Hi Peter

I wonder why is identifying with emotions bad? Or rather – how is not identifying with emotions good – you are then attached to your notion of being unattached, no? Constantly evaluating whether you are attached or not – is there peace in that? You will possibly let go of feelings, while still feeling them, but you must let them go? Just like I would unconciously identify with my feelings. You would now identify as not being your feelings. Are you really free then? Maybe I twisted what you were conveying too much. But what I getting to is, what does true detachment look like? ( After I wrote the next paragraph, I realize we are more balanced when we don’t identify with our emotions, so it’s a good thing. Just worrying about what true detachment is, is unproductive, it is not the point)

the Lion ate the rabbit out of hate or anger that would be a very different experience to the Lion eating the rabbit because Lions eat rabbits, as rabbits eat grass, as grass eat nutrients in the soil… – the only difference I see is that the Lion was not angry when it killed the rabbit. But did it change anything. If you are attached to whether or not emotions were the driving force – there is a difference. But I see your point. The Lion killing something anytime it is angry would be disastrous vs only when it must to survive. We are dangerous when we act focussed on our emotions, I will take that to heart and remember it.

Where do you learn your lessons from? Are there resources online I could use? I would love to be introduced to these concepts as well. This was very profound – I am my emotion, anger, and I act. Or I have experienced a emotion of anger and I act.
And My Actions did not succeed, I have failed, I am a failure, Life is unfair…. verses I had a experience, I am not the action or the result. Life Is as it Is and we engage with it as it is.

And I’d like to learn how to ponder over this We work for that which no work is required – I have some thoughts around this but would love to know how to discover things over time.

Hi Peter

Detached (from the labels and such) AND engaged with ones truth. The challenge is that a such a detachment can easily become indifference. – when you engage with something, aren’t you attached to it anyways? I understand the words and their meaning, but I don’t understand how to practice, and I understand it is something like be calm and work for justice vs getting riled up. But how do you know you are coming from being detached or not? Not worrying about the outcome? What are you acting for then?

You’ll have to tell me what to take from the story. What I’m taking from it is the samurai realized the revenge was not his to take? I don’t know 🙂

Hi Tommy

I understand your point about living in the present mindfully.

Karma is very complicated. Sometimes it has nothing to do with your actions. Your analogy is good. Your actions now determine your future. This may not apply to what Buddhism teaches, but from what I’ve been taught, I would push it further to say if the wind carried apple seeds into your yard and the rain watered it, you would still get an apple tree.

Hi Peter

The duality (ego) consciousness experiences life as suffering and joy. We tend to pay more attention to pain, fear and measure accordingly. I think the ego is there to protect us from other “egos”?. So pain is more intense than joy. It is more common to experience pain than joy because of that?

Life feeds off of Life = inevitable suffering. – I did not understand this.

I don’t understand what you mean by duality. Could it be similar to dvaitam – advaitam? You believe you and “god” or a higher power are the same vs you believe you can elevate yourself to “god”.?

I will go over your post again to respond to other parts. I am confused for now 🙂

Hi Tommy

I will look into this Buddha’s four noble truths 

Is it not enough to be given the chance to live. Experience joy, love? A chance to escape suffering and the cycle of life, death and rebirth?  I suppose I hadn’t yet learnt to look at this as a chance. You’ve taught me that, thank you.

Hi Tommy

I am very sorry for your loss.

Dukkha is very clear for me now.

The story about the mother and baby makes me sad. Why do we have to be born at all when we know it’s going to be suffering Who is the metaphorical baby that has sent us splashing like this, and why? Why do we need to exist like this? We can learn to avoid suffering, but why is it there in the first place? Why do we exist to experience joy at all? Why are we required to experience anything at all, in this form. Why does this form exist? Why did we get these bodies and why are we creating all these things – good and bad. These were just my thoughts.

Hi Tommy

I would like to discover further if you don’t mind.

To be sad of feel sadness is human. To have problems is human. If you feel love or pain then that is human. – I was using the literal meaning to understand. But, I need help with this. I understand loving without attachment. But, is there sadness without attachment? Isn’t wishing something was one way and not another the root of sadness. Whether it is health, or how the world is, or how your situation is – if you wish it was different, it would cause sadness. But isn’t wishing also desiring? I understand it is human. And human existence is one of experiencing dukkham. This is a truth.

I understand the definition of annica. This is a truth as well, we see it in our experience.

Annata you’ve helped give me some clarity on this. Please correct me if I have understood it wrong. Would it mean that we should not assign meaning to who we think we are in this body. Taking birth in this body, in this time, in these circumstances gives us a particular “identity” – of being an individual – defined by our experiences, desires and attachments. But that is not who we are? When the body dies, that identity dies. This identity is tied to the body. It cannot exist without a body. There is no atma, our nature is not one of having atmas, individual “energies” without bodies – an-atman. We are not a collection of atmas. Instead, there is one of some kind and we are all that? And there is no “we”.