Ruthless Truth

[Otis]

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

I agree with Dennett's reasoning. In fact, my earlier take on "non-self" is very much in concert with that.

 

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

Of course it's possible. I've given good reasons why I don't think truth is knowable, and no one has given good reason why they think that it is, but it is possible that I am, as you say, attached to that belief. (In fact, of course I am, because all beliefs are attachments).

 

But let's consider what delusion means. Delusion is someone mistaking their view of reality for actual reality.

 

Now, given that, what is the best way to avoid being controlled by delusion? Stop being so certain that my view of reality is correct. With 7 billion people in the world today, none of whom share my "view of reality", it seems pretty darn unlikely that it is my interpretation of the world that is correct. So I hold myself to the same standard I am pushing Xabir with.

 

Of course, I don't automatically reward others' certainty with my credulity, because that would just mean that the person most sure of themselves is the most right, which experience suggests is opposite from the truth.

 

I only grant my credulity when someone makes sense.

 

So far from Xabir, I have only heard him quoting other people who make sense, and making assertions about his own "realizations", as if they were something deeper and brighter than my "realizations". Never has he explained why he thinks he can tell what the level of my "realizations" is. He even claimed that he had the perspective to know that God can not exist, which seems like lunacy to me.

 

Of course I don't recognize within him some vaulted perspective, some beyond-subjective view; why should I? He's given me no reason to believe that he is any less limited than I am. He's given me a bunch of circular arguments, and he's virtually ignored the central question that I've been asking for the last several pages: "how do you justify this knowledge"? The only attempts at explaining his justification comes from the "self-evident" nature of "hearing, no hearer". And that's why I am challenging his "self-evident" arguments.

 

Certainty is easy. Every troll on the internet has certainty. Dualism is all about certainty-over-reality. Certainty is not a virtue, and its adherents are among some of the worst criminals in human history.

 

Dependent origination and emptiness both point toward "I don't know". They both insist that causality and self-evidence are illusions, that what we see is merely the surface of what's happening deeper. "I don't know" is freedom, whereas "I know" is self-tyranny.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

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

I agree with what you're saying. I'm not disputing the Buddhist view.

 

From a phenomenological perspective, there is no need for the "I" to do the hearing. There is no need for "I" to be living the life. There is no part of "I" that is separate from life, so why create separation, where none exists? I agree with all that.

 

This does not mean that "no self" is literally true. And it certainly doesn't mean that knowledge is ever literally true.

[Birch]

I agree with Dennett's reasoning. In fact, my earlier take on "non-self" is very much in concert with that.

 

 

Of course it's possible. I've given good reasons why I don't think truth is knowable, and no one has given good reason why they think that it is, but it is possible that I am, as you say, attached to that belief. (In fact, of course I am, because all beliefs are attachments).

 

But let's consider what delusion means. Delusion is someone mistaking their view of reality for actual reality.

 

Now, given that, what is the best way to avoid being controlled by delusion? Stop being so certain that my view of reality is correct. With 7 billion people in the world today, none of whom share my "view of reality", it seems pretty darn unlikely that it is my interpretation of the world that is correct. So I hold myself to the same standard I am pushing Xabir with.

 

Of course, I don't automatically reward others' certainty with my credulity, because that would just mean that the person most sure of themselves is the most right, which experience suggests is opposite from the truth.

 

I only grant my credulity when someone makes sense.

 

So far from Xabir, I have only heard him quoting other people who make sense, and making assertions about his own "realizations", as if they were something deeper and brighter than my "realizations". Never has he explained why he thinks he can tell what the level of my "realizations" is. He even claimed that he had the perspective to know that God can not exist, which seems like lunacy to me.

 

Of course I don't recognize within him some vaulted perspective, some beyond-subjective view; why should I? He's given me no reason to believe that he is any less limited than I am. He's given me a bunch of circular arguments, and he's virtually ignored the central question that I've been asking for the last several pages: "how do you justify this knowledge"? The only attempts at explaining his justification comes from the "self-evident" nature of "hearing, no hearer". And that's why I am challenging his "self-evident" arguments.

 

Certainty is easy. Every troll on the internet has certainty. Dualism is all about certainty-over-reality. Certainty is not a virtue, and its adherents are among some of the worst criminals in human history.

 

Dependent origination and emptiness both point toward "I don't know". They both insist that causality and self-evidence are illusions, that what we see is merely the surface of what's happening deeper. "I don't know" is freedom, whereas "I know" is self-tyranny.

 

Oh that was VERY good Otis. I forget, but wasn't the self/no-self teaching supposed to be about ending suffering and that's all? Not about anything else? Like reality for example. Where's that article Cat had about the differences between belief in religion as reality and belief in it as in a good set of precepts? Why do so many religions attempt to describe reality? Except Taoism, perhaps Or is it just the followers that do it?

 

I'd suggest that "reality" is probably a good deal weirder than most people want to know :-) And, I forget. But wasn't the kind of Bhuddism brought to the West stripped of the shamanic stuff so as to be palatable?

 

I liked this very much too (from Sean's links) "epistemically objective, (i.e., whose truth can be discovered and evaluated by any interested party), but are not necessarily ontologically objective."

[Informer]

I agree with Dennett's reasoning. In fact, my earlier take on "non-self" is very much in concert with that.

 

 

Of course it's possible. I've given good reasons why I don't think truth is knowable, and no one has given good reason why they think that it is, but it is possible that I am, as you say, attached to that belief. (In fact, of course I am, because all beliefs are attachments).

 

But let's consider what delusion means. Delusion is someone mistaking their view of reality for actual reality.

 

Now, given that, what is the best way to avoid being controlled by delusion? Stop being so certain that my view of reality is correct. With 7 billion people in the world today, none of whom share my "view of reality", it seems pretty darn unlikely that it is my interpretation of the world that is correct. So I hold myself to the same standard I am pushing Xabir with.

 

Of course, I don't automatically reward others' certainty with my credulity, because that would just mean that the person most sure of themselves is the most right, which experience suggests is opposite from the truth.

 

I only grant my credulity when someone makes sense.

 

So far from Xabir, I have only heard him quoting other people who make sense, and making assertions about his own "realizations", as if they were something deeper and brighter than my "realizations". Never has he explained why he thinks he can tell what the level of my "realizations" is. He even claimed that he had the perspective to know that God can not exist, which seems like lunacy to me.

 

Of course I don't recognize within him some vaulted perspective, some beyond-subjective view; why should I? He's given me no reason to believe that he is any less limited than I am. He's given me a bunch of circular arguments, and he's virtually ignored the central question that I've been asking for the last several pages: "how do you justify this knowledge"? The only attempts at explaining his justification comes from the "self-evident" nature of "hearing, no hearer". And that's why I am challenging his "self-evident" arguments.

 

Certainty is easy. Every troll on the internet has certainty. Dualism is all about certainty-over-reality. Certainty is not a virtue, and its adherents are among some of the worst criminals in human history.

 

Dependent origination and emptiness both point toward "I don't know". They both insist that causality and self-evidence are illusions, that what we see is merely the surface of what's happening deeper. "I don't know" is freedom, whereas "I know" is self-tyranny.

 

I like that too Otis.

 

What came 1st, the question or the answer? ^.^

[C T]

 

Dependent origination and emptiness both point toward "I don't know". They both insist that causality and self-evidence are illusions, that what we see is merely the surface of what's happening deeper. "I don't know" is freedom, whereas "I know" is self-tyranny.

Could you be certain that DO and Emptiness both point toward 'I dont know'? Perhaps in all likelihood they may be pointing to 'There is no need to know or not know'? From where i stand, this attitude may align to freedom more than the other.

 

Things are knowable, yet i feel it almost sounds wrong to say, "i know that i am knowing something". Knowing is an evolving process, in this sense? The possibility of growth and maturity stems from such a process, and not from that which has already been known, for in this stagnation is bred, i think. The known requires there to be a self to qualify and quantify the past, to which all known things belong, whereas in the process of knowing, which necessitates being awake in the ever-ongoing present moment, i think it more requires the absence of this same self.

 

I fully agree with you - to say "I know" is to betray the potential that exists when one partakes in the process of knowing - its almost arrogant and narcissistic.

Edited May 16, 2011 by CowTao

[Informer]

I took it like ignorance is bliss.

For every question there is an answer that leads to another question and so on . .

[Informer]

CowTao,

 

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

[Otis]

Thanks, K and Informer.

[C T]

CowTao,

 

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

No self, in my limited understanding, does not equate to 'not existing'. Neither does it equate to an absence of self. However, it also does not equate to something else existing in place of self.

Edited May 16, 2011 by CowTao

[Birch]

No self, in my limited understanding, does not equate to 'not existing'. Neither does it equate to an absence of self. However, it also does not equate to something else existing in place of self.

 

I kinda sorta "get it" Mr Cow. But could you get rid of the double-negatives for me ?

[Otis]

Could you be certain that DO and Emptiness both point toward 'I dont know'? Perhaps in all likelihood they may be pointing to 'There is no need to know or not know'? From where i stand, this attitude may align to freedom more than the other.

 

Things are knowable, yet i feel it almost sounds wrong to say, "i know that i am knowing something". Knowing is an evolving process, in this sense? The possibility of growth and maturity stems from such a process, and not from that which has already been known, for in this stagnation is bred, i think. The known requires there to be a self to qualify and quantify the past, to which all known things belong, whereas in the process of knowing, which necessitates being awake in the ever-ongoing present moment, i think it more requires the absence of this same self.

 

I fully agree with you - to say "I know" is to betray the potential that exists when one partakes in the process of knowing - its almost arrogant and narcissistic.

'There is no need to know or not know' covers it pretty well, I'm sure.

 

"I don't know" is a personal thing for me, because that is my reminder, as I am tempted to believe in stories. The story arises, and some mechanism in my brain wants to buy into the story, but I remind myself that "I don't know", and that allows the story to remain just that: a story.

 

And of course, the stories that I already carry around, they need to be doubted, as well, or I will never separate the wheat from the chaff. My stories, from life thus far, are largely an accident of history and genetics.

 

When it comes to other people, in particular, I have to admit "I don't know". That's why I try to stick to commenting on the contents of people's posts, not of their character or insight.

 

However, when someone else claims: "I know, because I am enlightened", or "... because I am wiser/smarter/more advanced than you are", than I do hear delusion. Because how would they know? How would they know they're enlightened, or that they "get it" more than me (without relying on circular reference to what they already believe)? At the very least, I would hope that an enlightened person would be able to put themselves in my shoes enough, to realize how unsatisfying their claims of enlightenment are (as rationale for being "right").

 

That doesn't mean, of course, that I'm right. I prefer to think that I am not right about anything (because it gets me into less trouble). But I still have my reasoning, and my patience, and my willingness to look deeper. I will use those tools at my disposal to evaluate new input and old stories, even though I know that I am limited and uncertain. It is not a paradox, just a trade-off.

[Informer]

No self, in my limited understanding, does not equate to 'not existing'. Neither does it equate to an absence of self. However, it also does not equate to something else existing in place of self.

 

You don't think that ones soul or spirit could be the actual self?

 

As in a concentration of energy granted for an individualistic observation necessary to percieve uniquely?

 

I personally see it as a true self and false selfs. Like ego, would be a false self. The Cartesian Theatre model would be a false self. You don't get to necessarily get to "see" the true self, but you can feel it.

You can eliminate everything that is not the self and are left with the true self.

 

If you eliminate the true self, there is nothing left.

 

So if I feel that I have a spirit, and that is what is called I, and the true self am I wrong?

 

Anyone can answer or share perspective on this please

[Birch]

You don't think that ones soul or spirit could be the actual self?

 

As in a concentration of energy granted for an individualistic observation necessary to percieve uniquely?

 

I personally see it as a true self and false selfs. Like ego, would be a false self. The Cartesian Theatre model would be a false self. You don't get to necessarily get to "see" the true self, but you can feel it.

You can eliminate everything that is not the self and are left with the true self.

 

If you eliminate the true self, there is nothing left.

 

So if I feel that I have a spirit, and that is what is called I, and the true self am I wrong?

 

Anyone can answer or share perspective on this please

 

I have a perspective I call the "condensed-milk analogy". So yeah, you'd be like a concentrated point of energy (except you're a bit more complicated that just a "point") But as far as I can tell so far, everyone is allowed to have their own way of seeing themselves. Which is probably what I'd suggest looking at more than anything else. You know, the old "know thyself" thing?

[Otis]

I do think that "I don't know" is a path of freedom.

 

In improv dance, "I know" is nothing but a trap. Whether it's: this is the right way to dance, or this looks cool / bad / gay / white / whatever, these stories only inhibit my body's exploration.

 

When I forgo stories, then I witness my body dancing on its own, going off in new directions, doing things that "I" had no idea I could do.

 

Even witnessing my dance can be problematic. If I suddenly realize: "hey, I'm standing on one foot", then all of a sudden, it gets hard to do. Why? Because what I had previously been doing was not "standing on one foot". What I had been doing was surrendering, which is all mystery, all "I don't know". But now that I am "aware that I am standing on one foot", then surrendering is gone, to be replaced by this new known action, and the flow is lost.

 

So even the simple story of "I'm standing on one foot" is a lie. It replaces the truth of what was happening with a concept, and it locks me into the tyranny of that concept.

 

So when I surrender concepts (and especially certainty), then I also surrender "I". When I indulge in concepts (like when I try to reify my experience into knowledge), then I strengthen "I".

 

The "self", as I understand it, is made up of habits, which are little quanta of certainty: this is the right way to do or perceive X. Habits include all beliefs, and beliefs include all knowledge. They're all some form of habit, neural encodings of certainty.

 

To surrender "self", it isn't enough just to pretend that I now believe that "self" is not real. Instead, to surrender self, I really have to start shedding "my" habits, doubting "my" knowledge, and surrendering "my" need to be right. I have to go from "I know" to "I don't know".

[Birch]

I do think that "I don't know" is a path of freedom.

 

In improv dance, "I know" is nothing but a trap. Whether it's: this is the right way to dance, or this looks cool / bad / gay / white / whatever, these stories only inhibit my body's exploration.

 

When I forgo stories, then I witness my body dancing on its own, going off in new directions, doing things that "I" had no idea I could do.

 

Even witnessing my dance can be problematic. If I suddenly realize: "hey, I'm standing on one foot", then all of a sudden, it gets hard to do. Why? Because what I had previously been doing was not "standing on one foot". What I had been doing was surrendering, which is all mystery, all "I don't know". But now that I am "aware that I am standing on one foot", then surrendering is gone, to be replaced by this new known action, and the flow is lost.

 

So even the simple story of "I'm standing on one foot" is a lie. It replaces the truth of what was happening with a concept, and it locks me into the tyranny of that concept.

 

So when I surrender concepts (and especially certainty), then I also surrender "I". When I indulge in concepts (like when I try to reify my experience into knowledge), then I strengthen "I".

 

The "self", as I understand it, is made up of habits, which are little quanta of certainty: this is the right way to do or perceive X. Habits include all beliefs, and beliefs include all knowledge. They're all some form of habit, neural encodings of certainty.

 

To surrender "self", it isn't enough just to pretend that I now believe that "self" is not real. Instead, to surrender self, I really have to start shedding "my" habits, doubting "my" knowledge, and surrendering "my" need to be right. I have to go from "I know" to "I don't know".

 

That was awesome (IMO) - except you said the r-word (which is def just from IME )

[Otis]

That was awesome (IMO) - except you said the r-word (which is def just from IME )

LOL. I thought you might say that.

[Informer]

I can see how that is good for meditation.

 

"So when I surrender concepts (and especially certainty), then I also surrender "I". When I indulge in concepts (like when I try to reify my experience into knowledge), then I strengthen "I"."

 

Yes, this is self reflection, which is required to articulate experience imo.

 

Sometimes I find myself reflecting on experience and come up with some pretty outlandish articulation that describes yet does not define the experience with certainty.

 

The experience is known, although the words to describe it may not even exist, only in analogies.

 

Labeling is the same way. It seems like we think up labels for everything. It is ok to not know. As there seem to be many more things that are not known than are thought to be known, I think,

 

There is relief in being ok with not knowing somethings. Then the thought has nothing attached to it as it floats off into oblivion.

[Informer]

Not knowing would be better than assuming to know, definitely.

[Seth Ananda]

CowTao,

 

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

 

Because RT does.

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

[Informer]

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

 

I only wish that were true =-/ If that was the case, I wouldn't be so defiant about it. I wouldn't care at all, although I experienced thier technique 1st hand and have that experience.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Informer

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Informer]

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

 

Then it could be easily summed up as what you think of as you "doesn't exist".

 

Seth, do you know the difference between "you doesn't exist" and "you don't exist" ?

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Informer]

Otis, I want to ask: Are you agreeing with Sean that there are actually "stages" of insight?

 

Also: Are you still talking about the notion of "no-self" of Buddhism in this post or the website that Xabir posted?

 

 

Probably more like levels of perspective that must be achieved to understand the higher insights.

 

Like chapter 10 of Nei-Yeh

 

With a well-ordered mind within you,

Well-ordered words issue forth from your mouth,

And well-ordered tasks are imposed on others.

Then all under heaven will be well-ordered.

"When one word is grasped,

All under the heavens will submit.

When one word is fixed

All under heavens will listen."

It is this (word "Way") to which the saying refers.

[C T]

 

"I don't know" is a personal thing for me...

Well, if you are using it as a tool for transforming limitations, then there cannot be any argument whatsoever.

 

But as a long term attitude, it may be lacking somehow. As mentioned earlier, the process of knowing can only occur in the moment. For this moment to continue, there cannot be any stoppage for post-analysis of whether you know or you dont, because this very act requires a self for it(the analysis) to manifest. During the knowing, the self cannot observe itself in the engagement of knowing. In knowing there can only be the knowing. One has to retract from the moment (of the on-going process of knowing) in order to formulate an analysis of either "I know" or "I do not know", and this is when self becomes apparent.

 

The more focussed one is on self, the less engaged one can be in the knowing/experiencing moment. I think you alluded to something similar in your earlier post.