Do you believe a 'you' exists?

18AD

philologos wrote: »

I'm kind of moving along using the Socratic method which seems to be bringing us a lot of progress so far. If you find it annoying at any point we can just stop. So to recap. Rather than saying that the I is an internal intangible attribute it is actually just me in fullness as an individual.

Not annoying at all. It's just a very tricky subject and I'm a little hungover so I hope my reasoning is OK today. :pac:

Just wondering is it OK if I say that in actually determining what the I is now, we are actually asking about what an individual is? Or rather what an individual is comprised of?

What do you think of this actually?

Yes. I think the individual is comprised of many different processes that we unify into the concept of one individual.

Again here, an individual may be seen not as a unified whole but existing as the interactions of various forces.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

The question is asking do you believe there is such an 'I' or a 'you' exists. You evidently need to use I or you to answer this question. Thus confirming that in all actuality they must exist in some form.

.

Limitations of language doesn't mean the thing exists

18ad wrote:

Yes. I think the individual is comprised of many different processes that we unify into the concept of one individual.

Agreed

philologos

Agreed bluewolf, but that argument is now past in that we have determined thus far that the I actually does mean something in so far as it is a reference to the individual. The I is the individual, if the individual exists therefore the I exists as a result because both are now synonymous.

The individual seems to be comprised of many things, and the collective experiences are a part of the I, as is the personality and physical experience. The I isn't just biological matter, it also pertains to the data that is stored using the biological matter (the brain) which influences what one can say about the I, or even the basic protocol that this I uses in relating to others. A huge portion of the I has to do with empiricial experience.

wylo

Hi Phil, so you've established a different "I" which you acknowledge exists, as do I. Lets call it the brain and body. Its that simple.
What about the I that I refer to?

Originally Posted by philologos
We still need to know what is the I you are rejecting. The I that you choose to use now means the body, but what is the I that you are saying is non-existent? We need these to be set to continue discussing.

The "I" im rejecting is the belief of ownership over your body, the soul, the controller, the extra entity. Many will acknowledge at least in theory that what im saying makes sense , but the difference they still experience the belief.
I knew for years that this "I" didnt exist, I always acknowledged, "yea this is just a body and a brain , just a more complex version than a small bug thats all", the difference is I was still experiencing the "I", the sense of self.

I am not even able to imagine now. It creates an uncomfortable feeling when I try and experience that 'ownership' again.

philologos

wylo wrote: »

Hi Phil, so you've established a different "I" which you acknowledge exists, as do I. Lets call it the brain and body. Its that simple.
What about the I that I refer to?

The I which I am using now is also a different I than I began with. Largely out of discussion between 18AD and myself we hammered out something that seems agreeable to us both (I think?).

We've now said that the I is actually a reference point to an individual that exists, like other personal pronouns, such as you, he and she. This individual is a composite of varying attributes and functions. Physical apperance, mind, the contents of the mind are what I've presented as what makes up the I. Or the individual as 18AD and I have decided to agree for the sake of this discussion that I = me as an individual. You = you as an individual. They are synonymous.

Therefore the I exists, we just need to figure out what it is a little more.

wylo

I see , well I think this thread may have slipped away from me if we're now talking about a completely different I, my question was in reference to the belief of self.
The sense of self, the feeling of ownership and control over your body. The you that you think exists.

But I shall continue reading with interest, but its fairly obvious that the I you are talking about exists, its called a body and brain.

Omentum

wylo wrote: »

This argument is harder to get through to Buddhists/spiritualists (I tried) because they belief the self can only be removed from a lifetime of meditation, they think enlightenment takes a life time of work,

Not true. "Oneness/Enlightenment/Awareness/God etc etc" is only accesible now. There are many routes of entry. Essentially it is absence, of "self/ego/devil etc etc". Elimination of the dual polarity systems.

"Enlightenment" is of course only accessed through the present moment. Maintining it will be your next challenge. Everything is cyclical and in motion. Things will come and go....as will your enlightenment. The key is to know that it is there and accept its apparent absence. This in itself is enlightement or oneness or absence of ego. It is not something you can attain. It is already within you.

True everlasting inner peace is acceptance of everything.

Omentum

wylo wrote: »

its fairly obvious that the I you are talking about exists, its called a body and brain.

The I in itself cannot exsist. It is in total relation to all. Without it there would be no all and without the all there would be no I.

The all is the I?

wylo

Omentum wrote: »

Not true. "Oneness/Enlightenment/Awareness/God etc etc" is only accesible now. There are many routes of entry. Essentially it is absence, of "self/ego/devil etc etc". Elimination of the dual polarity systems.

"Enlightenment" is of course only accessed through the present moment. Maintining it will be your next challenge. Everything is cyclical and in motion. Things will come and go....as will your enlightenment. The key is to know that it is there and accept its apparent absence. This in itself is enlightement or oneness or absence of ego. It is not something you can attain. It is already within you.

True everlasting inner peace is acceptance of everything.

yes, perhaps your right, thanks for the advice, the peace and clarity wont always be at the "front", however it has only deepened more and more since I was enlightened and this was with no effort, that said there has been a day or two here and there where the peace was more in the background and conscious thought was at the forefront, but the inner chatter is truly gone I believe. Quite difficult to explain, but I can see how this can go deeper alright.
Thinking of a me is actually difficult.

Regarding what you quoted , the argument of the method I went about is difficult to get through to people that are deep into spirituality/buddhism. Because they believe you are not enlightened and only their more difficult methods will get you there ("It cant be that easy").
The reason is its a slap in the face for people that have been working on one school of thought only to be told theres a big shortcut.

wylo

Omentum wrote: »

The I in itself cannot exsist. It is in total relation to all. Without it there would be no all and without the all there would be no I.

The all is the I?

I like to keep things simpler, this the problem with enlightenment , people insist it has to sound deep and more intellectual than it actually is.
The 'I' I talk of is the simple belief of ownership of the body. That is one that does not actually exist.
Yes the I is the all because this body is just a part of this universe, but going down that road is of no benefit to people that are not enlightened.

Omentum

wylo wrote: »

Thinking of a me is actually difficult.

Great.

wylo wrote: »

I like to keep things simpler, this the problem with enlightenment , people insist it has to sound deep and more intellectual than it actually is.

You asked about self, this was the only way i could explain it.
It sounds deep and intellectual but its actually is like you say so simple.

wylo wrote: »

but going down that road is of no benefit to people that are not enlightened.

Maybe it is and maybe its not.

wylo

Omentum wrote: »

Great.



You asked about self, this was the only way i could explain it.
It sounds deep and intellectual but its actually is like you say so simple.

ok fair enough, it is so simple but just my issue is when things are kept at a distance from someone not enlightened. But I see what your saying.

Omentum wrote: »

Maybe it is and maybe its not.

What Im trying to say is the method I used is not very popular amongst buddhist/spirituality, this is not to say their methods dont work, just they seem to take much longer from what I see of it. But Im open to correction there, honestly.

Whichever you way you cracked it honestly happy for you. Its pretty cool and life changing. Some are open minded to the method I took, some arent, just like some are open minded to method you took.
Just for me personally I find that making it sound a bit more difficult and keeping it at arms length(even though I know what your saying, it is not difficult), only serves to slow down the process for people, but im honestly open to correction there.

Omentum

wylo wrote: »

What Im trying to say is the method I used is not very popular amongst buddhist/spirituality, this is not to say their methods dont work, just they seem to take much longer from what I see of it. But Im open to correction there, honestly.

I see your point. Just to say not everyone in those groups sees it that way. By the way spiritualists is a very broad category, one could say that you are in fact a spiritualist. This is a side issue though.

wylo wrote: »

Whichever you way you cracked it honestly happy for you. Its pretty cool and life changing. Some are open minded to the method I took, some arent, just like some are open minded to method you took.
Just for me personally I find that making it sound a bit more difficult and keeping it at arms length(even though I know what your saying, it is not difficult), only serves to slow down the process for people, but im honestly open to correction there.

I see the process (whatever that may be) as a journey to the realization.

Here i think i can hopefully show you how i see the self vs the all.

Lets take "enlightenment". I see it as like this. A process/journey (something, not neccessarily a method, could be something totally different. Suffering etc) and then realization.

If you believe in the "self/ego" then i think the journey is a truly unique experience. The ego by its nature is individualistic and in being so creates speration and that "inner chat" you talk about. I agree with what you say in relation to it not having to be a lengthy complicated process. But im sure it is for some.

Realization of oneness i believe is the same for everyone. Because of the very nature of it, i.e. acknowledgement of the self and the simultaneous realisation of the nature of oneness. In essence it has to be.

I also agree with you when you say that it doesnt have to be so complicated, then again it might need to be for some people.
Here i am only trying to answer your OP.

The Self and the journey, the realization and the All are in symbiosis. Like the Ying and Yang or the opposites pole of a magnet, or the countless other polarities that exsist everywhereand in everything.

wylo

Omentum wrote: »

I see your point. Just to say not everyone in those groups sees it that way. By the way spiritualists is a very broad category, one could say that you are in fact a spiritualist. This is a side issue though.

arguably I am, but its the word I dont like, because it puts off people that are not interested in this stuff. Also actually your right about not everyone those groups seeing it that way, because Ive had a few good experiences talking to people online etc that seem very open to it.

Omentum wrote: »

I see the process (whatever that may be) as a journey to the realization.

Here i think i can hopefully show you how i see the self vs the all.

Lets take "enlightenment". I see it as like this. A process/journey (something, not neccessarily a method, could be something totally different. Suffering etc) and then realization.

If you believe in the "self/ego" then i think the journey is a truly unique experience. The ego by its nature is individualistic and in being so creates speration and that "inner chat" you talk about. I agree with what you say in relation to it not having to be a lengthy complicated process. But im sure it is for some.

Realization of oneness i believe is the same for everyone. Because of the very nature of it, i.e. acknowledgement of the self and the simultaneous realisation of the nature of oneness. In essence it has to be.

I see, well for me it was acknowledgment of no self (but that was simply the inner chatter), but I guess there is that deeper ego that you are referring to ,I still acknowledge that, the one that still makes me want to get a haircut and eat well etc. I just wrote that off as the life simply wanting to attract other humans.

Omentum

Nice post

Ms.Odgeynist

wylo wrote: »

I see , well I think this thread may have slipped away from me if we're now talking about a completely different I, my question was in reference to the belief of self.
The sense of self, the feeling of ownership and control over your body. The you that you think exists.

But I shall continue reading with interest, but its fairly obvious that the I you are talking about exists, its called a body and brain.

Can't believe this thread is still going.
What you are referring to here is free will, and has little to do with "I".
Ownership/control over your body? Really?

roosh

Hey wylo, it would be good to discuss this further with you.

Buddhist Enlightenment
I've read through the thread, and just wanted to raise a few points. The first is on the "definition of enlightenment": you mentioned that Buddhists might disagree with you over the definition, or something along those lines; but I just wanted to highlight that the enlightenment referred to on Ruthless Truth, or more accurately in Ciaran's "the Thunder and the Sunshine" is [meant to be] the same Buddhist, or spiritual (or whaterver term), enlightenment that Buddhists refer to.

One of the issues with this is that, as far as I am aware, the enlightenment, or liberation, that is referred to in Buddhism is the final step; there is nothing really to be done after that, nothing to be deepened. Just from what you have mentioned yourself in this thread, you have spoken about deepening your enlightenment, and that you have already deepened it somewhat; that however, would be at odds with [my understanding] of "Buddhist enlightenment".

the Nature of self
The nature of self is that there is no "self", that much is true; but it isn't the whole truth. When you say that "a you" does not exist, the issue lies in the fact that you are using a concept, and assuming that everyone uses the concept "you" (or "me", or "I", etc.) in the same manner.

The "you" or "self" that you are referring to, appears to be what, in Buddhism, is referred to the false sense of self, or "Ego". The Ego represents the concept of self; the belief about what the self is; the illusory nature of self; the belief in an independently existing entity, separate from everything else in life - indeed, it is this "self" that doesn't exist.

However, that doesn't mean that you don't exist, it simply means that you don't exist, as you thought that you did. You do still exist, there is still "this body" as you refer to it, that has experiences exclusive to itself and different from "the other bodies", but even "this body" is just a concept, a belief.

Enlightenment, in the buddhist sense, isn't realising that "you" don't exist, it is being liberated form the habitual thoughts and actions that have become conditioned repsonses over the course of your life.

Realisation and liberation
A further thing, and it may just be the language that you are using, but you have mentioned a couple of times that enlightenment is the realisation of this, or the realisation of that; but forgive me for referencing again the tibetan saying

do not mistake understanding for realisation, do not mistake realisation for liberation

As I say, it would be great to discuss this further with you.

wylo

mangaroosh wrote: »

Hey wylo, it would be good to discuss this further with you.

Buddhist Enlightenment
I've read through the thread, and just wanted to raise a few points. The first is on the "definition of enlightenment": you mentioned that Buddhists might disagree with you over the definition, or something along those lines; but I just wanted to highlight that the enlightenment referred to on Ruthless Truth, or more accurately in Ciaran's "the Thunder and the Sunshine" is [meant to be] the same Buddhist, or spiritual (or whaterver term), enlightenment that Buddhists refer to.

I am learning every day and Im starting to see that everyone has their own interpretation of enlightenment, not to mention other things , like the self, presence, oneness etc, it seems that every school of thought has a different word for the same thing, so is this 'buddhist enlightenment'? Im not sure. Is it enlightenment going by many many definitions Ive read online and in books and even Tolle (someone that you know im not too much a fan of), then yes, this is enlightenment. This I have no doubts about tbh.

One of the issues with this is that, as far as I am aware, the enlightenment, or liberation, that is referred to in Buddhism is the final step; there is nothing really to be done after that, nothing to be deepened. Just from what you have mentioned yourself in this thread, you have spoken about deepening your enlightenment, and that you have already deepened it somewhat; that however, would be at odds with [my understanding] of "Buddhist enlightenment".

Well as I said to you in another thread, I am fairly ignorant of Buddhism in general so I dont like to compare it that much, but I will still reply as best I can.
You talk about this final step, this is the difference between what happened 'me', this body, whatever, and what seems to be thought via buddhism ,etc. For me , no self , is the first step, this is a one or zero, lets call the belief of self 1 and not believing 0,there is no denying when this happened, what happened , how it happened. I can pinpoint the time , I already feel like calling it my new birthday (but thats just stupid lol).
Now, you have to understand there was a lifetime of behaviors, beliefs, habitual thought patterns right up to this point, there was no preparation, no meditation, no spiritual seeking, nothing, just 1 , then 0.
SO, all of a sudden you are free from self but are left with lingering weak empty thoughts , and struggling illusions that never got a chance to leave (like a fear for instance). But whats the difference? When you are 0 you look at them exactly for what they are, they do not consume you, and with this they fade away to non existence. This is the state deepening.
E.g. for a few weeks there, I was going around saying to myself, 'im enlightened', then one day it clicked again, "hang on, stop fvcking thinking that, there is not even a you to be enlightened, it is just enlightenment, it is just awareness and knowing in this brain". It was with this that I began to feel completely out of control , i.e. the awareness of this body doing its thing. It was so pure , clean and real that even today I was just chuckling to myself about the simplicity of existence. I was standing and just observing in my back garden and I had to get back before my flat mate thought I had lost it lol.

I believe I did it backwards to the buddhism method, I believe I saw no self first , and now all the other bits and pieces are fading naturally, within weeks, there is no craving , or wanting, or spiritual search. That 1 to 0 is enough for everything else to take care of itself.
BUT, But then there is the drive, the drive to deepen this, this is not fueled from unhappiness , it is fueled by the want to know the truth of everything. A kind of a 'you got this far, lets see where else this thing can go'.
It is fueled by the want to make enlightenment something normal and simple and scientific, a drive to simply answer one question "What is this?" , so then it will be easier to pass on to other people.
Here is a new blog by Ciaran , just up today, Im still getting to grips with it myself but im gonna work on it and see whats going on.
http://ruthlesstruthdotcom.blogspot.com/2011/06/deepening-of-liberation.html
Now its possible you will read and say "Ah there you go, its not buddhism enlightenment if hes writing that", but you know what? I dont care, and I doubt he cares either. This thing is very very real and that I am not ever going to deny that based on what someone else tells me, ill test it myself, every time I test it or doubt it, or push beliefs onto it, reality prevails and doubts etc just fail in holding up.

the Nature of self
The nature of self is that there is no "self", that much is true; but it isn't the whole truth. When you say that "a you" does not exist, the issue lies in the fact that you are using a concept, and assuming that everyone uses the concept "you" (or "me", or "I", etc.) in the same manner.

The "you" or "self" that you are referring to, appears to be what, in Buddhism, is referred to the false sense of self, or "Ego". The Ego represents the concept of self; the belief about what the self is; the illusory nature of self; the belief in an independently existing entity, separate from everything else in life - indeed, it is this "self" that doesn't exist.

However, that doesn't mean that you don't exist, it simply means that you don't exist, as you thought that you did. You do still exist, there is still "this body" as you refer to it, that has experiences exclusive to itself and different from "the other bodies", but even "this body" is just a concept, a belief.

I fully 100% agree with you here, thats why I always say stuff like, 'thoughts are there, body exists, brain is there', cause im really trying to emphasize that the self im referring to is the belief, or the sense of ownership.
Even in this thread that got lost, so I had to back off a bit because it was off the point of the 'you' I was talking about.

Enlightenment, in the buddhist sense, isn't realising that "you" don't exist, it is being liberated form the habitual thoughts and actions that have become conditioned repsonses over the course of your life.

Well Ive kind of explained that above, how these fade instantly and naturally after seeing that "you" dont exist.

Realisation and liberation
A further thing, and it may just be the language that you are using, but you have mentioned a couple of times that enlightenment is the realisation of this, or the realisation of that; but forgive me for referencing again the tibetan saying



As I say, it would be great to discuss this further with you.

You see I was never on a spiritual search so that saying means little to me, I blew a massive belief out of the water and all thats left is emptiness, true peace, void,natural state of presence, simple awareness , lack of control.
I dont care what that is, is it liberation? I dont know, but it certainly much much much more than a conceptual realization.

BUT, none of the above would have been any good to me , had I not been told that simple point that caused this. "I" dont exist.

Thats why it is the only thing people on that site worry about, that simple pure obvious solid message that you dont exist, it is what ACTUALLY cracks people, whereas gurus and spiritual guides just dilute this message by showing off their experience and trying to get people to understand their experience.
Ive used this analogy before in the blog...

It would be like me standing in front of a crowd with a Big Mac, describing the taste, the crowd sitting there imagining it, the taste is almost on the tip of their tongue if they really concentrate, they really can get a glimpse of that taste, they can copy the reactions to the nice taste by saying "mmmmm" and all that, but until I break down the message and simply tell people "oh yea you can buy in that McDonalds over there" they will never taste it.

Whereas the 'message' in my situation is that there is no you. Look at that and nothing else, every else is just a distraction and showing off. Ive even distracted and showed off in this thread, but Im not here to get people to crack it, that can be done via RT or via email or via chat or something,im here to present the logic , thats all.

wylo

Im also here to debate it, debating it is fun.

roosh

wylo wrote: »

I am learning every day and Im starting to see that everyone has their own interpretation of enlightenment, not to mention other things , like the self, presence, oneness etc, it seems that every school of thought has a different word for the same thing, so is this 'buddhist enlightenment'? Im not sure. Is it enlightenment going by many many definitions Ive read online and in books and even Tolle (someone that you know im not too much a fan of), then yes, this is enlightenment. This I have no doubts about tbh.

You are right in a sense, everyone does have their own interpretation of enlightenment, the self and all those other concepts; the issue is that no one alive today is responsible for developing those concepts, they were already in existence, so people have their own understanding of those concepts, but that does not necessarily mean that their understanding is correct.

In order to understand the concepts, it is advisable to try and understand them in their original contexts. Enlightenment is very much a Buddhist concept - I'm not sure if Hindus use the same term; it existed before Eckhart Tolle started to use it and before Ciaran started to use it. The enlightenment that both refer to, is very much "Buddhist Enlightenment", or the enlightenment referred to by the existing spiritual traditions.

It would be interesting to hear what definitions you have come across on line and in books - as far as I can remember, Tolle simply references the Buddha's statement that "enlightenment is the end of suffering".

It would be helpful so that everyone can be on the same page, because what you refer to as enlightenment others may refer to as realisation.

wylo wrote: »

Well as I said to you in another thread, I am fairly ignorant of Buddhism in general so I dont like to compare it that much, but I will still reply as best I can.
You talk about this final step, this is the difference between what happened 'me', this body, whatever, and what seems to be thought via buddhism ,etc. For me , no self , is the first step, this is a one or zero, lets call the belief of self 1 and not believing 0,there is no denying when this happened, what happened , how it happened. I can pinpoint the time , I already feel like calling it my new birthday (but thats just stupid lol).
Now, you have to understand there was a lifetime of behaviors, beliefs, habitual thought patterns right up to this point, there was no preparation, no meditation, no spiritual seeking, nothing, just 1 , then 0.
SO, all of a sudden you are free from self but are left with lingering weak empty thoughts , and struggling illusions that never got a chance to leave (like a fear for instance). But whats the difference? When you are 0 you look at them exactly for what they are, they do not consume you, and with this they fade away to non existence. This is the state deepening.
E.g. for a few weeks there, I was going around saying to myself, 'im enlightened', then one day it clicked again, "hang on, stop fvcking thinking that, there is not even a you to be enlightened, it is just enlightenment, it is just awareness and knowing in this brain". It was with this that I began to feel completely out of control , i.e. the awareness of this body doing its thing. It was so pure , clean and real that even today I was just chuckling to myself about the simplicity of existence. I was standing and just observing in my back garden and I had to get back before my flat mate thought I had lost it lol.

I believe I did it backwards to the buddhism method, I believe I saw no self first , and now all the other bits and pieces are fading naturally, within weeks, there is no craving , or wanting, or spiritual search. That 1 to 0 is enough for everything else to take care of itself.
BUT, But then there is the drive, the drive to deepen this, this is not fueled from unhappiness , it is fueled by the want to know the truth of everything. A kind of a 'you got this far, lets see where else this thing can go'.
It is fueled by the want to make enlightenment something normal and simple and scientific, a drive to simply answer one question "What is this?" , so then it will be easier to pass on to other people.

I know you've said that you haven't had much engagement with Buddhism, but as mentioned above, enlightenment is a spiritual concept overwhelmingly associated with Buddhism, so it is difficult to avoid reference to it when discussing enlightenment.

The enlightenment you speak of appears to be based on seeing through the concept of self, seeing that there is no you. This isn't the "final step" in Buddhism, indeed, it is probably something that most people who engage with Buddhism are confronted with early on - the doctrine of "no self". Indeed, seeing that there is no self is distinguished, in Buddhism, from liberation [from the self].

In Buddhism "the self" is a complicated entity (or non-entity if you will); it is much more than just the belief in self; "the self"/"Ego" are all the sub-conscious, habitual thoughts and reactions that we have - more pointedly is it the identification that we have with those thoughts and actions. If we cultivate awareness of these sub-conscious thoughts and habitual actions, we can discover that they have their grounding in the same belief in self that we no longer consciously believe in. They are the manifestation of "the self".

For example, you mentioned that you found yourself going around saying to yourself "I am enlightened", and judging by your reaction to becoming more aware of this, there was some level of sub-conscious identification with the thought "I am enlightened"; that is, on a sub-conscious level "the self" believed that it was enlightened. That in itself would be a manifestation of "the self".

Similarly, the reaction to becoming aware of this, is what would be referred to in Buddhism as "aversion"; there was a "negative" reaction to the thought; there was non-acceptance of "what is". Again, that would in itself be a manifestation of "the self", not just in a strictly Buddhist context, but equally according to Tolle.

The process you describe is not really the reverse of the Buddhist method. Seeing that there is no self comes prior to liberation. Seeing that there is no self is, to my knowledge, what would be referred to in Buddhism as "realisation". Liberation is, for want of a better way to describe it, the next step after seeing that there is no self.

An analogy to outline the differences might be that of a smoker. A smoker may understand that smoking is bad for their health, but they may not realise it. A bout of bad health may help them realise that smoking is actually affecting their health, but yet, they make keep on smoking - always thinking that they know smoking is bad for them, and they should quit. They may become adept at recognising when their cravings are down to a nicotine addiction, but they continue to smoke, because they haven't broken the habit.

Eventually they may quit using will power, but the cravings are still there, so they are still not liberated from the habit of smoking - because the cravings are just a manifestation of the habit. Over time the cravings may decline, and eventually they may cease altogether. Then they are liberated.

wylo wrote: »

Here is a new blog by Ciaran , just up today, Im still getting to grips with it myself but im gonna work on it and see whats going on.
http://ruthlesstruthdotcom.blogspot.com/2011/06/deepening-of-liberation.html
Now its possible you will read and say "Ah there you go, its not buddhism enlightenment if hes writing that", but you know what? I dont care, and I doubt he cares either. This thing is very very real and that I am not ever going to deny that based on what someone else tells me, ill test it myself, every time I test it or doubt it, or push beliefs onto it, reality prevails and doubts etc just fail in holding up.

I think it is important that I stress that I am not trying to take anything away from you, or anyone else - I couldn't manage it even if I tried. I don't doubt that you have experienced something very real, the issue lies simply in the terminology being used to describe it. The issue is that what you are referring to as enlightenment, I believe is what is referred to in Buddhism as realisation.

I read Ciaran's latest Blogpost, and again, there are a few issues with it. It is quite clear that the enlightenment that Ciaran is referring to is supposed to be the same spiritual enlightenment of established traditions, including Buddhism. The issue is that some of the things he says are att odds with that, and even at odds with some of the philosophy he is espousing.

For example

The self is (quite clearly, unless someone wants to have a bitch) at the root of all human misery. You see it is not there, you get a boost of clarity, you get a break in the clouds. And yet you are still subject to the very misery that the self is at the core of, even though you have seen it is not there.

Talk about a head****. Want to work this one through? This is the bone I've been chewing on for the last few months, and it took me a long time to understand why.

the Deepening of Liberation

He talks about being subject to "the very misery that the self is at the core of, even though you have seen it is not there". Again, that doesn't sound like the spiritual (or "Buddhist") enlightenment that he is referring to, nor does it sound like that as outlined by Tolle.

Also, the central tenet of his philosophy (don't worry I get the whole its not being a philosophy thing, the same is true of spritual philosophy) is that "there is no you"; reiterated here

There's no you, not in any sense, not in any sense of the word you, there's no you, at all, ever, never was, never will be

However, he goes onto say

the no that you are has scale, depth and dimension.

the real nothing that you are

Which leads me to question, when he says that "There's no you, not in any sense, not in any sense of the word you", is the all important qualifier "in the sense of the word you"? That is, is there no you in any sense of the word you, or is there no you in any sense at all i.e. there is no you full stop? Because the latter quotes point to a "real you" that very much does exist, that has scale, depth and dimension. I think he just confuses matter by trying to assert that the "real you" is nothing.

But what he says there, very much tallies with existing spiritual philosophy of the false sense of self and the "true self".

wylo wrote: »

I fully 100% agree with you here, thats why I always say stuff like, 'thoughts are there, body exists, brain is there', cause im really trying to emphasize that the self im referring to is the belief, or the sense of ownership.
Even in this thread that got lost, so I had to back off a bit because it was off the point of the 'you' I was talking about.

OK, the issue is that there is arguably more to "the self" than just that sense of ownership; to borrow Ciaran's words, it is the "the very misery that the self is at the core of" and more still. It is the subtle identification with thoughts such as "I am enlightened" and the aversion to such thoughts. "The self" really is an insidious "virus" that will attach itself to anything, including enlightenment experiences.

wylo wrote: »

Well Ive kind of explained that above, how these fade instantly and naturally after seeing that "you" dont exist.

I don't doubt that a large amount of them have, but "the self" is a very subtle, largely subconscious belief, and it's effects aren't always obvious. As mentioned above, it is the thought "I am enlightened" and the aversion to that thought, and many other manifestations besides.

That is what the practice of meditation is for, it cultivates awareness of these thoughts and actions, as well as cultivating detachment from them - among other things.

wylo wrote: »

You see I was never on a spiritual search so that saying means little to me, I blew a massive belief out of the water and all thats left is emptiness, true peace, void,natural state of presence, simple awareness , lack of control.
I dont care what that is, is it liberation? I dont know, but it certainly much much much more than a conceptual realization.

hopefully the analogy of the smoker above can clarify, to an extent, the meaning of the saying.

I must reiterate again, that I am not trying to say that you haven't blown that belief out of the water, and that your perspective and experience of life hasn't changed; I am simply trying to establish - as much for myself as anyone - whether, or not, your experience is what is generally referred to as "enlightenment".

The belief that has arisen in me, on the basis of having read your posts and those on RT, is that I think it is realisation and not liberation; it isn't a "conceptual realisation however" i.e. it isn't a belief in a concept, but rather a realisation of the truth of something that was expressed conceptually.

wylo wrote: »

BUT, none of the above would have been any good to me , had I not been told that simple point that caused this. "I" dont exist.

Thats why it is the only thing people on that site worry about, that simple pure obvious solid message that you dont exist, it is what ACTUALLY cracks people, whereas gurus and spiritual guides just dilute this message by showing off their experience and trying to get people to understand their experience.
Ive used this analogy before in the blog...

It would be like me standing in front of a crowd with a Big Mac, describing the taste, the crowd sitting there imagining it, the taste is almost on the tip of their tongue if they really concentrate, they really can get a glimpse of that taste, they can copy the reactions to the nice taste by saying "mmmmm" and all that, but until I break down the message and simply tell people "oh yea you can buy in that McDonalds over there" they will never taste it.

Whereas the 'message' in my situation is that there is no you. Look at that and nothing else, every else is just a distraction and showing off. Ive even distracted and showed off in this thread, but Im not here to get people to crack it, that can be done via RT or via email or via chat or something,im here to present the logic , thats all.

I entirely agree with that, but I think that your perception of "the spiritual path" is somewhat tainted, and perhaps based on received wisdom as opposed to actual insight. How is it that you know that "gurus and spiritual guides just dilute this message by showing off their experience and trying to get people to understand their experience", if you haven't actually engaged with gurus or spiritual guides?

Being told that "you don't exist" isn't a method exclusive to RT or Ciaran, the doctrine of "no self" has been around for centuries and is arguably what has influenced Ciaran and those on RT. You say that the only reason that people on RT focus on that, is because it is "what ACTUALLY cracks people", but again, it is quite obvious that the origins of the idea that "there is no you" originates from existing spiritual traditions.

The big mac analogy is a good one, but I must say I prefer Tolle's honey analogy, because it is a bit more timeless - I say Tolle's analogy, but I'm not sure that he originated it. The issue is that, that is exactly what the "spiritual path" is about; that is what "gurus" and "spiritual guides" are for; they show the way to go about tasting the honey/big mac.

The fundamental issue, and this is really what it comes down to, as far as I can see, is that what you have experienced is real and truly profound, but it may not be actual enlightenment.


Like I have said before, I could be wrong, because no one person can tell if another is enlightened; that is purely the impression that has arisen in me, from what I have read.


EDIT: If you are enlightened in the true sense, then that is only a positive thing for the world; If not then you have most likely had a true realisation, which can indeed be deepened. The beauty of it, is that there are existing expertise that can be drawn on to attain true liberation; somewhat like Ciaran could help to provide a level of realisation - if that is indeed the case.

roosh

wylo wrote: »

Im also here to debate it, debating it is fun.

This can be true, I've found it can be very frustrating at times too. It is a fantastic way to learn - and unlearn - though.

wylo

I actually had a big giant post written out, where I was quoting and quoting all the stuff you said with loads of answers and loads of questions, and then I realized, why? Why am I doing this? I am trying to explain and debate why the self , the illusion bit, the sense of self , does not exist.
This is not about the body , brain, whatever, this is as you call it the ego 'the false sense of self'.
So regarding the issue of the wording of enlightenment. If you do not want me to use that word anymore when talking to you, I wont! Its as simple as that, I really really dont know much about the technicals of this. I will outline what I know and I dont know, what I experienced, and what I am trying to get others to experience.

You beat me with your knowledge of all things spiritual and buddhism I dont have a clue about that stuff, but as you admitted yourself you will never be able to 'take away' this liberation. And yes, I am going to call it liberation, even if you dont like it, why ? Because that is EXACTLY how it feels, completely and truly, absolute liberation, freedom. I dont care anymore if it doesnt fit with what buddhists technically consider liberated.

Now lets talk about Tolle for a bit , and the difference between my experience and Tolle. Both were awakenings, both were bliss, however there is decisions made. There is life to be engaged in, if I had nothing to do all day I would also be able to bliss out on a park bench, honestly, its great, its great just sitting there walking around watching life go by. This is very deep, very real and very present, Tolle chose to do that, wasnt he even sleeping rough for a while?
Ive got responsibilities , a job, life, everything.
You can make the choice, now dont get me wrong its not really you making the choice, but you follow, there is a thought that says 'this body will do this', you can take the easy option, honestly, you can, I could forget about all this typing, leave my job, follow a bunch of monks and just zen out the rest of my life, its great, its relaxing, its so deep and peaceful and tempting. Hell, even when Ive a few days off I get trapped in that and its beautiful. I was hiking the other day on my own , and at one point, I sat down to rest, I think I was sitting there 40 mins staring at the moss and grass blowing, it was surreal yet very real.
Eventually Tolle got his sh1t together and decided to write, and about bloody time too.

But for me, this thing needs to explored and shared, even if its disheartening. And all I care about is what worked for me
no interest...finding out self is not real....2 weeks of looking.....bang! shift in conciousness.

I dont care anymore if it doesnt fit your criteria of enlightenment, I really dont, all I care about is that other people see no self, im talking actual experience, not conceptual theory and understanding.

I read Tolle and he teaches people to practice presence, of course he doesnt have to practice it , every one else does though yea?

Well man , I dont have to practice it either, honestly, its default, I read his book and saw what hes teaching, practice this, practice that. No man, just see theres no you needed to practice it.

Regarding 'gurus', following the tragedy that was the RT thread that put politely 'did not work out', you know the one, it inspired me, lets find out where these people are getting this sh1t from. I did alot of research, I watched youtube videos upon youtube videos of a few guys, mooji, tolle, adyashanti, jeff foster, and a few others that I cant think of off hand. I could relate to them all, really I could, I know for a fact you dont believe me there, but I could, 100% relate to what they were getting at, I didnt need to be thought or told it, I knew it, they were just repeating stuff I knew, but it was still annoying to see that they are simply showing off their own experience, i.e. diluting 'there is no you' with lots of other stuff about awareness , , presence, oneness, no choice, everything. Is all that stuff bullsh1t ? NO, but it goes back to Big Mac analogy, then showing it off doesnt help, just leaves wanting it more.

Re: Ciaran, hes some bloke whos mad into philosophy and cracked the whole no self thing on his own, thats the only difference between him and anyone else, you seem to be making him someone special, hes not , he just set up the site thats all, its kind of weird, no one actually gives a fvck about him, they give a fvck about getting people to see no self.
I dont even care about the guy who helped liberate me, chan on that board, nice bloke and all and we keep in touch, but I care more about passing this on.
Thats the difference man, you're comparing him to other "leaders", there is none in our case, its just a simple messageboard and a load of blogs in an attempt to help people see no self.
Hes just another blogger man, I aint gonna defend what he says, its up to you to argue with him yourself, or test it yourself.

He wrote this there in a facebook conversation in reference to that blog about void , it might interest you etc...

Seeing this does not mean you go deep into the void like Tolle, park bench and all - although yes, I suppose that is an option. For me, the better option is to live fully and just dick around and try to do cool stuff and just live my life (liberating the world goes under cool stuff) - but without the danger of being consumed by anything I do.



Im just wondering, out of curiosity, what is this life changing this I have experience actually called if its not liberation, or enlightenment?
Please dont say 'realization of no self'.
Im talking about pure presence by default, true peace and emptiness, staring at stuff like traffic cause it looks so real and cool, staring at trees blowing in the wind, feeling simply a part of existence as opposed to being separate from it, almost as if the body is just another part of one big movie that is existence, seeing right through beliefs, not dwelling on anything AT ALL , you cant cause presence comes first.

I dont know what that is tbh but its pretty cool and worth trying to get others to see it , if all it means is that they have actually to see if the self is true. Do you not think its worth it man?

It might also interest you to know that alot of people , in fact most, that ended up in the same situation as mine have come from a spiritual or buddhist background. Me and a few others are an exception to the rule, most people that find the place are like yourself, on a spiritual search that doesnt seem to be working.
one guy was searching for 25 years. He was on RT trying to crack it in around September , he eventually did a few weeks ago, absolutely delighted he is, and I had a nice chat with him, where he said he thinks its funny cause its only now he feels like a novice. Danmc is his name if you wanna look him up on it.
Another guy who im emailing started his search 5 years ago with Tolle, he isnt on RT but I think im learning enough myself to help people on my own without the help of the site, hes nearly there now, I can feel it, he finally realises that the Tolle thing aint working, hes sick of having to work hard at 'removing' suffering, hes really honest and really into it, his beliefs finally fell like a house of cards, especially the spiritual stuff, hes nearly done I know it, he has had 3 satoris in the past few days, and I thought he had actually cracked it fully , but not quite, but he sent me an email earlier where I think hes done, ill need him to elaborate though tbh, hard to tell online obviously.


TLDR:

I dont care if its enlightenment or not, I want people to see no self.

roosh

wylo wrote: »

I actually had a big giant post written out, where I was quoting and quoting all the stuff you said with loads of answers and loads of questions, and then I realized, why? Why am I doing this? I am trying to explain and debate why the self , the illusion bit, the sense of self , does not exist.
This is not about the body , brain, whatever, this is as you call it the ego 'the false sense of self'.
So regarding the issue of the wording of enlightenment. If you do not want me to use that word anymore when talking to you, I wont! Its as simple as that, I really really dont know much about the technicals of this. I will outline what I know and I dont know, what I experienced, and what I am trying to get others to experience.

You beat me with your knowledge of all things spiritual and buddhism I dont have a clue about that stuff, but as you admitted yourself you will never be able to 'take away' this liberation. And yes, I am going to call it liberation, even if you dont like it, why ? Because that is EXACTLY how it feels, completely and truly, absolute liberation, freedom. I dont care anymore if it doesnt fit with what buddhists technically consider liberated.

Now lets talk about Tolle for a bit , and the difference between my experience and Tolle. Both were awakenings, both were bliss, however there is decisions made. There is life to be engaged in, if I had nothing to do all day I would also be able to bliss out on a park bench, honestly, its great, its great just sitting there walking around watching life go by. This is very deep, very real and very present, Tolle chose to do that, wasnt he even sleeping rough for a while?
Ive got responsibilities , a job, life, everything.
You can make the choice, now dont get me wrong its not really you making the choice, but you follow, there is a thought that says 'this body will do this', you can take the easy option, honestly, you can, I could forget about all this typing, leave my job, follow a bunch of monks and just zen out the rest of my life, its great, its relaxing, its so deep and peaceful and tempting. Hell, even when Ive a few days off I get trapped in that and its beautiful. I was hiking the other day on my own , and at one point, I sat down to rest, I think I was sitting there 40 mins staring at the moss and grass blowing, it was surreal yet very real.
Eventually Tolle got his sh1t together and decided to write, and about bloody time too.

But for me, this thing needs to explored and shared, even if its disheartening. And all I care about is what worked for me
no interest...finding out self is not real....2 weeks of looking.....bang! shift in conciousness.

I dont care anymore if it doesnt fit your criteria of enlightenment, I really dont, all I care about is that other people see no self, im talking actual experience, not conceptual theory and understanding.

I read Tolle and he teaches people to practice presence, of course he doesnt have to practice it , every one else does though yea?

Well man , I dont have to practice it either, honestly, its default, I read his book and saw what hes teaching, practice this, practice that. No man, just see theres no you needed to practice it.

Regarding 'gurus', following the tragedy that was the RT thread that put politely 'did not work out', you know the one, it inspired me, lets find out where these people are getting this sh1t from. I did alot of research, I watched youtube videos upon youtube videos of a few guys, mooji, tolle, adyashanti, jeff foster, and a few others that I cant think of off hand. I could relate to them all, really I could, I know for a fact you dont believe me there, but I could, 100% relate to what they were getting at, I didnt need to be thought or told it, I knew it, they were just repeating stuff I knew, but it was still annoying to see that they are simply showing off their own experience, i.e. diluting 'there is no you' with lots of other stuff about awareness , , presence, oneness, no choice, everything. Is all that stuff bullsh1t ? NO, but it goes back to Big Mac analogy, then showing it off doesnt help, just leaves wanting it more.

Re: Ciaran, hes some bloke whos mad into philosophy and cracked the whole no self thing on his own, thats the only difference between him and anyone else, you seem to be making him someone special, hes not , he just set up the site thats all, its kind of weird, no one actually gives a fvck about him, they give a fvck about getting people to see no self.
I dont even care about the guy who helped liberate me, chan on that board, nice bloke and all and we keep in touch, but I care more about passing this on.
Thats the difference man, you're comparing him to other "leaders", there is none in our case, its just a simple messageboard and a load of blogs in an attempt to help people see no self.
Hes just another blogger man, I aint gonna defend what he says, its up to you to argue with him yourself, or test it yourself.

He wrote this there in a facebook conversation in reference to that blog about void , it might interest you etc...

Seeing this does not mean you go deep into the void like Tolle, park bench and all - although yes, I suppose that is an option. For me, the better option is to live fully and just dick around and try to do cool stuff and just live my life (liberating the world goes under cool stuff) - but without the danger of being consumed by anything I do.



Im just wondering, out of curiosity, what is this life changing this I have experience actually called if its not liberation, or enlightenment?
Please dont say 'realization of no self'.
Im talking about pure presence by default, true peace and emptiness, staring at stuff like traffic cause it looks so real and cool, staring at trees blowing in the wind, feeling simply a part of existence as opposed to being separate from it, almost as if the body is just another part of one big movie that is existence, seeing right through beliefs, not dwelling on anything AT ALL , you cant cause presence comes first.

I dont know what that is tbh but its pretty cool and worth trying to get others to see it , if all it means is that they have actually to see if the self is true. Do you not think its worth it man?

It might also interest you to know that alot of people , in fact most, that ended up in the same situation as mine have come from a spiritual or buddhist background. Me and a few others are an exception to the rule, most people that find the place are like yourself, on a spiritual search that doesnt seem to be working.
one guy was searching for 25 years. He was on RT trying to crack it in around September , he eventually did a few weeks ago, absolutely delighted he is, and I had a nice chat with him, where he said he thinks its funny cause its only now he feels like a novice. Danmc is his name if you wanna look him up on it.
Another guy who im emailing started his search 5 years ago with Tolle, he isnt on RT but I think im learning enough myself to help people on my own without the help of the site, hes nearly there now, I can feel it, he finally realises that the Tolle thing aint working, hes sick of having to work hard at 'removing' suffering, hes really honest and really into it, his beliefs finally fell like a house of cards, especially the spiritual stuff, hes nearly done I know it, he has had 3 satoris in the past few days, and I thought he had actually cracked it fully , but not quite, but he sent me an email earlier where I think hes done, ill need him to elaborate though tbh, hard to tell online obviously.


TLDR:

I dont care if its enlightenment or not, I want people to see no self.

similarly, I had started to write a big long reply, but it would probably be more useful, simply to suggest that as you go about deepening your enlightenment, it might do no harm to investigate Buddhism with open-minded skepticism; or Hinduism perhaps. You may find that it helps to deepen your enlightenment, or it may just confirm you existing preconceptions. Either way, it could transform preconceptions into first hand experience. You will be glad to know that you don't need to join a monastery or "zen out on top of a mountain" in order to investigate it; there are books and online teachings.

EDIT:A couple of books that might be worth a look would be "the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying" by Sogyal Rinpoche, "what makes you not a Buddhist" by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse; a translation of the "Tao Te Ching" would definitely be worth a look too. Those are just a few that were recommended to me, I'm sure others would recommend different ones.
[/EDIT]

Here is a link to one talk by Thich Nhat Hanh on the Buddhist understanding of reality

Here is a link to other teachings by Thich Nhat Hanh

Here are some from HH Dalai Lama - there are a mix of talks and teachings in there.

They are just a few that I have come across, and I have by no means watched them all, but they might purely be helpful in deepening your enlightenment; or they may not. There are, no doubt, many more online and there are other teachers, as well as books. Books may perhaps be more palatable because it is easier to pick up and put down - I have found the teachings a bit long at times myself; but that is more down to the desire for "instant" knowledge and information, habituated in the information age.


All that being said, and having clearly outlined my own impression, I would still be interested in engaging with you in the manner that people do on RT, to see if you can help me to "crack it" - if you feel up to it. Although I question whether or not you have attained liberation, I know that I haven't, and it could simply be my ignorance that is preventing me from acknowledging your liberation.

EDIT: either in this thread or another one, or by PM here or on RT (I think I can still PM on RT anyway)

wylo

Ill check out that stuff so , and no it wont be with skepticism , I wont be sitting there with my arms folded and cheeky smug grin waiting for them to mess up somewhere and just pick and choose what I want to hear. no Ill check it out with honesty and open mindedness. Like I have done with all the other spiritual guys so far.

You see, you have to remember, im not saying that those guys are lying, im just saying that they are exteremely ineffective, they dilute it as I said before. They say stuff that shouldnt be said because it serves as distraction.
They slow it down, they leave people hungry for more. I like to keep it simple and scientific, i.e. take whats real, or what we at least truly see is real, and compare it to beliefs and thoughts and other stuff.
So ill have a look and ill let you know what I think.

Ill pm you regarding your last bit, itll be in a while, have to go now,tbh though, i cant do it.
Why do you want to be liberated by someone who you dont even think is liberated?
It doesnt even make sense. I already know how the conversation would pan out.

wylo

just had a quick look at the thread there, like it took you 10 pages before you actually started admitting that you thought we were a load of bollox, and you had to be insulted just to get that out of you.
You see, people look at the insults and say 'what the hell is their problem? They have issue' bla bla bla, but no , the aggressive approach is only needed when people arent being honest, most people in there dont go through with that because they are unbelievably up front about how they feel, even if it IS that they think its a load of balls.
Even one of the mods was only on that forum to wind people up until he read a blog from Ciaran about honesty...http://ruthlesstruthdotcom.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-to-be-honest.html
Then not long after that it clicked!

wylo

yea its funny how we need words to communicate.

Seriously though, I spent half the thread explaining that issue.

Wheres dundrum, you talking about the place in dublin? Not really, i dont live there.

roosh

wylo wrote: »

Ill check out that stuff so , and no it wont be with skepticism , I wont be sitting there with my arms folded and cheeky smug grin waiting for them to mess up somewhere and just pick and choose what I want to hear. no Ill check it out with honesty and open mindedness. Like I have done with all the other spiritual guys so far.

You see, you have to remember, im not saying that those guys are lying, im just saying that they are exteremely ineffective, they dilute it as I said before. They say stuff that shouldnt be said because it serves as distraction.
They slow it down, they leave people hungry for more. I like to keep it simple and scientific, i.e. take whats real, or what we at least truly see is real, and compare it to beliefs and thoughts and other stuff.
So ill have a look and ill let you know what I think.

I know what you mean about skepticism, but open-minded skepticism is a different brand. It is, as you say, investigating things with an open-mind, without simply accepting what is said; equally, it is investigating things with an open-mind, without rejecting what is said out of hand.

With regard to the "gurus" you've mentioned, Tolle is the only one I'm familiar with, but I would describe Tolle as, perhaps, being the tip of the iceberg; but, as was discovered on the Titanic: while it is necessary to see the tip of the iceberg, it's what's beneath the suface that is critical.

wylo wrote: »

Ill pm you regarding your last bit, itll be in a while, have to go now,tbh though, i cant do it.
Why do you want to be liberated by someone who you dont even think is liberated?
It doesnt even make sense. I already know how the conversation would pan out.

As I said, I'm not enlightened, that I know; you, among others are saying that you are; it is possible that I am mistaken, that I equally now. As I'm sure you will appreciate, it isn't "me" that thinks that you're not enlightened; the impression that you are not enlightened has arisen, "in this body" if you will, as a result of what this body has learned and experienced from engagement with Buddhism, and subsequnetly what this body has read on Ruthless Truth. Those experiences have resulted in an impression being formed in this body, that it is realisation that has been experienced and not enlightenment.

Again, however, this body realises that it is possible that it could be mistaken; therefore, engaging with someone who is enlightened might set in motion a number of experiences that eventually leads to this body "cracking it".

I say that in all earnestness.

roosh

wylo wrote: »

just had a quick look at the thread there, like it took you 10 pages before you actually started admitting that you thought we were a load of bollox, and you had to be insulted just to get that out of you.
You see, people look at the insults and say 'what the hell is their problem? They have issue' bla bla bla, but no , the aggressive approach is only needed when people arent being honest, most people in there dont go through with that because they are unbelievably up front about how they feel, even if it IS that they think its a load of balls.
Even one of the mods was only on that forum to wind people up until he read a blog from Ciaran about honesty...http://ruthlesstruthdotcom.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-to-be-honest.html
Then not long after that it clicked!

if you go back and look again, you'll see the last post on the first page outlines the impression I had, and it is equally outlined in subsequent posts; some in direct response to yourself form page 2.

The thread developed organically; I didn't start with the impression that ye were full of **** - and I still don't have that impression - I started with the possibility in mind that perhaps people were confusing realisation for liberation - I posted this here on boards in response to yourself, ever before going to RT; but equally with the possibility that perhaps it was me who was mistaken. I was very much open-minded when I started posting (and still am); I went there with the mindset "I have nothing to lose and everything to gain" (so to speak); but I didn't know how to start, so I wrote something that I had written elsewhere, that I knew would be pertinent, and wanted to see where it would go from there.

Perhaps my biggest mistake was actually being honest in saying

[the self is] also there in the wanting to "get" this, the wanting others to be misguided and have a false sense of enlightenment.

it's there in the wanting to "show" everyone that they haven't actually cracked it, that it is just a false dawn along a winding path to here.

They were some of the thoughts that had arisen in me, which I experssed honestly.

.same.

wylo, pretty much everyone I know have some kind of problems/difficulties in their lives, can you give examples of how your realization has helped you deal with day to day problems ?

wylo

hi same ill reply properly tomorrow as Im heading out now, but in the mean time Ill just make this remark, the past and future doesnt exist in real life. You dont need realization or awakening or anything like that to know this. You cant find the past or future, but in your own head
Now there is a time and a place for a problem , and that is when the problem is actually arising, not before, not after, so if you have problems you either deal with them, see right through them (i.e. they are not ACTUALLY problems) or they bother you but you dont be consumed by them.
But ill try elaborate tomorrow.
The motivation for realization shouldnt be to solve your problems, it should be to no longer feel something (the self), that you dont believe is true.

roosh

wylo, I just wanted to post in this thread what I think is pertinent to the overall discussion; it is more for anyone else who may be reading it, as you are familiar with the majority of the content. I post it because I would be interested in getting others' opinions on this, because I may very well be mistaken myself.

The impression that I have - or that has arisen in "this body" if you will - is that what you have experienced, and what others on RT have experienced, is what would be referred to as "realisation" not "liberation".

As I've mentioned before, there is a Tibetan saying

do not mistake understanding for realisation, do not mistake realisation for liberation

The impression that I get is that those on RT have experienced a realisation but are mistaking it for liberation. For example, quoting from Ciaran's latest blog post that you linked to, he say

The self is ... at the root of all human misery. You see it is not there, you get a boost of clarity, you get a break in the clouds. And yet you are still subject to the very misery that the self is at the core of, even though you have seen it is not there.

- the Deepening of Liberation

To still be subject "to the very misery that the self is at the core of, even though you have seen it is not there" really does give the impression that "no self" has been realised, but that liberation has not yet been attained. There are other things that have been posted on RT, or that you have posted yourself which further give the impression that it is realisation that has been attained and not liberation.

One such thing, you say that perhaps your definition of enlightenment - or more pointedly what you have experienced - is different to what Buddhism says about enlightenment. There is a fundamental issue with that; if your experience of enlightenment doesn't match the "Buddhist experience of enlightenment", then what you have experienced is not enlightenment.

Again, this is not because Buddhism has some strange monopoly over enlightenment, it is because the enlightenment that Ciaran [or more generally that RT] speaks about, is the enlightenment of the Buddha - it is supposed to be the same thing; according to the founder of RT that is. If it isn't, then it isn't "enlightenment", particularly if it appears to be what would be termed a "realisation".


Now, I am by no means enlightened, so it is also quite possible that I am incorrect in what I say, which is why I would be very interested in getting others opinions on this; it might prove a worthwhile exercise for yourself to start a thread in the Buddhist section of this forum because there are others there with a greater knowledge of Buddhism than me.

Again, I have to re-iterate that I am not trying to take your experience away from you - I couldn't even if I wanted to. I don't think there can be any doubt that you have had an awakening, I just don't think that you are fully awake - which is where the term enlightenment comes from. It would just be a shame if the realisation [according to my impression] were to turn into the very thing you thought you had escaped, which is emminently possible; such is the subtle nature of what is being dealt with.

roosh

Just on the issue of whether a "you" exists.

There is no independently existing entity, completely separate from life and the universe around it, which can be designated as "you" or "me"; but "you" and "I" both exist - we exist as parts of an overall whole.

A common analogy used to describe our existence is to compare us to waves in the ocean, which have come to subconsciously identify with the belief that they exist independently of the ocean; that they and the ocean are somehow different. A "wave" is just a concept, and as such does not have any intrinsic existence i.e. there is no wave in reality, there is just the "ocean"*; the delusion is in believing that the wave is separate from the ocean, or that we are separate and indivuated from the universe or life. You can look at the ocean and still see the wave, but you just recognise it as being a part of the ocean; just as you can look at life and see yourself, but you recognise it as being part of the overall whole - it's the attachment or "grasping" at the idea of a separate self which is the delusion, and which is a manifestation of the phenomenon of "self".

*the same can, of course, be said of the ocean.

Nagarjuna argues that just as grasping at the intrinsic existence of the person or self is fundamental ignorance, grasping at the intrinsic existence of the aggregates ["this body"] is also grasping at self-existence. Madhyamikas therefore distinguish two kinds of emptiness—the lack of any self that is separate from the aggregates, which they call the emptiness of self, and the lack of intrinsic existence of the aggregates themselves—and by extension all phenomena—which they call the emptiness of phenomena. Realizing the first kind of emptiness, Nagarjuna and his followers argue, may temporarily suppress manifest afflictions, but it can never eradicate the subtle grasping at the true existence of things. To understand the meaning of the first link, fundamental ignorance, in its subtlest sense, we must identify and understand it as grasping at the intrinsic existence of all phenomena—including the aggregates, sense spheres, and all external objects—and not merely our sense of “I.

- Beyond No-Self

Joe1919

Hi all.

I am just wondering how the 'no self' or 'emptiness' ideas can help when it comes to physical pain.

For example, when I suffered a very painful toothache recently, there was a certain 'real' feeling of agony in the pain that I alone as an individual consciousness had to suffer.
There was no way of thinking away the pain. I tried to tell myself that the pain was empty and that some of my distress was coming from my desire and 'craving' for this terrible sensation in my jaw to go away but this only relieves some distress.
However, it took a dentist to fully relieve me of my distress.

My observation however is that there is a sense when we are in pain that we are alone in our suffering. This pain belongs to me. It is mine alone.This pain along with the rest of my body that is bound by my nervous system, has this particular property of been connected to my consciousness in an unique way and seems to be part of me as an individual unit or self.

One has a very strong 'sense of self' when in pain.

bastados

No BS eh?..ok I'll keep it as straight forward as possible.

No ego means death in as much as you think you're rid of it youre not...its tied directly into being and is a vital key component ,good or bad.
But I think what you are trying to describe is instinctual thinking and/or awareness which is a much more primal and fundamental aspect of engaging with the world and the self and is tied into feeling in a much more powerful way than intellect.

wylo

Joe1919 wrote: »

Hi all.

I am just wondering how the 'no self' or 'emptiness' ideas can help when it comes to physical pain.

For example, when I suffered a very painful toothache recently, there was a certain 'real' feeling of agony in the pain that I alone as an individual consciousness had to suffer.
There was no way of thinking away the pain. I tried to tell myself that the pain was empty and that some of my distress was coming from my desire and 'craving' for this terrible sensation in my jaw to go away but this only relieves some distress.
However, it took a dentist to fully relieve me of my distress.

My observation however is that there is a sense when we are in pain that we are alone in our suffering. This pain belongs to me. It is mine alone.This pain along with the rest of my body that is bound by my nervous system, has this particular property of been connected to my consciousness in an unique way and seems to be part of me as an individual unit or self.

One has a very strong 'sense of self' when in pain.

Pain is a nerve reactions in the body (i think, anyway its completely biological), its the body experiencing this pain , not the 'self', i.e. that thought.
Ok pain probably tests that feeling of self to the last , and you probably suffer more from it when believing in that feedback loop of thoughts of the self.
BUT, seeing no self does not mean conventional pain goes away.

wylo

bastados wrote: »

No BS eh?..ok I'll keep it as straight forward as possible.

No ego means death in as much as you think you're rid of it youre not...its tied directly into being and is a vital key component ,good or bad.

What actually is it though? Physically what is it? Where is this vital component.

bastados wrote: »

But I think what you are trying to describe is instinctual thinking and/or awareness which is a much more primal and fundamental aspect of engaging with the world and the self and is tied into feeling in a much more powerful way than intellect.

thats an interesting description of it, im always interested in ways of describing it in as physical, scientific, and simple way as possible.

wylo

For anyone else reading this , me and mangaroosh have been talking alot more than just in this thread, in case you are confused on why im being 'aggressive', moreso to the point.

mangaroosh wrote: »

The impression that I have - or that has arisen in "this body" if you will - is that what you have experienced, and what others on RT have experienced, is what would be referred to as "realisation" not "liberation".

I thought my last post dealt with all this, you didnt even have to read the whole thing, i left a TDLR bit at the end "i dont care if its not enlightenment, i want people to see no self

As I've mentioned before, there is a Tibetan saying

The impression that I get is that those on RT have experienced a realisation but are mistaking it for liberation. For example, quoting from Ciaran's latest blog post that you linked to, he say
- the Deepening of Liberation

To still be subject "to the very misery that the self is at the core of, even though you have seen it is not there" really does give the impression that "no self" has been realised, but that liberation has not yet been attained. There are other things that have been posted on RT, or that you have posted yourself which further give the impression that it is realisation that has been attained and not liberation.

Ive dealt with this too in my last thread. Ciaran? Nice guy, good for a chat , and good for giving a few tips on trying to see the illusion in others to help them. But other than that I dont care about him , he can say or do what he likes, its not my blog, its his.

One such thing, you say that perhaps your definition of enlightenment - or more pointedly what you have experienced - is different to what Buddhism says about enlightenment. There is a fundamental issue with that; if your experience of enlightenment doesn't match the "Buddhist experience of enlightenment", then what you have experienced is not enlightenment.

Again, this is not because Buddhism has some strange monopoly over enlightenment, it is because the enlightenment that Ciaran [or more generally that RT] speaks about, is the enlightenment of the Buddha - it is supposed to be the same thing; according to the founder of RT that is. If it isn't, then it isn't "enlightenment", particularly if it appears to be what would be termed a "realisation".

ok well say that to him not me.

Now, I am by no means enlightened, so it is also quite possible that I am incorrect in what I say, which is why I would be very interested in getting others opinions on this; it might prove a worthwhile exercise for yourself to start a thread in the Buddhist section of this forum because there are others there with a greater knowledge of Buddhism than me.

Im not going to go and troll the Buddhist forum , why? because I dont care for Buddhism. Why else? Cause people here arent as likely from to be from 'schools of thought' and the less likely you are from a school of thought, the more likely you'll crack this.
Mangroose if I do that you cant win either way , really you cant, one of 2 things will happen.
1. I go and describe what happened me, I describe how all beliefs are completely falling a part , how this thing is getting deeper to a point that I see a void, and all else is just simply false. Not false in the conventional sense. Like this computer is really here, but you begin to see how void is the only permanent unchangeable 'thing' in existence. People on the forum say "yeaa man your enlightened, you cooool". Where does this leave you? Nowhere , cause if you werent honest enough to look for yourself, a few people 'in the know' agreeing with me certainly wont help you look.

2. I go and describe everything above and they tell me im not a bit enlightened , they'll probably tell me get out and stop trolling or something I dont know. You still do not win ,because you will DEFINITELY not look if they tell you your right.

Either way you cant win. The only way you can 'win' is by dropping all those concepts of enlightenment or whatever and looking at the truth, is that self real? Nothing else. Now go look and stop finding stupid plot holes a blog that I didnt even write.

Again, I have to re-iterate that I am not trying to take your experience away from you - I couldn't even if I wanted to. I don't think there can be any doubt that you have had an awakening, I just don't think that you are fully awake - which is where the term enlightenment comes from. It would just be a shame if the realisation [according to my impression] were to turn into the very thing you thought you had escaped, which is emminently possible; such is the subtle nature of what is being dealt with.

Im glad your concerned for me!
But really, no I dont think thats the case, I think its just annoying you that you dont have a clue what the hell is going on in this head. you want in but you dont want in at the same time, I dunno.

Your stuck on your route, hopefully with that route you experience some sort of awakening.

wylo

mangaroosh wrote: »

A common analogy used to describe our existence is to compare us to waves in the ocean, which have come to subconsciously identify with the belief that they exist independently of the ocean; that they and the ocean are somehow different. A "wave" is just a concept, and as such does not have any intrinsic existence i.e. there is no wave in reality, there is just the "ocean"*; the delusion is in believing that the wave is separate from the ocean, or that we are separate and indivuated from the universe or life. You can look at the ocean and still see the wave, but you just recognise it as being a part of the ocean; just as you can look at life and see yourself, but you recognise it as being part of the overall whole - it's the attachment or "grasping" at the idea of a separate self which is the delusion, and which is a manifestation of the phenomenon of "self".

we actually agree on something:)

bastados

Yeah the notion of self is an interesting one and would attract alot of the more buddhist bound thinkers in the boards but so many religions talk about being "reborn" to oneself so it cant be helped.

I would think the notion of self can only be viewed in hindsight..as a reflection on that which has just past ,like a feeling or memory..unlike consciousness which is firmly rooted in the now , or the present moment...which seems to me be be a very subtly elusive thing indeed...and you could argue whether the present even exists at all as we can only view its passing.

I have had lots of out of body experiences over the years both voluntary(meditation) and involuntary (staring down at myself from the ceiling while lost in work) and its seem that your point of being ,your awareness , can be anywhere really but that the rigors of being primarily a visual animal ties your focus firmly into your eyesight.

Wylo I dont know what the BS is , that your running from , but so many writers have written on the subject of self...and once you start discussing it at any great lenght you'll find that there is nothing provable within the metaphysical sphere...there can be no proof as it does not seem to occupy the same fabric of time and space as the body.

If you'll allow me to draw some conjecture on the nature of discovering the self as being in the world then fundamentally there can be only 2 questions to ask...The first is "what" and the next "why". What is this world , this body , this being..pretty much all the same question existentially ,then when grappling with this question you'll find the "why" creeping in...lol..and the longer you deal with the first question the better you'll be to possibly tackle answering the second one.

wylo

bastados wrote: »

If you'll allow me to draw some conjecture on the nature of discovering the self as being in the world then fundamentally there can be only 2 questions to ask...The first is "what" and the next "why". What is this world , this body , this being..pretty much all the same question existentially ,then when grappling with this question you'll find the "why" creeping in...lol..and the longer you deal with the first question the better you'll be to possibly tackle answering the second one.

True, funnily enough, its this very way of thinking that has probably caused the belief or more so the experience of self. (alot of people dont like the word belief cause they already know theoretically the self is not real)

I think humans are so intelligent that they need to find an answer , a route , a starting point to everything. They need justification , cause , origin , whatever. And when this cant be found, its just so much easier to create a belief. (I think God is a good example of that)
When you fully realize there is no starting point, its like "ooooohhhhh yeaaaa.....wow!!! what the hell was I thinking", and then you just accept that thoughts whizz around and that there is no you that has any control over them.

roosh

Joe1919 wrote: »

Hi all.

I am just wondering how the 'no self' or 'emptiness' ideas can help when it comes to physical pain.

For example, when I suffered a very painful toothache recently, there was a certain 'real' feeling of agony in the pain that I alone as an individual consciousness had to suffer.
There was no way of thinking away the pain. I tried to tell myself that the pain was empty and that some of my distress was coming from my desire and 'craving' for this terrible sensation in my jaw to go away but this only relieves some distress.
However, it took a dentist to fully relieve me of my distress.

My observation however is that there is a sense when we are in pain that we are alone in our suffering. This pain belongs to me. It is mine alone.This pain along with the rest of my body that is bound by my nervous system, has this particular property of been connected to my consciousness in an unique way and seems to be part of me as an individual unit or self.

One has a very strong 'sense of self' when in pain.

How are things Joe? I can only offer my own non-enlightened perspective on this.

I think it might be useful to, again, draw the distinction as laid out in the Tibetan saying; there is a difference between understanding "no self", realising "no self" and being liberated from "self".

Ultimately "no self" is not an idea, although it can be described conceptually. Understanding the concept, or idea, of "no self" is not the same as realising the truth of it; which itself is different from being liberated from "self".

Smoker
It may helpful to use the analogy of a smoker (again): a smoker may understand the idea that "smoking is bad for my health", but because it hasn't seemed to have had too great an adverse effect on them, they may not realise the damage it is doing. Later in their life they may then be admitted to hospital with chest pains or shortness of breath, and the doctor may inform them that this is because of their smoking. This is experience will help them to realise the truth of the idea that "smoking is bad for my health", but it may not necessarily be enough to make them quit smoking - or liberate them from the habit of smoking if you will; the habit may be so deeply ingrained that they continue smoking despite knowing what it is doing to them.

Even quitting smoking may not entirely liberate them from the habit of smoking, because the physical act of smoking a cigarette is just the outward manifestation of the habit of smoking; an intrinsic part of the habit is the cravings. The behaviour that these cravings illicit are equally an effect of the habit of smoking e.g. replacing cigarettes with food, becoming irritable when cravings arise, etc. So, while the outward manifestation of smoking may have ceased, and other behaviours cannot be directly classified as "smoking" the "ex-smoker" is not actually liberated from the habit. Liberation usually occurs as a result of "re-training".

"the Self"
"The Self" is somewhat similar, not least because smoking is a manifestation of "self"; it is a habit which has been learned and ingrained into the psyche since birth; it is a largely subconscious belief that we have about ourselves, which largely tends to go unquestioned.
We can liken the concept of "no self" unto the concept of "smoking is bad for my health". We can understand the concept of "no self" but that doesn't necessarily mean that we realise the truth of it. By investigating our beliefs about who/what we are we can come to a realisation about ourselves and realise that we do not exist as independent entities, separate and apart from everything in existence - which is effectively what the concept of "self" is. That is a peculiar effect of conceptualisation, it appears to create in us the belief in the intrinsic existence of independent entities that exist independently in and of themselves. Examination of the objects however, and indeed ourselves, reveals that we are not independent entities with our own separate, intrinsic existence; rather, we are just the manifestation of one overall process which can only be separated into "parts" arbitrarily and conceptually; but those distinctions do not exist in reality.

The issue is that, whatever the nature of our conditioning from birth, we tend hold sub-conscious attachment to these beliefs of separate, independent entities, we even invest part of our identities in them as well as our hopes for happiness and contentment; we can become so attached to them that we fight wars over them, we kill people over them, we suffer because of them. More subtle than that, we get happy because of them, we get sad because of them, we experience pride because of them, we get angry because of them, we fear because of them, we feel indifferent because of them.

Realising the truth of all this, however, doesn't liberate us from the deeply ingrained habit of attaching to ideas, or sub-conscious beliefs which direct our actions, which cause us to anger, which cause us fear. Liberation from self, so I believe, comes as a result of practice; it comes as a result of cultivating awareness of the usually sub-conscious beliefs, thoughts, habits, actions etc. -

Meditation
Meditation is one such practice which helps to cultivate this awareness; it is also the practice which Buddhist philosophy outlines as being essential to deepening realisations, not only of "no self" but other such concepts; and ultimately a necessary practice to attain full liberation.

There are some studies which also suggest that meditation affects the brain in such a way that people become less sensitive to pain

Through training, Zen meditators appear to thicken certain areas of their cortex and this appears to be underlie their lower sensitivity to pain

-Science Daily article

That article is by no means definitive, and research into the effects of meditation are, from what I can gather, very much in their infancy; the article does however support a very common contention made by experienced spiritual practitioners, with respect to the practice of meditation.

It may also explain how monks appear to experience no pain when engaging in the act of self-immolation (purely an act of protest as far as I am aware). I can only imagine that transcendence of physical pain has been achieved.

wylo

Hey Joe, heres a summary:
TDLR ,

Mangaroosh says: "Im not enlightened so I dont have a clue, so instead im going to once again for the umpteempt time go on another rant about the difference between "realization" and "liberation" and mention something at the end about monks setting themselves on fire to make it sound like I answered the question"

roosh

@wylo - I had read that post, but our discussion went on from there, so I wanted to repost in the thread with a few points that I thought would be worth addressing.

My apologies for the fact that some of them were points which were touched on in that post.

wylo wrote: »

For anyone else reading this , me and mangaroosh have been talking alot more than just in this thread, in case you are confused on why im being 'aggressive', moreso to the point.


I thought my last post dealt with all this, you didnt even have to read the whole thing, i left a TDLR bit at the end "i dont care if its not enlightenment, i want people to see no self

and that is the one thing that really shouldn't be missed in all this. It does appear that the method employed on RT is effective to a degree - the issue is what it is effective at doing.

It is important that people realise "no self", the problem is in telling people that it is enlightenment if it isn't - and the subsequent issues that follow on from that.

wylo wrote: »

Ive dealt with this too in my last thread. Ciaran? Nice guy, good for a chat , and good for giving a few tips on trying to see the illusion in others to help them. But other than that I dont care about him , he can say or do what he likes, its not my blog, its his.

That is all fair enough, but the fact remains that "your enlightenment", for want of a better way to put it, comes from him; if he isn't enlightened - and there are glaring issues with what he says about his enlightenment - then neither are you enlightened (unless you attained liberation subsequently). Again, I know you are more concerned about showing people "no self", but if this is the case then it may be prudent to inform them that what they the experience may not be enlightenment - not just because some dude on the internet says it isn't, but because you are not entirely familiar with the teachings from whence the term originates.

Also, however, if you agree with what Ciaran writes in his blog, then you can take any questioning of it as a question directed to yourself.

wylo wrote: »

ok well say that to him not me.

I have, but he seems to adopt a similar approach to the moderators on RT: repeat the assertion that anyone who dares to dissent has not looked and is not honest, instead of rationally addressing any issues raised.

wylo wrote: »

Im not going to go and troll the Buddhist forum , why? because I dont care for Buddhism. Why else? Cause people here arent as likely from to be from 'schools of thought' and the less likely you are from a school of thought, the more likely you'll crack this.

You don't have to troll the Buddhism forum, you can simply post a thread with respect to enlightenment, it is a topic that is entirely relevant to that section of boards. Now, I know you don't care for Buddhism, but unbeknownst to yourself you are using a term that is borrowed from existing spiritual traditions, not least Buddhism; without knowing it you are saying that you have attained the state of liberation that the primordial Buddha attained and whose teachings are all concerned with attaining the state you say that you have attained; you may not care for it, but you are referencing to it indirectly, and inadvertently.

Just on that issue though, because it is one I have seen repeated by yourself, and perhaps others on RT, it is the assertion that anyone who has previous experience of spiritual investigation - or a particular school of thought - will have more difficulty in "cracking" the "no self" thing. An alternative reality, which you may not have considered, is that those with prior experience of spiritual investigation may have actually encountered this already and have realised it; they may have had the experience of thinking that they were enlightened, only to realise they were not; the realisation that appeared so mind-blowing may have normalised and the process of deepening what you refer to as enlightenment (which may just be a realisation) could be well under way. They may also have encountered teachings about moving beyond "no self" and about how the realisation of "no self" ,and the belief that "I am enlightened", can actually become manifestations of "the self" - given the subtle nature of the mind, and the insidious nature of "the self".

It must of course be stressed that, indeed, that may not be the case at all.

Just a point on the notion of the "school of thought"; it might be worth noting that you could, broadly speaking, be classed as being from the RT school of thought. Outside analysis would, I'm sure, reveal certain common beliefs and language among those form the RT lineage.

wylo wrote: »

Mangroose if I do that you cant win either way , really you cant, one of 2 things will happen.
1. I go and describe what happened me, I describe how all beliefs are completely falling a part , how this thing is getting deeper to a point that I see a void, and all else is just simply false. Not false in the conventional sense. Like this computer is really here, but you begin to see how void is the only permanent unchangeable 'thing' in existence. People on the forum say "yeaa man your enlightened, you cooool". Where does this leave you? Nowhere , cause if you werent honest enough to look for yourself, a few people 'in the know' agreeing with me certainly wont help you look.

If that were to happen, then I would benefit from learning that my understanding of enlightenment is misguided; who knows, I might even realise that I've been enlightened all along, but just believed it was something different (which Ironically is vaguely what Buddhist teachings say anyway).

Just on the point that "[the] 'void' is the only permanent unchangeable 'thing' in existence"; does it remain unchanged when you enter deep-, dreamless-sleep; does it remain unchanged when you die?

wylo wrote: »

2. I go and describe everything above and they tell me im not a bit enlightened , they'll probably tell me get out and stop trolling or something I dont know. You still do not win ,because you will DEFINITELY not look if they tell you your right.

If that transpires, and your experience is at odds with what Buddhist teachings say about enlightenment, but is in accordance with what they say about realisation, then the prudent course of action may be to follow the Buddhist teachings and practices to attain liberation - as opposed to the RT method to attain realisation.

wylo wrote: »

Either way you cant win. The only way you can 'win' is by dropping all those concepts of enlightenment or whatever and looking at the truth, is that self real? Nothing else. Now go look and stop finding stupid plot holes a blog that I didnt even write.

This idea of dropping the concepts of enlightenment is again something I have heard repeated on RT, and to an extent it is a prudent piece of advice, when correctly understood; indeed, it is something that experienced spiritual practitioners/masters will mention.

But the manner in which you use it here is somewhat spurious. If you'll pardon the analogy, it is a bit like describing your experience of sex to someone and telling them that you put two fingers in the womans vagina; only for them to tell you that that doesn't actually qualify as sex. To tell them to drop their concepts of sex is somewhat of a misnomer.

As for the plot holes: they are less potholes than they are glaring contradictions which are mutually exclusive; and while I know you didn't write it, you were the one who cited it and who seems to agree with it.

wylo wrote: »

Im glad your concerned for me!
But really, no I dont think thats the case, I think its just annoying you that you dont have a clue what the hell is going on in this head. you want in but you dont want in at the same time, I dunno.

I would be lying if I said that I didn't experience some level of "Ego" in my discussion of this - as I say, I'm not enlightened. I do try to practice compassion as well, however, more practice is undoubtedly needed.

It's not so much that I don't have a clue what is going on in your head, that is annoying, it's more the fact that I think I have a fair idea of what is going on, but trying to articulate it in such a way that isn't entirely Ego-driven, and that may beneficial to everyone, including myself, can be quite difficult.

wylo wrote: »

Your stuck on your route, hopefully with that route you experience some sort of awakening.

This goes to the very heart of it; it seems as though you have experienced an awakening, but you believe that you are awake.

roosh

wylo wrote: »

Hey Joe, heres a summary:
TDLR ,

Mangaroosh says: "Im not enlightened so I dont have a clue, so instead im going to once again for the umpteempt time go on another rant about the difference between "realization" and "liberation" and mention something at the end about monks setting themselves on fire to make it sound like I answered the question"

Just in case that is your actual interpretation of the post, it may be helpful to clarify what was actually said.

Firstly the clarification between "realisation" and "liberation" was raised because it is essential to the issue at hand. Joe mentioned how he was trying to apply the ideas of "no self" and "emptiness" to his pain, but it didn't have the desired effect. This would suggest that Joe (like myself) either understands both concepts, or has possibly realised the truth of them, but has not been liberated from "attachment to self".

As the experience of pain was being used as evidence for the existence of self, and possibly to challenge the notion of transcending physical pain, it may have been useful to point out that perhaps Joe, like myself - and potnetially others - has "further to go" before attaining liberation.

As far as I am aware, meditation practice is essential for attaining liberation from attachment to "the self", and the subsequent [possible] transcendene of pain. As I have not yet attained liberation, or transcended physical pain I cannot say for sure what it is like, or if it is even possible; however, there are real-life examples of Buddhist monks who have self-immolated in protest against certain things. In the act of self-immolation, the monks do not appear to be experiencing any pain, which suggests that they have transcended the physical pain - which is expressly related to the issue that Joe was raising.

To be clear, this suggests that transcendence of physical pain appears to be eminently possible, but presumably only when a certain level of realisation has been attained, or indeed when one is fully liberated from "the self".

As a possible explanation for how this might be possible, there is some research into the area which suggests that meditation affects the physiology of the brain and thereby makes experienced practitioners less sensitive to pain. As far as I am aware, however, the reasearch is far from conclusive; it does however concur with anecdotal and experiential evidence of experienced practitioners.

TLDR: in order to transcend physical pain, and to attain liberation, it apperas that meditation practice (and lots of it) is required.

roosh

wylo wrote: »

we actually agree on something:)

we'd probably agree on a lot more if we were to get into it.

One fundamental issue on which I disagree is the notion that you or I don't exist; we don't exist like waves in the ocean don't exist.

It is true that the conceptual self doesn't exist in reality; the conceptual beliefs we have about ourselves, which form our identity, which we become attached to - through years of social conditioning - does not exist in reality. It is our attachment to those beliefs which is the cause of all the issue in the world, such as war and the like. Equally, it is our attachment to beliefs about other things as well, not just our"self" that is the cause of the worlds problems - attachment is the real issue.

The thing is, you do actually exist; it's just that the sub-conscious beliefs you held about yourself, and with which you identified and were attached to, aren't what you actually are. "You" is a finger pointing to the moon, it isn't the moon.

wylo

If you know the theory so damn well why dont you look at if for yourself instead of constantly battling between realization/liberation/enlightenment/what Ciaran said/what RT is about/everything and anything like that.

Why dont you just drop all that and just look at it, for what it is. The fact that the self is only a belief, look at just that!

Why are you the only person that cant accept that his satori or experience, while life changing did not cause a permanent shift in consciousness.

roosh

wylo wrote: »

If you know the theory so damn well why dont you look at if for yourself instead of constantly battling between realization/liberation/enlightenment/what Ciaran said/what RT is about/everything and anything like that.

Why dont you just drop all that and just look at it, for what it is. The fact that the self is only a belief, look at just that!

Why are you the only person that cant accept that his satori or experience, while life changing did not cause a permanent shift in consciousness.

How do you know I haven't "looked" and haven't "seen"?

wylo

because you're on a spiritual search and lots of other obvious things like you are in a constant battle of what it is I am talking about. Or you try and pick out technically wrong things in posts and blogs, its pathetic, you have not looked and you certainly have not seen, yes you got a profound life changing glimpse 3 years ago but thats about it.
These glimpses are life changing because they set people on a path.

Now Look and SEE. Actually look at the fact you dont exist, dont just ponder, actually look , just for once, seriously, forget about RT, it cant do anything for you , really, just look at it and stop trying to figure out whether you have 'looked and seen' or what not.
It doesnt take long, it only takes a second, its just only looking at the fact there is no you, at all, ever, anywhere. And dont even thinking about coming back on claiming that im saying the body and brain dont exist.

roosh

wylo wrote: »

because you're on a spiritual search and lots of other obvious things like you are in a constant battle of what it is I am talking about. Or you try and pick out technically wrong things in posts and blogs, its pathetic, you have not looked and you certainly have not seen, yes you got a profound life changing glimpse 3 years ago but thats about it.
These glimpses are life changing because they set people on a path.

Now Look and SEE. Actually look at the fact you dont exist, dont just ponder, actually look , just for once, seriously, forget about RT, it cant do anything for you , really, just look at it and stop trying to figure out whether you have 'looked and seen' or what not.
It doesnt take long, it only takes a second, its just only looking at the fact there is no you, at all, ever, anywhere. And dont even thinking about coming back on claiming that im saying the body and brain dont exist.

apologies for the ongoing delay in replying to this, but I've been doing an intensive course and don't have the necessary time at the moment. Although I know you're [probably] not waiting on the reply, I still want to give it the attention it deserves.

wylo

np man,
but seriously, you dont have to reply here to be looking , you can be absolutely up the walls and still looking.

You can just answer these questions to yourself in the mean time.

Who is it that is trying to prove me wrong?

Who is it that is on a spiritual path?

Who is it that is trying to figure out Ciarans version of 'enlightenment'?

Who is it that is unsure of what this liberation actually is?

Your smoking analogy simply doesnt cut it, this Ruthless Truth method is a different map completely , ive learned this recently from chatting to people.
I was emailing a guy recently who was politiley telling me that i am still under the illusion of self despite everything Ive said.

Then I went on to describe to him in detail my experiences the last few months he accepted it was the same as what his "version" of all this is.

That is why there is so much confusion. People read the confirmation pieces and think thats all there is to this liberation, funny enough that IS all there is, but because we dont talk about all the other insights and sh1t like that, people dont think we are liberated.

Because they put a label on what our liberation is, and then when they try and slot that into whatever they are learning they just get confused.

If you really try and answer those questions to yourself, as honestly as possible then you might see that this liberation is as real as it gets.
You might finally see there is no you to be liberated.