfaction and Utopian longing that isn't helpful. When you can be satisfied, even for a second, then you can more effectively use your energy to seek modern medicine, electricity, etc. Also, electricity and modern medicine no longer need to be developed. Our primary issue now is what to do with our time, and with suicide and childlessness on the rise, it may just be that people need to learn to be satisfied with their already miraculous lives. We don't need exponential growth of technology for comfort any more.

dochmbi If you interpret this as promoting the notion we abandon tasks that improve life you’ve missed the message.