Now please note, all I am stating is EXACTLY WHAT I DID, exactly what worked for me.

I do not know if it will work for anyone else. There has been no double-blind trial on this ;-). I am however confident that I have the "causality" right, in other words, none of it is coincidental change.

This post is very matter-of-fact, as in it's exactly what I did, exactly what I observed, exactly what I think happened. It is not really theoretical, as in "according to theory xyz this should work", rather, it just worked and I don't care too much to try and explain why it worked. I just know it did.

This is very much directed towards adults because you can't do this for someone else. It's a very, very personal journey.


Abandoning the idea of "I am who I am", I adopted the idea of "This is who I want to be".

For me this occurred soon after I got a professional diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome, accepting this helped me to generate resolve to get on with my life.

In my case, I adopted the attitude:
"If I want to be a better person, I only need to be a better Buddhist"

You'll note that I wanted to be a good person, yet the idea of "good person" is so subjective and arbitrary. But on the other hand, I felt that Buddhists were the best people in the world by my standards, and I thus knew precisely what I could strive towards in order to become a better person.

I choose Buddhists, as my understanding, that they were people who embraced peace and harmlessness (as I already did), without suffering as a result (as sounded nice!). Furthermore, I had the understanding, that Buddhists embraced compassion, caring and virtue and I decided those were the attitudes I needed to develop within myself in order to become a "better Buddhist" and thus someone with both peace and harmlessness, and freedom from suffering - Buddhists proved these were not mutually exclusive (ie you can both shun popular soceity's ideals and be very happy). The ideals of buddhism and buddhist lifestyle, resonated with my heart very strongly.

It was not so much Buddhist teachings which pulled me out the condition of Asperger's Syndrome, but my firm and unfaltering GOAL to become a better Buddhist, to always try to act more kindly, more caring, "let go" of things like hate rather than clinging to them.

I had actually already overcome my depression before encountering and following real Buddhist teachings, the goal to realize the qualities of a Buddhist, was sufficient. Following the formal teachings was not required, but did naturally accelerate progress. In my estimate, the teachings of how to become a better buddhist, would do nothing without the goal of becoming a better buddhist. You just wouldn't care about those words.

The mind needs a goal, or else it will not work hard towards anything.

It is worth noting, that even before I adopted the strong goal of becoming a better buddhist, I played around a lot with the intellectual side of "Universal Compassion", that is, I decided it was a virtue to not hate anyone, not even criminals and terrorists, and so, that is what I did. I learned to not hate anyone. It took many years but it worked and eventually, I didn't hate anyone.

So that was a pre-goal to my goal of striving to be a better buddhist, simply being someone who doesn't hate anyone. I figured that was a good way to practise the Universal Compassion.

I picked up this concept of "Universal Compassion" from a book I read by the Dalai Lama as a teenager. And at an intellectual level, I liked it, because it felt wrong to hate.



Abandoning my search for worldly happiness, I found inner-happiness.

This happiness, came from the power of Unconditional Love, at the time I just called it all Universal Compassion, but I think Unconditional Love is what it actually was. Unconditioned love, unattached love, unconditional unattached love, universal love and compassion... the name of it, is not what it is. It's a feeling not a thought.

When you are deeply in love, there are no troubles in the world, the whole world is okay. That is happiness, mental-energy, a mind which is not dwelling on worries.
(But normal love, also makes you stupid, the conditions make you stupid)

The power of LOVE, is in being LOVING, not being LOVED. It is not possible for another persons feelings to get into your head, it is your own feelings which count. Everyone in the world could love you, but if you didn't love anyone back (or didn't appreciate their expression of their love), you would be very miserable, you would have none of that inner-happiness and energy which comes from being in love. You may cling to the idea, that you just need to find someone who loves you, and then you'll be happy. But their love, it cannot get inside you, and their expression of love, you may not appreciate.

My most lucid example, and my first true comprehension of Unconditional Love, occurred when I saw a very pretty and inspiring girl on an internet video. She was highly creative, intelligent and virtuous and worthy of respect in every way because she conducted herself so well, a very good role model.
I found her to be a wonderful person, and I thought:
"She is so wonderful! I wish I could love her! But she is too far away, she couldn't love me back, I don't even want to think about her sexually because she's too young and is inspiring just as an intelligent person and lust would just get in the way, I haven't done anything to deserve to love her..."
But then I remembered this concept of "Unconditional Love", to love beyond reason.
And I thought "Screw it! I'm just going to love her anyway!". All it took, was to drop the "I wish" and the "Buts" and to let the feeling which wanted to be, be. And I was filled with more happiness and energy than I'd ever experienced in my life. That was the power of pure unconditional love towards another person.
Unconditional love, is letting a feeling which wants to be, be. Instead of smothering it.

If I had not done that, I would have suffered greatly, because I would have continued wanting to love her, but not letting myself. That would have have caused me much suffering and pain. By simply letting the feeling be, my energy (which otherwise would have been devoted to stopping the feeling from being) was freed up for me to do other things with. Unconditional love does not so much generate energy, as unbind it, at heart, we want to love, but we stop ourselves because we feel we are undeserving, and thus we suffer not only from not having what we desire, but also from applying our energy to smothering.

I believe, it was the combination of my GOAL to be a more compassionate and loving person, with the expression of Unconditional Love, which allowed me to overcome the conditions of Asperger's Syndrome.

And that's it. Goal to be more loving + unconditional love = personal growth.


I truly believe that unconditional love is the only thing which matters in all of Buddhism and all of religion and all of spirituality - once you have unconditional love, you really have all the spirituality you want in the world, you know you can stop looking. There is obviously, a purpose to the dressings - that is, in bringing people to realizing the feeling of unconditional love, and in helping to make it more expansive. It must be expanded or else you will simply devote your energy to being unable to love some other object of desire, but after experiencing the power and joy of unconditional love, you'll naturally want to apply it to everything. The teachings accelerate this.

I know with certainty, it was teachings by the Dalai Lama which I read as a Teenager, which planted the "Seed" which allowed me to do this, if I didn't have the concept of universal compassion planted in my head, I would not have tried it and I would have continued to suffer, or even become suicidal. I did have to try it, simply reading about it was not enough. Simply understanding at a rational level and thinking "that sounds nice", is not enough. However you do need to understand it at the rational/reasoning level, in order to overcome the "Reason which gets in the way".

The conditions had to become right in order for this seed to germinate and blossom:
Specifically:
1) I needed the goal to be a person who is expansive in his lovingness rather than restrictive.
2) I needed a feeling of love wanting to be.

If you simply hide away from the entire world you will probably never experience a feeling of love powerful enough to be detected, you'll never hear it knock on the door and ask to be let in. That is where the Internet helped, because it let me encounter a person with qualities which truly captivated my heart.

However my post would not be complete, without mentioning my FIRST encounter with unconditional love, perhaps more than a year earlier. That was in the darkest moment of my life, when the whole world felt worthless, I literally couldn't find anything I could love in the world, it was all gray, all worthless, that was how depressed I was (there's kind of like a month or three of missing-time when nothing which I did was worth remembering). It was then, that I stopped looking out in the world, and, in desperation, looked inside for something to warm me... and I discovered I could love myself. Again the teachings of the Dalai Lama I'd read many years earlier helped me to do that. But at the time I did not understand it as being unconditional love, but it was, unconditional love towards my self, not based on any worldly conditions (ie usually you can't love yourself because you've not accomplished enough or whatever, your self-worth is pinned to worldly conditions).

I am uncertain if one needs to go into the deepest depths of depression in order to find unconditional love towards themselves. I would not think it is required. All you need to do is "Stop looking in the world" for something to love to make you happy. I believe most Buddhists do this through meditation. A safer alternative than literally getting hopelessly depressed. But if you ever are hopelessly depressed, maybe you could try stopping looking in the world, and looking inside instead.

This was approximately the length of my path:

18 years old: Read half of "The art of happiness" by the Dalai Lama. Liked the idea of Universal Compassion.
22 years old: Overcame hate.
23 years old: Became hopelessly depressed and found unconditional self-love.
23.5 years old: Formal diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome, adopted "become a better Buddhist" attitude as a way to move forward.
24 years old: Felt unconditional love towards another person.
24.5 years old: Discovered Ajahn Brahm and REAL Buddhist Teachings.
25 years old: Felt universal unconditional love and compassion towards all sentient beings.
25.5 years old: Started calling myself a Buddhist since I was finally acting like one.
26 years old: Today. There is no discernible difference between me and other Buddhists*.

You understand, that this is not offered as a miracle cure. It is a hard-work process towards positive change that worked for me, to lead me from the deepest depths of hopelessness and depression, to great energy and happiness.
But it may not take so long, when not stumbling around in the dark with no guidance other than the two words "Universal Compassion" to go on. But then, that is the only important concept in all of spirituality. Desire to be expansive with your lovingness and don't let stuff (like hatred, distance, reciprocity, lust, etc) get in the way of feeling it.

So, that is what I did.

Blake.

* In other words, this is not a path to whatever you think of as normality**. It is just that the Buddhist ideals are equally attainable for Aspies and NT's and probably equally difficult to attain for both. The Buddhist path FROM aspism and the buddhist path FROM NTism converge and lead to the same place (but you CAN backtrack down the NT path and probably will just for fun!). The suffering of someone with Asperger's Syndrome and the suffering of someone with Neuraltypical Syndrome, are generally viewed as being equal unsatisfactory.

**The Buddhist practise of meditation, has actually been shown to neurologically alter the brain (the neurons fire in different patterns). As such Buddhists can NOT be described as NT's by any definition. Senior Buddhist Monks can even consciously mess with hospital equipment like vital-sign monitors in ways which is simply impossible for NT's to.

well i always will be who i am.
if i was what i wanted to be, then it would the same as i am now.

NT's want to be what they dream of.
i want to be what i am. i do not even have to "want" to be me.
i can not help it. i am me till i die.

even if who i was was a person riddled with cancer, i would never trade places with anyone else.

i think i would be very insecure living a life of who i was not really, but wanted to be.

sorry, i know you asked me not to post in your threads, but i would be interested to hear what you have to say.
the moderators will work out the peripheral details.

"I picked up this concept of "Universal Compassion" from a book I read by the Dalai Lama as a teenager. And at an intellectual level, I liked it, because it felt wrong to hate."

Interestingly, I had a similar feeling as a result of reading "Godbody" by Theodore Sturgeon.


"(But normal love, also makes you stupid, the conditions make you stupid)"

When I was a little kid, it was popular to do the 'If I had three wishes, this is what I'd wish for' thing, and one day I recognized that everyone, me included had been wishing for material things that we thought would make us happy. I thought, "What about if I just wished for happiness?" Well, a few moments of thought was enough for me to realize that sitting somewhere, droolingly happy, without any motivation to even eat or drink, would satisfy that wish, but it would be a quick end. I never did resolve that conundrum but I've always kept it in my mind that happiness, all on it's own, is not enough for a thinking human being. Blake's line, that I quoted, brought back those thoughts.


"allowed me to overcome the conditions of Asperger's Syndrome."

I don't think that the wording here is right. Or, if the words are as intended, then I think the underlying understanding of AS is deficient. No matter how much love you may have, some of the conditions, like sensory overload, are not 'overcomeable'. The stresses and personal condemnations of inadequacy, and frustrations of meeting external, and internal, expectations are able to be dealt with that way. Many of the AS conditions are things I wouldn't ever want to overcome, as I'm quite happy with them. The peace, for me, comes from accepting myself, and what I have, and if I want something changed, working towards that, and if something cannot be changed, accepting that without upset.


""Stop looking in the world" for something to love to make you happy."

That really says it all, in my view.

My question to you would be; if you were someone with a little bit of cancer, not yet terminal. Would you want just that little aspect of you - the cancer, to be changed? For the cancer to be removed? Or would you take your chances with death?


I've always, unfalteringly, liked who I was/am.
I basically just don't include my mental "cancers" in "self".
My self is the loving-kindness, compassion - virtue. Those are the things I would not change (except cultivating them further) because they mean everything to me. Everything else, is subject to change, I do not mind if it changes, even goes away.

I do not experience "wanting this or that aspect to go away". I just focus on cultivating the qualities I like and let the other aspects fade, if they so wish. I am always happy with who I am, but I also embrace positive change - change which leads me to being even more likable to myself. And the way to make this change happen, is not by aversion to what you don't like about yourself, but by strengthening the qualities which you find truly heartening.

Well, with a word like "Condition". The Buddhist meaning is a bit different to usual meaning.

But I would not guarantee that Buddhist Meditation is unable to overcome sensory overload. Actually, I would guarantee it could.

In Buddhist Perspective, all humans suffer sensory overload all the time (the 5 senses compel them into mindless action). It's just a little worse for those who are actually entirely overwhelmed by it at times (compelled into mindless inaction).

An incredibly important aspect of Buddhist Meditation for advanced mediators, is weakening the grip of the 5 senses such that they no longer compel one into mindless behavior. The mind remains peaceful and in control, regardless of what the 5 senses are doing.

Now, this is the kind of meditative state which you become a Monk in order to achieve, or at least go on serious meditation retreats. It's a not a "Lets try it a couple of times and see if it works".

But even just a different attitude to sensory overload would help a lot. The mental-suffering comes from the rejection, the aversion which says "I DON'T WANT THIS HAPPENING!", that's what causes the suffering. If you don't mind if it happens, no suffering. It just becomes a little hiccup in your day.


PS. Never underestimate the power of a happy mind to keep a body happy. For instance I no longer get body aches (except my knees!) and my hey-fever has entirely gone away. My body just works a lot more smoothly. Now part of this is from adopting a better diet and treating my body very well and recently, sleeping on a mat!
But if you don't feel good about yourself, you wont treat your body well - you wont care what food goes in the hole, you wont care if your body doesn't get enough exercise - in short if your mind isn't happy, you don't care for your body. Sure, you'd rather it not be dead, but as long as it's not dying, you tend to not care about it, you put things like the taste of food (immediate gratification), over the health of your body.
I care deeply for my body, anything which makes my body feel better, makes me feel better, I'm starting to think there's some kind of intimate relationship between me and my body ;-).

XB70 - you are always free to respond to any post you like as long as you do so in a respectful way, which you always do.

I encouraged XB70 to not read my posts at all if he is simply looking to attack my position. Sometimes he goes so far as to state, that he is not going to change his position and as such I waste my time by replying to him. I respect that quality of honesty in people. But it wastes his time to read my posts if he is in "Attack mode", I prefer people contemplate in favor of wasting time.

In any case, I do not mind if he raises interesting points, and his point is an interesting one.

Another take I'd like to make on it; is what it means to be happy with who you are.
I am very happy with who I am, and I pretty much always have been.

I liked a question:
What would you do if you woke up one day and discovered you were now the opposite gender?

My response:
"That's unusual. Now I have to become a Nun instead of a Monk"

If I were to randomly switch genders, I would still be just as happy with who I am. In other words, my happiness with myself, is not attached to my body, my body could change, even dramatically, and I would still be happy with who I am.

What makes me "even happier" with who I am, is expressing the noble qualities of love, compassion, kindness, caring, generosity, forgiveness etc etc.

To use another body example.
An athelete may like themselves just fine the way they are (they suffer no poor self-esteem issues). But like themselves even more, when they're fitter and faster and more capable of winning races, and so they train hard instead of bumming out on the couch. The state of being fat and slow, is not equal in self-worth, to the state of being fit and fast.

Being happy with who you are does not preclude the possibility of improvement and being even more happy with who you are.

One useful way to look at that; is to find people in the world, whom you find more admirable, than you find yourself admirable (a lack of vanity is useful here).
It's not to say that you'd be happier if you WERE them, but it's understanding, those ARE the qualities, which if you cultivate, would make you even happier with who you are.
I have no interests at all in trading places with Ajahn Brahm, that just doesn't make sense. But I find his qualities admirable, and wish to cultivate them myself. I find that the cultivation is the fun part anyway. If there was a kindness/compassion pill which would make you all kind and compassionate, I would not want it. Because the cultivation is the fun part, the useful part, the worthwhile part.

Hmm, interesting. I don't find XB70 to be in attack mode. And I certainly think that questioning someones position is an important part of growth and any kind of intellectual exchange. Otherwise it is just a lecture and that is not what we are about. Just because someone might disagree with a point you make does not make their response a waste of time. Many times you will learn more from your dissenters than your followers and I am assuming you are always looking to learn??

Linda

It's not an intellectual exchange.

semantics Blake - do you see my point at all or would you rather argue semantics? If you are trying to share your spiritual point of view then it does involve an intellectual exchange of ideas and philosophy's. I don't claim to know much about Buddhism but I am surprised that there is not more of a feeling of openness and willingness to learn from others to your ideas.

If you don't see it as an intellectual exchange what do you see it as? A platform to share your thoughts but not hear others? I am glad you have found something that works for you, I am happy to hear what you have to say about it and share your thoughts but it is my belief others have a right to respond to your ideas.

Linda

I have learned the same thing, as a born again Christian. I don't wish to become God, that would be ludicrous, but my goal is to become like Him. To have Christ-like qualities, yet I know I will always fall short. But that is OK. I'm OK with who I am, because I know I am the best at being me, who ever that is today, tomorrow... some one once wrote: "If we don't change, we don't grow. If we don't grow, we are not really living". I'd like to think I'm continuing to grow in Christ's likeness as I am in His word daily doing what He desires of me. Perfection? NO, I'll never be perfect, there has never and will never be anyone perfect. God was the only perfect one on this earth.

See, I've come a long way from who I used to be and I have a long way to go. I am open to being used by God in the lives of those around me. I seek out where I can be useful and I love others, I am kind. I give and give, and as I give, I am also receiving, it's a circle as I please I'm pleased.

We are foster parents, we have adopted three children. I have a heart full of love to give and as I do I receive so much more. this is my ministry. If we had a bigger house we'd adopt a couple more!

Now that I've said my piece, I'll be quiet. I never meant to start anything about religion and don't intend to. I know there are other views other than Buddism! And perhaps this isn't the place to start, I know I'm not the person to carry on any type of confrontation about Christianity. All I know is that who and what I believe in I believe just as strongly as BaldBlake believes in what he does.

I would rather not argue semantics.

Why make confrontation over religion when both Christians and Buddhists can reach complete agreement on the power of goodness .
In fact, most confrontation happens, because people so readily agree on basic things (like the rightfulness of harmlessness), that they then have nothing better to than find differences to argue about .

It's more fun to just be peaceful and get along at that point, arguing over differences just distresses and wastes precious energy.

I love Christians. They are the next best thing to Buddhists. Please note that I am a Buddhist so I do of course have a bias here ) , but I spend more time hanging out with Christians than Buddhists because I'm socially isolated from other Buddhists. We can get along and have fun and that's all I care about.
And while Christians are generally more pleasant to hang out than non-Christians non-Buddhists, I spend more time yet hanging out with hardened criminals. They're the next best thing and we can still get along and have fun .

There really is such little in this world to make conflict over, it's why people have to put so much energy into it.

To use a Christian example (since Christianity is pervasive in the West), often it appears that people from different schools of Christ-following get into heated arguments. From an external perspective, it's just unimaginable how difficult it must be to get motivated over such trivial differences (let along hunting the things down!), motivated to the point of arguing and making enemies, I've even heard of hate-Crimes between Christians in Jerusalem where presumably the most fanatical ones tend to gravitate to and then fight over the prime spots. All an external observer can do is look perplexed and ask "What does it MATTER?!, Jesus said to get along and forgive and that kind of thing, shouldn't you all be agreeing on that and putting it into practise as your foremost priority?"
But people do tend to make conflict over trivialities, which appear absurd to external observers. Be your own external observer and see it in action in yourself.
It's always both frustrating and illuminating to recognize in retrospect you were making conflict over something utterly not-worth-it, it DID seem important at the time, but it becomes unfathomable how it could have become so important as to deliberately hurt someone over, ESPECIALLY hurting someone you either do or rightfully should love (according to your own subjectiveness)

I agree with this completely.

Foxy-we don't have to start an argument about religion, to listen to what has helped you. If you feel something from your Christian beliefs has helped you, you are more than welcome to share, just as Blake has.

i hope i am a not causing any unfavorable currents. i am not attacking anyone or their point of view. i am just saying that i do not have that point of view. i am not providing any alternative point of view, so i am not doing a "religion match".

but i do cause some people to "bristle" i know. maybe i should include words that make me sound happy or something.
my words are deadpan, and if one can not imagine a mood to ascribe to me, then they are correct. but an element of paranoia may make them think i am being somehow nasty.

nastiness is in the eye of the beholder i guess.

anyway a few observations (which are my asperger style perception of the world in relation to what you say (which is why i would say them here, but not on the street)).





that is not a logical extension to my statement.
in my statement, i said i would not abandon who i was to become another person for any reason at all.
of course i would do everything i could to save myself.

i would cut the cancer out if possible. that is not the same as cutting "me" out.
the cancer is separate from me. no part of "me" is cancerous, just part of the body i own.

nothing i "have" is part of "me".

i am in the place where i "look" from, not in the place where i "look to".
so i can not determine your parallel.

but my autism is probably the reason i may not understand the more subtle meanings in your words (if there are any)


you said you once had low self esteem. i am confused.


you are imagining a negative outline to my words.
i dod not say "mental cancer", i said real cancer.

if was told i had 1 week left to live, i would not accept an offer to jump out of my life now and be someone else.
i would want to live my last 7 days as who i am, and i would not trade that for even the chance to be born into a healthy baby body who will be so much better than i was in my life, and live another 80 years.

for my last 7 days i would want to be alone with myself to see the end of my destiny.

but you refer to "mental" cancer.
i would assume that means "bad thoughts" or "evil ideas" or other negative mental problems.

if i had a bad attitude, i would want to change it.

why is there the presumption that i was saying what amounts to "i prefer to remain impoverished of spirit" ?

all i was saying was that i am never wanting to be any way other than i currently am. it is simple.



i do not "cultivate" myself i guess. maybe that is where i am wrong.
i have just grown into this me without self manipulation. i have just followed the course of whatever i was doing, and i wound up this way (i have little insight into the reasons behind why i am who i am (and i do not care anyway))

even though i have said many times that i think nt's live in more the "world", and less inside themselves, and i live less in the world and more inside myself, this does not mean i think about myself though. i only think about myself when i am responding to people, because i have to search what my opinions are.

when i am alone, i never think about myself and so i have little opportunity to recognize any qualities i "like" about myself, so even if i wish to take a hand in crafting my being, i would not know where to start.



i can not easily tell what is positive.
i have never really felt the urge to "encourage" anything in my life.
things in my world seem to happen as they will, as long as my input is genuine and unmodified, i like the way it is.

a lot of people seem to be searching for that ultimate answer, or ultimate bliss or whatever.

to search for your "true self" implies displacement of self, and therefore it is maybe a mild mental disorder of some sort in certain people (i have no one in mind).

they are never as happy as they want to be, as they are always on a journey toward "greater happiness", and they never stop looking for and rethinking and discussing things that have only to do with "finding happiness" (or "improved" happiness).


some others never search for anything, and are always quite content.

you may say to that, that ignorance is bliss, but if bliss is what you are after, then ignorant is the way to be.
(sorry that was a joke)

as long as an ignorantly happy person is not injurious to the progress of evolution, then that is all that is necessary.

buddhists may say that at our times of death, they are very far in advance of me on the trail of the "souls journey".

well if there is a route to some final place, and buddhists just drive in a straight direction through this life toward it, then their tracks will be straight and their distance traveled longer, and they will be more spiritual than me at death.

if all this is true, then i consider that if we have forever to "be", then no matter what course i take, i will catch up eventually.
no matter what tracks i leave.

if this is the case, i may as well go cross country and have some fun and "do a few donut's" on the way.

sorry, i am losing the greater sight of the issue so i will end here.

i guess i am trying to say that if i was a buddhist style thinker, i would do it in a buddhist way, but i am a me kind of thinker so i do it in my own way.

XB70, you might like the teachings of Ajahn Chah.
Still, Flowing Water
(The opening few paragraphs are quite a bit heavier than the rest of the rest of it)

In any case, you understand the Buddhist concept of "non-self" (there is no self, no soul, there is a "watcher", we can't know what the "watcher" is, but anything the "watcher" can perceive - isn't self).

On the other hand, you are stuck in mental-proliferation (basically mental commentary on what you experience), rather than enjoying the benefit of "direct experience".

The way to think about Mental Proliferation is like this. It's "thinking about the commentary on perception".

You perceive something, and the mind starts making commentary on it, then it starts making commentary on the commentary, and commentary on the commentary on the commentary on the commentary on the commentary - that's why it's mental proliferation.

The idea in Buddhism, is to start unraveling the layers back to the source, to the perception. A little commentary doesn't hurt, but once your mind becomes consumed by commentary you can't perceive much of the world at all - you are trapped in your own world, thinking about the thinking about the thinking about the thinking... sure a LITTLE bit of perception does enter the system, but it's so very little, and it's only the loudest, most coarse, aspects of the world (the mind only stops thinking, to pay attention to the most attention-grabbing things, which are the loudest and most coarse things).

Perception is a very fun thing, it's how you "see something new", you never see something new with the mental proliferation. The path of increasing your perception, is thus an enjoyable one. You get to see a lot of new things and as your mind proliferates less and perceives more, you get to see more of the subtleties, the more sublime aspects of the world, instead of just the loud and coarse.

This DOES tie into unconditional love. It's because when someone sees someone or something they love, their mind starts proliferating (fantasy, desire, fear, planning, worry etc etc), it proliferates like crazy, until the ONLY thing they can think about, is the object of desire, ALL other perception has been blocked off, is ignored (except the really loud and coarse stuff)
Unconditional love, is stopping the proliferation, leaving perception open to other things. It's greeting perception with openness and letting it be, rather than having the mind proliferate endlessly on it.

The talk about mind proliferation has me thinking that maybe this is our way to share a perception. Particularly the NT person seems to want to share or have others join in, so starts to analyze what is being perceived. Many aspies do no share, or try to tell what is inside us, as we perceive the world. In fact, we don't usually even try to talk about it, even to ourselves. When I line up water glasses on a table, I don't think about it, I just do it, and it feels nice. Only if someone comments on what I've done do I even notice it, and am at a loss to, and have no desire to, explain it.

The thing is - you don't know your mind is proliferating.

For example - you find it pleasing when the glasses are lined up nicely. But that ISN'T the perception, when you perceive, the glasses just are, the bench just is. Then at some point, there's a layer which makes the glasses lined up, pleasing.

So what you're doing, is talking about your mental proliferation ;-).

Most of western pyschology is "A study of the way the mind proliferates", it's like studying the common formations which are found in minds. Like "Okay, this is a common mental formation of lust towards women, that mental formation is a normal one".
"A mental formation which makes things lined up pleasing... hmmm... that's not a typical mental formation, you must be abnormal"

The thing about Buddhism, is it just knocks down all the mental formations, regardless of how commonly they get built up in peoples minds, they are viewed as things which only lead to suffering, whether they are common formations or uncommon formations, they still do the same thing, consume your mental energy, get in the way of happiness, get in the way of actually perceiving the world clearly.

The Aspie mind DEFINITELY proliferates a bit more than the NT mind, it can form such strong formations that they kind of fill the entire mind and deadlock it.

I do not understand this idea of "proliferation", obviously.

I do not understand how someone can look at a bunch of glasses lined up and think only "the glasses are, and the table is".

I can imagine looking at them and not thinking anything, then turning away to focus on something else.

I can imagine noticing a crack in one of the glasses and trying to determine if it goes all the way through the glass and will lead to a leak. I then can imagine investigating the crack further.

When I watch my fish swimming around in their tank, I am simply watching them. I can watch them for hours and loose all track of time. I am not consciously thinking of anything while I do this. Is this what you mean when you talk about "stripping away the layers"?

If so, I cannot imagine going through my life in this state of mind. I enjoy it, but accomplish nothing. I am reminded of BK_G's idea of the drooling but happy person who would not last long.

However, I have yet to meet an "NT" who can sit like this and be satisfied. They begin to get fidgety and agitated if they are left to do something as "mindless" as watch a fish tank. I believe (but cannot confirm) that they get this way because they are thinking about other things they'd rather do, or maybe thinking about when they will feed the fish, or when they will clean the tank, etc etc.

If I am correct in my interpretations, then it seems to me that NT's would have more of a problem with stopping this "proliferation" of the mind.

When I focus on a problem, or something I am drawing, I can focus on that completely. NT's always seem to be mildly to moderately distracted at the best of times (this is my perception of their behaviour).

Melody, it is my experience, that Aspies can enter states of concentration which are remarkably similar to meditation. It is in short, the ability to sit still and focus on something.

BUT, The Aspie mind, tends to alternate between concentrating like mad and proliferating like mad.

The NT mind, tends to be a bit more balanced, it constantly proliferates, never entering a state of concentration, but nor never getting completely deadlocked.

I found I could use my minds natural ability to concentrate, to discern something of the nature of the proliferation and break it down.

A lot of it is simple finding BALANCE.

I found the best way to bring balance to my mind, was to think less, and feel more. To let emotion in rather than keeping it out. I used my discernment to understand the relationship between thinking and feeling, and I made adjustments to let the feeling through.

I HAVE gone through some crazy emotional roller-coasters as a result ;-). But they were always much more fun than scary. They were roller coasters which looked scary, but once you're on them, they're fun ;-).

Emotion is one of those things, which has power over you when you try to stop it having power over you. It's called numbness.
If you simply let the emotion do whatever it wants, then it kind of charges in, runs around, then calms down. There's no need to control emotion in order to have emotional stability.

You simply neither try to control emotion, nor let yourself be controlled by emotion.

For example, being controlled by emotion, would be getting so angry you hurt someone else. Or so sad, that you hurt yourself.

A useful thing to do, is to "let go of emotion" when you're far away from other people. Monasteries or other hermitages are good. Wilderness is good. Sometimes I would just go walking, and let all the emotion which wanted to happen, happen... anger, sadness, etc etc... sometimes you have to scream before the anger will let you be, but you want to scream where no-one can hear you. Sometimes you have to dance, you should dance where no-one can see you ;-).

So I found that 4-hour walks in the wilderness, with the GOAL of getting emotional, were very healing, inspiring and provided insight into my mind...
Once I even walked along a completely deserted beach, at 6am (hours before sunrise), in the middle of winter, the coldest night of the year... it was completely dark except for the stars, I was completely alone... it was exceedingly cold... and I walked, until the sun rose, that was my destination, the sun rise... the light.
It was amazing, a truly amazing experience. I don't think I've ever felt so completely alone, yet so completely in tune with the world and myself...

I am NT and the fish tank is the one thing I can comlpetely loose time watching.It can even side track me from the tv a few feet away from it. Maybe because it is so peace full, maybe because I am "picies" I don't know but I can forget about all my worries and just watch.

the random wills of happy calm fish who swim in a fish tank are hypnotic to watch for me.
they dart off in directions which are hard to predict.
so i switch the prediction part of my mind off and just watch.

There's actually a word for that in Buddhism.

It's called "Chicken Meditation", because if meditation was simply sitting still for ages, then all chickens would be fully enlightened ;-).

One of the things I realized quickly about Buddhism, is I was doing so many things almost right, I'd put in an awful lot of right-effort honing my concentration and equanimity. Yet, it was all chicken-meditation, sitting peacefully, but not gaining the powerful insights into my own mind which such honing makes possible.
A lot of it is just knowing what direction to point the mind. If you let the mind be, it'll watch fish or whatever instead of looking inside and understanding itself :P.

i googled it together with the word "buddhism" and found no match.



i said i swtich off trying to predict what they (the fish) will do next.

you presume that means i am sitting idly with nothing going through my head.
if i subtract "my prediction of how the fish will swim" from my sensorium, then i am not left with nothing else in my brain.

as far as i can see, your conclusions are always inherently derogatory in response to others ideas.




you equate my very simple sentence about watching fish with the level of mental development of a chicken.

i may be at the level of a chicken compared to you spiritually.

i never saw a chicken that was aware it was a chicken, and was dissatisfied with being a chicken.
a happy chicken is as happy as a happy human.



you seem precariously contradictory on occasions.
you said before that my mind "proliferates" and can never be still and see "the light".

now you are telling me my mind is too still, and that i should not just "blank out" (as you presume i do with no evidence that my mind is empty).

what ever i say you disagree with in a calm and unflustered way.

it is calm and unflustered because that is what buddhists "should" be. and that "wink" punctuation at the end of your sentences adds to my perception that you think you know it all.
it seems smug.
i think if i had a professional linguist (do they exist?) rewrite one of your long posts using alternative words, but the result being exactly the same in meaning to your post, and i posted it, you would disagree with it in the same default manner.

it means that you believe that i (and other people who you categorize as "not on the right track") are inevitably wrong, and you do not look for things you agree with in our opinions, but for faults for you to correct.




when i watch fish i see fish and not an introspective image of myself.

i am not so self reflective that i must look at myself during everything i do.

i was once bailed up by a bald fellow hanging around outside a train station while i was waiting for a bus.

he had books and pamphlets and various paraphernalia pertinent to his "crusade"

he asked me what i thought about consciousness, and i decided to talk to him.

most people will sometimes subconsciously nod in agreement when they are listing to another person talking.

but right from my first word, he started to subconsciously and slowly shake his head.

my first words were "well i think consciousness is..." and he was already shaking his head.

i could tell he was not listening.
i could tell he felt that he had found the way, and all the commuters were poor lost sheep.

you may ask a sheep what it thinks, but you do not expect a valid answer, so you do not listen for one.

he interrupted me before i got to my point, and started imposing his ideas on me.
i started to disagree, and i could see there was a suppressed anger in him. (sighing, rubbing the back of his neck etc)

like he was wasting his time on a stupid person.

then the bus pulled up and i got on.



edit: corrected "stated" to "started"

I don't think that BaldBlake is trying to be presumptious, XB-70. However, I can understand why, if he is a recent member, he may read excessively into what you write.

Goodness knows I've made that mistake myself on occasion.

But I think that the pair of you could open your minds a little to what the other is saying. From what I can gather so far- whether it is at the risk of excessive analysis or not- neither of you seem willing to do so.

I'm an old member. I used to post as unending. That name isn't appropriate anymore. An old saying proved true: "This too shall pass", all things come to an end ;-).

XB70 suffers/enjoys a condition summed up well as:
"An excess of reason is itself a form of madness"

I've BEEN there, for so many years. Not opening my mind back up to it .

Part of my recovery was basically creating a mental door, with a sign saying "DON'T GO THERE" and putting all the excess reasoning (especially nihilistic), behind that door. Every time I noticed myself thinking that way, I remembered "Don't go there!" and stopped thinking so much.

I don't think I can even think that way anymore, deliberately doing so counts as self-mortification.

XB-70 is still very interesting though, since he reasons even more extremely than I used to.

i thought you were in your mid 20's


madness is the result of a deficit of reasoning, not an excess of it.

i am not able to make sense of that sentence.


did you need to recover?


yes i know that when my mother died, she was buried.
after 2 weeks i thought "what does my mother look like now" and i got the "do not go there" repulsion.


but i only get the "don't go there" feeling when my mind is wandering along a sinister track.

i want to go everywhere my mind can take me except to the places where "horror" exists.

i do not percieve much "horror" (except examples like when i imagine my mother after 2 weeks in the grounnd and things like that)





think what way? you may feel that you would never follow my track of beliefs, but you do not know what they are.




and that is why i never got trapped in a self exploration disaster.


someone said to me that people read my posts with a "little voice" in their head.

that "voice" they read it in may account for much of my problems with people thinking i am being negative.

so i will disappoint you all and post a link to a sample of my voice as i say something i may otherwise type on this forum.

if you read just the words (that i say in the sound file if i wrote them on this site), you may hear an "attitude" with your little "reading voice" that is your own in origin.

but this is how i mentally "inflect" how i think the words i think.
(the sound file is spontaneous, therefore less than polished and fluent).

i do not talk well.
so here is my voice:
http://iamxb70.com/
when i preview this post, there is a gap in my audio file sentence near the beginning on the first play.
the second playing (if you choose to) is correct and complete.

it is recorded on a very cheap microphone (about $12 it cost (it is not good and it amplified "tinnyness". i sound breathless because the mic amplifies my breathing disproportionately, and also because i was playing with my lpossums just before i decided to record it)
)

That was very interesting. I think you are right, often I think e-mails get misinterpreted at work etc because you can't hear the inflection in ones voice. I for one pick up on meanings a lot through inflection. It is the old "It's not so much WHAT you say as HOW you say it".

You have much more inflection in your voice than I would have imagined. I guess it is because Max has such a monotone that the little voice in my head often reads these posts with his way of speaking in my mind. Interesting.

Love, love, love the accent. Wish I had one. Well, I guess to you guys I do............

Linda

Not at all the voice that I imagined either. And I also love the accent--you could read to me all day.

You DO realize you are just going to have him say something like, "No, I couldn't. I would get too tired, and I also need to eat, drink, use the bathroom, as well as sleep."

What I find fascinating is that I am completely able to take XB-70 at his word if he says he is happy, rather than the 'interpreted by their inner voice' way that most others seem to. From my reading, even BaldBlake cannot help but read meanings other that what is stated into XB-70's posts.

LOL, you're right.

It is interesting how moods can alter the tone. XB-70's voice sounded different on his Youtube link of him talking to his kookooburras. Then again, I suppose one would get more satisfaction talking to a nice animal than into a little microphone. The bishop who is rather like the equivelent of Deputy Headmaster (or Vice-principal) at our university is Australian as well and sounds not unlike XB in terms of pitch and accent- albeit with more of a Hannibal Lecter-ish edge to his tone every so often.

Since we're on the subject of reading, accents and (from BaldBlake at least) spirituality, just before Easter I was asked, along with several other students, to read St. Mark's Gospel of the Passion. You can find us here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thepassion/peoplespassion/

Click on the audio-link under where it says "A Passion for Liverpool". If you stop it and listen to it at 3.15-3.57, 8.03-8.18, 8.54-9.20, 13.58-14.14, 14.35-14.55 and 15.19-15.50 you can hear what I sound like as well.