Ruthless Truth

[Seth Ananda]

I read TzuJanLi's hilarious dialogue over there, and I Laughed my pants off.

 

Tzu went to someone else's site, not to learn but to teach.

He made Zero effort to even contemplate their Ideas, and Instead just tried to beat them with His Ideas.

 

The really funny thing is he seem to believe that he is somehow wise himself, but all his posts just make him look, well - the opposite...

 

Incredible arrogance, but he does cling to the idea of self.

[TzuJanLi]

I read TzuJanLi's hilarious dialogue over there, and I Laughed my pants off.

 

Tzu went to someone else's site, not to learn but to teach.

He made Zero effort to even contemplate their Ideas, and Instead just tried to beat them with His Ideas.

 

The really funny thing is he seem to believe that he is somehow wise himself, but all his posts just make him look, well - the opposite...

 

Incredible arrogance, but he does cling to the idea of self.

Thank you for at least making the effort to verify something for yourself.. now, i ask you, if someone, even a group of people, say to you, "put your had in the flames, it will not hurt", how many 'hurts' do you endure before you identify a solution? You did not read all of my postings at RT, some were taken down, you did not read the private exchanges between Cirian and myself, and.. of that that you did read, how often did i ask for answers and got only ridicule in return??? will you answer? or, will you judge my requests for answers as insincere? will you ever know, for you have judged me even now, through the filter of your own 'self', judged superior to those whom you judge.. ah, the seething self-righteousness of Buddhists, they season my soul consistently.. such a prideful judgement of me, i feel your 'seasoned' and practiced righteousness, do you? can you feel your familiarity with with your own saucy arrogance seasoning your righteous indignation.. MORE, i feel it in there, let it go brother, let your inner Buddha out!!

 

Absolutely astounding.. Be well..

[Aaron]

I read TzuJanLi's hilarious dialogue over there, and I Laughed my pants off.

 

Tzu went to someone else's site, not to learn but to teach.

He made Zero effort to even contemplate their Ideas, and Instead just tried to beat them with His Ideas.

 

The really funny thing is he seem to believe that he is somehow wise himself, but all his posts just make him look, well - the opposite...

 

Incredible arrogance, but he does cling to the idea of self.

 

 

Hello Seth,

 

My take on this has nothing to do with TzuJanLi's actions, good or bad, but rather the idea that people who claim to be one or the other, should be one or the other. You are not a Buddhist by simply saying, I am a Buddhist, but rather by being a Buddhist, by practicing the Eightfold Path. That includes sila, which is right action, right speech, and right livelihood. How can one claim to have genuine knowledge of samadhi, if they ignore those aspects of the path that lead to further understanding of it?

 

My argument is that one should not allow self to dictate their actions, that one should be selfless, give themselves over to their practice, abandon the ego, the need to be right or prove truth and rather live as they are supposed to.

 

There's a lyric by Mumford and Sons that talks about one aspect of this, forgiveness,

 

"Love will not betray you,

dismay or enslave you,

It will set you free

Be more like the man

you were made to be.

There is a design,

An alignment to cry,

At my heart you see,

The beauty of love

as it was made to be..."

 

Yes it's a song lyric, but I also feel it is infinitely true. It is only when we truly forgive and live a practice of compassion, love, that we will be as we were made to be. I'm not sure if that's Buddhist, but I do think it's very much in line with sila. There should be no ruthless truth, but rather simply the truth as we understand it, and in understanding that, understanding that others might not see it that way, nor must they.

 

Aaron

Edited May 14, 2011 by Twinner

[Seth Ananda]

I have to say I am rather fond of Ruthless Truth. First I am not a Buddhist [neither is Ruthless Truth], but I am fond of elements of Buddhist philosophy.

For instance I had a minor realization of E&DO and will never be able undo that understanding. I can see it without trying, the same way I see this screen in front of me.

Inquiry is what really does it for me. I do not care to be told by some moralist, Buddhist or otherwise, how I am to speak.

I am all for cultivating the virtues, but I count the ability to speak harshly sometimes, as a virtue in itself, when used to point out someones deficiencies.

 

Good Honest expression.

 

So over there they are only Interested in helping people look at the reality/or not, of No self.

This is really clearly written over there.

 

 

-They do not want to discuss No self in comparative traditions.

 

-they do not want to debate whether No self is true or false, in existential terms.

 

-they do not want to talk about what you think or believe about No self.

 

-they have zero interest in self/no self debates.

 

 

They want to help people actually look to see if No self could be true.

 

 

Tzu did not even begin to engage them in that way. All he did was talk around the Issue, round and round, be[lie]fe this, perception that..., without once stopping to look if they could be right. Till he got banned.

 

And Good on them for banning him for wasting their time.

 

They are helping large numbers of people gain realization of No Self.

And the reason they are so successful in doing this is because they are so firm in their rules.

Its not a democratic forum where every clown can confuse everyone, with all their Irrelevancies, beliefs and opinions.

All that does is clog up the working of true Inquiry.

 

Its more like a spiritual dictatorship. If you tow the line, do the work [actually Investigate your Ideas of self] then they will be very helpful.

 

If instead, like Tzu, you do everything but that, the ban you. Awesome!

 

They have every right to run their forum like that. If you do not want to Investigate No self, just don't sign up.

 

Seth Ananda.

[hagar]

All this truth stuff makes me nervous.

 

Can someone please collect the dots here?

 

I think I speak for all those here who have not read enough Buddhist literature to really throw themselves into this debate and feel strangely unsatisfied with where this is going.

 

Maybe someone can state what they mean in non-Buddhist terminology, and if the essence remains, I'd know what they mean atleast.

 

h

[Aaron]

I have to say I am rather fond of Ruthless Truth. First I am not a Buddhist [neither is Ruthless Truth], but I am fond of elements of Buddhist philosophy.

For instance I had a minor realization of E&DO and will never be able undo that understanding. I can see it without trying, the same way I see this screen in front of me.

Inquiry is what really does it for me. I do not care to be told by some moralist, Buddhist or otherwise, how I am to speak.

I am all for cultivating the virtues, but I count the ability to speak harshly sometimes, as a virtue in itself, when used to point out someones deficiencies.

 

Good Honest expression.

 

So over there they are only Interested in helping people look at the reality/or not, of No self.

This is really clearly written over there.

 

 

-They do not want to discuss No self in comparative traditions.

 

-they do not want to debate whether No self is true or false, in existential terms.

 

-they do not want to talk about what you think or believe about No self.

 

-they have zero interest in self/no self debates.

 

 

They want to help people actually look to see if No self could be true.

 

 

Tzu did not even begin to engage them in that way. All he did was talk around the Issue, round and round, be[lie]fe this, perception that..., without once stopping to look if they could be right. Till he got banned.

 

And Good on them for banning him for wasting their time.

 

They are helping large numbers of people gain realization of No Self.

And the reason they are so successful in doing this is because they are so firm in their rules.

Its not a democratic forum where every clown can confuse everyone, with all their Irrelevancies, beliefs and opinions.

All that does is clog up the working of true Inquiry.

 

Its more like a spiritual dictatorship. If you tow the line, do the work [actually Investigate your Ideas of self] then they will be very helpful.

 

If instead, like Tzu, you do everything but that, the ban you. Awesome!

 

They have every right to run their forum like that. If you do not want to Investigate No self, just don't sign up.

 

Seth Ananda.

 

I agree, that's an excellent way to run a forum. I have no desire to investigate No Self in that context, so I don't see the need to go there or distract them from what they want to do. I actually joined a zen forum for awhile, but left when I realized that it wasn't for me. To each his own.

 

I also count the ability to speak harshly sometimes as a virtue, unfortunately many people are incapable of handling this in a manner that doesn't cause more harm than good. A good example of being able to do this can be seen in a loving parent who can be harsh, but still makes sure that the child knows they are loved.

 

Aaron

Edited May 14, 2011 by Twinner

[Otis]

If you actually want to know what the Buddha taught, then it doesn't hurt to read at least some of the sutras.

 

This translation of the Surangama Sutra, will help a lot and is relevant to what's being discussed in this thread; This translation is by Charles Luk: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/surangama.pdf

Good call. Thanks for the link.

[TzuJanLi]

I have to say I am rather fond of Ruthless Truth. First I am not a Buddhist [neither is Ruthless Truth], but I am fond of elements of Buddhist philosophy.

For instance I had a minor realization of E&DO and will never be able undo that understanding. I can see it without trying, the same way I see this screen in front of me.

Inquiry is what really does it for me. I do not care to be told by some moralist, Buddhist or otherwise, how I am to speak.

I am all for cultivating the virtues, but I count the ability to speak harshly sometimes, as a virtue in itself, when used to point out someones deficiencies.

 

Good Honest expression.

 

So over there they are only Interested in helping people look at the reality/or not, of No self.

This is really clearly written over there.

 

 

-They do not want to discuss No self in comparative traditions.

 

-they do not want to debate whether No self is true or false, in existential terms.

 

-they do not want to talk about what you think or believe about No self.

 

-they have zero interest in self/no self debates.

 

 

They want to help people actually look to see if No self could be true.

 

 

Tzu did not even begin to engage them in that way. All he did was talk around the Issue, round and round, be[lie]fe this, perception that..., without once stopping to look if they could be right. Till he got banned.

 

And Good on them for banning him for wasting their time.

 

They are helping large numbers of people gain realization of No Self.

And the reason they are so successful in doing this is because they are so firm in their rules.

Its not a democratic forum where every clown can confuse everyone, with all their Irrelevancies, beliefs and opinions.

All that does is clog up the working of true Inquiry.

 

Its more like a spiritual dictatorship. If you tow the line, do the work [actually Investigate your Ideas of self] then they will be very helpful.

 

If instead, like Tzu, you do everything but that, the ban you. Awesome!

 

They have every right to run their forum like that. If you do not want to Investigate No self, just don't sign up.

 

Seth Ananda.

Originally, i asked for for dialogue and discussion at Ruthless Truth.. what i got was harsh and crude instruction.. rational discussion that might reveal the weaknesses and illusions of the 'no self' doctrine are rejected.. of course i am willing to revise my understandings if you can support your claims with something more than 'if/then' word-play that will not survive rational scrutiny.. and when some members wanted to actually have rational discussions, i was banned..

 

What i discern, between the Ruthless Truth site and TTB, is that the 'no self' dogma breeds intolerance, referencing the typical Seth Ananda or Cow Tao type response, that it is acceptable to impose doctrine/dogma.. even if you do the work, and i did, and conclude differently, it is unacceptable.. see Seth's or Cow Tao's adjudication of me.. that is the issue, totalitarian intolerance with such uniquely 'self' attitudes.. the very arguement offered is fundamental evidence that the arguement is invalid.. the 'no self' dogma is advanced through intimidation due to lack of subatance.. the entirty of the 'no self' doctrine is an insincere intellectual game.

 

As Seth says, "Good Honest expression"..

 

Be well..

[Informer]

It is nothing more than self hypnosis, super-imposing an illusion upon an illusion.

[xabir2005]

There is nothing intellectual about no self.

 

It is a truth you either see or not... it is deeply experiential.

 

In the seeing just the seen, in the hearing just the heard, once this is realized there is nothing more direct and experiential than This.

 

However, I do agree that Ciaran could learn to be more patient.

[xabir2005]

It is nothing more than self hypnosis, super-imposing an illusion upon an illusion.

Speaking from experience, there is nothing delusional about that.

 

What is illusional is your notion of self.

 

Try finding it, it cannot be found, yet you believe it exists.

[Informer]

How do you assume to know my notion?

[xabir2005]

How do you assume to know my notion?

So you do not have the view of a self?

[Informer]

Speaking from experience, there is nothing delusional about that.

 

What is illusional is your notion of self.

 

Try finding it, it cannot be found, yet you believe it exists.

 

Or anyone elses notion for that matter? Buddha's teachings were done in steps and where certain realizations and perspectives must be achieved before the others could even begin to be understood.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Informer

[Informer]

So you do not have the view of a self?

 

You answer questions with questions? obviously rhetorical

[TzuJanLi]

So you do not have the view of a self?

You are 'self', you speak uniquely through your individualized 'self', the reference point of your perception, an existent identity evidenced by your words.. nothing is more simple than accepting what 'is'.. i need no instruction to believe other than what is self-evident.. the 'no-self' doctrine requires belief and faith.. i need neither to 'know' self exists, it is 'self'-evident..

 

Be well..

[xabir2005]

Or anyone elses notion for that matter? Buddha's teachings were done in steps and where certain realizations and perspectives must be achieved before the others could even begin to be understood.

My assumptions are mere assumptions, so correct me if I am wrong.

 

And yes I do not disagree that Buddha's teachings are mostly gradual.

 

But look at Bahiya Sutta, Bahiya woke up instantaneously by contemplating 'in seeing just the seen'.

Edited May 14, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

You are 'self', you speak uniquely through your individualized 'self', the reference point of your perception, an existent identity evidenced by your words.. nothing is more simple than accepting what 'is'.. i need no instruction to believe other than what is self-evident.. the 'no-self' doctrine requires belief and faith.. i need neither to 'know' self exists, it is 'self'-evident..

 

Be well..

No. 'self' is a belief.

 

What is self-evident is life: seeing, hearing, smelling.

 

The notion 'I am seeing the tree', 'I am hearing the bird' is an AFTERTHOUGHT to a direct experience... it is an assumption, an inference. It is not based on evidence.

 

The 'you' that sees does not exist. There is just seeing.

Edited May 14, 2011 by xabir2005

[TzuJanLi]

No. 'self' is a belief.

 

What is self-evident is life: seeing, hearing, smelling.

 

The notion 'I am seeing the tree', 'I am hearing the bird' is an AFTERTHOUGHT to a direct experience... it is an assumption, an inference. It is not based on evidence.

 

The 'you' that sees does not exist. There is just seeing.

It is a real and existent belief, look and see that it is so, else why is there the difference of understanding??? why is there the difference of understanding??? do not avoid this critical evidence or dismiss it with clever word-play..

 

Be well..

[Informer]

[Informer]

"Self" can be just as much of a belief as "No-self".

[Informer]

Step 1, do not assume anything.

 

 

Step 2, nothing is not everything, that doesn't even make sense. If all that exist is nothing, than I feel pitty for that soul.

[Marblehead]

Step 1, do not assume anything.

 

 

Step 2, nothing is not everything, that doesn't even make sense. If all that exist is nothing, than I feel pitty for that soul.

 

I don't belong in this discussion but I just wanted to point out the importance of this post by Informer.

[Lucky7Strikes]

It is a real and existent belief, look and see that it is so, else why is there the difference of understanding??? why is there the difference of understanding??? do not avoid this critical evidence or dismiss it with clever word-play..

 

Be well..

It's because you are a blockhead. Look what everyone is saying about you! .

[Lucky7Strikes]

Step 1, do not assume anything.

 

 

Step 2, nothing is not everything, that doesn't even make sense. If all that exist is nothing, than I feel pitty for that soul.

Huh, who said anything about nothing is everything? And what does nothing mean? It means "no thing," as in there are no true entities in experience. Where does one thing begin and end? Isn't it very arbitrary how we draw the boundaries of a "thing?" like a cup? Cut the cup in two...then is that still a cup?

 

How about the body? Where does the body begin and end?

 

So no "thing" I guess, IS everything.