Do you believe a 'you' exists?

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.

Willlow

I didn't read all the posting so apologies if something like this was asked already, but if you don't exist then would it matter if I ran you over in my car?

koHd

Willlow wrote: »

I didn't read all the posting so apologies if something like this was asked already, but if you don't exist then would it matter if I ran you over in my car?

I think from the very first post you can get your answer.

I don't think there is a claim that our body and brain can defy the laws of physics.

From my understanding of this theory of no 'self', it's referring to the social norms imprinted on our brains from years of conditioning, which governs our every decision.

Eg. the reluctance to be the first person on the dance floor, because you might look like an idiot in other peoples eyes, even though you may have the feeling to do it. But if you're at home alone, you are not governed by that thought and will dance around with not a care in the world.

Also, after a few pints, we lose the 'self' consciousness and just go with our instincts.

wylo

exactly^^

Ive been trying for the past few weeks of coming up with a way of presenting this in a way that its very obvious and simple to understand.
Most people get it, as in they get the concept, but Im amazed at the amount of people (atheists in particular) that dont seem to understand what the "me" Im talking about is.
And they then go on to claim that this brain reconfiguration/shift/whatever is nothing more than an understanding that the body is just a machine, no extra entity. Then the sort of responses you recieve are along the lines of "yeaaaaa??..aand?", which is fair enough, its up to me to present it better.


Any help on explaining that would be great!!


At the moment, the way I try and explain it is this: when you think a thought about yourself, what self is that? Can you say with pure raw honesty that you are only referring to a body, or does it feel like more? Not in a metaphysical way but it does it feel like there is something a bit more than the machine that is the body??

Another way I try get people to look now is by asking them to simply tell me who is the creator of the thoughts.

wylo

Willlow wrote: »

I didn't read all the posting so apologies if something like this was asked already, but if you don't exist then would it matter if I ran you over in my car?

Yes , please dont run me over, everything alive will do what it can to survive, you dont need a belief of self to not want to be ran over by a car:D

roosh

Hey Wylo, apologies for the delay in getting back to you, I've been up the walls with the past [close on] two months.

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.

just a couple of things with the above: I'm just wondering what you mean by saying that I'm "on a spiritual search". You use it as one of the indications that I haven't "looked" or "seen", but I just wanted to get a better understanding of what you think the dynamics of my "spiritual search" are; and particularly how it differs from your "search" to deepen your enlightenment.

Also, I wouldn't so much say that I am in a constant battle with what you say, as much as I am simply questioning whether you have achieved the enlightenment of the Buddha, as implied by your use of the term "enlightenment"; particularly when your description of your experience appears to be at odds with what is taught about enlightenment.

Further, any highlighting of "[technical inaccuracies]" is with reference to both peoples descriptions of their experiences and what is taught about enlightenment. If there are technical inaccuracies between both, then it suggests that enlightenment hasn't actually been achieved.

That may appear as though I am in a constant battle with what you say, but it is simply a challenging of some of the major assumptions inherent in your statements.

wylo wrote: »

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

indeed, that sounds a lot like the practice of mindfulness/awareness

wylo wrote: »

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?

wylo wrote: »

Answer to all of the above: This tiny part of the universe

wylo wrote: »

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.

apologies if the analogy wasn't clear, but it wasn't necessarily meant as an outline of the process of enlightenment, rather highlighting how the self can manifest itself, even though it appears as though the habit has been broken. Again, this refers to some of the "technical inaccuracies" between descriptions of experiences and what is taught about enlightenment.

Part of the issue is not so much that others put a label on your liberation, the issue is that you (or RT in general) has put a label on your liberation. That is where the confusion comes from, because the label is already in use, and some of the descriptions of experiences are at odds with what that label encapsulates.

I would have been inclined to agree with the person your refer to above, in that it does, somewhat, seem like you (and others) are still under the illusion of self; it seems as though the illusion of Ego has shifted to the belief in a liberated self; that "this body" has replaced "I" as the label for the self.


Funnily enough, I wouldn't have dreamt about coming back claiming that you were saying that the body and brain don't exist, because the body and brain don't exist in the very same was as the self doesn't. Those too are simply labels, to which we become attached.

wylo

roosh wrote: »

just a couple of things with the above: I'm just wondering what you mean by saying that I'm "on a spiritual search". You use it as one of the indications that I haven't "looked" or "seen", but I just wanted to get a better understanding of what you think the dynamics of my "spiritual search" are; and particularly how it differs from your "search" to deepen your enlightenment.

Because as the months go on, even before I started this thread, this has never been so crystal clear, there is no me. Deepening is just the shedding of beliefs that the belief of self held together, its not a search, its just something that happens after liberation.

A lifetime of needless thoughts need unravelling. Its like being a child learning how to live again, every new experience encountered is relearned in the brain, only properly this time.

Whereas I get the impression your search is a search to reach some sort of final goal. It seems there is a feeling of unfulfillment until you do.

I remember in the RT thread you describing that only after a few hours it kind of "wore off" or something.
Thats a glimpse, its a glimpse that sets you on a path.
For me , liberation is a feeling of normality, its not profound, its not a cosmic truth, its just normal, almost the way a human is suppose to see things. But most importantly, it IS freedom, that word is a bit dramatic but thats what it is, its freedom that is literally impossible for anyone to take away from you, be it society, government, laws, guards ,ANYONE!!

I was probably naive starting this thread, I jumped the gun way too quickly, I got frustrated because people weren't looking. But Im still not going to take back any claim or anything Ive said.

If other people are interested in cracking this , get in touch by pm or whatever, I've gained the experience to get people to see this so I dont need to go promoting RT or other sites. Just a conversation with myself.

Blackhorse Slim

wylo wrote: »

Just wondering what are peoples thoughts on this. I recently had a permanent shift in perception in my mind. The 'me' no longer exists. It is gone, there is no me, just my brain, my body, my thoughts, but no me , no ego.
This was not just an intellectual understanding or acknowledgement, but a true seeing and knowing, basically a realization.

The concept of a self is something that we have created through our behaviour, use of language, our methods of feeding individual identity into someone from a young age.
But the truth is there is no controller, its just this body that is typing this existing in the Universe. It is liberating tbh.

He who speaks, does not know.
He who knows, does not speak.

wylo

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

He who speaks, does not know.
He who knows, does not speak.

Damnit , you just destroyed my entire argument of no self in this thread with this wise insightful comment.

The cool thing about humans is we do speak, and we do share, thats how we got to the point we did, through sharing knowledge.

On another note...
Heres is a link which I found interesting for people more interested in the neurological angle of all this...
http://www.shaktitechnology.com/enlightenment.htm

roosh

wylo wrote: »

Because as the months go on, even before I started this thread, this has never been so crystal clear, there is no me. Deepening is just the shedding of beliefs that the belief of self held together, its not a search, its just something that happens after liberation.

A lifetime of needless thoughts need unravelling. Its like being a child learning how to live again, every new experience encountered is relearned in the brain, only properly this time.

Whereas I get the impression your search is a search to reach some sort of final goal. It seems there is a feeling of unfulfillment until you do.

I remember in the RT thread you describing that only after a few hours it kind of "wore off" or something.
Thats a glimpse, its a glimpse that sets you on a path.
For me , liberation is a feeling of normality, its not profound, its not a cosmic truth, its just normal, almost the way a human is suppose to see things. But most importantly, it IS freedom, that word is a bit dramatic but thats what it is, its freedom that is literally impossible for anyone to take away from you, be it society, government, laws, guards ,ANYONE!!

I was probably naive starting this thread, I jumped the gun way too quickly, I got frustrated because people weren't looking. But Im still not going to take back any claim or anything Ive said.

If other people are interested in cracking this , get in touch by pm or whatever, I've gained the experience to get people to see this so I dont need to go promoting RT or other sites. Just a conversation with myself.

You speak about shedding beliefs, which the belief of self held together, implying that you have not yet shed all of those beliefs. The issue is that "the self" is not simply a single belief, it is a variety of beliefs which also manifests as actions - as most beliefs do. Further, consciously recognising an erroneous belief does not necessarily break the subconscious attachment to it. Such beliefs can and often do manifest as behaviours, despite our conscious lack of belief in them. Those behaviours are equally a manifestation of the phenomenon of self.

It appears as though you are projecting your preconceptions of "spirituality" and "the spiritual path" onto me (and perhaps others), assuming that there is some form of a search for a final state which matches some kind of mental projection. That isn't necessarily the case - although that is not to say it might not be for some - to borrow a saying I've heard through Buddhism (but is presumably uttered by the wider spiritual traditions) "the path is the goal". There is no final state to be achieved in the future, rather the cultivation of awareness of the present, the here and now.

But as you speak about "paths" and "final goals", you might look at it in the context of what you have said yourself. You talk about the unravelling of a lifetime of needless thoughts, where the "final goal" is presumably the point when all these beliefs are unravelled. If, and when you reach this "goal" - which some might term enlightenment - you might be able to look back and see the "path" you took to reach it.

wylo

fair enough roosh, ive been talking to you for months at this stage, personally I dont believe you are experiencing no self, I think you had a glimpse and learned alot of literature since, theres only so many times I can read you saying "The issue is..." before I realize you are never ever going to look. I dont care anymore to be honest, and thats the truth.

If you truly believe that what I experienced is the same as your own experience 3 years ago, then so be it. Its a pointless argument at this stage, the thread is about there being no you, and breaking the attachment of self, you are still attached, and theres nothing I will ever say or do to get you to look at this objectively.