ash

Our views on that might be very similar, but we just word them differently

Yes it does seem so! letting go means you neither want it nor don’t want it because both are some forms of attachment. When you let go of it, you become perfectly accepting of everything around you. So they are related at least if not the same.

Everyting going just how you want it to

Interesting. If we can enter and live in such a world perhaps there’s no need for mental training and philosophy.

If happiness is just circumstances or chemistry, then so is suffering. In that case we don’t need to let go of attachment, just the circumstances or chemistry that cause emotions in the first place.

There is some assymetry here. I believe fundamental goodness and happiness is the default mode of a mind. And suffering arises when your circumstances conflict with your attachments—basically when life gives you or takes away something against your wishes.

So yes you can attack this both angles. By training your mind to let go and accept everything or gaining full control over everything.

I find the latter very hard or impossible.

suffering is a reaction to negative stimuli

a conditioned response to stimuli that go against your attachments. Positive and negative are just perceptions colored by the mind based on attachments like survival.

Is watching your own life like a spectator not letting go of life itself

I have to be clear that this is more a direct realisation of truth than something you actively do.

You can use neurobiology to prove it and meditation to see it for yourselves. All thoughts, decisions etc happen unconsciously and then the consciousness becomes aware of it—like a spectator.

So it’s simple. There’s no need to play a game or to play it well or for longer. Or there’s a need to to achieve anything. You are already there standing still in the bliss of the moment.

from birth you are pumped full of drugs that make you happy and hooked up to a simulation that makes you experience a perfect life

The brain adjusts back to normal levels of happiness after new circumstances or chemistry.

“perfection” is an imaginary concept. What do you mean by a perfect life?

Are we mixing philosophy and biology

I am not sure I mixed in much philosophy. I gave a scientific explanation because most people prefer it.

If we let go of all attachments in this perspective, we let go of life itself

We don’t let go of life but our attachment to it. You train to watch it happen and end like a spectator. Then you won’t feel a rush when good things happen which inevitably leads to a low (suffering) when they end. You will also accept the bad things beyond control without suffering.

You will be in a steady state of happiness and peace.

there are other ways to avoid suffering

Like?

You can’t avoid losing everything you call yours—including your loved ones. You can’t avoid sickness and death.

My sanity. Imagine how bad it’d be if I went into the streets one day and started talking nonsense and throwing stones at people.

Not necessarily. There can be meaning in suffering. You learn and change through it. And sometimes that’s a positive change.

Physical pain is a signal in your brain telling you to stay away from electricity, sharp objects, and fire etc. It also tells you when something important for survival is absent like food leading to hunger headaches.

So basically all physical pain is caused by you (the brain) being attached to survival.

Physical pain has a huge emotional component. That’s why we can train pain tolerance. Placebos and holding a loved one is sometimes as effective as morphine in reducing pain.

So all in all suffering is due to attachment. If you let go of the attachment by training your mind you can end suffering. That’s what Buddhism is all about.

Don’t you think that enforcing laws on others is unethical? What about vaccines?

yes they’re unethical and pragmatic. Like how you sometimes have to shoot a bear to save people. If you are in better circumstances you can keep both the bear and the people safe.

If you can achieve the same result without enforcing vaccination or laws on those who don’t want that’s preferable.

common trolling or logical fallacies

You can practice transparency extremism on yourself. Your life your choices.

But don’t you think making others share everything against their will is unethical?