'No self' my experience so far...

[Informer]

Anyways, that is sort of the point. you could call me anything in the book and it wouldn't hurt my feelings. I would simply try to understand your perspective.

 

Which is why calling names generally says more about the person saying them then the person they are directed at, as name calling is not from the heart, but the ego wanting to be bigger, better, greater.

 

The words are directed at me, but the ego is what chooses to get offended. If that is the perspective of ego as self, you will be offended, because the ego gets a say, without you even realizing it.

[Seth Ananda]

Yea, why wouldn't Seth Ananda visit the forums anymore?

I have been planning to get back at some time, but you also know about the misgivings I had and that were then confirmed by informer's time there.

 

If one person Has been bullied into accepting something prematurely then It can happen to others. I am not cool with that.

[Seth Ananda]

I have, as have other's. The conclusion is that it is fallacy

No you have not.

You think you know so much, but all you do is Vomit up half digested knowledge.

 

You did not see it at RT, {their fault not yours} and now your endless posts are riddled with assumptions about the experience.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Seth Ananda

[Informer]

No you have not.

You think you know so much, but all you do is Vomit up half digested knowledge.

 

You did not see it at RT, {their fault not yours} and now your endless posts are riddled with assumptions about the experience.

 

Quite an accusation without any evidence.

 

[Seth Ananda]

Quite an accusation without any evidence.

 

Lol, I woke up on the wrong side of bed this morning. Did you your self not say back many pages that you did not get it, then argue against it, then change your mind back and forth several times, and fill many pages with diatribe and rhetoric?

 

All that on top of constantly putting words in other peoples mouth and misunderstanding people's points about what 'No self' means caused me to 'assume' that you don't get it. My Bad!

[Mahberry]

No you have not.

You think you know so much, but all you do is Vomit up half digested knowledge.

 

You did not see it at RT, {their fault not yours} and now your endless posts are riddled with assumptions about the experience.

I think that is fairly obvious from his previous posts even before gems like:

 

Because self isn't a single aspect as the ego would have it. Self as ego is fire made manifested personality, self as I see True-self is all aspects and eventually non as well.

 

But not only either or, unless you choose it to be. If you do . . .

 

Then an absolute perspective reigns in fallacy, true, yet not completely or only true.

 

But it is just not right to dismiss his personal crusade against RT without actually clarifying. Now anyone reading this and the previous page can make an informed opinion regarding his false RT suggested no self realization.

 

No way someone who's seen it would say this:

 

Really that is the insight, and no it is not enlightenment. It simply shows that the self is not the thought, or the reflection. Like the residual self-image, it is a construct.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

I do not think you understand "Buddhist beliefs." Other wise, you would see that it is not in opposition to what Taoism teaches. Especially in the Tao Te Ching and The Classic of Chuang-Tzu.

 

I think you should refer back to my post, where I posted the link to the wiki article on Anatta (Not-Self.)

Hi SJ: I am very familiar with Anatta, and with Tao.. and i reject both as distractions from 'isness' (that which is), i simply find Tao to be slightly less distracting.. and, neither will take you all the way 'there'..

 

Be well..

Edited July 25, 2011 by TzuJanLi

[Informer]

Well that's funny, nice attempted word play. Mahberry = Seth?

 

You had asked :

 

Did you have a post somewhere describing what it was like when you first will yourself into believing the no self fallacy?

 

I might just drop the entire thing if it matches mine.

 

Then try to rebuttal the realized fallacy because it didn't coincide with your "false realization" .

 

Good try.

[Informer]

You are a very dishonest person mahberry, and just like those at RT, deceptive.

 

Saying things like "You did not see it at RT"

 

You are just proving that you are completely subject to the brainwashing, your not trying to understand only to be-little my character in hopes people will join into the cult. The whole escapade of lending you my perspective was simply blowing whistles, because you didn't care about that. You were only looking for ammunition for the conclusion you had already preconceived.

[Informer]

When you are ready to stop assuming and start seeking reality, I will be here to help you from the hole.

 

P.S. I never attempted to describe your realization, only the realization that it was fallacy.

 

What really helped me was contemplating don't exist and doesn't exist.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Informer

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Sunya]

Greetings..

 

 

Hi SJ: I am very familiar with Anatta, and with Tao.. and i reject both as distractions from 'isness' (that which is), i simply find Tao to be slightly less distracting.. and, neither will take you all the way 'there'..

 

Be well..

 

 

Anatta takes you to 'isness' -- Buddhist masters have referred to 'suchness' (tathata) as another way of describing enlightenment. The Buddha himself spoke of tathata as the goal of practice. But without anatta, people cling to the experience of 'isness' by identifying with it. Anatta then is a remedy from clinging to the experience of isness and whatever may arise in the moment.

[Informer]

I think that is fairly obvious from his previous posts even before gems like:

 

 

 

But it is just not right to dismiss his personal crusade against RT without actually clarifying. Now anyone reading this and the previous page can make an informed opinion regarding his false RT suggested no self realization.

 

No way someone who's seen it would say this:

 

Lol, I woke up on the wrong side of bed this morning. Did you your self not say back many pages that you did not get it, then argue against it, then change your mind back and forth several times, and fill many pages with diatribe and rhetoric?

 

All that on top of constantly putting words in other peoples mouth and misunderstanding people's points about what 'No self' means caused me to 'assume' that you don't get it. My Bad!

 

 

 

Then how do you explain this thread? http://www.ruthlesstruth.com/arena/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1297&start=10

 

 

 

No seth, the hypnosis was broken and seen through.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Informer

[Mahberry]

What do you get from all this Informer?

 

Surely you yourself know too you're pulling this all out from your butt?

 

That's all I have to say.

[Informer]

What do you get from all this Informer?

 

Surely you yourself know too you're pulling this all out from your butt?

 

That's all I have to say.

 

I get to let you know that someone does care about you, even if you are difficult at times

 

<3

[stan herman]

Greetings..

 

 

No, it demonstrates the contrasting perspective to Buddhism's beliefs.. i understand Buddhist beliefs, i simply find favor in understandings that are experientially sound..

 

Be well..

 

There is considerable variety among sects in "Buddhism's" beliefs. If one takes into account that interpretation of experiential soundness is dependent upon the 'context' within which an event occurs and is interpreted (e.g. intellectual, emotional, spiritual, local, cosmic, etc.) and the particular 'consciousness' brought to bear upon it (e.g. genetic makeup, past education and experiences, self-interests etc.), one can understand that both views expressed above can be correct. It all depends, doesn't it?

 

Realizing that takes one a substantial step further on the path. But it's hard to assent to because it dilutes one's theory. And for many their theory is the flag of their ego.

Edited July 25, 2011 by stan herman

[Seth Ananda]

Then how do you explain this thread? http://www.ruthlesstruth.com/arena/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1297&start=10

 

 

 

No seth, the hypnosis was broken and seen through.

Ok, but did you not say that you were bullied into that perspective? That is not really seeing it, even if your words comply...

 

[edit]: Ok I just finished your thread there. I have to say I admire your honesty, it looks like you were really trying but [to me] it seems like you did not get it. That is fine. Maybe the format there is not right for you? You can get it in other ways if you want.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Seth Ananda

[Birch]

You're right in a sense...The initial realization of the selflessness of the individual, only constitutes the Hinayana Arhat's realization, and is not complete. This does not constitute the realization into the selflessness of phenomena, which is an insight that goes further...Also as indicated by this phrase from the Heart Sutra: "Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form." The indivisibility of appearance and emptiness is not cognized by the Hinayana Arhat; hence freedom from perceptive marks is not fully realized.

 

The insight into the selflessness of the individual, though is not as high a realization as what Mahayana or what Lao-Tzu and Chuang-Tzu describe: It is a very necessary stepping stone into realizing the Tao.

 

But isn't this stuff supposed to be 'self-realizing' anyway? What I'm saying is if you're riding in a vehicle that's taking you in the wrong direction, at some point you might want to get out and start walking yourself. Ok, maybe that wasn't very clear.

 

Now if we started off with a correct understanding of 'isness' as process or 'ing' rather than leading people to believe the static subjective 'is' inherent in most statements about others (which is IMO how this nonsense starts) then we wouldn't have to spend all this time correcting ourselves afterwards and we wouldn't be banging on about ego or clinging. Or maybe we would anyway...

[Otis]

I was just browsing over at Ruthless Truth again, and I'm frankly appalled. I still don't see how anyone takes them that seriously.

 

Not that "no self" doesn't point at an important truth, but I don't think that the "liberated" members of RT get that truth, at all. IME, "self" = certainty, so letting go of self is letting go of certainty. That's the opposite of what RT does.

 

The first couple links that I randomly clicked on (below), revealed conversations in which the "noob" was entirely reasonable, and utterly clear in their arguments. The "red" and "blue" RT members, on the other hand, were defensive, arrogant, and utterly unable to give any argument deeper than "the self is not real; look for yourself" (never mind how ironic that advice is). They kept making references to how they were seeing reality, without the slightest inkling that "reality" is utterly dependent on the "self". Whenever someone suggested that there might be more to "liberation" than this one "truth", they were ignored, and booed down. Doesn't ignorance come from ignoring things?

 

I have considered going on the site, and having a conversation with them, but I don't see any advantage to it. They respond to actual conversations, as if they were threats. The only thing they seem able to handle, is capitulation. Is that liberation? It seems more like they've trapped themselves in the concept of "no self" (and the need to be right), because they've lost all ability to engage in subtle understanding and intercourse. I see all the trappings of a cult, and no usefulness, or real desire to help.

 

I don't know what to say to those of you who say they've been helped by RT. I can't doubt your experience. But I do hope that you consider doubting the belief in the idea that this "truth" = liberation. Liberation, as far as I can see, never comes through dogmatism; it is at the very opposite end of the spectrum. IME, "no self" is just masturbation without the action of "surrendering the self", which is all about letting go of certainty. But certainty seems to be what RT is addicted to.

 

The threads I perused:

http://www.ruthlesstruth.com/arena/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1292

http://www.ruthlesstruth.com/arena/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1304

[Informer]

Ok, but did you not say that you were bullied into that perspective? That is not really seeing it, even if your words comply...

 

[edit]: Ok I just finished your thread there. I have to say I admire your honesty, it looks like you were really trying but [to me] it seems like you did not get it. That is fine. Maybe the format there is not right for you? You can get it in other ways if you want.

 

There is nothing to get, rofl.

[Informer]

You should maybe explain to everyone that you don't exist before hand. Maybe they can kinda get the idea.

 

You disguise it as no-self, but what is it really?

 

It is not existing.

 

See the deception how they change it from the self doesn't exist to you don't exist?

 

How can you not see the absurdity?

 

Not only that, but you drag others into not existing.

 

I happen to exist and enjoy it just fine

 

If you don't want to exist go to ruthless truth! Then you can put on a blindfold and play pretend.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Informer

[Seth Ananda]

You should maybe explain to everyone that you don't exist before hand. Maybe they can kinda get the idea.

 

You disguise it as no-self, but what is it really?

 

It is not existing.

 

See the deception how they change it from the self doesn't exist to you don't exist?

 

How can you not see the absurdity?

 

Not only that, but you drag others into not existing.

 

I happen to exist and enjoy it just fine

 

If you don't want to exist go to ruthless truth! Then you can put on a blindfold and play pretend.

 

 

I think you are mistaken. First you are saying that you have seen it, then you are saying that there is nothing to get.

 

It is impossible to drag others into not existing, because:

a. The self they believe they are does not exist already, [absolute level]

and

b. of course we [and they over at RT as well] exist as we are sitting here conversing on the internet [relative level]

 

I think you completely misinterpreted RT teachings. When they are jumping up and down screaming "There is no you!!!" they are talking absolute level. Now I am not trying to defend the site rT, because as I said I think there are Issues there, but I think some of your Issues come from you 'seeming' to believe that they mean that there is no you in any way at all ever. Which they do not mean. But please note they would use that exact sentence, over and over again, to help people get it on in an absolute manner.

 

You Keep saying that there is nothing to get, or that it is an Illogical or meaningless realization, and I assure you that it is not.

 

I can only talk from my experience, and for me [relative] Realizing 'No self' [absolute] Has been quite the transformation.

 

You can give endless intellectual debates, as to why I didn't get it, why there is nothing to get, why it doesn't make sense, how you got it and saw through it already and it is really nothing, but at the end of the day, I got it, and the change has been profound.

Trot, trot, toot toot! {rides around blowing my trumpet and waving my flag lol}

 

I also got it in a way that can not be undone. Once it has been seen, and I mean really seen, you can not unsee it.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Seth Ananda

[Informer]

Do you exist?

 

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

If you say yes, then go explain it to the guys at RT how you can exist.

 

Then post a link so either

 

A. Your point is proven, and they aren't convincing people they don't exist

 

B. My point is proven and they are convincing people they don't exist.

 

Ask anyone of the blue's/red's if they exist, or if it is possible to exist.

 

Sounds absurd right? Just look.

[Informer]

This is not something you should leave to chance Seth, believe it or not you do have influence on others.

 

So make sure about it, that is all I ask.