Ruthless Truth

[Birch]

LOL. I thought you might say that.

No man. I mean WHO thought WHO might say that ?

 

Seriously, there's a state one can reach, IMO/IME just by contemplating this stuff, where one "feels" as if one is the whole shebang. I personally feel this to be kind of offensive and misleading but whatevs.

[C T]

Hey CowTao, correct me if I'm wrong:

 

I alluded to this in a post in the "consciousness" thread a while back, but I'll bring it up here.

 

According to Lin chi's four positions of guest and host: Not only was awareness itself the "guest," but the "knowing" aspect is also the "guest." So basically not only the things which can be "known" are "guests," but the ability to "know," the knowing qualities, and what "knows" these things is all of one "substance" and are still the "guest." These still just being functions of the dharmakaya.

 

What do you think?

 

P.S. I know that in the thread with the whole shenanigans between me and Twinner; I said that you "know" this when you come to realize things...I guess that makes me arrogant an narcissistic, huh!

I do not feel you are arrogant or narcissistic, not in the least.

 

For liberation to happen, in the instance of it happening spontaneously, every thing that arise in the mind has to be regarded as 'one taste' or, in this case, your choice to employ the term 'one substance' (i hope we are referring to the same one thing here )

 

Thru the process of knowing, insights arise, but they cannot remain. Hence these insights get liberated into the Dharmakaya. Whatever insights are needed and need to be used at a particular stage of the path can be used accordingly, but are not to be clung to as if they are absolutes. All absolutes denote a kind of stuckness, which is the exact opposite of emancipation.

Edited May 17, 2011 by CowTao

[Birch]

"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]."

 

See, the first part of that is just nasty. IMO. I'd call that first part, i.e. ""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"

 

= the part that I reckon so many people balk at that they go back to eating porridge and paying bills - probably...Which is why IMO Bhuddism does so well as a state religion in many parts of the world. Did I mention the stripping of shamanism?

 

Still, IMO the redeeeming part of it "except that one belief in being a particular entity/self]." is the one that IMO/IME is the point of realisation of false self. Doesn't mean that "true self" is necessarily realized at the same time IMO (and so far IME). But at least the "false self" is seen for its construct which then leave you with...?

[Aaron]

Hello folks,

 

I'm a firm believer that the reason people come to the conclusion that there is no-self, is because it's infinitely more satisfactory to them than claiming, "this is all there is." When you are left with the fact that there is no cessation of suffering, no heaven, no nirvana, no way to escape the inevitable, that is a very scary proposition and it warrants an attempt to find a better answer. I think all religions, including Buddhism, are based on this fact, after all what is Buddhism, but preparation for the next life, or an escape from the suffering of life. Remember that in the times of Buddha people very much believed in Hell and a myriad other punishments for wrong doing in this life, reincarnation wasn't the sole possibility, so they had every bit as much inspiration to answer this question as the Christians did for Judaism. In the end Buddhism was an offshoot of Hinduism, an offshoot that attempted to provide a better answer than the answer before them.

 

We can take all of this religious ideology as fact, or we can examine it for what it is, an idea of how the world was created and works. We don't necessarily need to believe everything involved in religions, I know I don't believe there are just 10,000 things, but in the same way, when we are certain that our truth is the only truth and that any deviation is wrong, then you are just biding your time for a religious war.

 

I am certain that I exist, just as the molecules that make me up exist. Trying to answer how we came to exist seems very hard, in fact it's in our nature to believe that everything came from nothing, but then again, maybe there has always been something and the greatest illusion is this notion of nothing being the chicken, or is that the egg?

 

Aaron

Edited May 17, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

About the Ruthless Truth website and forum. I would say that if you ask any expert on cults if the Ruthless Truth group meets that criteria, they would probably have no problem identifying it as such. I read through one thread, heard Kevin order everyone to stop talking to someone because they refused to agree, and that was enough for me to say, "woah Doggie. We gots us a live one here."

 

Anyways, I would recommend anyone that goes over there, does so with care and caution. When people give you ultimatums regarding spirituality or philosophy, then it's time to worry, especially when they threaten you with ostracization if you disagree. The one thing I'm certain of, is that I've never heard of a well respected monastery or teacher working along these premises. To me it sounds like Buddhist terrorism. The other freaky thing, why do they all tend to use the same freaking avatar? What the hell is up with the nuclear explosion?

 

I think the scariest response was in regard to someone starting "The Meaning of Life" thread and one of the sysops started tearing into them asking, "what the f--- is this," regarding the people's comments in that thread. The fact they separate people into classes like "Liberated", "Free", and "Un-free", is very Orwellian.

 

Anyways, I can gaurantee that's one forum I'll never venture into again. If someone really has an interest in Buddhism and wants to learn from authorities, go to Zen Forum International.

 

I really wish I hadn't visited Ruthless Truth now. It was really disturbing.

 

You do realize they are trying exceptionally hard to appear cool, yet authoritarian and crass so that they can pull in those young people that have experienced trauma and dysfunction in their childhoods into the fold. It really doesn't take a genius to look at the layout, schemes, and themes used on the site to figure that out.

 

Aaron

Edited May 17, 2011 by Twinner

[zerostao]

thanks for sharing aaron and i will take your advice . i have tried to stay away from this thread and the DO thread etc. but i do take a peak in now and then.

btw there are 11,520 things

[Aaron]

P.S. I know that in the thread with the whole shenanigans between me and Twinner; I said that you "know" this when you come to realize things...I guess that makes me arrogant an narcissistic, huh!

 

 

Hello Simple,

 

Don't listen to Cowtao, it does, but we love you anyway.

 

Aaron

Edited May 17, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

thanks for sharing aaron and i will take your advice . i have tried to stay away from this thread and the DO thread etc. but i do take a peak in now and then.

btw there are 11,520 things

 

Well that makes much more sense too me.

 

Aaron

[xabir2005]

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".

Seeing, self evident, Hearing, self-evident. Body, self-evident (as an experience, not as a solid object). Mind, self-evident. Consciousuness, knowing, self-evident. Volition, self-evident. Perception, self-evident.

 

Self? Only a fictional self, a thought. That thought is self-evident. There is in thinking just the thought. In dreaming up santa claus, there is just the thought. No actual santa claus.

 

In thinking just thought, just the thought 'self', no actual thinker. In thought just thought.

The question remains: how do you justify making claims of certainty in the actual?

Seeing, hearing, self-evident. No claims needed.

You have responded with some "self-evident truths", but you have not satisfactorily explained why these "truths" are self-evident.

Once it is realized in seeing just the seen, you will see why no-self is self-evident without even saying or thinking 'no self'... I do not need to think 'no self', because it is seen that in seeing there is just the seen, in hearing just the heard. In other words, music hears, scenery sees (poetically speaking, experientially). There is just that. There is no delusion about self. There is no need to think about "no self" either.

 

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.

I was pointing out how all the components which, collated with a label 'self', is undeniably interacting together to manifest a function.

 

The function is manifestly evident... the components are manifestly evident... the self, is a mere collating label. If you think there is an inherent self, that is a delusion.

Edited May 17, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

When you wake up.

 

You clearly see the dream you had last night of santa claus or unicorn as simply a thought, a dream.

 

Waking experience is undeniably manifest.

 

But you simply no longer are under the delusion of there being a real unicorn in your life.

 

Or a real self.

 

Only life flows, not a live-r.

[Aaron]

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

 

 

Hello Seth,

 

I hope you don't mind, but I've been following this discussion and I wanted to throw some things out there. First, I agree with you to a point, it is only by understanding that we are not "I" that we can truly become a part of the flow of life and stop getting in the way of it, but I think that one doesn't necessarily need to come to the realization that there is no-self to achieve this.

 

Second, I think many people have a misunderstanding about the nature of thought, that somehow, because it is not physical, and we cannot touch it or smell it or see it, that it is intangible and not real. The fact is thoughts are very tangible and very real, they are in fact the product of electrical currents in the brain. This electrical current is manifested within our body and it is very much a part of the body, hence the reason I say that the mind and body are not separate, but rather a single thing.

 

If we understand that thoughts are our bodies way of interacting with the world, then it also seems to make sense that we need to find a way to interact with the world that allows us to communicate needs to others, after all we are a social creature. The fact that all societies develop language seems to be a strong argument for the notion that language and the use of language to identify things, such as us and others, is something that is natural and normal. In fact animals do the very same thing, a mother can often identify her baby by its cry, not just it's smell and appearance. This is necessary for the mother to understand who they are supposed to care for.

 

If we want to take it one step further, if thoughts are actually physical and can be quantified as impulses, which they can and are, then the notion that somehow because we choose to use this physical manifestation as a method of understanding that self is somehow intangible, and merely a product of thought, seems incorrect, in the sense that it is very much us, our bodies (i.e. the brain) that make these assumptions.

 

If one was to understand that they are no-self, or rather that the concept of self is an illusion, then one must also view the construct which causes this no-self to become understood as an illusion as well, but the fact is without that construct, the brain, there would be no way of understanding no-self. If the cessation of thought is actually the realization of no-self, then what we are saying is that only with the absence of brain function can we truly achieve a realization of no-self, but this cannot actually be achieved, because the only way for someone to achieve an absence of thought is to actually be brain dead, and when someone is brain dead, there brain doesn't function, and hence there is no identification of self.

 

I think a clearer explanation is, that only with the quieting of the mind can we begin to understand where we begin and where we end. That we are very much how we imagine ourselves to be, but also that our imagination is not the entirety of our being, and that when we cease to think of what we are, and instead just live, experience life as it's meant to be, then we can begin to understand that many of the constructs we develop are not only not needed, but extraneous. In essence it is the notion that one is not simply "I", but rather "It", the entirety of the universe, that allows them to become aware of the flow of life, the nature by which all things interact and are related.

 

Now if one wants to deconstruct the body and say it is just the sum of its parts, then one must also understand that without the sum of its parts, it cannot work. All the parts are necessary. If one takes any of the parts away, then what one is left with, is not a body per se, but a corpse. In that sense then, the corpse would be no-self, but the body would be self. Merely being able to assert the idea of no-self, requires a self, so without one, there cannot be the other, hence no-self, or this illusion of self cannot exist without the illusion being there in the first place.

 

Anyways, just some thoughts. I understand what you're saying, I just wanted to throw that out there.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I know I threw some things in there that had nothing to do with what you were saying, but they were meant as a means to discuss some other prominent notions of no-self.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

When you wake up.

 

You clearly see the dream you had last night of santa claus or unicorn as simply a thought, a dream.

 

Waking experience is undeniably manifest.

 

But you simply no longer are under the delusion of there being a real unicorn in your life.

 

Or a real self.

 

Only life flows, not a live-r.

 

Hello Xabir,

 

Read my response to Seth, I think I cover my opinion in regards to this there.

 

Aaron

[Otis]

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

Excellent!

[Otis]

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

I am not agreeing that there is an objective yardstick of insight, if that is what you are asking.

 

I was agreeing primarily with the idea that the separation of self from object is an illusion. Not because that is what is so in the actual world, which is unknowable. But because that is what is so in the the conceptual reconstructed world of an individual's subjective reality.

 

Everything we experience is part of ourselves, because all we experience is the simulacra, which is merely a representation of the actual world. Thus every object-that-we-can-know is actually a product of mind. That's what I was agreeing with.

 

I was also agreeing that this is a subtle point.

 

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

Not much. Primarily I've been talking about epistemological humility, like I did to you on the other thread.

 

Xabir chose to rebut my statement that God could not be disproven, with "Once you realize the nature of reality, you'll have direct insight into how a God is impossible."

 

Well, I don't think that anyone here would accept someone else's argument that: "well, I know better, so therefore I'm right", and so I pointed that out. He has since then, steadfastly declined to justify his "rightness" in either the case against God or self.

 

Since then, I've been inspired by the links in the OP to try confrontation, and see if there's anyway to break through, by continuing to hammer the same questions. I've been trying to get him to admit his own epistemological limitations, like I did to you, and like I have done to Twinner. Because you have all relied upon your own vaulted authority to "prove your point".

 

It's just flat out a bad argument, and a sign of delusion ("I know because I know"). And no one would accept that argument from anyone else. Any fool can be certain without a reason; it is no sign of wisdom. So why accept that argument from yourself? is what I've been asking Xabir.

 

Non-self and the existence of God just got dragged into the conversation, because they were the examples that Xabir gave of self-substantiated knowledge.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

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.

I don't think that to "not know", I have to say "I don't know". I don't have to do anything.

 

All I have to do is stop. Stop knowing. No action need be taken; nothing needs to be changed. An action is just stopped.

 

Knowing isn't even really a thing. There is no separate place in our brain for "knowing". Knowledge is just a subset of opinion, with extra certainty added on to it.

 

Certainty is not a thought, but an emotional attachment to a thought. The more certain I am of an opinion, the more I feel the need to defend it, the more I feel like "I" am being attacked, when the idea is attacked.

 

So "knowledge" is just the word we have for "belief" that has strong emotional importance for us.

 

So why should we value strong emotional importance for a belief? Why not just believe, without being defensive about it? Why not surrender the delusional realm of "knowledge" and just admit that our beliefs can never be more than the best model thus far available. It is not "truth", nor can we ever say what "truth" actually is. It's just "what has worked thus far".

 

That, in a nutshell is what habit is: what has worked thus far. And all belief falls within habit, and all knowledge is just a delusional subset of belief.

[Otis]

No man. I mean WHO thought WHO might say that ?

 

Seriously, there's a state one can reach, IMO/IME just by contemplating this stuff, where one "feels" as if one is the whole shebang. I personally feel this to be kind of offensive and misleading but whatevs.

LOL to WHO and WHO!

 

I think that self-description is wholly delusional and mostly worthless Heroic self-description, in particular, is screaming for self-doubt.

[Otis]

About the Ruthless Truth website and forum. I would say that if you ask any expert on cults if the Ruthless Truth group meets that criteria, they would probably have no problem identifying it as such.

Thank you, Aaron, for bringing that up.

 

They badger you into accepting one very specific idea, and then once you capitulate, they reward you with the idea that you are now "enlightened". You have now moved into the special group, and should join us now to convert others to this esoteric truth. In other words, the rewards are not for making sense, or thinking it through carefully, but for giving in and believing what they say you should. If you push back, the way that they push you, they kick you out.

 

The founder of the site describes himself (indirectly, by quoting someone else): as half-God / half-genius. Says he believes in "no self" but sure acts full of self. Which one is more convincing, the words or the actions?

[Mandrake]

The fact is thoughts are very tangible and very real, they are in fact the product of electrical currents in the brain. This electrical current is manifested within our body and it is very much a part of the body, hence the reason I say that the mind and body are not separate, but rather a single thing.

 

This is not a fact. It has not been proven and is an assumption with large leaps of faith. Hard science deals with causality and not correlation.

 

 

Mandrake

[Otis]

Once it is realized in seeing just the seen, you will see ...

You're still doing it! You're still making arguments that rely upon the superior view of your vaulted perspective. Once you get to where I am now, you'll know. I call B.S. X 1000!

 

You keep just saying the same thing over and over again, but you never justify your "knowledge" and you never honestly deal with the exceptions I have pointed out in "self-evident" arguments. You dismiss away, you distract away, you quote authority, and you make a bunch of zen-sounding talk which all boils down to "I don't have to explain this, because I get this and you don't."

 

This is all very lame behavior, Xabir.

 

I was inspired by your OP's links to try a confrontational approach to disagreement, and since you were the OP, and had just declared your "awakening" in Twinner's thread, you seemed like a perfect person to practice on. If you had passed through the gauntlet of RT, I figured, then my nice little hounding would seem like nothing.

 

And if you were indeed enlightened, then my poking at you would mean nothing to you, and provide a nice learning experience for me. If you were not enlightened, then I was only doing you a favor, by helping to ground you, and by reflecting the delusion in your arguments, back at you.

 

I guess only time will tell whether there was anything gained by confronting. It's too time-consuming to do as a regular practice, and I sure didn't seem to make a dent in your certainty. But at least I got to make some arguments out in public, and maybe they will resonate with somebody else.

 

In the meantime, enjoy your "vaulted perspective". You know I'll never see value in the argument that you're right because you say so, but you don't have to convince me of anything, either. Best of luck.

[Seth Ananda]

Hello Seth,

 

I hope you don't mind, but I've been following this discussion and I wanted to throw some things out there. First, I agree with you to a point, it is only by understanding that we are not "I" that we can truly become a part of the flow of life and stop getting in the way of it, but I think that one doesn't necessarily need to come to the realization that there is no-self to achieve this.

 

Second, I think many people have a misunderstanding about the nature of thought, that somehow, because it is not physical, and we cannot touch it or smell it or see it, that it is intangible and not real. The fact is thoughts are very tangible and very real, they are in fact the product of electrical currents in the brain. This electrical current is manifested within our body and it is very much a part of the body, hence the reason I say that the mind and body are not separate, but rather a single thing.

 

If we understand that thoughts are our bodies way of interacting with the world, then it also seems to make sense that we need to find a way to interact with the world that allows us to communicate needs to others, after all we are a social creature. The fact that all societies develop language seems to be a strong argument for the notion that language and the use of language to identify things, such as us and others, is something that is natural and normal. In fact animals do the very same thing, a mother can often identify her baby by its cry, not just it's smell and appearance. This is necessary for the mother to understand who they are supposed to care for.

 

If we want to take it one step further, if thoughts are actually physical and can be quantified as impulses, which they can and are, then the notion that somehow because we choose to use this physical manifestation as a method of understanding that self is somehow intangible, and merely a product of thought, seems incorrect, in the sense that it is very much us, our bodies (i.e. the brain) that make these assumptions.

 

If one was to understand that they are no-self, or rather that the concept of self is an illusion, then one must also view the construct which causes this no-self to become understood as an illusion as well, but the fact is without that construct, the brain, there would be no way of understanding no-self. If the cessation of thought is actually the realization of no-self, then what we are saying is that only with the absence of brain function can we truly achieve a realization of no-self, but this cannot actually be achieved, because the only way for someone to achieve an absence of thought is to actually be brain dead, and when someone is brain dead, there brain doesn't function, and hence there is no identification of self.

 

I think a clearer explanation is, that only with the quieting of the mind can we begin to understand where we begin and where we end. That we are very much how we imagine ourselves to be, but also that our imagination is not the entirety of our being, and that when we cease to think of what we are, and instead just live, experience life as it's meant to be, then we can begin to understand that many of the constructs we develop are not only not needed, but extraneous. In essence it is the notion that one is not simply "I", but rather "It", the entirety of the universe, that allows them to become aware of the flow of life, the nature by which all things interact and are related.

 

Now if one wants to deconstruct the body and say it is just the sum of its parts, then one must also understand that without the sum of its parts, it cannot work. All the parts are necessary. If one takes any of the parts away, then what one is left with, is not a body per se, but a corpse. In that sense then, the corpse would be no-self, but the body would be self. Merely being able to assert the idea of no-self, requires a self, so without one, there cannot be the other, hence no-self, or this illusion of self cannot exist without the illusion being there in the first place.

 

Anyways, just some thoughts. I understand what you're saying, I just wanted to throw that out there.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I know I threw some things in there that had nothing to do with what you were saying, but they were meant as a means to discuss some other prominent notions of no-self.

I wish I knew how to break up the quote into fragments to better answer and organize my thoughts. I am a techno NoOb!

 

Some Immediate thoughts are:

 

1. how is understanding that you are not I different to realizing No self? I am not sure how you mean that.

 

2. Of course thought is real, who said it wasn't? I only challenge some of its conclusions as Illusory...

 

3. Stilling the Mind has nothing to do with realizing No self [as I understand it]. Other traditions may call a still mind empty of self, but that does not mean one has realized no self. I did certain practices many years ago that completely ended my internal dialogue for several months. Not a single thought I did not deliberately think. But that, peaceful as it was, was not No self -the way I mean it.

 

4. If you want to deconstruct the body, sure, but you cant take the self away from the sum of the parts to begin with, because the self does not exist in the first place. Realizing No self does not remove the self. It is just clearly seeing the matrix of Interdependent parts, and realizing there never even was a self in there.

 

5 and no, you do not need an Idea of self, to assert the Idea of No self. Buddha would be my example.

 

6. I think it is very Important to weigh the experience as claimed by the people who claim to have realized it.

I think it is equally Important to not just believe them either.

I think arguing against something someone says they experience can not go very far.

For Instance, if someone says they Literally have no sense of being 'someone' and that the matrix for suffering has literally come undone in the face of that realization, then I am Interested and want to know more. If I just say "no, you still have a Self, because Its impossible to not have a self", then that is just belief and projection. Where is the inquiry into someones 'alleged' actual experience?

 

If what 'No selfers' are claiming, is their actual experience, then I want to explore their methodology and experience it myself.

I am the alchemical lab for understanding.

Once I get it, I may see flaws or things they have missed.

But until I really understand their perspective, by being it, anything I say to them is really just Theory.

 

Its quite funny to see all the survival mechanisms and ego defenses kick in, during No self discussions. People come to all kinds of whacky conclusions about what it means, get very uncomfortable and defensive, then argue with sometimes spectacular levels of denial and ignorance against the Idea.

 

How can you know if it is a real perspective if you haven't experienced it? Several people here have claimed here to 'Know' it, to be all over it philosophically speaking, Argue against it. Yet each one of them, just by the assumptions they make about what it means, in their writing, demonstrate that they do not have the foggiest Idea of what they are actually talking about.

But still they prattle on... Their false sense of self desperately needs the reaffirming sound of their voices to set it at ease again.

 

Blessings!

[C T]

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

Im glad you kinda sorta get it, Miss Kate. Sometimes the end justifies the means... and sometimes they dont!! Darn.

[Marblehead]

But still they prattle on... Their false sense of self desperately needs the reaffirming sound of their voices to set it at ease again.

 

Blessings!

 

Hi Seth,

 

Well, 'my' 'self' is sitting here at the computer so the thought of 'no self' is not a universal truth. Therefore it is only a personal belief. And we all know how differing personal beliefs can be.

 

(No, I cannot put my finger on 'my' 'self' because it is a collection of the totality of what I am at this very moment in time and my next moment in time will make 'my' 'self' something different than what I am at this moment in time.)

 

And I will suggest this: if anyone has an opinion or belief that is different from anyone else's then they too have a 'self' and from all the posts I have read in this thread this would include everyone - no one excluded, not even those who argue that they have no 'self'.

[xabir2005]

CowTao,

 

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

 

Because RT does.

breathing, acting, body functions, mind

 

Not denied.

 

What non existence?

 

Only the self you think you are is a fiction

 

It "exist" only as a thought, like santa claus

[xabir2005]

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".

as an analogy, if you are experiencing a nightmare of seeing monsters coming after you. Thinking I don't know if the monster is real or not, won't free you from suffering. It is not a path from freedom and won't free you from clinging and fear.

 

Waking up from that dream, seeing it is just a dream, a thought, seeing there never is a monster... That is liberation.

 

Waking up frees you from clinging, thus freeing one from suffering

Edited May 17, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Hi Seth,

 

Well, 'my' 'self' is sitting here at the computer so the thought of 'no self' is not a universal truth. Therefore it is only a personal belief. And we all know how differing personal beliefs can be.

 

(No, I cannot put my finger on 'my' 'self' because it is a collection of the totality of what I am at this very moment in time and my next moment in time will make 'my' 'self' something different than what I am at this moment in time.)

 

And I will suggest this: if anyone has an opinion or belief that is different from anyone else's then they too have a 'self' and from all the posts I have read in this thread this would include everyone - no one excluded, not even those who argue that they have no 'self'.

the actual matter is that a body is sitting there.

 

The thought "I am sitting" is an inferred afterthought pasted on reality. The thought "I" does not reference an actual entity