Discussion Forum Discussion Forum

Claims to Attainments

Duel on liberation

Duel on liberation
Answer
7/21/11 2:51 PM
I'm still surprised I got myself into this muddle, but there it goes. I went to the "Ruthless Truth" site (I think people around here have heard of it, they claim to liberate people by giving them instructions on their discussion board) and got myself tangled in a duel there on the subject of liberation. This is what happened:

http://www.ruthlesstruth.com/arena/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1247

If you think it looks like an argument among two clueless people, it's probably because it's an argument among two clueless people. That's why I'd like to have the views of the people here. You seem like the guys that would have some neat name for where I'm at and he's at.

By the way, we have agreed that any further discussion on the subject, if it continues, will be on my blog, because it isn't particularly welcome over there. That's also a good place if you'd like to give me any advice and you'd like it to be a bit more private than on this board. My blog is here:

http://always--home.blogspot.com/

RE: Duel on liberation
Answer
7/21/11 8:41 PM as a reply to Doly G.
I get the feeling wylo wants to "be like Jed" (McKenna). Sometimes it's like he is reading from one of Jed's books. I also get the feeling is is afraid of being laughed at, because he mentions it a lot in that duel with you. This is social anxiety, or in other words, having an extremely high self-concern (or strong ego). I honestly believe most of them on RT are deluded and I feel sorry for them because they must be hurting a lot to need to hold onto that delusion. When a person feels inadequate in their natural state, one of the ways of coping is to pretend to be something special, eg. enlightened. Jed McKenna has the same problem. He's a very entertaining writer, definitely, but every now and then he lets it slip that he is the man... you know? He is the cool enlightened dude. Read, and you'll see an arrogance coming through his work.

When AF became popular in here, everyone started using the special 'AF words' like calenture (who else had to go to online dictionary for that?!). They even started beginning their sentences without capitals. They wanted to be like Richard, so they started imitating his idiosyncracies. You see that with school kids who want to "be like Mike!" Mike wears Reebok, and so do I! But AF is in decline now. There's a new kid on the block. And next month, there will be another and direct pointing will have faded into nothingness...

RE: Duel on liberation
rt liberation ruthless
Answer
7/21/11 11:19 PM as a reply to Doly G.
Doly,

First off, *thank you* for engaging with RT via wylo. They hit up reddit/buddhism a month ago and disturbed me more than I thought was possible anymore. After reading around and checking up, I found myself deeply conflicted: they seem to have something, both a piece of insight and an effective method of transmission; but they're so arrogant, impenetrable, and downright *nasty* (and not just 'ruthless' when trying to 'liberate' people). At times I've had such anger and hatred towards one of them in particular, I'm a little scared of engaging with them any further.

You say it looks like "two clueless people" but it's pretty evident that you're not clueless. Here are some choice quotes from you in that thread that resonated with me:

Doly G:
You sometimes say things like "there is no control over what you're doing, it's just happening". If there can be thoughts without a thinker, surely there can be control without a controller? Just because "me" is an idea, it doesn't mean that the things that you thought "you" were doing aren't happening. It just means that "you" aren't doing them. And frankly, people that genuinely have no control over themselves aren't very functional.


I really appreciated "control without a controller". Now that's something my mind can duel with.

Doly G:
...if you were really liberated, you'd know what I meant, instantly. It's almost like the secret handshake of how free people recognize each other, except that it isn't a secret. You can hate somebody with all your heart and at the same time be glad they're alive and making a mess. You can love somebody with all your heart and at the same time not mind if they die.


I've been unsure for myself whether I got stream-entry, or just crossed the A&P and lived in equanimity for 6-12 months. "You can hate somebody with all your heart and ... be glad they're alive" helped me see that it must not be stream-entry. In the deepest part of the hatred I mentioned above, I was not able to be glad they were alive (and I tried). I guess I'm not there yet.

Doly G:
I thought that the package had to come all together because that's how it's always felt to me. This is all just ONE thing, it's just that when you talk about it, it somehow adds up to lots of different things. Now I'm wondering if it's possible to get just part of the package. Then again, what the hell is the package and how different is different?


And this gets to the core of the conflict: can they really 'get' the no-self 'dharma seal' and still be so completely rigid and one-sided, even when called out? I have the same sense of "one thing" but still have no idea how to wrap it up with a bow. So maybe it's not really one thing? Or maybe it's possible to see one aspect so vividly, and obscure everything else so completely?

Anyway, thanks again. You converted a lurker into a poster, which is potentially a bigger miracle than water into wine emoticon

Keep on raisin' hell,
Saul

RE: Duel on liberation
Answer
7/22/11 3:18 AM as a reply to Doly G.
Hi Doly,

That was so funny to read, thanks for pointing that thread out!

When surreal stuff like that happens, I usually just wait for it to play out. If it starts out this good, the resolution must be quite hilarious or really corny or exceptional in some other way. At least, that's the sense I get from such occurrences.

Regarding maps and models: my favorite model is Daniel's Simple Model. I find it useful (but not to measure other people's forum posts). The DhO participant posting as An Eternal Now has what seems to me a similar, but very detailed model - see the "must read" links at the right edge of his blog: Awakening to Reality.

Regarding RT - I got something out of reading parts of Ciaran's blog, and I think pointing directly to "no self" is a useful thing, which is why I brought it up here on the Dharma Overground. My current understanding is that it can get people out of a rut, when meditation (or whichever technique or practice they are doing) has become a bit of a comfortable habit, regardless of their position on any map or model of awakening. The RT crowd are also cultivating what has been called a "death metal aesthetic" of awakening, which is not entirely my thing, and like any piece of cultural trapping will be mistaken for what they are about.

Nice to have you around,

Cheers,
Florian

RE: Duel on liberation
Answer
7/22/11 2:49 PM as a reply to Doly G.
"You converted a lurker into a poster, which is potentially a bigger miracle than water into wine."

Naaah... lurkers are just waiting to become posters, like buds waiting for the right amount of sunshine. Nice to be fair weather for you, though.

"The RT crowd are also cultivating what has been called a "death metal aesthetic" of awakening, which is not entirely my thing"

That's a bit that I liked, that's why I started posting there, I really thought that was fun. I would actually love a forum with that kind of "f**k you" attitude, if it didn't come mixed with rabid fundamentalism of some kind.

__________________________________________________________________________
www.always--home.com

RE: Duel on liberation
Answer
7/22/11 3:31 PM as a reply to Doly G.
The RTers remind me of the film: Fight Club taken literally

RE: Duel on liberation
Answer
7/23/11 8:04 AM as a reply to Doly G.
Hey Doly,

Ultimately the reality is that there is no self, direct inquiry into the existence of the self is an effective of way of realizing this, now the problem here is that this very inquiry is clouded by the sense of self, so some form of external feedback is very helpful in keeping the inquiry on track.

Stated differently, the notion of a self is filled with paradox and direct inquiry into this paradox is frustrating to the mind, consequently the mind/self has a propensity for generating elaborate explanations and distractions instead of focusing on the inquiry, so it's helpful to have someone calling out the tendency to drift off topic.

I am guessing that you were well aware of the confrontational nature of RT before you chose to engage so why is it that the majority of your duel was spent on things other then direct inquiry into non self ?

RE: Duel on liberation
Answer
7/23/11 2:26 PM as a reply to upa saka.
upa saka:

I am guessing that you were well aware of the confrontational nature of RT before you chose to engage so why is it that the majority of your duel was spent on things other then direct inquiry into non self ?


Because Wylo in practice "passed" me after the first few short interchanges. Read the beginning again.

I knew the nature of RT was that they were going to act all superior until I got a blue name, and that's exactly what I was trying to subvert, and maybe succeeded at that to some extent. I could have passed RT with flying colours if I had wanted to. It was only that I didn't want to, because it just happens I don't believe it's a particularly impressive achievement.

But if rambling on the fact that there's no thinker is going to clarify something for you, there it goes:

There's no thinker thinking your thoughts. To be precise, there isn't an entity in your mind that has whatever thoughts are in your mind. Your thoughts just live their lives happily, with no need of another mental entity to produce them. In fact, thoughts, sensations, memories, and other bits and pieces in your mind, put all together, are your mind. All this is immediately obvious with a tiny bit of introspection, or "looking".

The whole thing is a paradox only if you are bloody determined to believe that words have one meaning only, when clearly they don't. "I" and "me" can be used to mean a whole bunch of things, including "this body", "this mind", "both this body and mind", "this body, mind, plus all past experiences in this life", etc. It may even mean "everything this mind is aware of" or "everything this body and mind have ever influenced", in some contexts. If you pick the correct meaning for "me" each time, all those "self-enquiry" questions can be answered without any problems or paradoxes. Just don't assume that "this body" is the same thing as "this life", for example. Or rather, most of them can be answered. I must say I was pretty baffled by Wylo's question about "where do you feel your self?" I honestly don't feel anything like a "self" anywhere in particular.

Now, where on Earth is the problem here? And why would anybody be particularly special because they have noticed any or all of a number of blindingly obvious things?

To give Wylo his fair chance, he's sent me a PM saying he's going to write a blog post about the exchange. His blog is here:

http://theselfisfalse.blogspot.com/

Feel free to have a look and give your opinions.

__________________________________________________________________________
www.always--home.com

RE: Duel on liberation
Answer
7/23/11 4:57 PM as a reply to Doly G.
Reading your response, I am not convinced that you viscerally (not intellectually) grasp the concept of non self, for example the line below suggests a subliminal belief that there is some entity interpreting the experience:

Doly G:

If you pick the correct meaning for "me" each time, all those "self-enquiry" questions can be answered without any problems or paradoxes.


That being said, I would be doing you a disservice by attempting to analyze your response, you really want someone who has done a lot of back and forth with the RT method to provide you feedback on your perspective of non self.

RE: Duel on liberation
Answer
7/23/11 5:54 PM as a reply to upa saka.
I read Doly's interchange and I'm pretty damn confident she gets it. In fact, I'd guess she gets it more than many of the RTers. (And I say this as somehow who has a lot of confidence that RT methods would work.)

RE: Duel on liberation
Answer
7/23/11 10:36 PM as a reply to upa saka.
Upa saka, for people who practice in this tradition (EDIT: meaning the tradition on this board, some kind of modernized secularized Theravada Buddhism), even as far as 3rd path (a very high level of "getting it"), they will still have some visceral non-understanding of no-self. In fact, I would say the major reason that people on RT don't talk about this (assuming they don't in private) is because of the social pressure not to say such things.

We have our 4-path system, there are good ways to guesstimate where someone is along it, none of those good ways involve the absolute denial of any sort of remaining confusion about self, so people have no inhibition about talking about whatever non-"getting it" they might still have. RT has nothing but the stated denial of a self in experience, so it seems that people cleave to the emphatic denial of a self in experience like nothing else. It's a little scary!

RE: Duel on liberation
Answer
7/23/11 10:57 PM as a reply to End in Sight.
From what I can tell reading Cialan's first blog posts, the guy seems to have a pretty good grasp of no-self, especially when he states that awareness is functioning on its own without a self (or something like that). His method may work for some individuals, especially when they have spent decades trying to get to the bottom of it. As such it there is nothing new here, considering that direct pointing at no-self is commonly used by neo-advaita gurus, starting with Poonjaji.

From a Buddhist point of view however, I have not seen anything on RT that could convince me that anyone of them got a genuine insight into the corollaries of no-self. When the sense of self drops, everything is seen as being made of the same substance (suchness), arising and passing away according to cause and conditions (codependent origination). The first time it happens it is so mind-blowing that you can't fail to mention it. But these guys don't.

Then awakening really feel like waking up from a long amnesia, to realize that we were never born and will never die, that nothing ever happened, that there is nothing to do and nowhere to go; and that even if this is true on the absolute level, things continue to manifest as they always did, from the perspective of the conventional truth. And that everything is just perfect as it is. That ordinary life is the very manifestation of absolute reality. I don't see anything that convinces me that these 'liberated' people are genuinely awakened.

I could add many more things that must be seen and understood to qualify as awakened.

My conclusion is therefore that the method is powerful and is one of the skillful means that can be used to help people gaining some level of insight into no-self. But that their ruthless liberation is just that: some level of insight into emptiness of self - and not 'Bodhi'.

RE: Duel on liberation
Answer
7/24/11 7:33 AM as a reply to Alex R. Weith.
Alex R. Weith:


I could add many more things that must be seen and understood to qualify as awakened.



I would be interested to learn what your ordinary day to day experience is like, how your insights have been integrated into your direct perception of reality , what if anything seems different about the physical manifestation of reality (does it look any different ? Is it experienced differently ?) , how about when dealing with ordinary reality (work, family, traffic, dealing with people the push your buttons) do you get "lost in it" ? what about the desire to try and change/modify uncomfortable situations that arise, is there any struggle\tension there (after all ultimately , the situation and the desire to change are both just manifestations of reality, right ?)

RE: Duel on liberation
Answer
7/24/11 8:55 AM as a reply to upa saka.
Things do change. In the beginning one feels a bit disoriented, because the sense of self is not anymore localized in the heart or head space as it used us. One also discovers a new natural state of ease and inner silence. One become more quiet and loses interest for philosophical arguments about this stuff. All theories become more or less pointless, as no system seems adequate to express the nature of reality adequately.

In the course of everyday life, thoughts don't stick as they used to and some negative emotions are only experienced as physical sensations. If emotions continue to arise, one become like a small child in the sense that one may get angry or sad, but the emotional state passes very quickly. Beside that, everything is more or less normal in the sense that it is not an altered state of consciousness. However, one is not anymore identified to anything, not even to waking consciousness. As a matter of fact, one knows that waking consciousness, dreaming and dreamless sleep are just states of consciousness that come and go, like everything else. One also knows that since we are essentially no-thing, unborn and beyond manifestation, there is fundamentally no birth, no death, no becoming and no end to becoming. As a result, the existential fear of death and extinction disappears. Above all, this is the end of seeking. There are still stages of integration and development, but one knows that this is the end of seeking. Hence the feeling of being done.

These are a few things that I have noticed and experience on a daily basis. Of interest however, the fact that others don't see any noticeable change, as we continue to behave and act as we used to.

It is also the experience of the 'Ruthless Liberators'? If it is the case, I would be interested to share as I sincerely think that direct pointing at no-self is a great strategy. My skepticism is only it is very difficult to certify people over the interest. Anybody can say, "there is no doer, only thoughts, perceptions, sensations and feelings", but it doesn't prove much. One would need to spend hours with the person to see if their behavior is congruent with their supposed state and insight. What do you think?

RE: Duel on liberation
Answer
7/24/11 9:16 AM as a reply to Alex R. Weith.
Alex R. Weith:
There are still stages of integration and development, but one knows that this is the end of seeking. Hence the feeling of being done.



Just to clarify, would what you are describing be equivalent to MCTB 4th path, Alex?

RE: Duel on liberation
Answer
7/24/11 9:35 AM as a reply to Nikolai ..
Yes, MCTB's 4th path I guess. It has been confirmed as 'awakening' by a few Zen teachers, two Avaita Vedanta jnanis, as well as Kenneth Folk and Alan Chapman.

But my understanding of the paths is more conservative. Since I am still subject to anger and lust, I would call it 1st or 2nd path. According to Mahayana it is one of the first Bhumis and the first stage of One Taste on the Mahamudra map. Still a long way to go...

RE: Duel on liberation
Answer
7/24/11 10:01 AM as a reply to Alex R. Weith.
Alex R. Weith:
Yes, MCTB's 4th path I guess. It has been confirmed as 'awakening' by a few Zen teachers, two Avaita Vedanta jnanis, as well as Kenneth Folk and Alan Chapman.

But my understanding of the paths is more conservative. Since I am still subject to anger and lust, I would call it 1st or 2nd path. According to Mahayana it is one of the first Bhumis and the first stage of One Taste on the Mahamudra map. Still a long way to go...


Hi Alex,

Interesting, as I am quite conservative too these days and would only call MCTB 4th path the real deal stream entry at least or most probably sakadagami (following the fact that craving and aversion were attenuated quite a bit, but not uprooted fully yet) , all according to the fetter model of the pali canon. Is that what you mean by "1st or 2nd path"?

What is the end goal on your path if there is one? Is it the bodhisattva Mahayana route? As being a "long way to go" seems to imply that.

RE: Duel on liberation
Answer
7/24/11 5:18 PM as a reply to Nikolai ..
>the line below suggests a subliminal belief that there is some entity interpreting the experience

That's because there is some entity interpreting the experience. Experiences don't interpret themselves, and thoughts don't think themselves (if they could, disembodied spirits would be a far more common event). However, the "entity" doesn't live inside your mind, or even inside your body. It's bigger than both, and like Zen monks say, it has no location and no shape.

>When the sense of self drops, everything is seen as being made of the same substance (suchness), arising and passing away according to cause and conditions (codependent origination).

Alex, can you translate that to plain English? Because it sounds roughly like what happened to me, but with so many peculiar words I'm not sure what you're saying.


Alex's description really resonates with me. Alex already knows that, we've met on another site. For everyone else, and for whatever it's worth, my take on it:

>All theories become more or less pointless, as no system seems adequate to express the nature of reality adequately.

You have a point there. That's the really frustrating bit. You want to explain it to people, and it just doesn't work very well.

>some negative emotions are only experienced as physical sensations

That's the most remarkable part, I think. You suddenly find there is a difference between "pain" and "suffering". Pain is the physical sensation, which is of course unpleasant. But suffering is all that added baggage that you used to put to it, thinking all sorts of horrid things about it. That's optional, and there's no good reason to do it.

>If emotions continue to arise, one become like a small child in the sense that one may get angry or sad, but the emotional state passes very quickly.

My emotions have always been a bit childlike that way, but now it's got silly. I've been in situations where I had to make an effort to stay angry in the middle of an argument, because I knew the other people wouldn't take me seriously otherwise!

>As a result, the existential fear of death and extinction disappears.

That's what really freaked me out at the beginning. I was getting this feeling that death is completely meaningless, and I was thinking: "It's not natural to feel like that! Maybe saints and gurus are supposed to say that, but I never believed they really meant it! And why the hell is it happening to little me?" Of course, eventually I got used to it.

The "no-me" fundamentalists are going to say that if I'm thinking "it's happening to little me", I don't get it. <*Sigh*>. I'd like to point out the following to them:
a) I speak plain English because I don't know Buddhist-ese. I've been learning the basics lately, but still know very little.
b) This body, this mind, and much more relevantly, this point of view, actually exist. "I" is much more a "around-here-and-now somewhere and sometime" than a "someone" or "something". Yes, in a certain sense, time and space are not so relevant, but let's keep things simple and not muddle them up.
c) I didn't really have any other way of thinking about it at the time but as an experience I had. It's only when it refused to go away, that I figured "experience" probably wasn't the right way of putting it.


A couple of small differences:

>In the beginning one feels a bit disoriented, because the sense of self is not anymore localized in the heart or head space as it used us.

I never had that, but then, I don't think I ever "localized" myself.

>One become more quiet and loses interest for philosophical arguments about this stuff.

Don't think this applies to everyone. I gained an interest in philosophical arguments about this stuff, which I never had. It was like suddenly I figured why everyone else had an interest, and that's how I ended up tangled in RT.


I know this question was for Alex, but I'm going to chime in anyway:

>what about the desire to try and change/modify uncomfortable situations that arise, is there any struggle\tension there (after all ultimately , the situation and the desire to change are both just manifestations of reality, right ?)

No struggle. If you want to change something, you go ahead and change it. Just because everything is fine as it is, it doesn't mean it can't improve. Sometimes, it screams to high heaven that it should improve. The Serenity Prayer applies. ("Give me serenity to stand the things that cannot change, courage to change the things that can change, and wisdom to know the difference.")

That famous "perfection" is a dynamic thing, not static. It's perfect in the way it's evolving, and sometimes you may be the agent that pushes it in the direction it wants to go. And if you fail at that, or misunderstand where it's meant to go, no big deal. The situation will find some other way. Or not. In the cosmic view of things, everything resolves itself.

For example: RT surely is going to resolve itself some way or another. The valuable bits will be recycled somewhere else and the rubbish will be recycled, in a different sense. The particular argument I had with Wylo, which could be used as a textbook example for the meaning of "unskillful", will either be mercifully forgotten or some useful nugget will be extracted from it, by someone. In any possible case, it's fine, and it couldn't be anything but fine.

__________________________________________________________________________
www.always--home.com

RE: Duel on liberation
Answer
7/24/11 8:45 PM as a reply to Nikolai ..
Nikolai .:


Hi Alex,

Interesting, as I am quite conservative too these days and would only call MCTB 4th path the real deal stream entry at least or most probably sakadagami (following the fact that craving and aversion were attenuated quite a bit, but not uprooted fully yet) , all according to the fetter model of the pali canon. Is that what you mean by "1st or 2nd path"?

What is the end goal on your path if there is one? Is it the bodhisattva Mahayana route? As being a "long way to go" seems to imply that.


Yes this is what I meant. My guess would also be 'sakadagami' according to the fetter model.

Since I come from Zen Buddhism and took the Bodhisattva vows years ago, I would say that it is the Mahayana route. To be more specific, the end goal of my path is that of a Western Mahasiddha.

RE: Duel on liberation
Answer
7/24/11 9:27 PM as a reply to Doly G.
Doly G:


>When the sense of self drops, everything is seen as being made of the same substance (suchness), arising and passing away according to cause and conditions (codependent origination).

Alex, can you translate that to plain English? Because it sounds roughly like what happened to me, but with so many peculiar words I'm not sure what you're saying.



What I meant is that when the sense of self vanishes suddenly, the subject-obect duality is abolished. There is no inside and outside, self and other. We realize that everything (thoughts, perceptions, sensations, consciousness) is made of the same substance. We realize that everything is interconnected, as if what used to be a world of solid objects had become a kind of lucid dream.

Doly G:


Alex's description really resonates with me. Alex already knows that, we've met on another site. For everyone else, and for whatever it's worth, my take on it:



Yes Doly, it is very difficult to explain and we all react to it differently. The core element seems to be the dissolution of the sense of self, together with the discovery of a new default state beyond thoughts, in which most emotions are experienced as physical sensations.

I agree with your description and explanations.

Getting back on the main topic of the thread, I would like to again mention that I am criticizing the core method of the Ruthless Truth movement. But I think that it can still be improved. For instance, instead of saying "LOOK, LOOK!", one could provide a list of things to investigate with absolute honesty. Then a teacher can be ruthless at some point, but it only works when a relationship of trust and mutual respect has been established. Otherwise, people just think that you are mad.