Ask HN: Why do I have to struggle with everything?
I am 29.5 yrs old and was born in poor family. First it was education , paying college fees. I had to work since 16 part-time for paying fees. Then landed a job. Worst professional environment one could imagine.
Changed job last year. After marathon search ,apply, reject,re-apply landed a opportunity after 3 months.
In personal life also I am yet to find girlfriend. Never had one.
When I look at my colleagues, friends I feel like many of them have it quite easy. College, job, personal life but its me who has to try ( or repeat process 1000 times) for simple things.
Why this is so? Its just makes me frustrated.
87 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 156 ms ] threadI've also worked since 16, nobody covered my transportation or sent me to college. My childhood home was about the size of the garage for the home I now own as an adult. You are not defined by your family nor upbringing though they play a contributing role. But you're probably going to need some goals.
Think hard: What are you most passionate about in life? What are your aspirations?
Now think harder: Does the way you spend your time on a day-to-day basis match up against your passions? What are you doing to successfully achieve your goals and aspirations?
All the rest, as they say, c'est la vie. Striving, wanting, yearning is absolutely a part of the human condition. Good luck in all your struggles.
The paradigm of the present society seems to be ultra-competitive "meritocracy". By that token, it fails to value a substantial portion of its citizens.
The ability to strive through hardship is an undervalued skill which will pay huge dividends in the future.
OP, you have something a lot of people don't. Just Keep going.
When you need inspiration look up, when you need gratitude look down.
http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/2014/11/19/garbage-picke...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1268204/
http://wiego.org/informal-economy/occupational-groups/waste-...
That's why, in order to change the kind of results you can get in life, you first of all need to change your problems. Good problems have good results; bad problems have bad results. To change your life into one where you continuously get good results, you need to find out how to formulate problems, and then you need to start making good problems for yourself.
It's not easy, but even though you were born with your existent consciousness, it is certainly possible to change your consciousness so that you can guide your life to a better "destiny". However, in order to do so, you need to obtain an enlightenment (realization), and then you need to study what exists in the reality that you can see through your enlightenment. Be careful of falsehood. No religions have any helpful teachings when it comes to enlightening yourself.
I would also suggest that the OP think of the steps taken towards any particular goal as planting seeds. If one plants enough seeds, a certain amount is bound to bear fruit. A former sales manager of mine called it "the pipeline", and he told me to always have several leads in the pipeline (ie, always be planting seeds). Not being a natural salesman, I found the same advice could be applied to life.
I also find farming to be one of the best systems to help us understand how to lead our lives. I don't know how you'll understand this, but I want to tell you that there's a fundamental principle by which the world exists and operates. If we can really open our eyes to this principle, we can recognize everything in the world, and we can also find the way to whatever result we want. I like the practical, living example of doing farming because the process in which plant life reproduces and can be cultivated is a very distinctive example of this principle. In the world, something that exists once has its will to keep existing, and it tries to make itself keep existing through its own activities. As a matter of fact, things in the world exist on the basis of what they keep inside of themselves. We can see this fact clearly through a simple plant, like a bean. A certain bean came from a previous bean. If we try planting a bean, whether or not it can sprout and yield new, viable beans depends on both the integrity of the bean we plant (the nature of which was made by past activities of the ancestor plants), and the environment (the quality of the farmland, and the care provided by the farmer). When we closely study how changing these two factors changes the quality of the result (fruit) we get, we can approach complete understanding of the system. I just wanted to say that farming is a great example because the same principle inside farming also exists in every other aspect of life. The problem is how we can improve our ability to see what exists in front of us in any given case. As you may already know, understanding something rationally is completely different from being able to see it with one's own eyes.
“There are no right answers to wrong questions.” - Ursula Le Guin
“Successful people ask better questions, and as a result, they get better answers.” - Tony Robbins
So you've studied them all and know with certainty that none could possibly be useful to the poster? Blithe anti-religious sentiment like this abounds on HN and it drives me crazy.
Having looked at every one of them is not a necessary criterion for having proof that no religions have helpful teachings for enlightening yourself. We don't need to input every possible number into an equation in order to make true statements about the nature of the equation. My claim about the reality of religions is due to the fact that there is a fundamental disagreement between religious teachings and teachings from a real enlightened being.
How about looking in the most likely of places for a religion which should have some teachings from an enlightened being? After all, we can be quite certain that Gautama Buddha attained a perfect enlightenment. Only someone who did attain such a level would have been able to see what he could tell others about how the world operates. However, Gautama warned people about religions for a reason. Organizations and bodies of knowledge become religions when those who are not enlightened try to teach others what they do not actually know. The result is that they put their own words into the texts/scriptures, but use the name of the one who was enlightened in order to convince others and propagate their own words. Because they are just ordinary people, the only thing they can do is tell others their own knowledge (answers), but they cannot give others guidance on the basis of problems in the living reality. As a matter of fact, in order for something to be a teaching, it must include a problem/question. But religions only have answers that lack questions. The moment we have the questions, we do not need to remember or tell others to learn the answers. So it is certainly not the religions which have the helpful teachings, and the activities of the religions are not in any way contributive to the activities of the one who could see the reality, as they only contribute to mislead adherents.
That's why I'm quite certain that no religions properly transmit teachings that can enlighten people. People only engage in religions because they do not have the correct teaching. That's why anyone who can recognize what religions really are would never want to be tied to them and would never recommend the possibility that they can enlighten people.
Ideas are not helpful for obtaining enlightenment, and no enlightened teacher tells others their own ideas. They only tell people 'what exists' in the world, just as it is. As it happens, there is a specific, and mandatory process which must be undergone in order to obtain enlightenment. You cannot gain enlightenment through the variety of spiritual practices promulgated by modern religions. I know this because none of them make the practitioner undergo that mandatory process. Additionally, there are no examples in the entirety of human history of people who have gained enlightenment through such practices.
Philosophies? I'd like you to show me any religions which have any true philosophy in them. Philosophy means the pursuit and revelation of what exists in the world. What religion can accurately reveal what exists in the world? You've only got to find one example of a religion which has 'truth' in it. In any case, no one can learn a precise 'truth' from a religion, because truths can only be seen and verified through specific problems. As a matter of fact, every religion only hinders you from opening your eyes to the reality of the religion. I think it will be important for you to understand that. This world already contains all the teachings that we need. Every truth is in the world. So what reason do religions have to exist? There's an important reason why the true teachers in human history did not want to start any religions. Some of them were killed by religious people for telling the truth about religions.
Practices? Those can be right or wrong, and to practice anything is not by any means limited to religious people. In that case, do you need to be part of a religion to perform whatever practice you refer to? If not, then it is not the religion which contributes the benefit of the practice. If so, then what practice are you referring to? If you don't want to have your knowledge verified, and you only are willing to make abstract claims, then it is not right to try to suggest your opinion to others. It's also not right to deny what someone says unless you have concrete proof –– and how much more so when it comes to such important matters as what we are discussing?
As far as I can tell, pretty much all of reality agrees with my understanding of it. Does that mean I'm already "enlightened"?
My guess is you mean something deeper? Perhaps a self-awareness capable of formulating thought/actions to (successfully) modify ones own disposition/situation? (which I guess often means influencing other people?).
The thing is that someone's 'eyesight' (of their individual consciousness) is a function of their own individual degree of truthfulness. I hope that's understandable. In other words, how much and how precisely we can see the world is determined by how truthful we are individually. Degree of truthfulness can be defined as the degree of exactness of confirmation. For example, I might have 65% truthfulness and therefore 35% untruthfulness. But we can't tell how truthful we really are - we don't know how precisely and how closely we are able to confirm things. That's why even if we make a confirmation about something, we can't just believe our confirmation, and we have to keep checking. Through this process we can improve our own individual wisdom. And it's through wisdom that you can find the way to whatever abilities you want to have for yourself. All the ways exist in the world. It's a question of recognizing what way has the result you want and then you need the willpower to correctly practice the correct way.
There are many enlightenments along the way to obtaining the supreme, perfect, final enlightenment. However it's only a totally enlightened master, i.e. the one who has opened his/her eyes completely to the world, who can tell how truthful we really are.
If you really think you've obtained an enlightenment, I'd like to confirm it. You can either tell me what you can see, and then we can check it through proof, or as an alternative I can also ask you some questions about very simple terms that we learn at a young age and check through your answer what you can see.
No, I'm not enlightened: I was wondering what it means. While I do think my "world view" is remarkably complete and accurate, I am aware that I purposefully deceive myself (I enjoy building mental pictures of fantasy reality futures, like, "what if I invented an anti-gravity device", and the corresponding fun I'd have building fake space-ships to prank people; some of these get so intricate and awesome that I don't want to look too deep at the seed of the idea (anti-gravity)... )
I have what I call my inbuilt "bullshit filter", and I no doubt annoy rather a lot too many people by not simply swallowing their ideas. Unfortunately, reality is not something that many people seem able to grasp. By way of quick example: global warming (now called "climate change", on account of the "warming" not actually being "global"). Everyone worships one side or the other of this debate - there are few, if any, people in the middle. The problem, is that there are 7+ billion of us. Whether or not global warming is true is utterly irrelevant, because there is simply nothing possible that can be done about changing the overall direction of all those people that could make any measurable difference. Now - take that "truth", and apply it to local problems: Should I put my plastic in the recycling bin? Should I pay more for electricity? Should I suffer the annoying blueness of LED lights, instead of the nice warm glow of incandescent? Why should I do what all those lunatics are telling me, and all these new "green" laws are forcing down my throat, when it's all just a 100% waste of time?
Same goes for conservation (aka: the "fun police"), road rules (would it be more, or less, safe on the roads, if all rules were abolished? And no, I don't mean immediately, I mean after the inevitable carnage that takes place between the "end of rules" and the point where drivers understand about using their brains when they drive. We don't have "how not to bump into people on sidewalk" rules, do we?), religious rules (many which make it into real government rules), and so on...
So, back to my point: "totally enlightened master" - that's the bit that triggered my bullshit-alarm.
I'm doubting any such thing is possible, or at least, not in our modern world anymore. Knowledge is so vast, nobody could become "finally enlightened" without cutting themselves of from it all. [amusingly, seems I've worked out form 1st-principals the idea behind monasteries?]. Even if you do master enlightenment in one part of your life, that's going to conflict with the "stupid people" you inevitably have to interact with, so you then have to somehow master the manipulation and/or tolerance of them, and being, as there are, so many people out there, not all of whom you can reach or influence, and indeed, many of them running media empires or otherwise swamping the conscience of others with bogus crap, you are basically screwed. You now have to deal with "knowing", but also "tolerating" those who do not, who also make rules and laws for you.
This seems a majorly thorny meme.
I am though, super-interested in your "some questions about very simple terms". I wonder what you'd ask?
Agreed, analytical proofs are possible without exhaustive examination. But you haven't provided one.
> My claim about the reality of religions is due to the fact that there is a fundamental disagreement between religious teachings and teachings from a real enlightened being.
The fundamental flaw -- well, at least a fundamental flaw, its not the only one -- in this argument is that it is about "teachings from a real enlightened being" but provides no justification for applying that to "helpful teachings for enlightening yourself."
It may be the case (though you have done very little to establish it) that no religion contains "teachings from a real enlightened being", but even if one assumes that is the case, it provides little support for your claim that no religions has "helpful teachings for enlightening yourself".
> However, Gautama warned people about religions for a reason.
But this warning has been transmitted -- through religions. And clearly this warning is a teaching that must be viewed as useful for enlightenment.
> That's why I'm quite certain that no religions properly transmit teachings that can enlighten people.
A stronger form of this -- that the things that must be understood for enlightenment cannot be properly transmitted -- is also a religious teaching. (see, e.g., the opening of the Tao Te Ching.)
> That's why anyone who can recognize what religions really are would never want to be tied to them and would never recommend the possibility that they can enlighten people.
There is a difference between arguing that religions enlighten people (an argument many active in religions I have known would oppose) and arguing that religions transmit teachings that, however imperfect, can be useful in the process of a person attaining enlightenment.
> The fundamental flaw -- well, at least a fundamental flaw, its not the only one -- in this argument is that it is about "teachings from a real enlightened being" but provides no justification for applying that to "helpful teachings for enlightening yourself."
That's incorrect. What you're missing is the fact that only an enlightened being knows how to make others be enlightened and only an enlightened being can give a teaching which can be practiced in order to obtain enlightenment.
Let's say you want to learn how to fix cars… how can you learn such a thing? There are only two possible sources of the necessary information. One of them is much faster: learn from mechanics. The second one is not usually possible for ordinary people to undergo: learn from the world. In both cases, you'll be looking at the principle and problems concerning cars.
Is it possible to learn how to fix cars from people who /only/ like cars but do not know anything about them? No. The best they can do is encourage you to find someone who really does know about how cars work and what kinds of problems and causes of problems they have. But encouragement from those who do not know anything is not an essential cause for enlightening oneself. If it were, wouldn't we have more than just one or two enlightened masters in our history? Please note my usage of the term, "cause".
To me, it's quite clear that people hear what they want. There were different types of people that had interest in Buddha while he was alive, but few of them were genuinely interested in his teaching, itself. Most people had their own, individual aims for associating with him, like curing their diseases or becoming wealthier.
You suppose that those who adhere to religions might know perhaps a small percentage about enlightenment. But if they did, they would be able to tell me what the basic teaching of the enlightened being is. That's like learning the number 1 when you start learning math. But the reality is that the only answers they can give are those they read in books written by others who are not enlightened. It's hard for you to believe me unless you travel with me and meet people. Unfortunately, if you have no intention to confirm the veracity of my words, I don't think you'll be interested in judging those cases with your own eyes either.
> But this warning has been transmitted -- through religions. And clearly this warning is a teaching that must be viewed as useful for enlightenment.
Have you ever heard of the telephone game? If not, have you ever tried to make photocopies of a photocopy? The fidelity of the signal degrades due to the inclusion of noise.
The level of any monks and religious adherents has not been high enough to preserve the quality of truth which was in the teaching of the real enlightened being. As a matter of fact, most of the teachings have been completely changed, and intentionally so.
In reality, spiritual teachings are rather like food for the consciousness. A fresh apple is quite nourishing, no? (Well, it used to be, a hundred years ago!) But if the apple goes bad, to eat it would be quite bad for you. Like eating a poisonous substance. Similarly, learning and practicing the deteriorated teachings will damage your consciousness. Perhaps if you've got quite a strong will, it will take up to a year. But those of weaker will fall into danger much more quickly upon contact.
So the problem is not that a person of sound spirit can't recognize that a rotten apple probably used to be a fresh apple and can then have a fair opportunity to judge whether or not they want to eat it. The problem is that a person of sound spirit can be harmed into losing...
I don't agree with the specific claims you've articulated as they are articulated, but that's not an immutable fact, merely a contingent one. But I think the discussion has value, even if we disagree. And I think we might agree on the substance more than is apparent through the disagreement on the particular expression.
> What you're missing is the fact that only an enlightened being knows how to make others be enlightened
Taking, for the sake of argument, this is true (I don't think that it has been justified, however), it doesn't follow that a teaching from another source might not be useful in the course of enlightenment, only that the source couldn't know that the teaching was useful.
> and only an enlightened being can give a teaching which can be practiced in order to obtain enlightenment.
Assuming that enlightenment comes from practicing something that can be reduced to a teaching, if any being achieves enlightenment, they must do so on the basis of a practice they engaged in prior to achieving enlightenment, which they could also have provided to others as a teaching at that time. Even if they could not have known, for whatever definition of knowledge you are using, that it was a practice that would lead to enlightenment.
So, the specific argument you make here is unconvincing.
In general, and in wider scope, your broader argument seems to conflate the essential truth of enlightenment with practices which are useful along the path from where people are to enlightenment, and to conflate the inability to fully and accurately relate the former with an inability to relate anything about the latter. I do not disagree with the claim that no religion can communicate what enlightenment essentially is. I do disagree with the claim that no religion can communicate practices which are useful to those seeking enlightenment on that path. (I would also disagree with the claim that such useful information is the exclusive domain of any one religion.)
And I'd also say that many of the observations you make are things that many religions already teach, and which are among the teachings that they teach which are useful to enlightenment. (Its also true that while they are in the body of teachings of many religions, they are also teachings that are also often de-emphasized by religious authorities, and that that is a real problem. But that fact, too, is often among the teachings of the same religions.)
All your limbs work? You can hear and see?
It's all relative. These self-pity parties are generally counterproductive.
No girlfriend by 30 and struggling very hard to get through interviews in an industry in such high demand suggests you may need to spend more energy developing your social skills. That's fine, it's a muscle you flex and develop over time. If you can filter the annoying "bro culture" out of PUA literature (like "The Game" by Neil Strauss) and just focus on the personal development, I'm confident you're going to have an easier time socially. In turn you'll have an easier time in your career.
We play the hand we're dealt and we're only here for a short time (at least until we solve aging). Which leads to my last point. Life purpose. It's much easier going when you have one. Dive deep and discover why you're here, what you can really contribute to humanity. Stay focused.
Author is not a native English speaker. Sticking my neck out: Eastern European or Indian?
While this is true, life is an unfair game. And we are all humans. So no matter how hard you try you are going to frustrated when you are treated unfairly.
Do you base that statement in your experience because you lived in other countries and can compare, or it is just what you have been told? ;)
Walking off the plane at the airport in Frankfurt and not being sniffed by dogs and treated like enemy of the state: qualitatively better.
Receiving free and needed medical attention in Cuba was heartwarming.
Hanging onto a laptop bag by a strap and narrowly avoiding a run-and-grab robbery in Antigua: lame. Offset by amazing geography, and a sense of Marley-style love and community.
Playing "gunshots-or-fireworks?" and watching cops throw down sandbags to soak up blood from a gang drive-by execution half a block from the apartment: pretty intense.
But I'm not walking miles to the well every day to fetch water. I don't have babies dying of Malaria. The situation for the destitute in America is bad, but I do believe intelligence can lead to upward mobility with less friction in this country than much of the rest of the world.
If I could chose from the entire menu, would I pick America? Probably the America I knew as a child, but probably not the America I live in now. But it would be far, far from my last pick. If I could take the known-quantity of America or be forced to roll the dice, yea I'll stay here.
I guarantee your friends look up to you as "that guy" who pulled himself up by his bootstraps, overcome a lot of obstacles to put himself through college, ground it out through a tough job and then found the courage to go out and get a better one, etc. They probably wish they had your work ethic and grit.
Everyone presents an idealized version of themselves to the world and even, to a lesser extent, their friends and loved ones. See through the facade and be happy with what you have: a lot of people would love to have a college education, a job, money, and friends.
What I do when I get frustrated with the world is to call up good friends and just talk it through with them. They always remind me that no matter how good you think other people have it, that everyone is going through the same shit. It's good to have perspective.
There are plenty of people who have a hard time finding a job they like or a partner they like. Your friends are just a small sample of the people of the world. You're lucky that you envy their position, actually. They sound like the kinds of people you can talk to about how to achieve what you want.
Another note: the more you manage to climb the greasy pole, the more it seems insurmountable. I've never met a high achiever who didn't think it was hard getting there.
As for specific things you can do, you need to take on an abundance mentality; there are plenty of both jobs and girls, there's no make-or-break moment with either. Everything flows from there. You have choice.
Find and do what you love, and the rest will come naturally. Good luck and stay positive, the world is your oister.
I can say this: most people I know have never been poor, and this is a large part of why they cannot identify with problems I have. Being poor is a life-changer in so many ways and it has so many secondary and tertiary effects that others just don't get it cause they haven't been there.
Try writing down the life you want, then break down the steps it would take to get there (or get somewhat close to where you can be satisfied), then ask yourself if you really want to be twice your age and still lamenting about all the same things. It may light a fire under you or, in the least, alter your perspective going forward.
Honestly, I have some of the same struggles as you. Work hard and you can fix most of problems. It takes time. Learn from your past.
Start with a couple of goals for the year. Like become more financially stable, make friends/find a girlfriend, or find a new hobby. If you're out of shape try to get in shape. Those things will give you boost. Think about what's important to you right now and prioritize that. Everyone moves at different paces; there aren't any hard rules for life.
For inspiration you can read this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/successful-people-o... and know that you're not alone in "the struggle".
Bon courage mon ami.
Btw, I would like to redirect you to your original post. You are only talking about the things that you do not like. Starting focusing on things that you do like and your life will take that direction. :)
Whether it's a dollar spent on a lottery ticket that yielded millions of dollars, or it's one resume that got noticed by the right person, or it's one hello that led to a storybook romance.
You, in comparison, will have it hard.
Likewise, a billion people right now wake up with no electricity, no water, no food. Or they have some, but not enough. Or they have enough but the amount of manual labor and effort they put in to getting said resources takes a lot.
Whether it's trading their health, their dignity, or their honor for said resources.
You, in comparison, have it better and easier.
You are in the middle of this game that's lasted for the entirety of humanity.
The game is also built upon perception and presentation. Meaning many others purposely spend themselves dedicated to presenting themselves to others as successful and happy while hiding the ugliness. It's conditioned into us from parenting, schooling, and advertising.
Any deviance is seen as something to run away from. Any failure seen as bad. Hard work and struggling itself isn't valuable, success from hard work and struggling is lauded.
Your choices are to focus harder and harder on what you don't have or to focus on adding to your life. One good strategy for adding to your life is helping others with no expectations. Detachment from expectations is most important, as that's what causes suffering when your expectations and reality do not match up.
The choice is yours.
If you are feeling depressed or frequently anxious, which you may be, I would suggest finding a therapist who specializes in cognitive behavioral therapy. They use a scientific approach to help you deal with problems of depression or social anxiety, and they can also act as a coach to keep you motivated as you overcome these issues.
We are here to play the roles that is given to us. You may think that some people born lucky but in reality the luck is just relative. You may consider yourself unlucky or always struggling but what if you have live it and it makes you stronger for better life. Trick is just not quitting.
Let me give you a little thought exercise.
Imagine you were born in a different country and time than the one that you are in right now. Imagine that country is under occupation by an oppressive regime and you have no voice, no rights, no freedom whatsoever. Imagine that every day your family, friends and those you know are living under threat of imprisonment or death. In addition to that imagine that you are at a time when the state of medicine hasn't advanced beyond blood letting and cupping as the most advanced techniques to fight disease.
Now stop and think. Other than the medicine part there are various parts of the world where this scenario is the daily truth.
Granted you feel poor and need to struggle through everyday life.
Can I ask you a few questions 1. Can you see, hear, smell and speak? 2. Do you have the use of all your limbs? 3. Can you afford a daily meal? 4. Do you have some decent shelter? 5. Do you have access to healthcare? 6. Do you have access to basic facilities such as clean running water and toilets?
I think if you can answer yes to most of those questions, you are probably not a 1 percenter, but you may be better off than 30% to 40% of the world's population.
You have every right to bemoan your fate but it's all relative.
There's always someone in worse shape than you.
Thank your respective deity if you are so inclined that you are not in worse shape than you are in. It could be a lot worse.
A lot of them might be hiding their own struggles and problems.