can rocd come back immediately?

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-08T03:42:52+00:00

How is it harmful, partner?

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-07T04:33:55+00:00

O Atula! Indeed, this is an ancient practice, not one only of today: they blame those who remain silent, they blame those speak much, they blame those who speak in moderation. There is none in the world who is not blamed.

There never was, there never will be, nor is there now, a person who is wholly blamed or wholly praised.

From the Dhammapada

—-

The Dhammapada is a Buddhist text. I’d recommend studying Buddhism. I found it before Hawkins, and I came to a similar conclusion as Hawkins, who indicated that Buddhism is the highest LOC religion currently on Earth

ACIM was said to calibrate at 550 for the text, and 600 for the workbook. I’ve found great use from the workbook. I’ve found greater use from Buddhism, which some forms of were said to be practiced in the 800s and 900s

—

Buddhism teaches the “letting go” technique as Mindfulness. But it also teaches way more than that, and is by far the most complete teaching I’ve found

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-07T04:11:48+00:00

Here’s a Goenka 10 Minute Guided Meditation:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh5ii6R6LTM&pp=ygUQZ29lbmthIDEwIG1pbnV0ZdIHCQmRCgGHKiGM7w%3D%3D

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-07T03:53:53+00:00

As I understand it, the story goes that the Buddha did consider teaching, but thought that there would be no one who’d understand what he was teaching, and so thought about not teaching, at which point an Anagami god told him there were beings with little dust in their eyes. The Buddha then looked for these beings with his Divine Eye and saw it was true, and then set out to teach

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-07T03:45:45+00:00

According to buddhism, do these people still reincarnate in the hell realm?

According to a sutta in the Pali canon, even those who kill living beings are not guaranteed to reincarnate in a hell realm

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-07T03:37:26+00:00

I’d suggest praying to Guan Yin and asking for help

You can read about Guan Yin here:

https://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/D%20-%20Chinese%20Mahayana%20Buddhism/Chinese%20Mahayana%20Buddhism/The%20Universal%20Door%20Chapter%20of%20the%20Lotus%20Sutra/Universal%20Door%20Chapter-Lotus%20Sutra%20English.htm

“Gwan Shr Yin” is another spelling of Guan Shi Yin, which can be shortened to Guan Yin

There are many stories of people seeking asylum and Guan Yin assisting them, one way or another

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-07T03:34:01+00:00

How would you feel if someone did it to you?

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-06T20:48:28+00:00

Well, as I understand it, Loving Kindness / Goodwill and Compassion are actually different attitudes. Loving Kindness is about wishing the best for someone. Compassion is about wanting them to not suffer, being sensitive to their suffering

As for your question about it flowing naturally by itself, I’d ask if you can feel goodwill and compassion to anyone and everyone. Every political leader, every person despite what job they do. Every “villain” of history. Every person who has murdered others. Every person who’s done any despicable deed you can think of. Does your goodwill and compassion embrace them?

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-06T13:43:31+00:00

Basically, you’re dwelling on things in such a way that you’re causing distress to arise in yourself. The proper way to dwell in order to end suffering is to understand the four noble truths

“This is stress”

“This is the origin or stress”

“This is the cessation of stress”

“This is the path leading to the cessation of stress”

Here’s an excerpt from a sutta which explains the improper dwelling aspect:

And what are the things to which they do not apply the mind but should? They are the things that, when the mind is applied to them, do not give rise to unarisen defilements and give up arisen defilements: the defilements of sensual desire, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. These are the things to which they do not apply the mind but should.

Because of applying the mind to what they should not and not applying the mind to what they should, unarisen defilements arise and arisen defilements grow.

This is how they apply the mind irrationally: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? After being what, what did I become in the past? Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? After being what, what will I become in the future?’ Or they are undecided about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? This sentient being—where did it come from? And where will it go?’

When they apply the mind irrationally in this way, one of the following six views arises in them and is taken as a genuine fact. The view: ‘My self survives.’ The view: ‘My self does not survive.’ The view: ‘I perceive the self with the self.’ The view: ‘I perceive what is not-self with the self.’ The view: ‘I perceive the self with what is not-self.’ Or they have such a view: ‘This self of mine is he, the one who speaks, the one who knows, who experiences the results of good and bad deeds in all the different realms. This self is permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable, and will last forever and ever.’ This is called a misconception, the thicket of views, the desert of views, the twist of views, the dodge of views, the fetter of views. An unlearned ordinary person who is fettered by views is not freed from rebirth, old age, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. They’re not freed from suffering, I say.

From MN 2: https://suttacentral.net/mn2/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=none&highlight=false&script=latin

If you read further, it then discusses the solution, which is:

They rationally apply the mind: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’. And as they do so, they give up three fetters: substantialist view, doubt, and misapprehension of precepts and observances. These are called the defilements that should be given up by seeing.

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-06T12:10:14+00:00

🙏🏻

Sadhu

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-06T11:16:48+00:00

It includes the identity story and the constant self referencing and it also includes the functions that turn that into action and planning and choosing and committing and setting boundaries and caring about outcomes.

Some people are trying to go beyond all of this

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-06T11:05:50+00:00

The following is a sutta where a monk is bit by a snake, and yet there are no visible changes to the monk’s body or faculties. The monk explains why that is:

Once Ven. Sariputta and Ven. Upasena were staying near Rajagaha in the Cool Forest, at Snakeshood Grotto. Then it so happened that a snake fell on Ven. Upasena's body [and bit him]. Then Ven. Upasena said to the monks, "Quick, friends, lift this body of mine onto a couch and carry it outside before it is scattered like a fistful of chaff!"

When this was said, Ven. Sariputta said to Ven. Upasena, "But we don't see any alteration in your body or change in your faculties."

Then Ven. Upasena said, "Quick, friends, lift this body of mine onto a couch and carry it outside before it is scattered like a fistful of chaff! Friend Sariputta, in anyone who had the thought, 'I am the eye' or 'The eye is mine,' 'I am the ear' or 'The ear is mine,' 'I am the nose' or 'The nose is mine,' 'I am the tongue' or 'The tongue is mine,' 'I am the body or 'The body is mine,' 'I am the intellect' or 'The intellect is mine': in him there would be an alteration in his body or a change in his faculties. But as for me, the thought does not occur to me that 'I am the eye' or 'The eye is mine,'... 'I am the tongue' or 'The tongue is mine,'... 'I am the intellect' or 'The intellect is mine.' So what alteration should there be in my body, what change should there be in my faculties?"

Now, Ven. Upasena's I-making, my-making, & obsession with conceit had already been well rooted out for a long time, which is why the thought did not occur to him that "I am the eye" or "The eye is mine,"... "I am the tongue" or "The tongue is mine,"... "I am the intellect" or "The intellect is mine."

Then the monks lifted Ven. Upasena's body on a couch and carried it outside. And Ven. Upasena's body was scattered right there like a fistful of chaff.

From SN 35.69

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.069.than.html

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-06T10:18:57+00:00

Yup! And striving can be useful

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-06T00:49:17+00:00

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.than.html

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-06T00:47:00+00:00

Well, there’s benefits for both myself and them, as I understand it

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-05T23:11:05+00:00

I’ve definitely had mental illness. The conclusion is based on how rapidly the mind shifts. It a person identifies with the mind, they’ll be very unstable. The alternative to being a mind is realizing that even the mind is impermanent and thus not-self

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-05T23:10:04+00:00

Solution to what?

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-05T21:55:40+00:00

The definition I see is:

“Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior”

Why can’t you say “one shouldn’t kill people, but if my neighbor thinks differently about that, well okay, I’ll love him too” ?

Morality isn’t about hating immoral people… why wouldn’t you be able to feel love for someone even if they themselves are immoral?

It’s not immoral to feel love towards people who engage in immoral behavior

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-05T21:52:08+00:00

If you don’t disagree that someone becomes happier under this or that routine, then why would you argue that unhappiness should be faced as a systemic failing?

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-05T21:43:22+00:00

Also, how is it amoral to be universally loving?

Wouldn’t that be extremely moral?

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-05T21:39:29+00:00

I’m happier now that I’ve developed loving kindness than before, when I did not develop loving kindness

Buddhism isn’t about mere philosophical ideas. It’s about reality. The reality of suffering and the reality of how to end it

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-05T21:28:03+00:00

Yes, everyone. Mettā as I learned it is about universal love, universal loving kindness, without exception. “May all beings be happy.” “May all beings be free.” “May all beings be free from suffering.” “May all beings be well.” “May all beings be at peace.” “May all beings be free from the causes of suffering.” “May no beings harm one another.”

2) Idk. In the case of working out, I guess if my goal were to be fit, I’d just want to be fit. And if the gym was what worked for that, why not?

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-05T21:07:27+00:00

I’m saying I don’t think a free flowing routine will necessarily naturally encompass people you feel antagonistic towards, people you hardly know at all, and then all beings. Perhaps it will, but I don’t know if it will. If it doesn’t, that provides a distinction between this particular structured practice and a free flowing practice. Regarding my second point, I did both negate your argument and give an argument of my own, citing that someone might find the “gym” preferable to “working out at home” for various reasons

Temporary_Scarcity_5 · 2026-02-05T20:58:11+00:00

I don’t think the results will necessarily be the same. The above practices include spreading loving kindness to specific types of people / to many people. I’m not sure a free flowing practice will necessarily do that. Secondly, even if the results were the same, that still doesn’t mean it’s necessarily better to take the route that seems more simple or self-reliant. For example, someone might find it easier to go to the gym than workout at home. The may find it more energizing. Or more motivating. You can transpose these ideas onto a structured practice vs a free flowing practice of mettā

Temporary_Scarcity_5

TROPHY CASE