|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 2, 2012 7:20:16 GMT -5
The illusion of progress is pretty convincing. There seems to be progress within the illusion. The illusion is becoming less illusory? I write that last sentence knowing that anything that is illusory is an illusion, whether it seems less illusory or not. It seems like BK's The Work is all about progress. Just whittle away at those beliefs and pretty soon the stick is gone. (Ah yes the illusory whittler is still there, looking for another stick). My foray into buddhism hilighted progress too. Just stick with mindfulness and things will get better and betterer. And someday if you really really persevere, maybe you too can attain liberation. So one approach, as preached, on good days, via RT folks for example, is to recognize the actual absence of the person. Nuthin there ('cept everything else). Not unlike Harding's The Headless Way. Makes sense. And experientially, a worthwhile trick -- Looking and not seeing anything there. Some folks seem to get a lot of mileage out of this trick. You know when you look at a faint star and you can't really see it by looking directly at it -- you can only see it peripherally (a function of the placement of the eye's rods and cones)?. Sometimes I think this is analogous to what is going on here. Looking internally for this person thing, I see nothing. But peripherally I can see behaviors and reactions that directly point to a self (or a belief in the self). Defensiveness, control issues, demands on others, arguments with what is ... all seem like evidence that, despite the absence of any self when looking for one, there is nonetheless a culprit (or belief in one). What is it that propels one to look for the self (and see the absence of one). Suffering? If that's it, it's pretty minor, in this THIS' case. It's more like: what's all the hoopla? But also, I mention those culprit generated behaviors -- defensiveness, control, demands, yada yada. It'd be nice if those went away and I could be just a confident effective loving compassionate man of action. Yet I hear over and over that this enlightentment thingy doesn't really change anything. (I also hear the contradictory thing that it is extra cool and everything is more and such -- extra dimensional, etc). And that would explain how former persons who've traveled through the gateless gate can still behave like such buffoons and continue to cause suffering and hardship to others. There IS progress in terms of self improvement in the same way progress happens in a non-spiritual context. To the degree that they're successful, there isn't much interest in 'enlightenment'. One way of talking about it is the transcendence of the whole self improvement game, which is the realization that it goes on forever without establishing a permanent state of happiness. I don't think anybody bypasses the self improvement game and goes straight for enlightenment, though it is often pursued with the idea of self improvement in mind. At some point it's necessary to see through the self improvement game, and it's this that the teachers are pointing to when they say nothing really changes. They're not saying you still suffer, and still cause suffering for others, and still act like an egomaniacal buffoon. They're just saying that life goes on much the way it has and you don't suddenly get everything you want and walk around with a blissed out smile on your face all the time. You don't find a one-ended stick and remain in the happy end of the happy/unhappy duality because Peace is not about dualistic happiness. You're not going to be the poster boy for peaceful loving-kindness and divinity (unless you are) because this is just an image formed about how one should act in the ultimate state of self improvement. There are all sorts of judgments, projections and misconceptions involved in that image because the seeker doesn't yet know what Peace, Love and Freedom are really about, or he wouldn't be seeking it. I talk a lot about what suffering is not in hopes of dispelling some of the self improvement misconceptions. If one is trying to be a morally good person or follow a strategy to become a perpetually joyful person or one who never feels sadness or acts to resist anything or express anger, then one is chasing their own image of what Peace and Love actually mean. Spiritual forums are like watching the Misconception Channel: all misconceptions all the time. And so there is a lot to talk about, and it's all to say, 'It isn't so'. We can't say that in collapsing these misconceptions that we have come closer to the truth because there's no movement whereby a person can get closer or farther from truth. The idea of progressing doesn't make sense anymore when we're talking about self realization because it's not a process of self improvement. It's just a collapse, a loss, the ending of the search in the realization that there was never anything to search for because nothing was ever missing. The seeker is looking for something that he only imagines is missing, and so it makes no sense to say he's getting warmer. Still, the collapse is necessary. Yuppers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2012 20:25:50 GMT -5
I haven't followed this conversation at all, but I'll throw in my two cents after reading the last page. These words are not addressed to any particular poster, but to any poster who happens to read it. THIS imagines separation. THIS also sees through the illusion of separation. THIS is whole and complete. The illusion is separation. There is nothing other than THIS. The seeker thinks that there is a seeker seeking truth or enlightenment, but there is not. Enlightenment is the realization that there never was a seeker, only THIS. Any idea about progression towards anything is an illusion. There is never any movement or progression because there is only THIS, undivided. Asking, "How can I get free, or find the truth, or get enlightened?" is like asking, "How can an imaginary person climb Mt. Everest?" This is why a sage must respond, "There is nothing you can do because who you THINK you are does not exist. Who you THINK you are is imaginary." You think that you are a person, but who you REALLY are is THIS. You think that you are a person searching for freedom, but who you REALLY are is already free. You think that you are a person searching for the truth, but who you REALLY are IS the truth. ZD, The Ruthless Truth organization was dedicated towards "enlightening" others, and their tactics and mannerisms in doing so were less than couth. It's one thing to hang a shingle up and say "come to me if you want to be free of your delusions" but its another thing entirely to go out to others and try to free them of their "delusions" through domination and intimidation. Ruthless Truth kept a count of how many people they "freed" from the "delusion of self". Everything they did was oriented towards to image and appearance of enlightenment. What does This need with keeping count of how many people This had made aware of This? For that matter, why does This care that other people exhibit speech patterns which seem to be obsessed with This? The dogmatic approach of RT is what made it miss the mark in a fundamental way. There is no dogma in This, as dogma is a shackle upon This's dynamic expression. RT became a hive mind where people derived a new self-identity as belonging to the group, belonging to the movement. Your status within the group was tied into how well you performed at "liberating others" from their presumed belief in self. My argument is this: Any intentional endeavor by This has a holistic intent, which has strong entailment on the manner of interaction between This and something which thinks itself is not This. Forcing realization and awakening on others can be damaging and unnecessarily traumatic. In fact it exhibits a fundamental distrust in the natural ways of This. People have to cook and gestate in their cocoon before they are ready to emerge into the raw visceral direct experience of This. The shedding of the Husks comes in its own time through healing of the psyche's fractures. This does not need us to rule and dominate each other into forced compliance with being This. All This needs from us is that we be Mid-wives to each other, to help ease and facilitate the emergence of This in another. The problem with RT is that they were not patient in waiting for people to become pregnant with This, they would go out of their way to induce labor in others. RT was not concerned with the dynamic and organic emergence of This, they wanted to inseminate others with their particular way of being and relating. That is fundamentally anti-This. I think you give em more credit than it's worth. On a good day, RT was an online moshpit. Uncouth, yes. But like any good hardcore tune, it can get overplayed. |
|
|
|
Post by stepvhen on Nov 13, 2012 10:40:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 13, 2012 13:20:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Nov 13, 2012 20:16:44 GMT -5
Funky video Stepvhen. Like it! |
|
|
|
Post by lukewarm on Dec 14, 2012 23:47:58 GMT -5
ruthless truth... not my thing.. seems very fake.
|
|
|
|
Post by magnesio on Nov 28, 2013 18:13:04 GMT -5
its all false
|
|
|
|
Post by stepvhen on Sept 13, 2014 4:04:49 GMT -5
I question that logic. My Burning True project came to a head when I started to have experiences of something I would later find is named amata in Budhism. The website has moved to www.burningtrue.net. The site offers the user some maps for finding the same experience. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2014 7:08:02 GMT -5
I question that logic. My Burning True project came to a head when I started to have experiences of something I would later find is named amata in Budhism. The website has moved to www.burningtrue.net. The site offers the user some maps for finding the same experience. All hat no cattle. Is this the Amata that's central to the phaedra complex? Do you have an inappropriate stepmother or is this just symbolic? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2014 4:55:06 GMT -5
I question that logic. My Burning True project came to a head when I started to have experiences of something I would later find is named amata in Budhism. The website has moved to www.burningtrue.net. The site offers the user some maps for finding the same experience. All hat no cattle. Is this the Amata that's central to the phaedra complex? Do you have an inappropriate stepmother or is this just symbolic?  |
|
|
|
Post by humbleseeker on Dec 9, 2014 14:49:45 GMT -5
Hi guys
sorry for dragging open this old thread. but my question is regarding this 'teacher' so seemed the best place to put it.
personally I think the idea of becoming enlightened in a few minutes is ludicrous (besides the exceptions). but I also accept that I have no idea what this chap says to make these people think they are enlightened.
i am also fascinated by this idea, as it is impossible to prove (as far as I can) whether someone is or is not. To me, it is far more than 'seeing' something. but then again, who am I? (hee hee)
to my question:
Does anybody know what this RT chap says or does (and I am very sorry if this was shared somewhere in the previous 98 pages, but that's too much to read).
thanks guys
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 15:04:41 GMT -5
Hi guys sorry for dragging open this old thread. but my question is regarding this 'teacher' so seemed the best place to put it. personally I think the idea of becoming enlightened in a few minutes is ludicrous (besides the exceptions). but I also accept that I have no idea what this chap says to make these people think they are enlightened. i am also fascinated by this idea, as it is impossible to prove (as far as I can) whether someone is or is not. To me, it is far more than 'seeing' something. but then again, who am I? (hee hee) to my question: Does anybody know what this RT chap says or does (and I am very sorry if this was shared somewhere in the previous 98 pages, but that's too much to read). thanks guys which RT chap are you thinking of? |
|
|
|
Post by humbleseeker on Dec 9, 2014 15:40:09 GMT -5
Ruthless Truth - Mr Healy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 16:15:10 GMT -5
Hi guys sorry for dragging open this old thread. but my question is regarding this 'teacher' so seemed the best place to put it. personally I think the idea of becoming enlightened in a few minutes is ludicrous (besides the exceptions). but I also accept that I have no idea what this chap says to make these people think they are enlightened. i am also fascinated by this idea, as it is impossible to prove (as far as I can) whether someone is or is not. To me, it is far more than 'seeing' something. but then again, who am I? (hee hee) to my question: Does anybody know what this RT chap says or does (and I am very sorry if this was shared somewhere in the previous 98 pages, but that's too much to read). thanks guys Mr. Healy originally defined enlightenment for himself as realizing the absence of self. He shared his story and had some dialogues with a few folks early on that seemed to see the sense in that as well. This was excitedly referred to as popping. Liberation/enlightenment were regarded as seeing through the assumption/presumption/illusioin of there being a separate person running the whole show. Then Mr. Healy tried to 'industrialize enlightenment' operating on the assumption that the false assumption of selfhood was at the root of all suffering worldwide. The methodology chosen was There is No You. Various incentives were put into play to encourage the liberated to liberate more, hoping to spur an exponential explosion of liberation. RT was shut down but two other sites came out of it, the more assertive truthstrike and the more touchy feely ecumenical liberation unleashed. Truthstrike fizzled but as far as I know LU is still happening. Personally, I was dubbed liberated in this way but have never really bought it. There are probably others too. One of the things I liked about RT was it's motivation to end suffering, etc. I failed to see this change much at all with my 'liberation.' And I failed to see any sort of increase in compassion with many of the more prominant liberated RT-style (one memorable occasion in this thread had one threatening raping me with a rusty chainsaw LOL). The argument was an a55hole prior to liberation is an a55hole after liberation. But doesn't a55holishness contribute to suffering as well? The buddha points to various 'sublime abodes' or attitudes that naturally arise with the cessation of self-referential thinking or endless grasping of pleasure or avoiding displeasure. Compassion, loving kindness, sympathetic joy, equanimity. This makes more sense to me and seems to be more indicative of what liberation/awakening might foster. I never saw this among the claimants of the RT definition of liberation. So it makes me wonder if the seeing through of the assumption of selfhood was more conceptual or superficial. Perhaps the buddhist tack of ceasing that grasping or averting is needed to a greater depth? |
|
|
|
Post by humbleseeker on Dec 10, 2014 4:07:50 GMT -5
Thanks Max,that's very good of you...
For what it's worth, many would say seeing something is not the same as realising or becoming it (or should that be Not-becoming, hee hee)
Anyway, I am still curious about the 'process'. Are you in a position to share with some detail what was said and done
(it's a bit of a cop out I know. I could just go and ask, but would rather not. What a whimp!)
|
|
