Otis

I totally agree with this part, Xabir. My metaphor is different than yours, that's all. I call it "living in the first person", rather than "living in the 3rd person", which is my previous habit of mistaking the mirror of mind as a self. What I don't agree with is this: Once you start throwing around words like "true", then you are in dualism again. You are claiming that your point of view on the world is accurate, and that is a self-description that defies your claims of "no self". It is not (the general metaphor of) no self that I have a problem with. It is the certainty that accompanies it. Surrender of self, IME is the same as surrender of certainty. Otherwise, you've just exchanged the old "self" for a new no-self self, that is even more "self" than before, because it declares itself to be "right", to be possessed of a clear accurate view of the "actual". But how would you (or for that matter, me) know if we had reached an accurate view? There is no non-human reference point that says "beyond here is the real truth". All we have are feedback loops of our experiences, and the words of others. Don't you see the contradiction in claiming "no self" but then also claiming insight into "Truth"?

I agree that "liberation requires a quantum shift of perception". But it also requires action. Both yin and yang. Again, I'm not disagreeing with the basic premise of "no self", although I think it's foolish to take it (or any spiritual teaching) literally. I think it is simplistic and not very helpful, to preach "no self" without including within that teaching, what it means to have "no self". Because life still needs to be lived, and habits still need to be dissolved. The regulars on RT all preach this "truth", but they do not show signs of dissolving the habits of self. Their posts are full of assumption, projection, defensiveness, belief that they can see "the true nature of reality". All of this is the delusion of self, just without the name. Looking inward, I can see that this "mind", this sense of "I'm making these thoughts, etc. happen" are false. However, I still have to take responsibility for my thoughts, my emotions, and my actions. I still have to live my life. I still go to jail if I commit a crime. I still need to floss my teeth. I still need to change my baby's diapers. None of this changes, just because I no longer believe in the "self". Somehow, even without that self, wtf?, I'm still here! Life goes on. So, that has to be dealt with. Once "I" am revealed as "not existing", then how come I still exist? And what happens to this life, to this body, to the relationships and responsibilities that were there? These are all the subtleties that IMO have to be dealt with, if one is to teach "no self". Like in the "how to start a cult" video that was recently posted here, the cult usually starts with some important truth (or in this case, half-truth), which gets the followers to question their previous way of thinking. But the cult really shows its colors, after that "truth" is given. Is there room for subtlety in understanding? Is there tolerance of parallel metaphors, which don't say precisely "no self", but include that understanding? Is there guidance through the ramifications of what "no self" leads to? No, in RT's case, there is only an attempt to recruit the converted, and get them to join the gang. And the gang doesn't even understand the "truth" it preaches, because their arguments are shallow and specious. That's not liberation; that's closer to brainwashing. I think the Buddha recognized all this, when he taught the middle way. No literal interpretations! Neither "self" nor "non-self". That's why he was not a cult leader. But there is no middle way in RT; it's all "our way or the highway".

I was just browsing over at Ruthless Truth again, and I'm frankly appalled. I still don't see how anyone takes them that seriously. Not that "no self" doesn't point at an important truth, but I don't think that the "liberated" members of RT get that truth, at all. IME, "self" = certainty, so letting go of self is letting go of certainty. That's the opposite of what RT does. The first couple links that I randomly clicked on (below), revealed conversations in which the "noob" was entirely reasonable, and utterly clear in their arguments. The "red" and "blue" RT members, on the other hand, were defensive, arrogant, and utterly unable to give any argument deeper than "the self is not real; look for yourself" (never mind how ironic that advice is). They kept making references to how they were seeing reality, without the slightest inkling that "reality" is utterly dependent on the "self". Whenever someone suggested that there might be more to "liberation" than this one "truth", they were ignored, and booed down. Doesn't ignorance come from ignoring things? I have considered going on the site, and having a conversation with them, but I don't see any advantage to it. They respond to actual conversations, as if they were threats. The only thing they seem able to handle, is capitulation. Is that liberation? It seems more like they've trapped themselves in the concept of "no self" (and the need to be right), because they've lost all ability to engage in subtle understanding and intercourse. I see all the trappings of a cult, and no usefulness, or real desire to help. I don't know what to say to those of you who say they've been helped by RT. I can't doubt your experience. But I do hope that you consider doubting the belief in the idea that this "truth" = liberation. Liberation, as far as I can see, never comes through dogmatism; it is at the very opposite end of the spectrum. IME, "no self" is just masturbation without the action of "surrendering the self", which is all about letting go of certainty. But certainty seems to be what RT is addicted to. The threads I perused: http://www.ruthlesstruth.com/arena/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1292 http://www.ruthlesstruth.com/arena/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1304

On the first page of this thread, I talked about the various mirrors within which I can get a view of "who I am". But I neglected to really talk about the most obvious and ancient mirror, which is the mirror of my mind. When I look at my own mind, I see my own functions, reflected back at me. Over here are thoughts, over here memories, intuitions, emotions, associations, impulses to act, etc. If I stand back and watch, then none of the functions really seem to belong to me, at all. The thoughts come up, unbidden, and sometimes they surprise me. Intuition comes from some out-of-sight place, as do memories and associations. I can see the relationship between emotions and thought, but when I am just watching, they don't seem so closely linked, nor is it always clear which gives rise to which. If I'm not watching my mind, but am being driven around by it, then the emotions not only seem to come from me, but they seem to be me. I am angry. I am sad. The thoughts that arise seem to reflect my "truth", even though they may very well be contradicted by later, equally valid, thoughts. At this time, the mirror is mostly ignored; I only see my self in retrospect. Even the impulse to act may drive me, without me being consciously aware of it. I may find myself standing at the refrigerator door, and only then ask myself whether I'm hungry or not. If I'm emotionally distraught, or if I'm inebriated, I may find that I am the impulse to act. Words may come out of my mouth before they seem to go through my mind. So, whose mind is this, that I can sometimes watch, other times be driven by, and still other times be tormented by? Why do my thoughts, when correcting me, refer to me as "you"? How is that there are arguments within my mind, as if two separate functions are struggling for control over me? And I am even sure that "mind" is an accurate concept, since most of the aspects of this mind do not seem to belong to "me"? Is it possible that "mind" is just another funhouse mirror, a way of watching my internal machinations? Am "I" really involved at all in the processes of mind, or am I just an observer, looking into the mirror?

One thing that I think is interesting is that it is not just "wu wei". It is "wei wu wei". Doing, not doing. Yang/yin. A cycle.

Personally, I don't see any way to "see things as they truly are". Nor do I see a way to check if my "seeing" is correct. But, I do think it's worthwhile doubting the beliefs I have, thus far, and debunking the ones that don't make sense. In particular, I seek to de-link the beliefs from the panic/grasping habits that are attached to them. This isn't about attaining a specific clear view, as much as it just removing the emotional importance from my current views, and watching how many of them fall apart, without my neediness to prop them up. Things get clearer, without me trying to attain anything. Also, rather than trying to attain any kind of constant state, I merely do my best to pay attention to what's going on, and if I observe myself grasping, then I try to remind myself gently, that there is an alternative. I don't try to force my attention or an outcome, because that is just my ego trying to dominate the rest of me, and that seems to be precisely what's gotten me into this mess. So I seek to reduce my ego's function, by not trying to control myself, but just remind myself, and practice not being beholden to panic/grasping.

I don't know. From my perspective, practice is not something I do, with some idea that eventually down the road, I will arrive somewhere. Instead, I practice just to get better at life. If I'm afraid of something, I go face that fear. If I am not comfortable in my body, I get to know my body better. If I have a habit that gets in my way, I pay attention to it, and put myself in the situation that triggers it, practicing calm balance.

Good questions, Kali Yuga. I've just gone through a crush, myself, recently, and it wasn't very pleasant. All these old teenage mental habits came back, spinning stories about her, trying to analyze small details of her behavior, etc. I was plunged into an earlier version of myself, one with a lot more chatter, and a lot less peace. On top of that, my desire made me behave strangely, take things too seriously, etc., and she didn't respond to me the way my crush would have liked. Given all that, I still don't recommend avoiding the women who bring up that desire and all its connected habits. IME, practice is the only way to make peace with all parts of life. Avoidance just postpones resolution. Also, with avoidance, when you do have to face your desire, the stakes seem bigger, the anxiety is greater, etc. So, I think more (calm, conscious) exposure to attractive women is the answer, not less. I'm also a believer in incremental change, and so maybe there's a way to get more connected to women in general, not focusing on desire. Practice being friendly and connecting to women you don't desire, without ulterior motive, and let that become the norm. And progress from there. When a woman comes along who really shakes you up, you'll at least have the practice of calm and joyful connection to rely on, to help balance all the adrenaline and grasping, that gets triggered.

First off, good self-observation. And good replies above, everyone. Not surprising, of course, that a situation of novelty will get your brain whirring afterward, to process everything that happens. I think it would be a shame to see the "mental chatter" as a bad thing, because that will just give you one more thing to be anxious about, and one more reason to avoid strangers. Instead, when your brain activates in strange or (originally) unpleasant ways, maybe there's a chance to let it be and, if possible, even enjoy it. Busy brains can also be fun, like a roller coaster. As was said above: practice! It is what may shift the unpleasantly chaotic event into an enjoyable ride.

I just wanted to throw in a good word for tree climbing, which I've just gotten back into lately. It's a fun, exciting, interesting, challenging practice, which exercises balance, ease, least effort, improvisation, and staying calm in fearful situations. It is a 360-degree exercise, challenging the entire body, and asking the mind to seek out pathways in all dimensions. And it changes so radically, with just a bit of experience. So much more becomes available, as my nerves and awareness adjust to the new environment. To me, it feels like something that is in my DNA, and is only kept at bay by my habits of safety and comfort. Oh yes, and I'm doing it barefoot, most of the time, so it's sweet to keep the feet involved and aware, as well!

There's some great neuro-science information on why to "be like a child" in the PBS special "The Brain Fitness Program" (available from Netflix). It is primarily aimed at an older audience, but the questions of brain plasticity are universal. In particular, the first 4 minutes of this video are very informative and useful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQTbw787lFI There is a case, not included in the online version, about a victim of a massive stroke who learned to walk again, not by trying to arrive at the "right way of walking" that he used to know, but by starting over again, allowing himself to be an infant, and crawl, get to know what his body is capable of. It is that willingness to constantly start over, to be a beginner, that keeps the brain's ability to stay plastic, and heal itself. The music in the doc is kind of yuck, but otherwise, I highly recommend seeing the whole program.

In my understanding, any massive object, when accelerated toward the speed of light, will increase its mass exponentially, until (hypothetically) the mass would be infinite, if it were able to reach the speed of light, due to a divide-by-zero equation (but of course, that's why a massive object cannot reach the speed of light). Particles without mass, however, like the photon, always travel at the speed of light.

Excellent!

To me, it's about balance (like all things). It is not necessarily to get rid of one's beliefs, but to hold on to them so lightly, that they can be discarded in a second, when evidence to the contrary comes along. To always acknowledge: this is just the best model I have, thus far. Certainty is the emotional component of belief that makes one attached to an idea, that makes one want to defend it, to reject others. Without certainty, belief is just rules of thumb, useful pointers. With certainty, it is dogma. Certainty, like other forms of attachment, is like a form of panic. It is grasping, neediness, tension.

I'll buy that.

LOL! Like "Common Knowledge"? I'm teasing. Your point is good. The ones that jump immediately to my mind include: Right Speech, Right Thinking, Right View, etc. These all point at useful things, but the "right" within the names suggests actual correct fixed perspectives, which is very different than what I think the Buddha was suggesting, which is surrender of perspective. And then there's: My body, my mind, my life. How about: "the true nature of reality"? Actually, most jargon in spirituality has a self-defeating quality, because it implies a literal-ness to the language that is counter-productive.

My read on the above question: the field of inquiry that is most useful for me, is to pay attention to how "I" (the ego) functions. Because the habits of consciousness that make up my reality are so "of course", so built-in to how I make sense of the world, that I need to examine these habits, in order to see what assumptions I am making. So I need to examine (and surrender) my fears, my biases, my risk-assessment, my social and self-assumptions, my need to be right, etc. What I/my ego doesn't need is to figure out "how things actually are". Instead, when I examine inside, I realize that "actual" is forever outside of my/the ego's view. As long as I am trying to pin down reality, and have the "right viewpoint" on the world, then I am missing the point of emptiness, which is that my need to be right is one of my biggest traps. However, none of this precludes being curious. Being curious about what science has to say about the world, what others think, what different traditions bring. And so, I hungrily devour documentaries and books on science, nature, history, philosophy. I push my own limits, and always seek to grow beyond what I have known. This is not to know the right thing, but rather to open my eyes to what others have to share. Dogma is the opposite of curiosity, and the death of awakening. Choose dogma, or certainty about the world, and I choose to be locked into "rightness", rather than free to explore the unknown. But if I stay curious and questing, both about the outside world and the inner, then I am free to grow, until the day I die.

I don't think that wu wei necessarily means to do nothing. However, I think that Marblehead's post was pointing at something important. That we need to be willing to do nothing, in order to access wu wei. As long as I (the ego) insists on making something happen, then wu wei is not available to me. If I can quiet me/the ego down, then there is room for wu wei to act on its own. In dance, this is represented by my willingness to go with the flow. Inevitably, thoughts crop up, which urge me to do something in particular, to make my dance "cool" or "impressive". If I attach and become obedient to these thoughts, then I end up forcing my body, causing internal resistance and strain, and achieving the opposite of what the thought was seeking. But if I am willing to surrender that need to be obedient to the thought, or appear a certain way, and just accept whatever my body wants me to be, then I am rewarded, by my body finding its own path, effortlessly. But I have to be willing first, to do nothing.

I agree that the science of the very small is not "the truth", in exclusion of the science of the human scale. But the science of the very small shows clearly that the human scale is mere approximations. None of our electronic and digital revolution would be possible, without quantum physics. It is very very real (i.e. accurate to the real), even if it is not directly knowable to the senses. You find certainty in your chair, Marblehead, but how far does that certainty get you? You won't find that same kind of certainty in the plants in your garden, in the weather, in other people, or even in yourself. Claiming to "know" the chair ignores all the more tenuous stuff, the phenomena of change, like life. The chair is theoretically unknowable, but it doesn't really matter, as long as it doesn't collapse. However, if I pretend to know the inner being of a girl I like, then I bring chaos into my life, because my "knowledge" is a fantasy, and eclipses my willingness and ability to listen. Only if I am willing to be in the mystery, can I allow her to be who she is, at this very moment, and not have it be in conflict with my interior model. p.s. Of course I am not saying to believe in the monster under your bed, but rather that it behooves us all to re-examine what beliefs we do cling to, and make sure that we are not too very certain about our claims of "knowledge". Also, that we recognize that "knowledge" is merely a subset of opinion, that we give extra emotional weight (certainty) to. Knowledge is an illusion of the mind that wants to be in control.

Excellent epiphany, InfinityTruth! Great share.

Sounds like an amazing experience! Thanks for sharing it.

You live in the assumed universe. "True" is unknowable. "Reality" is subjective. What is actually true is what's pointed at by Relativity, Quantum Physics and string theory. That's the closest that humans have gotten to ascertaining "the true nature of things". And, of course, none of it makes any sense, according to the rules of our mundane reality. In other words, "reality" is anything but. It is just an experience. What we think we know are just inferences to the truth that is unknowable, and forever out of reach. Even with science, the best model so far is all we can ever hope to achieve. Of course I believe there is an actual world. But what that actual world is, I cannot say. What I observe is what I observe, not what is real. What I am told is what I am told, not what is real. Real is just something I make up, a cobbling together of stories that seem to fit together, or which are emotionally appealing, to explain it all to myself, to make it easier not to be worried about the fact that I don't really know anything. Not for sure.

From the article: "Experientially, what it means for consciousness to have such a structure is that one winds up in the same place whether one NARROWS the scope of attention to the maximum possible extent (by 'concentrating' awareness) or WIDENS the scope of attention to the maximum possible degree (thereby diffusing awareness). At both extremities one experiences a 'pure', 'undifferentiated', or 'objectless' state of awareness. These two extreme mental states are indentical and indistinguishable, phenomenologically speaking. While IN the objectless state of awareness, there is nothing to distinguish the state arrived at by an extreme concentration of attention from the one arrived at by an extreme expansion of attention." This is something I've noted, and marveled at, for years. I always thought of it as: go totally towards yang, or towards yin, and I end up at the same place.

Are you sure? If there were such a thing as the science of the actual, I would think it is quantum physics. Which suggests that duality is not a real thing in the world, but is a projection, created by expectations. A plant doesn't care whether a photon is a wave or a particle, but it is our projection (according to the double slit experiment) that forces "reality" into dualism. Especially saying "X is real" and "Y is not real" is assuming a rather omniscient point of view, one that can distinguish between the two. If quantum physics can't always decide what is real, then it seems unlikely that our mundane view of the world can. Do you mean that at least 50% of the time? Ah, but tigers rarely eat humans. So humans create an image of the world in which some threats are real, and some not, but it's very hard to ascertain (especially without statistical analysis) how accurate our assumptions are. But is this really so? I think that most people live life according to assumptions, not "what is knowable". Do you know that the driver beside you is going to stay in their lane? Do you know what your lady friend is feeling, at any particular time? Do you know how your mutual fund is going to perform? No, all you have are assumptions, and managed risks. So, we all live in the unknown. The question is: are we willing to drop our illusion of knowing, and surrender into the "I don't know", which happens to be true all the time? Haha! Like "edited".