Seth Ananda

Ralis vs Vajra?

For me when I say Oneness, I do not necessarily mean it literally, although it has the feeling of oneness. It is the Light experienced by Mystics everywhere as being the 'base substance' of all phenomena, physical/mental/spiritual. Through understanding how it becomes/is everything one can bring about miracles. I personally see it's nature as more like a sea of candles rather than a single thing. All the energies of life are permuting back and forward with it. As it is behind everything, yet also Interacting with everything, there is a constant alchemical cycling and transformation back and forward from light to dense and so on. Thus it is completely Dependently Originating. And [at least to me] It has a Vast sense of Intelligence/Beingness. Its not the Unspeakable though. It is very easy to describe, despite the words not really doing it justice. Kabbalah calls it Ain-Soph-Aur. The Ain-Soph on the other hand... there really is no way to describe. That is what I refer to as what is not even a State, and that is the True Ineffable. But as I have no experience of the Ain Soph as yet, anything i say is merely me parroting on about what older traditions teach. I look forward to reading The Zohar book Ralis linked too.

Lol and Yes! we can do better, and we are I think, here. Hopefully those little fresh moments keep Increasing. Philosophical Honesty and Philosophical Courage are the name of the Game. There is so much new Information, we must Question everything, no matter how dear we hold it, even the nature of our own experiences. This living Inquiry is the Golden Heart of the search for Wisdom. Blessings on everyone's path.

Ha! I am tired too and i do not feel I have conveyed my own posts with enough clarity. I too 'believe' that the Highest is beyond words. But... There are very useful ways of seeing with the mind. At least for me. I will just say that for my experience, Having a minor realisation of E&DO was very useful in helping me release 'State' Fixation. I used to subtly beat myself up when I was out of contact, so to speak. I do not have to contemplate E&DO every minute of every day. After seeing it very clearly, I do not have to try to see it. I just see it. That is the value of realisation for me. Now just to be careful, I think a person can 'realise' many things, not all of which could be true. An example would be an abused child that 'Realises' that they are unlovable and rotten. That will colour their perceptions till the day [hopefully] that someone helps them heal. They will not need to think about that. Whatever the nature of realisation is, it Imprints an awareness of some kind into the 'hard drive' so to speak. Realising E&DO fortunately, [at least so far] has only had good effects on me. Deeper sense of relaxation, expansiveness and freedom. I feel like some part of me let go on a much deeper level. So for me It lets me abide in an Openness much more easily, and lets me be more available to experiencing the UnNameable... Part of why I go on about Buddhism teaching the highest realisation, is that it is one of the few [spiritual] realisations that are not even slightly dependent on a specific God/Union/state of consciousness. Although I am willing to concede that it may result in a state of some kind, or more easy access to the unspeakable, due to its Inherent self dissolving nature. All the other Traditions {I personally believe} also eventually go to the unspeakable [Ain Soph] as well. Its a natural continuation on from the Oneness/Spirit underlying substance State that I often refer to as the Absolute State. The beyond though [as far as I humbly understand] Is not a state, not being, not not being, not comprehendable... I Just believe that some of the Buddhist philosophy can be a great help to people in other Traditions, as It was for me. I can't stand Buddhist or any kind of religious elitism. It all comes from people who never completed the journey in another traditions shoes. So how would they Know. I Love that we can debate and share and enhance each others understanding. Seth.

Sure, I have experienced it in that way as well. I Think one of the things i find so fascinating about this topic is the Idea, that If you approach 'Reality' 'as if' it is Conscious and Intelligent, then that is how you experience it. This brings up so many questions for me: 1. Does it speak to [or Intersect with] us through the filters of belief we subscribe in? I think this could answer the slight variations found tradition to tradition in description, and also could answer questions like how a paedophile fake like Sai Baba is seen by so many devotees around the world in visions with miraculous consequences. 2. Is it just neutral, and we apply our own filters to it? Is the Intelligence that one mystic communes with, just some deep projection of his own mind? Does a different mystic who believes the Divine is more like an unmovable bedrock, then experience the solid ground of being? Or the Void? If so we are very amazing 3. We also are capable of switching fairly easily between ways of experiencing Divinity. What does that suggest? To me i have to say that, that still Oneness where I am 'Being' & Everything, is almost Boring compared the experience of Living Interaction with the Mind of the Universe. To someone else, they might feel very uncomfortable having the universe [if that is what it really is] talk to them, and are much Happier ascribing to a different view/experience... Praise the Great Inter-subjectivity! lol

Thanks and Hi I can only describe this from my own point of view and experience. All the States are still there. Realising E&DO does not suddenly remove the various states mapped so well by the worlds mystical traditions, any more than your hand or the world cease to exist. Most of the worlds mystical traditions agree on the qualities of Divine, as experienced by Mystics. Now, from a mystical point of view, Brahman, or the Underlying reality is an eternal fact. That 'God' state is always present as it is part of the actual structure of the universe. The great mystics focus all their Love and attention on this 'energy' 'oneness' unifiying force' and 'Light' that some traditions call God. These mystics, Have displayed incredible powers and Knowledge. Described Omniscience [or a state in which all knowledge was available to them] Going through this process is an Incredible path of transformation for any Human to undertake, and I despise seeing Buddhists Undervalue the great souls who have walked this Magnificent path. There are too many 'experiences' within the theistic paths that do not neatly fit into the Buddhist Idea/map of the world. The Jhanas are a good map of the Internal yogic path stages, But In no way encapsulate or explain all the states of the Mystic. The experience of the deepest Communion with the universe, where 'God' as an Intelligent and interactive Consciousness, makes love to every aspect of your being, gives you the deepest Insights, answers all the questions you ask, or even shows you how it creates the flow of events in the world and then expands your mind out into all knowingness, can not be easily encapsulated as just a Jhana state. That said, These experiences are subjective as well. How we Interpret the experiences we have can lead to many difficult dilemmas. I believe it may be possible that our beliefs and frameworks about the nature of consciousness may colour the way we experience it. For Instance, some Taoists practice guarding the One, and following the Heavenly Mandate. They have no conception of God as an Intelligence, but rather Tao, as the way. And the Heavenly chi is the underlying Harmonising Light that holds together creation. their mystics do not report having Conversations with the Tao [as far as I know] but they do report that being in communion with the heavenly chi, gives them the sense of rightness and knowledge of how to act. Both these two traditions despite slight differences in how they Interact with what they experience as being an 'Underlying Reality' are describing [imho] the same thing. The wonders and miracles that spring from that Underlying reality are the same for Theists, Taoists, Shaman... the world over. People can respond that they just do not believe in theistic traditions, and that is fine, but it does not get rid of the experiences had, nor strip Hindu or Sufi masters of their powers. E&DO Is a most Fantastic realisation. In my experience By being able to see that what other traditions call the Absolute, [and I am contending that it is absolute] is also Empty and Dependently Originating, It frees one from 'State' bias and funnily enough makes it easier to experience any and every state. Buddhism gives the Ultimate Realisation. Freedom from every state. The Others give the attainment and communion with the Ultimate State. But the path's there usually engender clinging and subtle grasping. The Mystic spends every minute learning to tie his whole being to the 'heavenly' realm, or to 'God' which yields great results. He Lives in a Blaze of communion and the heavenly powers and Insights flow through him. This Intense single focus which eventually consumes even itself, leave the subtle traces of Self that are left, very State Biased, or State Dependent. So Buddhism is AMAZING as a Tool for Freedom, In its pure philosophy. After having my minor realisation of E&DO I tried to be a Buddhist. But as a path that gives results I only really find its philosophy of value {for myself}. I am at heart a Mystic. These are the practices I have spent the last 20 years pursuing, and maybe Its just carved too deeply Into my brain now, But I can not deny the feeling of Spirit/Heavenly chi nor the Interactive [two way] experiences I have day to day. I corresponded with Traleg Rinpoche for a bit and he advised me to just continue in the Theistic path. The Trouble is that I am No longer even really a Theist. I Experience the Underlying reality, But all experience seems 'Real' but subjective, and I no longer 'trust' any Interpretation of any experience. Most people seem to experience things, then Rush to Interpret it in some way, which is really just the mind wanting answers and being Philosophically dishonest. There are No easy answers. No Tradition adequately can contain and describe 'all' other traditions experiences. Like the Hydra, every answer makes 10 more questions. I am not talking about the General public. I am talking about The Cutting edge thinkers from multidisciplinary fields, and people like us here at the bums, who have access to great resources and great minds... We are on the Edge, not in the middle of. It will take generations to come into effect in the mainstream. Blessings on your Journey

Thanks I know it may look like he started out this way, and please know I have great respect for him, but where are the enlightened Students? What I am saying is that if he chucked out all the puja's, mantra's and rituals, [or vastly reduced them] and spent much more time not orating, but deeply conversing with a few close students, getting to know their stuck areas, and challenging them to see clearly, he would have some enlightened students. He might even [heaven forbid] study the inquiry methods of some other non Buddhist traditions, that currently have a very good track record for bringing about deep realisations in many students. He could then apply those processes to helping students clearly see E&DO and No self. Dialogue is it! I have to disagree. Buddha himself enlightened people in conversation. And I am talking many dinners, with no time wasted in ritual nonsense. Just deep honest Inquiring and to the point conversation. Please note I love rituals, but they create states, not Enlightenment. Seeing clearly frees you from state dependency [or freedom from the state, externally{sorry bad pun}]. And that requires nothing but good Honest discussion. Discussion uproots everything, no matter how much past life karma you think you have. Pointing out discussion with full philosophical courage and honesty = Karma Irrelevant Hocus pocus nonsense. Buddha was a genius. He helped students enlighten themselves by his masterful understanding of his [and thus their] mind. I firmly believe anyone who really wants to honestly Inquire can find this stuff. No one should ever be told that the early guys only 'got' it, because of Karma. I am friends with some of his students. Powerful transmissions mean nothing If your mind is not getting clear. Many Norbu students have been having powerful transmissions for the past 30 years, practising the practices, but still just do not get it. They are constantly excited by some new Powerful experience! but In their minds, they have no realisation worth mentioning. They remind me of friends who have a super dose of LSD every few months. "Wow, I was so In tune..." This is not enlightening anyone. That said, If your Mind is getting clear and strong, and self reliant in its Inquiry abilitys, then I am all for powerful experiences. They add the Wahoo to life. The way I am currently seeing things is: 1. The world/mind is made up of States of consciousness. 2. There are Higher and Lower states. [higher/lower is my subjective evaluation based on expansiveness and effectiveness.] 3. All states are Interconnected and Dependently originating. 4. The 'supreme' state or 'God' state, has an [seemingly] Infinite organising 'Intelligence' but is still part and parcel of all other states. 5. That said, It is still a real ongoing and Incredibly wonderful and valuable experience. 6. Theistic Masters then Realise the 'Supreme' state of which there is no higher. 7. Buddhist Masters may or may not realise the supreme state, but certainly realise the 'Supreme' realisation, which is that all states are interdependently connected and Empty. Thus they become free from the State fixation which usually accompanies the Theistic path. The 'Supreme' realisation is not a state, but an ongoing realisation. 8. We are on the edge of a 'Golden Age' of Philosophy. For the first time ever, all systems of thought are available to us, as well as neurobiology, sociology, science, psychology... What emerges will surpass all previous revelations and understandings of the universe. And It will surpass all previous mystical methodology's, including the out dated Guru Model. 9. To bring about this 'Golden Age' will require the greatest Philosophical Courage and honesty, and Epic debates between people from multiple fields of research. So much Philosophical and religious dross will have to be sheared away. I personally believe Open Dialogue will be the golden heart of the new movement. Seth.

What a volatile and interesting thread. I have to say I find myself agreeing with several differing points in part or more. There are so many areas I'd like to respond to but it would take all day, so ill just try to organize my various thoughts here. I am surprised to see Gold mirroring so many of my thoughts. I do not believe the Guru devotion thing is at all necessary, and really I think it gets in the way. Its an archaic religious tool, stemming from very poor country's, designed to support the Guru so he does not have to work for himself. Some will naturally object that [some] Guru's work far harder than the rest of us, spreading the Dharma and organizing charities. This is true. Lama Zopa for instance sleeps 3-4 hours a night, does his practices and spends the rest of his time working himself to the bone. My question is How many of his students will achieve any really deep level of realization? [iMHO none] sure, many many will hear about Dharma teachings from his work, but what will that do? A bunch of westerners will take up hours a day of chanting Tibetan mantras, visualizing and making offerings to obscure Tibetan deity's. Sure, these practices can give 'Many' experiences but how is real clarity of mind and awareness developing without a genuine relationship of open conversation and Debate. I personally believe [my dogma lol] that all the subtle flaws in thinking and observation can only be cleared or made obvious In debate/conversation/pointing out sessions. I also believe that That is the most Important element in any path of development. Some will say that that is what a Guru does with the student. Well, I have several responses to this: 1. Some Guru's do this. Nissargadata springs to mind. He encouraged open battle and total honesty in his Inquiry teachings, with no worship. to him Guru just meant teacher. I am not saying he was right in his conclusions, or that his system was complete, but I do appreciate his way. 2. Some Gurus look like they are doing this but are not. Most are building their personal empire, getting ever more students. The more students = the less chance that one or hopefully a small handful of students will really 'get' it. If a Guru theoretically really has wisdom and deep understanding, then she can bring about realization's just through conversing with her students. If she just has a few close students [that are more like friends than sycophants], then by working with them over a decent period of time, a great flowering will happen within her students. 3. If you are desperate to win the Guru's Holy favor/attention/approval... then how is this grounds for an open conversation. Your side of any conversation at least is clouded with the desire to please, which makes you want to say the right thing. Honest Inquiry cannot happen in an atmosphere like this. 4. Many Guru's In entrenched traditions like Tibetan Buddhism have real wisdom, but the reason [i believe] that they are able to pass it on to so few students, is because of the religious/devotional nature of the Guru relationship in said tradition. Many cannot see the chains caused by their own traditions. 5. Having an uncompromising desire for truth is [again I believe] the only way to reach the 'Truth'. If you suddenly say OK, this Guru 'IS' the embodiment of supreme Truth [and he may well be] you are handing over something precious. Too precious to give away in my opinion. Its handing over the responsibility for your own path, and the ability to think and question for oneself. Thinking 'he says it, therefore it is true,' is totally different to looking deeply into the subject yourself, to see if it could have truth to it, then having an actual realization if there is. 6. I am not against studying with any Guru myself, as long as I can enter the relationship as a potential friend, and be totally open in my questioning and relating with them. Ritualized formalities are totally useless in today's world, and only serve to create hierarchical structures. Also when I am no longer learning, or gaining insight, then I will leave. No life long student Oaths for me. 7. Plenty of people with no followers or any wisdom at all, organize charities, so the guru structure is not at all needed for this function. I will try to condense these thoughts into one statement. If the Guru's who actually have something of value, threw out all the religious/formal rubbish, stopped the expansionism of their system, and just met a handful of local people, developed close friendly relationships with them and engaged them in total honest exchanges of Ideas and debate, thus leading them towards realization, we would hare far more deeply enlightened people on Earth today. Imagine if Namkhai just picked 8 people and had them over for dinner and philosophy every night for the next few years. After he had enlightened them [if you believe he is enlightened] he could then invite 8 more. Whats more, those 8 would go out and share their Individual perspectives on what they had realized as well. If you believe the Legends, Buddha was able to Liberate many with just a few sentences. Some of those people were Brahmins. They were obviously open minded Yogi's, willing to question their own traditions [a rare quality] and is something many Buddhists themselves could learn from. Seth.

Hi everyone. I have been wondering for a while about the different Neigung schools out there. For Instance the Neigung in C,K, Chu's book [tons of horse and stance training] seems very different to more meditative style Neigung like Johny Changs stuff. So whats the story, How does it all fit together, who are the real teachers, what worthy material is in print/dvd, who are the sheisters...? Thanks in advance

Cool, Thanks all you helpful Bums I certainly like JAJ's medical chikung book. I will check out his other stuff.

I have had some annoying levels of success. When I sit and just do a hold the ball meditation till the chi has saturated my whole body and is radiating out at least several inches from my skin, then mozzies do not bother me. Unfortunately that level of chi abundance is not my normal state, so to maintain it I have to walk around and move really slowly, speak really mindfully and avoid intellectual conversations and so on. Boring! lol. Normally it disapates within 10 mins then the little beggars are biting again.

Lol thanks guys. Here is The Aikido teacher blitz article: http://kifusionaikido.com/?page_id=54 I really hope he can clean up the appallingly Infective Aikido world. Malcolm's teacher David Brown is also a very Interesting man. He really wanted to know if aikido could be realistically used in fights. He did no cross training in his life, but went and challenged all kinds of [good] martial artists and fighters around melbourne. Boxers, Thai Boxers, wrestlers, kungfuers... If they beat him, and at the start they did, he would spend time contemplating it, then challenge them again, and so on till he finally could beat them with out them being able to lay a Hand on him. I Have a lot of respect for that man. He got Injured badly several times in that period. He did not suddenly add elements off bjj or something to his aikido to win. When he fights it looks like and is Aikido. He just learned [the hard way] how to use it against different styles. And sloppy, good points but I would not be too quick to be too sure about the size difference in wing chun. My dodgy friends were almost desperate to prove themselves against much larger opponents. I have to say some of the things I saw made me feel ashamed to be associated with them. Picking on unagressive hulks just for a 'size badge' of honor, but they were not all big softies. They key to them was to piss of someone so much that the person would make the first move. at least with the wingchun opening, if your opponent strikes first, that gives you quite an advantage. I certainly found this in the MMA class. I would always wait for them to move first, and when they did, i would bypass somehow, tap them hard on the fore head, above the eyes just to make sure I could have really taken out an eye. I reckon it worked 29 out of 30 times. As far as I am concerned, in that moment the fight [if real] was over. When my daughter turns 5 next year, she'll go to wing chun classes, which I think is particularly good for women, and later learn Taiji and more sanshou style fighting. Boys Beware

I have to throw my two cents in as well. I unfortunately am a master of nothing as i changed styles too often... I started with Judo at about 8 and did it for 4 years. But I really wanted to hit people so went to ZendoKai for 2 years before being told about Bob Jones secret Ninja school [kakusuryu]. lol At 12 this sounded so mysterious and exciting I nearly burst a vessel. It was really an early freestyle Karate/mma with weapons, bone breaks, grappling, blind folded full contact sparring, and at least 40 mins of full contact sparring per class. I did this for the next 4 years and yes I got mean. when I left my home town at 17 and came to the city I fell in with some rather rough dudes who just loved wing chun and escrima. They loved to get into fights, did bouncing and security work in the hope of more action but usually just picked them them selves. Eye pokes and throat strickes were the name of the game for them. In my various conversations they would claim that wing chun was a supreme opener for a fight that would almost always guarantee them getting the first hit in. The first hit for them was always a jab/poke/gouge to the eye or the throat. then no more wing chun. The second they had the person off center from an eye poke, they would wind up a big swing or two till the guy was down [he was often already going down] My thoughts are: 1. these guys were vicious and loved to fight. I think Wing Chun is well suited to that kind of person. 2. Brock lesner is a lousy comparison till there is a wingchunner of same size weight and meanness. 3. All styles can be nasty and employ eyegouging, but WT will usually win at a speed contest, and thus get the eyegouge in first. 4. I have been on the recieving end of an eye jab, and it took me 10 mins before I could open either eye even slightly. They truly f#@k you up. 5. This make ring sports an unsuitable judge of Wing chun. 6. I also tend to believe that If you do not really want to hurt your opponent, Wing chun is a more unsuitable self defence system. When you stand there trying to chainpunch/control their elbows and cross their arms while they furiously swing heavy blows trying to take your head off, you are going to loose if you are not willing to maim them in the first second. I went to an mma gym for 6 months and it was great. I found myself that they found me hard to deal with. One I am very hard to get on the ground [probably from judo] and two, I have developed some decent strength with my center line punches. I probably have good timing as well, as I seem to know when to step in or back off. But even more was the small bits of combative Taiji training [which is now my main focus] that inform my striking. The more fatigued I get [my heart/cardio health needs lots of work] the stronger my punches become as I am forced to rely on proper weight transference. George Kostovalis [who has trained some top fighters] was Intrigued by some of the tricks I had up my sleeve, which sometimes decked his good students. Its a pity really, as I enjoy fighting but am probably getting too old and unhealthy for it. Taiji just doesn't cut it exercise wise. And Finally in defense of Aikido. The one man I have met that utterly bewilders me is an Aikido master. I personnely despised every Aikido school I had ever seen. They looked beautiful, flowing and graceful. Thats fine for an Art, but not a Martial art. They lie to them selves with Training with no resistance. They cooperate with the moves being done to them, and have usless excuses why it should be like that. Usless lame and stupid. Then I met Sensei Malcolm McRae. First class, he says so you like MA? I say yes. He says ok, attack me any way you want as hard as you can. So I did. we spent the entire class with my trying every dirty trick I know. I got angrier and more frustrated, I wanted to KO him, break his knee, kick his nuts, what ever. I was never even close for a milli second to success. As soon as I moved he owned me. Humiliation. Eventually he started laughing and asked me if I could see how pointless strength and speed was yet. I would still be with that man, but Aikido is not good for my knees. His class trains every move with full resistance. He told us that AiKiDo means 'Way of harmonizing Ki'. There must be 'strength' and resistance present for Ki to harmonize with. This is the mistake of nearly All other Aikido schools. He said that every other class he had seen around the world lacks realistic training, thus they have no Ki. If they do not fully resist you, how can you learn to use Ki against it. So in other words, It looks and talks like AiKiDo, but It just isnt. Its just people acting out the moves, empty of the essence. His school is slowly gaining popularity. One of the Gracie trained BJJ teachers has become his student. Bob Jones, Cebrano and a bunch of old Karate hard men [many who were heavy weight champions] boxers and Muay Thai practitioners have all become his students. He had to fight a number of them and he Flogged them. Bob Jones pulled some strings to get Him on the cover of Blitz magazine [Vol 21 No 2] I still to this day have never seen Ki displays anything like his. [not stupid like golden bamboo] but astonishing. But as Despite His school being iMO a totally valid MA, It still takes a long time to learn. Anyway I think I am done. Kung Pow!

Whats Gary Clymans stuff like? Any good feedback? And does it also have a meditation side?

Damn it Marble, How do I do that multi quote thing? there is a lot I want to say that will be easier with that skill

Thanks too, I always enjoy your posts And if it is a Wooden dummy I want it! lol, no I am not a Wing Chun teacher, though I do love the art.

Unfortunately xabir I have not got it at all. I understand it Intellectually but not as deep realization. I am Inquiring daily into it to see where it can take me - if anywhere. I do get annoyed at people arguing against it, without even understanding its details properly or in some cases even barely. I am really not interested in believing it. If the sages are right about the experience of No self, I want to experience that myself, then come to my own conclusions about it. This is the only way I can feel that I am being philosophically Honest with the subject. As pure theory It makes a lot of sense to me that realizing No self, 'if possible' would massively liberate the Psyche which is why I am investing so much time into the subject. Can it be really 'Gotten' on a profoundly deep level? I am yet to find out. By the way, it is good to see you in here xabir, hows mandatory service treating you? Be well.

Excuse me adding numbers to your quote. 1. The Idea is that Mind exists regardless of realization of of No self. So yes No self is not mind, but rather mind seeing clearly, realizes No self. 2. Of course there is a concrete concept of self, until you look closely at it And If you suddenly see yourself and all other beings, struggling under the plight of believing that they have a self, experiencing endless suffering [not the kinds of suffering that can be avoided by proper distribution of resources and basic human rights] but by their own ignorance of their own true nature, then would not you feel great compassion?

I never at all challenged the fact that your body is sitting there, or that the manifest universe is there, only about the "I" that you seem to believe is as solid and as physical as your body is. I am not sure if you read my original post too quickly. I am sitting here contemplating your words, and am finding it hard to understand how your response relates to what I wrote... I wrote: "Well, could it be possible that the only reason you experience a self at all is that you believe [a form of faith] in it? Could it be belief itself that holds the sense of self all together? I am not really Interested in belief. If a person has the ongoing 'experience' of No self, and find it liberates them from suffering and anxiety, and then states that it was just seeing really clearly their own nature that freed them... Is that really belief, or is it possible that, even if only in a small percentage of claimants, that is actually what is going on? On the other hand, If No self is really is just a belief, then how can it have such a drastic effect on the psyche? Sure beliefs are powerful, but this belief can somehow permanently unravel ones very sense of self hood? I believe I have to take what they say at face value, and then Inquire. Many of them may simply 'believe' in No self, but not really experience its 'alleged' reality. I want to know about those who really Experience this reality. There are not many options for classifying the possibilities.. 1 They are Lying con men. 2 They are Lying to them selves. [confused believers] 3 they are feeble minded. 4 they are just mistaken about their experience [philosophically confused] 5 they are not very Intelligent [can't see the bleeding obvious] 6 they are experiencing what they claim. I think it is very risky to approach them as belonging to category 1 - 5, not to mention kind of insulting and surely condescending. At face value I accept that they experience what they claim, then Inquire. This may quickly remove many from category 6, but all of them? I do not think so. Peace " Marble head, I think you avoided most of my questions, particularly about whether It could be possible to be in this state 'free of belief'? It seem's to me too easy to just say "All anyone experiences is just their belief systems" and there fore my belief system is just as good as yours. 1. are all belief systems equal and Valid? 2. are you really sure that everyone is existing in a belief system? 3. Is no self [always in every case] just another belief? 4. Or could No self really be [even if just in very rare cases] the {belief free} result of just looking at the Idea of self and deconstructing it... If 4 has even the slightest chance of being possible, Including the remarkable and radical shift in perception/experience that it brings about, are you not interested in the least to see what they say they have learnt? If you want to Be a Taoist {awesome anyway} and specifically never broach a more Buddhist perspective [although it doesn't have to be Buddhist] like No self, I am kind of wondering why you are here in this thread. I do not at all want you to leave, as you are greatly capable of Intelligent discussion, [when you read the thread properly ] but, what are you getting here? [lol i do appreciate the desire to flex ones philosophical muscles of course...] Anyway, Have fun.

Well, could it be possible that the only reason you experience a self at all is that you believe [a form of faith] in it? Could it be belief itself that holds the sense of self all together? I am not really Interested in belief. If a person has the ongoing 'experience' of No self, and find it liberates them from suffering and anxiety, and then states that it was just seeing really clearly their own nature that freed them... Is that really belief, or is it possible that, even if only in a small percentage of claimants, that is actually what is going on? On the other hand, If No self is really is just a belief, then how can it have such a drastic effect on the psyche? Sure beliefs are powerful, but this belief can somehow permanently unravel ones very sense of self hood? I believe I have to take what they say at face value, and then Inquire. Many of them may simply 'believe' in No self, but not really experience its 'alleged' reality. I want to know about those who really Experience this reality. There are not many options for classifying the possibilities.. 1 They are Lying con men. 2 They are Lying to them selves. [confused believers] 3 they are feeble minded. 4 they are just mistaken about their experience [philosophically confused] 5 they are not very Intelligent [can't see the bleeding obvious] 6 they are experiencing what they claim. I think it is very risky to approach them as belonging to category 1 - 5, not to mention kind of insulting and surely condescending. At face value I accept that they experience what they claim, then Inquire. This may quickly remove many from category 6, but all of them? I do not think so. Peace

I wish I knew how to break up the quote into fragments to better answer and organize my thoughts. I am a techno NoOb! Some Immediate thoughts are: 1. how is understanding that you are not I different to realizing No self? I am not sure how you mean that. 2. Of course thought is real, who said it wasn't? I only challenge some of its conclusions as Illusory... 3. Stilling the Mind has nothing to do with realizing No self [as I understand it]. Other traditions may call a still mind empty of self, but that does not mean one has realized no self. I did certain practices many years ago that completely ended my internal dialogue for several months. Not a single thought I did not deliberately think. But that, peaceful as it was, was not No self -the way I mean it. 4. If you want to deconstruct the body, sure, but you cant take the self away from the sum of the parts to begin with, because the self does not exist in the first place. Realizing No self does not remove the self. It is just clearly seeing the matrix of Interdependent parts, and realizing there never even was a self in there. 5 and no, you do not need an Idea of self, to assert the Idea of No self. Buddha would be my example. 6. I think it is very Important to weigh the experience as claimed by the people who claim to have realized it. I think it is equally Important to not just believe them either. I think arguing against something someone says they experience can not go very far. For Instance, if someone says they Literally have no sense of being 'someone' and that the matrix for suffering has literally come undone in the face of that realization, then I am Interested and want to know more. If I just say "no, you still have a Self, because Its impossible to not have a self", then that is just belief and projection. Where is the inquiry into someones 'alleged' actual experience? If what 'No selfers' are claiming, is their actual experience, then I want to explore their methodology and experience it myself. I am the alchemical lab for understanding. Once I get it, I may see flaws or things they have missed. But until I really understand their perspective, by being it, anything I say to them is really just Theory. Its quite funny to see all the survival mechanisms and ego defenses kick in, during No self discussions. People come to all kinds of whacky conclusions about what it means, get very uncomfortable and defensive, then argue with sometimes spectacular levels of denial and ignorance against the Idea. How can you know if it is a real perspective if you haven't experienced it? Several people here have claimed here to 'Know' it, to be all over it philosophically speaking, Argue against it. Yet each one of them, just by the assumptions they make about what it means, in their writing, demonstrate that they do not have the foggiest Idea of what they are actually talking about. But still they prattle on... Their false sense of self desperately needs the reaffirming sound of their voices to set it at ease again. Blessings!

When they say 'you' do not exist, they mean the self. You will still be you, answer to your name, eat your porridge and pay your bills. The thoughts will be there, the feelings and senses will still be there as well as the beliefs you held before you realize 'No self' [except that one belief in being a particular entity/self]. If you are looking at a feeling of spirit, as you claimed, then that is not your Self either, as if you can feel it, then it is separate from you. Who is Feeling that spirit? 'You' as a 'real' reality do not exist, as the self is just an assumption based on the seeming coherence of memory/experiences/conditioning's/beliefs. Realizing this leaves everything there except the assumption that all this somehow form's a 'You' that is a real entity. Instead you start to see that 'you' are just part of the flow of Life and you can now stop getting in the way of it, with all the stress and anxiety caused by the 'I' thought. This is why they say 'Hearing, no hearer'. Because its all still there, but you are free of having a concept that there is a you to listen to it. Peace

If you feel that someone is asking what you are feeling, just so they can try and make you justify it, then in my opinion there is no need on your part to speak it. On the other hand, maybe something needs to be addressed, but only you can know that. If it is a recurring feeling, and the other person who [i guess] has an emotional connection to you, feels your shift or change of emotion then gets defensive and starts Interrogating, then I would imagine something need's resolving. I would look at what it is, but bring it up outside the situation where you/they are feeling it if possible, and if you think it worth while. I statements are brilliant for a conversation like this, if you are used to using them...