Ruthless Truth

[Marblehead]

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

 

Hehehe. The word "blockhead" might be a little extreme. Sure, he has his fixed opinions but so do you and I.

[TzuJanLi]

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

Do you suggest i accept everyone's opinions in opposition to my own awareness of what is so? i see what 'some' people believe about me, are you certain it's 'everyone'? Yes, it's easy to exaggerate and embellish to make your-'self' seem right, Lucky.. see how the 'self' works, it occasionally shoves its bloated self-image at others, polishing its self-righteousness with its superiority..

 

So, Lucky, you responded to an excerpt that asks you to address the differences of understanding, and.. as is the 'way', you reveal your 'selfness', asserting its viability by choosing to ignore the critical issue and resort to your preference of mockery and ridicule.. you make this so easy.

 

Be well..

[TzuJanLi]

Hehehe. The word "blockhead" might be a little extreme. Sure, he has his fixed opinions but so do you and I.

Hi Marblehead: I'm just asking for sincere and reasonable dialogue, without which i just become a mirror..

 

Be well..

[Jetsun]

My understanding is that the self can't be found but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, rather you just can't find it because you are it. So saying there is absolutely no self is an assumption while also saying there is a self is an assumption.

[TzuJanLi]

My understanding is that the self can't be found but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, rather you just can't find it because you are it. So saying there is absolutely no self is an assumption while also saying there is a self is an assumption.

Hi Jetsun: it is my experience that by saying there is a self, you acknowledge the 'experience' of self.. there cannot be an 'experience' of no-self, as self is a necessary component of the experience..

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

Hi Marblehead: I'm just asking for sincere and reasonable dialogue, without which i just become a mirror..

 

Be well..

 

Yeah, I know. It is oftentimes difficult, if not impossible, to keep our emotions out of discussions such as this one.

 

Agree, if we are pure of heart and mind we can become a mirror for the world. (Not an easy task, mind you.)

 

A funny thing about we humans, when we are faced with a consideration we cannot properly speak too we will oftentimes fall back on a joke or a negative comment. Human nature, I guess, if we allow our emotions to enter the discussion.

 

(Yes, I still make that error myself so I am speaking to myself as well.)

[Marblehead]

Hey Jetsun and TzuJanLi!

 

Those two last posts are fantastic!!!

[C T]

i just become a mirror..

 

Could be for this reason why some are unable to see their own reflection. Then there are also cracked mirrors that distort, which leads to all kinds of silly projections.

 

Blockhead may be a compliment in your case. For all your self affirmations and pretense at wanting to steer towards sensible dialog, you seem to be the only one slinging labels at Buddhist practitioners, the Buddha and the Buddhist path. I dont see any Buddhists here demeaning, slinging mud or putting down practitioners of other paths. You appear to be unable to debate assertions without attaching any sub-standard attempt at tarnishing other's position. Some mirror indeed. You cant even tell who is Buddhist and who is not. It appears that anyone who speaks up against your folly gets slapped with a 'Buddhist' tag.

 

As i said earlier... sad. And lopsided.

[Apech]

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

 

**** Gentle Mod Message ****

 

Just butting in to this conversation to say I always enjoy listening to people argue about the fact that they don't exist. (I know its a cheap point but it made me laugh.)

 

Can we remain hard hitting and resolute in our own conviction without falling into "you are a ******" ????? That's where the 'no insult' policy starts to bite. Perhaps you could say "I think you may be conceptually blocked ... " or something ... which might address the issue better than calling someone a blockhead.

 

*** Mod Out Carry On Please (and remain calm) *****

[Seth Ananda]

Hi Jetsun: it is my experience that by saying there is a self, you acknowledge the 'experience' of self.. there cannot be an 'experience' of no-self, as self is a necessary component of the experience..

 

Be well..

This is you again just sprouting your beliefs. You are not sincerely looking or Inquiring into the actual nature of your so called self.

If you have not realized 'no self' how can you have an opinion about whether it is real or not? To honestly enter dialogue, as you say you tried, you would have to simply follow the Instructions, and then report back what you found when seen clearly.

So far you have done nothing of the kind, even though you claim otherwise.

[Marblehead]

This is you again just sprouting your beliefs. You are not sincerely looking or Inquiring into the actual nature of your so called self.

If you have not realized 'no self' how can you have an opinion about whether it is real or not? To honestly enter dialogue, as you say you tried, you would have to simply follow the Instructions, and then report back what you found when seen clearly.

So far you have done nothing of the kind, even though you claim otherwise.

 

I must come to TzuJanLi's defense here.

 

None of us, not now, not ever, have been a 'no-self'. We all are a manifestation of the universe. Sure, we can try to deminish our ego and I think that this is good. But we cannot negate our "Self".

 

Every time we have a thought it is from our "Self" that this thought originates. Yes, I know, dependant origination, but still, the thought was formed in "our" mind.

 

I understand that there is no permanent "Self". And true, we cannot even point to a particular 'thing' and say "This is my Self". But to deny a "Self" is to deny reality and I think that even Buddha would say that this is a 'wrong view'. Why else would he have spent so much time telling people that "they" had to rid "themselves" of suffering?

[TzuJanLi]

This is you again just sprouting your beliefs. You are not sincerely looking or Inquiring into the actual nature of your so called self.

If you have not realized 'no self' how can you have an opinion about whether it is real or not? To honestly enter dialogue, as you say you tried, you would have to simply follow the Instructions, and then report back what you found when seen clearly.

So far you have done nothing of the kind, even though you claim otherwise.

Thank you, Seth.. you exemplify my earlier point. I have no validity in your perception until i conform to your beliefs, you assert that i lie about my efforts to realize 'no-self', when in fact the efforts were sincere and extensive.. how many times do i put my hand into the fire, hoping for the promise of 'no pain'? do i put it in until the hand is burned away and we can rejoice in the 'no hand ~ no pain' solution?? You claim some extrasensory knowledge of 'my' efforts regarding 'following instructions', and you are incorrect.. again, exemplifying the differences of 'selfs'.. the differences of understanding are besed on existent selfs, unique identities engaged in relationshipes with Life and existence.. and, as much as i had hoped that such passion as revealed by the beliefs of 'no-selfs', i cannot deny the actuality that there is self asking a self not to believe in its self.. there is simply no evidence to the contrary, i looked with sincere intent and found word-play and games.. i wish it were different, but it is not.

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

... i wish it were different, but it is not.

 

Be well..

 

Why even wish it were different? That would be like denying the processes of Nature - denying the existance of all things.

 

Now stop burning your freakin' hand!!!

[C T]

A helpful 'pointing out' of Anatta/Not-Self that everyone here, who claims sincerity, ought to read -

 

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/noself.html

[TzuJanLi]

Why even wish it were different? That would be like denying the processes of Nature - denying the existance of all things.

 

Now stop burning your freakin' hand!!!

I wish it were different because my compassionate nature hopes such energies as are expended in the beliefs of 'no-self' might be useful for improving the human experience, but.. it is just a grand deception, distracting seekers from their potential..

 

LOL, What hand???

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

 

LOL, What hand???

 

Be well..

 

Hehehe.

[Seth Ananda]

Thank you, Seth.. you exemplify my earlier point. I have no validity in your perception until i conform to your beliefs, you assert that i lie about my efforts to realize 'no-self', when in fact the efforts were sincere and extensive.. how many times do i put my hand into the fire, hoping for the promise of 'no pain'? do i put it in until the hand is burned away and we can rejoice in the 'no hand ~ no pain' solution?? You claim some extrasensory knowledge of 'my' efforts regarding 'following instructions', and you are incorrect.. again, exemplifying the differences of 'selfs'.. the differences of understanding are besed on existent selfs, unique identities engaged in relationshipes with Life and existence.. and, as much as i had hoped that such passion as revealed by the beliefs of 'no-selfs', i cannot deny the actuality that there is self asking a self not to believe in its self.. there is simply no evidence to the contrary, i looked with sincere intent and found word-play and games.. i wish it were different, but it is not.

 

 

Be well..

Thank you Tzu, You demonstrate your Inability to rationalize, or to barely even cognize in this post of yours, which is really reflective of every post of yours I have ever read.

1. I in no way ask you to conform to my perceptions. If you really look, as challenged, you may find a completely different conclusion than we expect or are aware of. That would be an actual conversation, with an Honest [you] inquirer. But you refuse to look, and just speel more belief based B.S.

 

2. when did i claim some extra sensory perseption? thats just Lame. I really think you barely read what you respond to. Please Highlight and quote me saying this.

3. What the hell are you going on about your hand in a fire? looking to see whether the self is a factual existing entity is Inquiry, not self Immolation. Please note all you would realize is that there is no self to immolate...

 

4. No self is not based on beliefs, but just on seeing the body/mind/emotions as they are. I have zero interest in beliefs.

 

5. In the thread I read, you had not one Iota of a sincere attempt to look at the Idea. Not for a mini second. All you did was argue, sprout beliefs and waste peoples time. The Hilarious thing is you actually think you are wise.

 

6. A sincere attempt means that is someone says, "I discovered that if you look at such and such from this angle, you see such and such..."

That what they have said. What you did and do, is refuse to even consider that angle, by Honestly giving it a go, and instead go "No, belief belief belief, blah blah, dogma idea..."

 

Its like a scientist says "Check out what I discovered with my microscope, its...!"

and you reply "No that does not make sense, and I will not look in your stupid microscope, But this is an honest discussion where I sincerely want to understand you, but what is really true is my Idea, blah blah blah..."

 

lol.

[TzuJanLi]

Thank you Tzu, You demonstrate your Inability to rationalize, or to barely even cognize in this post of yours, which is really reflective of every post of yours I have ever read.

2. when did i claim some extra sensory perseption? thats just Lame. I really think you barely read what you respond to. Please Highlight and quote me saying this.

So far you have done nothing of the kind, even though you claim otherwise.

You cannot know this, so by deductive reasoning you claim extrasensory perception..

 

It seems the your idea of a 'microscope' is what the rest of know as a kaleidoscope.. look into your microscope and find 'Buddha-nature', too..

 

The effect of 'self' is self-evident, the unique self of Buddha is well regarded by those that understand his wisdom.. the unique effect of the Ghandi self changed a nation and a way of thinking.. the unique effect of the Jesus self has influence over millions.. the unique effect of the Hitler 'self' nearly wiped out the Jewish people in Europe..

 

Your fear and self-loathing betrays your affection for your own self..

 

Be well..

 

Be well..

[Seth Ananda]

You cannot know this, so by deductive reasoning you claim extrasensory perception..

 

It seems the your idea of a 'microscope' is what the rest of know as a kaleidoscope.. look into your microscope and find 'Buddha-nature', too..

 

The effect of 'self' is self-evident, the unique self of Buddha is well regarded by those that understand his wisdom.. the unique effect of the Ghandi self changed a nation and a way of thinking.. the unique effect of the Jesus self has influence over millions.. the unique effect of the Hitler 'self' nearly wiped out the Jewish people in Europe..

 

Your fear and self-loathing betrays your affection for your own self..

 

Be well..

 

Be well..

Ok when I say you have done nothing of the kind, I am not using some mystical 3rd eye awareness of your whole existence, I am refering to all you have said in the ruthless truth thread. You really should be able to figure that out for your self.

 

You simply have not done it [looked]. Its right there to see for anyone with half a brain.

You have refused to look in the particular microscope that is relevant to the discussion -ie the angle of perception that leads to what the other side has 'allegedly' discovered.

 

If you wont look at how they are seeing what they see, and wont look your self to try to understand the conclusions others have reached, how can you engage in any meaningful discussion. Yon can't.

And this is exactly what you failed to do over and over till they banned you for wasting their time.

All you want to do is argue your position, without looking to see what their position actually is or why they hold it. That's why you are useless as a philosopher.

 

Did you notice the last time we argued, a while ago, I was arguing at the same time, in the same thread about the same Issue with Marble head. He stepped on up, met the Ideas head on, attempted to understand my side then offer his own points. You did the complete opposite. You babbled inane emotional/mythic beliefs, clung to your guns while barley comprehending what was being said on either side. In the end, my respect for marblehead went up greatly, even though we completely disagree on that topic. You on the other hand...

 

A philosopher or any truthful inquirer should be willing to try to understand the basic Ideas the other side is expressing.

 

You barley listen at all.

here you sum it up perfectly:

 

" The effect of 'self' is self-evident, the unique self of Buddha is well regarded by those that understand his wisdom.. the unique effect of the Ghandi self changed a nation and a way of thinking.. the unique effect of the Jesus self has influence over millions.. the unique effect of the Hitler 'self' nearly wiped out the Jewish people in Europe.. "

 

If you even slightly tried to understand what people mean by 'no self' you would find that in effect, No self does not really clash with what you just said. [the wording might be slightly different, but not the general meaning]

People have posted you links to better understand what 'No self' means. You seem to be under the impression that realizing No self will take something away from you that is real or important, or maybe leave you like a mindless zombie...

 

But you haven't as yet, even had the decency to try to understand the concept you argue against....

 

Seth Out!

[TzuJanLi]

Ok when I say you have done nothing of the kind, I am not using some mystical 3rd eye awareness of your whole existence, I am refering to all you have said in the ruthless truth thread. You really should be able to figure that out for your self.

 

You simply have not done it [looked]. Its right there to see for anyone with half a brain.

You have refused to look in the particular microscope that is relevant to the discussion -ie the angle of perception that leads to what the other side has 'allegedly' discovered.

 

If you wont look at how they are seeing what they see, and wont look your self to try to understand the conclusions others have reached, how can you engage in any meaningful discussion. Yon can't.

And this is exactly what you failed to do over and over till they banned you for wasting their time.

All you want to do is argue your position, without looking to see what their position actually is or why they hold it. That's why you are useless as a philosopher.

 

Did you notice the last time we argued, a while ago, I was arguing at the same time, in the same thread about the same Issue with Marble head. He stepped on up, met the Ideas head on, attempted to understand my side then offer his own points. You did the complete opposite. You babbled inane emotional/mythic beliefs, clung to your guns while barley comprehending what was being said on either side. In the end, my respect for marblehead went up greatly, even though we completely disagree on that topic. You on the other hand...

 

A philosopher or any truthful inquirer should be willing to try to understand the basic Ideas the other side is expressing.

 

You barley listen at all.

here you sum it up perfectly:

 

" The effect of 'self' is self-evident, the unique self of Buddha is well regarded by those that understand his wisdom.. the unique effect of the Ghandi self changed a nation and a way of thinking.. the unique effect of the Jesus self has influence over millions.. the unique effect of the Hitler 'self' nearly wiped out the Jewish people in Europe.. "

 

If you even slightly tried to understand what people mean by 'no self' you would find that in effect, No self does not really clash with what you just said. [the wording might be slightly different, but not the general meaning]

People have posted you links to better understand what 'No self' means. You seem to be under the impression that realizing No self will take something away from you that is real or important, or maybe leave you like a mindless zombie...

 

But you haven't as yet, even had the decency to try to understand the concept you argue against....

 

Seth Out!

This is the issue, Seth.. because i don't get it the way 'you' get it or Cirian gets it, i am somehow deficient.. that perspective, alone, is sufficient evidence that i don't wnat what you have.. at one point i wanted what Buddha taught to be true, and some of it is, but.. just like other great masters, their followers have so corrupted the potential as to render it meaningless..

 

I come to your understanding of 'no self' through the process of 'stilling the mind'.. no ritual, no rejection of what is plainly obvious, selfs exist.. i achieve the same clarity of 'no-self' through 'empty mind', and balance that with full on engagement with Life..

 

Please stop soothing your wounded desires that people believe what you do, by telling stories about how i haven't tried to understand.. i have tried, and there is no validity in the method or the result.. it's unfortunate that you can't accept that truth, you are becoming desperate..

 

Be well..

[Informer]

This is you again just sprouting your beliefs. You are not sincerely looking or Inquiring into the actual nature of your so called self.

If you have not realized 'no self' how can you have an opinion about whether it is real or not? To honestly enter dialogue, as you say you tried, you would have to simply follow the Instructions, and then report back what you found when seen clearly.

So far you have done nothing of the kind, even though you claim otherwise.

 

This inquiry once completed isn't something that you may uninquire. I personally fallowed thier intructions and can personally say it is crap. It makes you feel dizzy, void, and numb. It took a lot of work for me to work my way back to reality. That teaching is simply a half truth.

 

I personally like this part "When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible"

 

Fortunately I had a solid foundation and maybe even a spirit to help me back. Most of the people that become stuck n this whole are irretrievable ime.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Informer

[Andy_W]

Sometimes I think the ideas about no self/self get complicated and too far away from anything we can relate to. Just the idea that I am not my.... feelings, thoughts, body, opinions, job, house, financial status etc....and why is that, simply because those things exist in awareness. So I am not them

 

This is a starting point to explore what that awareness is and it also loosens the grip of identifying with the list of things above that are subject to change and therefore may cause suffering or enjoyment.

 

I think most people can relate to this as part of everyday experience.

 

Just what came to mind

 

best wishes

Andy

[TzuJanLi]

A helpful 'pointing out' of Anatta/Not-Self that everyone here, who claims sincerity, ought to read -

 

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/noself.html

Hi CowTao: Now, i have read the posted link.. the use of self or no-self is trivial, the observation, regardless of what it is labeled, is of unique identifiable beings relating with their environment.. self hould not be an issue, Buddha should not be an issue, only the experience is the issue..

 

Be well..

[xabir2005]

Sometimes I think the ideas about no self/self get complicated and too far away from anything we can relate to. Just the idea that I am not my.... feelings, thoughts, body, opinions, job, house, financial status etc....and why is that, simply because those things exist in awareness. So I am not them

 

This is a starting point to explore what that awareness is and it also loosens the grip of identifying with the list of things above that are subject to change and therefore may cause suffering or enjoyment.

 

I think most people can relate to this as part of everyday experience.

 

Just what came to mind

 

best wishes

Andy

Have you discovered and realized what that awareness is or are you still in the process?

[Otis]

Whether or not "self" is merely delusion, I'm pretty sure that this mythical "you" that keeps getting bandied around here, is a much more absurd delusion.