Why people don't awaken
-
Simply because they talk so much bullshit but just don't/won't 'fucking look!'
Hilarious (but real) conversation:
Thursday, 16 December 2010
You're American Aren't You?
19:09 | 
Posted by
CiaranGuest has joined.me: what?
Guest: I feel identified with my falsehood, I guess. Like its vain talking to anybody.
me: shut upthere's no youjust fucking look
Guest: I don't know if there is any point, but did you or would you give me forum access?
me: uhyeahsothere's no youfucking looknow
Guest: Alright, fuck talking to others.
me: uhwhateverlisten
Guest: I'm still looking without
me: there's no youfucking LOOK you shitit's REALthere's no FUCKING YOUfucking LOOKFUCK YOUfuckthere's NO YOUin REAL LIFEfucking LOOKthat's rightshut the fuck up and lookthere's no fucking youLOOK
Guest: I just gotta stop waiting for a magical "no-self" moment.
me: what the fuckare you fucking even saying to meoh waiti don't give a shitif you don't have the fucking ballsto look at the fucking truthdon't wastemy fucking time
me: don't fucking type shityou can't fucking lookwhile you're fucking typing
Guest: Yeah.
me: there's no youin real lifethere never fucking wasEVERit's a fucking FICTIONthere's NOTHING FUCKING THEREnow you are fucking done here mate
Guest: ALright, thanks a lot man.
me: i will not fucking be your fucking dadyou fucking look
Guest: And I'll go jump into oblivion
me: fuck youyou pretentious piece of shitjust fucking lookstop turning thisinto some zen bullshitit's REALin REAL LIFEnow LOOKfor fuck's sake
Guest: I think one has to be in a neutral state of mind to be able to look.
me: oh jesusyou're american aren't you?you are, right?yeah?
Guest: yeah.
me: thought sofull of shitnot interested in the truthjust want another fucking storyso you can fill your headwith more fucking shit=americannow fuck off
Guest: I contemplate the bullshit of our culture all the time.
me: uhi don't give a fuckyou ARE the bullshit of your culture
Guest: I've had satories before.
me: matewhat the fuck
Guest: But nothing lasting.
me: what the FUCK
Guest: I get too freaked out.
me: ok matei don't think you understandwho you are talking toi don't give a fuck about youbecause you area weak personand because you dishonestand because you are a whiningCHILDwith an inflated sense of entitlementsowhy don't you just go fuck offback to your bullshit TVand your bullshit joband whine about how shit everything is
Guest: I'm a college student.
me: whateverwhine about how shit everything isso you can feellike the 'clever' person
Guest: Ever heard of Richard Rose?
me: matethis conversation is overand you just failed
Guest: Alright, see yah.
me: cunt -
This guy (the Guest) is a classic example of someone who thinks that having temporary 'experiences of no self' is equivalent to 'satoris'/enlightenment, and thus fail to arise insight or realization into Anatta as a dharma-seal - the nature of reality. That is, he fails to see Anatta/No-Self as a fact of reality and thus fail to see the point to ‘Fucking look!’ (to observe/see the nature of reality that no self can be found) – instead he is thinking of regaining a previous ‘state’ or ‘experience’ of no-self.
I think Ciaran would have done better to be more patient and explain the difference of 'experience vs realization' to the guest.
As I pointed out before:
...First I do not see Anatta as merely a freeing from personality sort of experience as you mentioned; I see it as that a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc, cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation or as its commonly expressed as ‘the observer is the observed’; there is no self apart from arising and passing. A very important point here is that Anatta/No-Self is a Dharma Seal, it is the nature of Reality all the time -- and not merely as a state free from personality, ego or the ‘small self’ or a stage to attain. This means that it does not depend on the level of achievement of a practitioner to experience anatta but Reality has always been Anatta and what is important here is the intuitive insight into it as the nature, characteristic, of phenomenon (dharma seal).
To put further emphasis on the importance of this point, I would like to borrow from the Bahiya Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html) that ‘in the seeing, there is just the seen, no seer’, ‘in the hearing, there is just the heard, no hearer’ as an illustration. When a person says that I have gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’, he is mistaken. When it is taken to be a stage, it is illusory. For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so. This is the seal of no-self. Therefore to a non dualist, the practice is in understanding the illusionary views of the sense of self and the split. Before the awakening of prajna wisdom, there will always be an unknowing attempt to maintain a purest state of 'presence'. This purest presence is the 'how' of a dualistic mind -- its dualistic attempt to provide a solution due to its lack of clarity of the spontaneous nature of the unconditioned. It is critical to note here that both the doubts/confusions/searches and the solutions that are created for these doubts/confusions/searches actually derive from the same cause -- our karmic propensities of ever seeing things dualistically... -
this is FUCKING lame
-
Originally posted by theWEIRDme:
this is FUCKING lame
Erm, dude, no, this is REAL.
There is no you.
Have you looked?
The Buddha had, all enlightened beings had, and they woke up. In fact this is one of the most important teaching of the Buddha: the truth of Anatta, the emptiness of self.
Unlike most people who simply fail to do some simple instructions, I have actually cared to 'fucking look', and I woke up. More precisely: there is waking up, no 'I' who woke up: I just said 'I' for convenience sake.
What does awakening do? Before enlightenment, chop wood carry water - after enlightenment, still chop wood carry water - yet it is seen that there is no 'I' who does them.
Seeing scenery, just scenery - shapes and colours, no seer. Thinking, no thinker. Hearing, just music, no hearer. Just That!
The attachment and belief in 'self' is the lamest thing/lie and yet it is not exposed for most people.
So, just look already - in seeing, there is no you. Is this true? Don't agree or disagree. Look!!! Seeing is precisely just sight, shapes, scenery, no 'I' or seer doing the seeing! Seeing is just sight, not a 'perceiver perceiving perception'! Thinking is simply just thoughts! Hearing is simply just sound! Everything in life is appearing as it is and cannot be denied – just that there is no you. Life is, liver isn't.
-
then can you at least shorten it? it is so longgggg
-
all things are beautiful from the perceptive of a perceivable heart
there is no right nor wrong, it only tangibility
-
Originally posted by theWEIRDme:
then can you at least shorten it? it is so longgggg
There is the experience of reading these words. But there is no one reading it.
There is the experience of hearing the bird chirping. But there is no hearer.
There is the thought of what this actually mean. But there is no thinker.
There is the action to type a reply. But there is no doer.
In short: everything IS, but there is no you.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
There is the experience of these reading words. But there is no one reading it.
There is the experience of hearing the bird chirping. But there is no hearer.
There is the thought of what this actually mean. But there is no thinker.
There is the action to type a reply. But there is no doer.
In short: there is no you.
Is no self and not attached to self related? How are they related because I understand not attached to self but I don't understand no self.
-
Originally posted by Beautiful951:
Is no self and not attached to self related? How are they related because I understand not attached to self but I don't understand no self.
They are different.
You may be not attached to self, through, for example, giving away your things and time selflessly for the service of others.
But you may not realize that there is no self.
Realizing no self is about realizing a fact of your immediate experience... It dissolves the construct that there is a 'me' that is perceiving, doing, making things happen. Things are just happening. There is doing, deeds are done, but no doer. Hearing is just happening. Seeing is just happening, seeing is simply the experience of sights, colours, shapes, and hearing is simply the experience of music, tunes, etc, there is no hearer. There is no 'seer seeing things'... there is no inside and outside (no 'me' inside here watching things over 'there' - there is in the seen JUST the seen, no 'you' plus 'the seen'), there is no duality, there is no agency.
-
There is no fucking look. Just what the fuck.Period.
-
Isn't it true that to understand no self, I first have to know what is the self?
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
There is no fucking look. Just what the fuck.Period.
There is no fucking look for you because you dogmatically refuse to and prefer to keep your lies and distortion.
I did, and I woke up.
-
Originally posted by Beautiful951:
Isn't it true that to understand no self, I first have to know what is the self?
Zen Master Dogen:
“ To study the Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things of the universe. To be enlightened by all things of the universe is to cast off the body and mind of the self as well as those of others. Even the traces of enlightenment are wiped out, and life with traceless enlightenment goes on forever and ever.[6]
To know what is the self, is to realize that there is no self - then you are enlightened by the ten thousand things.
What does it mean?
Hearing the bird, there is no 'me' hearing the bird - I am the bird chirping! And there is no 'I'... just That....
Conventionally speaking 'You' are what is arising moment to moment... sensations, thoughts, sight, sound, smell, taste, touch... ultimately, there is no "You".
-
Originally posted by seyKai:
all things are beautiful from the perceptive of a perceivable heart
there is no right nor wrong, it only tangibility
I'm not sure how you're relating to this thread, but I just saw a good post by 'goldisheavy' in another forum a few moments ago that I thought is relevant to your post:
Good and bad aren't illusions. There is nothing that's absolutely good or absolutely bad, but that fact doesn't strip good and bad of all value.
If people realize that each person has their own ideas about good and bad and that there is no such thing as absolute good or absolute bad that must be unilaterally imposed on all people, we can begin the process of bargaining with each other.
There may never be a perfect frictionless world, but I will take honest bargaining over the bullshit unilateral imposition of superstition as "the absolute truth."
Suffering is bad and eliminating the deep causes of suffering is good. Living exclusively for the afterlife while tolerating and ignoring the abuses and superstition in this life is bad.
Religion is bad in the sense that it divides people into us vs them. Believer vs. the infidel/heretic. If we can eliminate this source of divisiveness, we'll be better off.
Just because fire can be started in many ways, it doesn't mean we shouldn't bother putting insulation on electric wires. It's dumb to argue that "who cares about insulating wires, since wires will always start. Even if you insulate all the wires in the world, someone can drop a cigarette on the mattress. Oh, it's hopeless!"
If you can eliminate even one cause of fire, do it. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
There is no fucking look for you because you dogmatically refuse to and prefer to keep your lies and distortion.
I did, and I woke up.
I am not being dogmatic, You are the one being pedantic. Duh.... -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
I am not being dogmatic, You are the one being pedantic. Duh....No. I see that there is no self in real time. ('I see' is simply for convenient communication, there is actually just experiencing without experiencer) This is not a belief for me, but an actual living fact seen in real time.
You are the one being dogmatic because you refuse to challenge your tightly held beliefs and attachments.
I did, and I woke up.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
No. I see that there is no self in real time. ('I see' is simply for convenient communication, there is actually just experiencing without experiencer) This is not a belief for me, but an actual living fact seen in real time.
You are the one being dogmatic because you refuse to challenge your tightly held beliefs and attachments.
I did, and I woke up.
It's just replacing one thing with another thing. Why are you so pedantic? -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
It's just replacing one thing with another thing. Why are you so pedantic?Are you saying I replaced my belief of 'self' with 'no self'?
To that: my answer is, no.
I do not believe in 'no self'. I have seen through the illusion of self, yes, but I do not hold on to any beliefs of any sort. There is just this real time authentication of the true face of experience/experiencing without an experiencer.
There is just the undeniable experience of hearing, seeing, thinking... without the sense or illusion of 'me in here seeing that over there'.
There is no concepts, beliefs required.
There is no self, and also no 'no self'.
There is just This... sound of keyboard typing, da da da.... words appearing on screen... all self-luminous, vivid, pristine, happening-of-itself.
Everything is just shining the obvious Truth... there is no need to keep thinking 'no self'. (oh but before you see this, keep contemplating)
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
It's just replacing one thing with another thing. Why are you so pedantic?It is "I" view which makes life unsatisfactory, but after having it for so long, one simply unwilling/unable to let go.
You've carried a chip on your shoulder for so long, that you are so comfortable to bask, nay, wallow, in your cynicism of all things general. so ubiquitous is your negativity that you've accept it as normal. Unloading the burden may prove to an unfamiliar, unsettling experience, that you would prefer the status quo.
However, you are not alone.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I'm not sure how you're relating to this thread, but I just saw a good post by 'goldisheavy' in another forum a few moments ago that I thought is relevant to your post:
Good and bad aren't illusions. There is nothing that's absolutely good or absolutely bad, but that fact doesn't strip good and bad of all value.
If people realize that each person has their own ideas about good and bad and that there is no such thing as absolute good or absolute bad that must be unilaterally imposed on all people, we can begin the process of bargaining with each other.
There may never be a perfect frictionless world, but I will take honest bargaining over the bullshit unilateral imposition of superstition as "the absolute truth."
Suffering is bad and eliminating the deep causes of suffering is good. Living exclusively for the afterlife while tolerating and ignoring the abuses and superstition in this life is bad.
Religion is bad in the sense that it divides people into us vs them. Believer vs. the infidel/heretic. If we can eliminate this source of divisiveness, we'll be better off.
Just because fire can be started in many ways, it doesn't mean we shouldn't bother putting insulation on electric wires. It's dumb to argue that "who cares about insulating wires, since wires will always start. Even if you insulate all the wires in the world, someone can drop a cigarette on the mattress. Oh, it's hopeless!"
If you can eliminate even one cause of fire, do it.
if u can understand what i wrote, u might not wan to put your teachings hereonly if you have suffer enough to understand life
-
Originally posted by seyKai:
if u can understand what i wrote, u might not wan to put your teachings hereonly if you have suffer enough to understand life
Yeah, sorry if I misunderstood what you meant. Wasn't very clear from your post.
-
Originally posted by seyKai:
all things are beautiful from the perceptive of a perceivable heart
there is no right nor wrong, it only tangibility
"To the pure, all things are pure" maybe?
Tangibility= palpability; being sensed or felt.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
"To the pure, all things are pure" maybe?
Tangibility= palpability; being sensed or felt.
yes, its yur perception on how u read it -
Genuinely awakened people will know how to handle their lives well in a few years' time. Going by "Textbook definitions" of "awakened" and "enlightened" do nothing to help people's lives in future, except give false sense of security for the time being. Using Earth-bound labels is easy, which is why we have so many "Spiritual Masters" running all over the place, all over the world.
In a few years' time, it will be extremely interesting to see how many "awakened" or "enlightened" people and "Spiritual Masters" cope with their lives. For the time being, when the illusion is still in place, carrying badges with labels have little consequences. The full details of this unique lifetime are not provided in books written long time ago. The real tests of true spirituality are on the way...
Rainbow Jigsaw of Life
-
Originally posted by Rainbow Jigsaw:
Genuinely awakened people will know how to handle their lives well in a few years' time. Going by "Textbook definitions" of "awakened" do nothing to help people's lives in future, except give false sense of security for the time being.
Actually, when you awaken to the nature of reality, you no longer need to rely on 'textbook definitions' - you just see the nature of reality for yourself and there can no longer be doubts. From experience, some 'textbook definition' of what enlightenment entails does line up very well with personal experience, but some commentaries are quite off the mark.
As for 'handle their lives well' - actually, enlightenment is the realization of no-self and emptiness, the realization of the nature of reality. Handling your life well has to do with 'growing wisdom' of gaining and learning from life experience. However, prajna wisdom (the wisdom of emptiness) and growing wisdom are two different things. You can have lots of growing wisdom, but no prajna wisdom, and likewise you can have prajna wisdom with little growing wisdom.
Growing wisdom usually takes many many years to mature - prajna wisdom depends, it can take a long time but also a short time (there has been recorded cases of 7 years old who became enlightened as arhants) provided that his conditions are already there. I have seen a number of people of my age (20) who have had spiritual enlightenment.