Hacker News Reader

> Don't lie to your parents. They're your safe harbour, they will understand and help you. Tell them what's going on.

I understand what you mean by this, but just wanted to comment that this is not unambiguously good advice. Some parents have their own issues (severe anxiety, substance abuse, poor interpersonal skills, etc) and can't act as a safe harbor; lie to those parents if you've got to! Leave them in the dark! Find someone else to talk to about your problems.

I am glad that you have supportive and stable parents, though, but some people don't.

Same thoughts here. My parents are simple people. If I would tell them I had less sign-ups this week than last week, they would be pretty devastated. Talking anything more serious is no-go.

Same here. Love them, but they don't really understand and I don't want to trouble them.

[edit: removed baseless cheap shot]

I bet they understand a lot more about life than you do.

> I bet they understand a lot more about life than you do.

Dude, WTF?

I know this isn't a reply to me directly but here's an example of the sort of thing I had in mind. I have premature twins that were born last January three months early (they are doing great now, BTW). While they were in the hospital, family came and visited sporadically. One of our parents (I'll be vague) was with us in the hospital when my wife and I were mistakenly told by doctor that our son had potentially severe brain damage (IMMEDIATE PARENTHETICAL NOTE: he did not and is doing great, they misread the MRI). So, my wife and I are pretty alarmed and stressed.

The visiting parent, on the other hand, was stammering and incoherent for days afterwards, totally unable to handle it.

If we had been counting on him or her for emotional support, understanding, really anything at all of substance this meltdown would have been a problem. But we weren't, because, you know, we've known this parent for a while now and realize and accept his or her limitations. This response was unsurprising.

The point I was trying to make in my initial comment[1] is that, for some people, it is naive and dangerous to think of your parents as a "safe harbor" and you need to look elsewhere. Not everyone has all of the strengths and perspective that I can only assume your parents do. Mythologizing people as universally "knowing more about life than you do" because they're a little older is bullshit.

[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5258613

>Don't lie to your parents.

This. During a bad period, I moved in to live with my family for a couple of weeks. It helps to eat and talk together, and if you had a happy childhood, you'll feel safe and refreshed.

I agree. In late 2009 when my startup tanked and my SO left me I was in a really bad place. Having a large family (parents, but also siblings) really helped me stay sane.

Thanks for your story, I appreciate you sharing it.

I agree with you about the only constant in life being change. I think it's even older than buddhism, I seem to recall it was Heraclitus who put it as "change is the only permanence".

As for the OP, I hope he stops taking losing investor money so personally. The investors knew well they bought a lottery ticket. Had OP succeeded, the investors would, of course, have gladly taken their part of that upside. Now, he didn't, and they lost their ticket money. And that's all it was: ticket money, their fee for getting to play the game. I sympathize with what he's going through, and hope he'll get through.

Small nitpick: Buddha(563 BCE-483 BCE (aged 80) or 411 and 400 BCE) predates Heraclitus(535 BC-475 BC), but your point definitely stands, as I'm sure that realization predates recorded history.

Wisdom transcends time, space and culture.

> I agree with you about the only constant in life being change

Change and motion are apparent. The only constant in life is LIFE ITSELF, which is stated as:

1 - balance (if one word is enough)

2 - rhythmic balance (if two words will do)

3 - rhythmic balanced interchange (if 3 words are necessary)

or cold still white magnetic light = life itself = rest = balance...

Change and motion are false information gained by sensing.

I will now step down off my Walter Russell soapbox and humbly request you read "The Secret of Light" by aforesaid :)

"The buddhists are right, the only constant in life is change"

Not totally true. I want to point out that there's a huge gap between what Buddha saw and taught and what is said by the teachings in modern Buddhism.

Gautama Buddha went to people basically every single day for 45 years and tried to awaken them. He absolutely did not teach people that it's possible to eliminate suffering while alive, and he never taught that meditation is a way to enlightenment. Instead, if we make a gist of the content of his life work teaching we can see that he taught two things: the theory of transmigration (reincarnation), and the law of cause and effect. He taught these things to make people realize how the world works, and what he taught is still totally accurate even by the view of today's world. There were ways in his teaching from the problems people have to the solutions they want to get. But those ways are absent from modern Buddhism.

So we can conclude that while things in the world exist through change (reincarnation), there is another constant meaning in the world, and that is "truth", or law, of how the world works – the law of cause and effect.

When we see and understand the world of the truth then what we find is permanent and never changes. All the answers are fixed. Only questions change.

Maro is commiserating and you give him a theology/philosophy lesson.

Further, I studied buddhism for a while. I have no idea what you're talking about. In other words, YMMV.

"Maro is commiserating and you give him a theology/philosophy lesson."

You didn't point out a problem clearly, so I'm not sure what you think I should have done instead of branching a philosophy discussion. You'll note that the only thing to which I replied from Maro's answer is his comment about Buddhists being right. My reply has nothing to do with his commiseration, and I believe I stay on topic 100%. Besides, if you want me to reply to Maro's commiseration, my answer is that we should verify everything in OP's post first before deciding with what to commiserate. Why commiserate in places where OP is actually repeatedly at fault and chose the wrong way? How can you properly commiserate at times when OP was right if you can't see where they are? That's not justice to the investors, nor OP, nor is it the way to help OP to find the right way. Fact is neither you nor I know OP. Anyway, see my own reply to OP in my comments.

"Further, I studied buddhism for a while. I have no idea what you're talking about. In other words, YMMV."

I've often experienced this kind of reaction from today's Buddhists. I don't understand why. What I do know is that it's impossible to understand the truth with untruthfulness inside oneself. I also studied Buddhism for long years, traveled a lot, and met a lot of people, but I've never found in any country a Buddhism which is for the living people.

It's critical that this result is informed accurately to human society so that people can protect themselves from being cheated by falsehood.

Maro was giving the OP a virtual bro-hug. Not trying to preach. The buddhism reference was a platitude. Sometimes the intent (compassion) trump content.

I've never found in any country a Buddhism which is for the living people.

Very interesting. You and I would probably get along just fine.

> He absolutely did not teach people that it's possible to eliminate suffering while alive

Did the Buddha teach the Four Noble Truths? The third noble truth about the "cessation of suffering and the causes of suffering". How can what you say be true then?

The contents of those scriptures have been retranslated countless times. Besides this fact, they were only written down about 500 years after Gautama Buddha died. Third, the words that were written down were those as transmitted by ordinary people, who had a huge gap in level of consciousness between them and Buddha, so they didn't understand exactly and didn't write down Buddha's exact words. And fourth, the scriptures have been changed by a number of monks who just wrote what they wanted in there. It's in these processes that the truth which Buddha taught was changed and has deteriorated through thousands of years.

You asked a very good question. Buddha, when he was Enlightened, also attained nirvana. What this means is that he saw the world of origin, where everything dies and is reborn again. This is why he could see that all the results are made by the causes. So, it's because nothing exists in the world of origin that Gautama said that there's nothing there. But Buddhist monks often misunderstand this as that when you attain nirvana you can finish all your suffering. However, Buddha never claimed that. He explained that when he attained nirvana he could be free from agony and illusions. But no creature while it is alive can be free from suffering. If we don't eat, we suffer from starvation. If we go to a cold place, we feel cold. So to cease suffering forever means that one would have to stop being reborn and die forever. The only way to free from suffering while you are alive is to disengage your consciousness from your body. This is what modern buddhism guides you to do through meditation. But it's the exact opposite way of Buddha's teaching. Buddha taught people to save themselves and to live forever, not to die forever.

People regularly differ in interpretations and see what they want to see, in any great writing or teaching, regardless of what the writer may have been trying to speak to.

In other words, one person's dominant world viewpoint is not everyone elses, and that's perfectly ok.

For example, for me, trying to understand spirituality/meditation with the mind, is like trying to be a know it all about swimming by studying, watching, and discussing swimming without jumping in the water. True teachings of any kind in my mind are meant to teach one to lead themselves through whatever comes up. Then again, I'm pretty anti-dogmatic, ritualistic but still maintain some mindful disciplines to keep my attention where I want.

See how I said something so personal to me but it might not mean anything to anyone until they've done the equivalent in their own way?

Thanks for the reply. I'm still not convinced. Yes it's possible that the scriptures are inaccurate. What source do you pull your reasoning from and what makes your source more accurate.

Buddha said that he never taught anything of his own. Socrates also said similarly. In other words, they told people 'what exists' just as it is. Their teachings didn't come from their thoughts or ideas but what exists in the world.

To know what they taught, look at their life activities. Even though people didn't treat him very well while he was alive, Buddha had endless love and mercy for people, and tried repeatedly to awaken them so that they can save themselves.

Because Buddha tried to help awaken people non-stop for 45 years and because his teaching is still accurate by today's view, I know that he would never lie and tell people to practice something wrong. That's why whatever is true or not true, among what Buddhist monks claim is Buddha's teaching, can be proven by the facts. If it's Buddha's teaching, it will have all the evidence and no falsehood.

I've also met many Buddhist monks, so if you're still not convinced, I can show you as much evidence as you need that they don't realize anything about the true teachings of Buddha. As long as you give me questions I can give answers. One simple fact is that if monks know Buddha's teaching then they should have some evidence that they learned directly from the master. But that is impossible since Gautama Buddha died 3000 years ago. So I'm not claiming I know Gautama's teachings but my reasoning and experiences as explained here are only that which I've seen with my own eyes and verified with substantial proof.

You said.

> The contents of those scriptures have been retranslated countless times. Besides this fact, they were only written down about 500 years after Gautama Buddha died. Third, the words that were written down were those as transmitted by ordinary people, who had a huge gap in level of consciousness between them and Buddha, so they didn't understand exactly and didn't write down Buddha's exact words.

This could be true.

> Buddha said that he never taught anything of his own.

What is your source for this? How do I know that your source hasn't also been re-translated countless times? How do I know it wasn't only written down 500 years after Gautama Buddha died?

The majority says that the Buddha taught that we could end our suffering in our life. You say he didn't. You say he taught something else, but you offer no evidence. I'm just wondering what your evidence is.

---

edit: I truly mean no disrespect in this. I'm just curious.

Hi, it looks like I can't reply directly to your nested comment below. Probably a spam reduction thing.

My answer to what proof I have claiming Buddha said that he didn't teach anything of his own is in scriptures, but it's in numerous ones. When Gautama was passing away, a disciple asked Buddha from whom he should learn and Buddha replied that he should learn from himself. Gautama also advised a great number of people to confirm everything directly, and not to jump into believing words without confirmation. Verification is the way that people can save themselves from a lie. So I don't know Buddha's words since I never heard from him directly but I can tell that he taught that to people since it's found consistently throughout all accounts of him.

I'm not sure exactly what the correction that you're supposed to be issuing is. He cited the buddhists, not Buddha, and you say right away that "there's a huge gap between what Buddha saw and taught and what is said by the teachings in modern Buddhism." What is your objection, exactly?

That modern Buddhists don't have the correct teaching - so they are not right as stated. We shouldn't say that truth can change (as implied by the statement everything changes except change) as when truth changes it's not truth anymore.

Sorry to hear about your relationship. I've never understood it but wanted to say that sometimes we come together to bear witness to someone else's life for a little, or long while. Have no doubt there is more in your future as hard as it might seem to find yourself after defining yourself as part of a unit. It's doable, you existed before and you will exist again.

I want to give you my applause instead of condolences. You can't lose something without taking risks, and taking risks is what makes life interesting and worthy of living.

I'm sorry you lost your wife - it's one of the hardest things we can go through, but like all bruises and cuts, it's not gonna be permanent. All the best wishes for you.

Pretty much spot on for my experience with entrepreneurship.

Man alive. That sounds like no fun.

Also an entrepreneur here, and admittedly no (major) failures as yet, but I envy you at least having parents to fall back on.

All alone in the world here. Nothing like the absence of any safety net to make you consider your decisions carefully.