Ruthless Truth

[Informer]

Motion to delete thread so that others may not fall victim to this false dichotomy and potentially irreversable pychological damage!

[xabir2005]

I is the spirit within me.

 

You have not proved you don't exist, all you have proved is that you can't find you . . duh.

 

That does not mean that you do not exist . . . . . .

 

There are more options!

Are you self-realized?

[Informer]

Excuse me?

[xabir2005]

Excuse me?

Means have you directly realized and experienced what the Spirit (like Ramana Maharshi, Eckhart Tolle) you're talking about is, or are you speaking from belief.

[Informer]

I can feel the spirit, which is the only way I know to know it.

[xabir2005]

I (subject) look for I (object)?

The act of looking for an actual I is a thought looking for I.

 

There is no actual I looking for I.

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

I can feel the spirit, which is the only way I know to know it.

I see. That is still more like experience than self-realization. If you are so inclined to it, perhaps you might be interested to try self-inquiry.

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Night.

[Informer]

I see. If you are so inclined to it, perhaps you might be interested to try self-inquiry.

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

I already know of nothing and know that it is not everything. I feel nothing as well as I can feel everything.

 

Yin and yang, not yin or yang,

[Otis]

"an organism with the capacity for hearing"

 

is simply

 

Five Aggregates

 

Form (body)

Feeling (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral sensations)

Perception (thoughts, conception)

Volition

Consciousness (five senses consciousness + mental consciousness)

 

 

No hearer therein.

What!?

 

So if I say that a car is merely (list of car parts), I can claim that there is no car?

 

No matter how you slice and dice the hearer, it does not make that person "not there".

 

You have just defined away the hearer, not made a point.

[Otis]

"Weather" is simply a label collating a conglomerate of phenomena, clouds, rain, wind, lightning, snow, etc etc

 

Changing moment by moment.

 

Same goes to "self".

 

"Self" is a label collating the five aggregates.

Yes, and body is a collection of parts, and a sentence is a collection of words, etc. But that does not define away "weather, self, body, or sentence".

[xabir2005]

What!?

 

So if I say that a car is merely (list of car parts), I can claim that there is no car?

Car is merely a label collating the parts but has no locatable self-existence. It is a mere convenient label.

 

Like 'weather' is merely a label for rain, snow, wind, etc. Weather is really not a thing.

 

There is really just the engine, window, door, etc.

 

There is really just body parts, consciousness, volition, thoughts, etc.

 

Together, with all conditions coming together, a function manifest.

 

Be it the function of driving...

 

Or the function of cognizance/knowing...

 

It is mere function, mere experience.

 

The engine alone cannot drive. The window alone cannot drive. The wheels alone cannot drive.

 

There is no "core of car"! No part is less important than others (of course you can judge its importance relatively, but the fact is that the function only manifest when various conditions come together)

 

Together, the function the driving occurs. Wheels do not control driving, any more than engine controls driving.

 

Together, the function of knowing occurs. Eye does not control seeing, any more than the scenery controls seeing.

 

There is no "core of me"! No part is less important than others (of course you can judge its importance relatively, but the fact is that the function only manifest when various conditions come together)

No matter how you slice and dice the hearer, it does not make that person "not there".

 

You have just defined away the hearer, not made a point.

Body is there. Thoughts are there. Consciousness, there.

 

Knower, not there... except as a thought conjuring it, like a thought conjuring a unicorn.

 

Thought, undeniable. Body, undeniable. Knowing, undeniable. You? Only a thought conjuring a fiction. Only thoughts of labels. Labelling.

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[sean]

it's been many years, but if i recall correctly the book "consciousness explained" by dennett does a decent job of pointing to an aspect of "in the seeing just the seen" (etc) from a scientific perspective.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater

 

xabir, nice to see you posting here. i appreciate your patience.

 

*deep bow*

 

sean

 

ps - otis, is it possible you are attached to a belief/conviction that absolute truth cannot be directly realized.

[Otis]

I already explained it. You didn't catch it.

 

In seeing, JUST the seen. Means, no such thing as seer seeing seen. JUST the seen. JUST that.

 

The seeing IS the seen. Seeing is not seer. Seeing has nothing to do with a seer. Not a seer seeing seen.

LOL! So are you saying that there can be seen without a seer? Hearing without someone to do the hearing? How does that happen?

[Otis]

Car is merely a label collating the parts but has no locatable self-existence. It is a mere convenient label.

Of course, all language is a convenient label.

 

That does not mean that car does not exist! Nor self, for that matter.

[Informer]

Nice link Sean! Unfortunately that is nothing to do with RT teachings.

 

Nothingness can be experienced eternally after you die, why would you bother with it now? If you feel you are preparing yourself for death, that's fine, talking to spirits maybe?

 

If I had to choose one for myself, either existence or non-existence, I would most definitely choose existence.

 

Although that is not the case.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Informer

[Informer]

The cartesian theatre is a bad analogy for RT teachings.

 

The cartesian theatre explains that you doesn't exist. (what you may thought of as you)It is quite funny when you realize that.

 

It is not saying that you don't exist. If you can see the difference.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Informer

[Otis]

There is no "core of me"! No part is less important than others (of course you can judge its importance relatively, but the fact is that the function only manifest when various conditions come together)

Body is there. Thoughts are there. Consciousness, there.

 

Knower, not there... except as a thought conjuring it, like a thought conjuring a unicorn.

 

Thought, undeniable. Body, undeniable. Knowing, undeniable. You? Only a thought conjuring a fiction. Only thoughts of labels. Labelling.

I have never said there was a "core of me". I have spent a good deal of time on these boards, arguing against a "core of me", including in my take on "no self", earlier in this thread. But just because no part of me is the core of me, does not mean that I don't exist.

 

I have been, from the beginning of this conversation, arguing against the "self-evident" quality of your knowledge, not against any "core of self".

 

The question remains: how do you justify making claims of certainty in the actual? You have responded with some "self-evident truths", but you have not satisfactorily explained why these "truths" are self-evident. When I point out the flaw in your evidence, you changed the argument to being about the identifiable "core of me", which was never in dispute.

 

Dodging and ducking only makes you seem like you are trying to hide, not that you are making sense.

[Informer]

I have never said there was a "core of me". I have spent a good deal of time on these boards, arguing against a "core of me", including in my take on "no self", earlier in this thread. But just because no part of me is the core of me, does not mean that I don't exist.

 

I have been, from the beginning of this conversation, arguing against the "self-evident" quality of your knowledge, not against any "core of self".

 

The question remains: how do you justify making claims of certainty in the actual? You have responded with some "self-evident truths", but you have not satisfactorily explained why these "truths" are self-evident. When I point out the flaw in your evidence, you changed the argument to being about the identifiable "core of me", which was never in dispute.

 

Dodging and ducking only makes you seem like you are trying to hide, not that you are making sense.

 

And that appears to be his specialty, as his deceptive nature. He cherry picks what he wants to answer, which is a fallacy as well.

[C T]

 

Nothingness can be experienced eternally after you die, why would you bother with it now?

No-self does not equate to nothingness. How do you know what is experienced after death? Have you died before? Its hard enough to know what is being experienced while alive.

 

Unless you are inferring this for convention's sake. In which case, you would understand that self and no-self are also convened for the purpose of understanding the nature of the path that leads to the cessation of unsatisfactoriness and suffering.

[Informer]

No-self does not equate to nothingness. How do you know what is experienced after death? Have you died before? Its hard enough to know what is being experienced while alive.

 

Unless you are inferring this for convention's sake. In which case, you would understand that self and no-self are also convened for the purpose of understanding the nature of the path that leads to the cessation of unsatisfactoriness and suffering.

 

No I have not died,(afaik) but I have experienced nothingness. It felt like I was dead. Lost and without direction. Surrounded around and engulfing every part of my being. There is nothing else I have found suitable to describe it.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Informer

[C T]

No I have not died, but I have experienced nothingness. It felt like I was dead. Lost and without direction. Surrounded around and engulfing every part of my being. There is nothing else I have found suitable to describe it.

What is this experience of no thing ness? Is it akin to no self ness?

 

One has to feel life to feel what death is. Only in this there is a knowing of each. What does life feel like?

 

How does one speak of something that is indescribable?

[sean]

i think one of the issues here is that there are stages to this insight and xabir, correct me if i'm wrong, you are pointing to a rather subtle stage.

 

an intermediary stage of insight might be the direct realization that, in a sense, the car does not exist (at least in "your" experience, if a "you" still seems necessary) before it is met with ("your") awareness.

 

eventually a realization may occur where the components that comprise a sense of "you" are also seen as objects of awareness, arising and passing along with what is seen, heard, felt.

 

now the sense becomes one where there is only awareness, swirling spontaneously through seeing, hearing, feeling, sense of a self, remembering, etc. all as a result of causes and conditions outside of the sense of self's control.

 

as this settles, the realization may begin to dawn that awareness itself is not separate.

 

awareness is not actually a separate "field" that objects arise within and are perceived by.

 

objects themselves, in a sense, are awareness.

 

the seeing of the car is one "event", objects themselves are self-luminous.

 

this is "in the seeing only the seen".

 

it's very natural.

 

humbly,

sean

[Informer]

What is this experience of no thing ness? Is it akin to no self ness?

 

One has to feel life to feel what death is. Only in this there is a knowing of each. What does life feel like?

 

How does one speak of something that is indescribable?

 

It depends on your definition of no self ness.

 

Yin and yang, yin would be equivallent to death as yang would be to life. I feel yang, I feel yin, I have allowed yin to engulf me once, as I shared with you.

[Informer]

CowTao,

 

Do you equate no self ness to "not existing" ?

 

Because RT does.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Informer