BARRY LONG

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums
enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by enigma » Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:26 pm

Mouse wrote:
enigma wrote:
The arising of what you call memory and emotions doesn't cause something personal to exist, it only seems so. The distinction is important. The person is an illusion, whether it arises or not.
So while you are focusing on the "seems to exist person" you leave your senses and are only partially conscious of existence.
Existence is what is aware of senses and what appears to be a person and everything else that appears in consciousness, including consciousness itself. It makes no sense to me to be partially conscious of existence. Existence is what experiences itself as partially conscious.
If that is so why do you focus on it if it is merely an illusion.
On what? Memory and emotions? There's not a lot of that going on here, but to the extent that it does, it's life lifeing. Why make it into a problem?
In my experience anything that is unreal can't stand pure consciousness and disappears.
What is pure consciousness? Or alternatively, what is impure consciousness?

You must be feeding the illusion if it is persisting. (I am making assumptions here that you do have that arising as do I in this body.)
Are you suggesting that if the body appears here, that it's because the 'you' (an illusion) is feeding the illusion? That doesn't sound possible.

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by enigma » Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:33 pm

arel wrote:
enigma wrote:
arel wrote: Try this little experiement: Exhale and hold your breath. Pay attention closely to what is going on. Keep holding the breath. Can you find the sense of self in that experiement? Does that at all feel to you as an amplification of the sense of when let's say when people disprove of you or when you feel important?
I have no idea what you're talking about. The sense of self is not somewhere in the body. You are not in the body, the body is in You (Consciousness).
It was my attempt for you and I to explore the sense of self through holding the breath until you can't hold any longer and see if in that last second you can recognize the amplified sense of self that is always humming on low level within what you are and gives rise to what we call here "the ego". It seems this hum is always there, in our attention, since the day this body was born.
Oh, okay.
The sense of self is very clear here all the time. I see that it is the same as it was when I was a child.

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by enigma » Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:57 pm

bruce lee wrote:To me what barry says is self evident truth to me as far as i understand and apply it.. and thats all that ,matters. I find that with any truth , or discourse or whatever it is, people like to debate and split hairs, and say " yes, but" or behave as though they know some deeper truth that they cant demonstrate. Im not knocking or pointing fingers at anyone, just saying what i see, . I used to find it quite annoying sometimes when i showed someone a barry long book or video, and they didnt understand, or have the inclination to.. but they could understand how to work a personal computer, or some complicated machine, but then i guess this is not for anyone, and as long as i understand, thats all that counts.
No insult intended, and I don't think anybody is disagreeing with BL. We're all just "saying what we see".
What's of slight interest to me is that, while I don't have an issue with what BL teaches in essence (It's the same thing dozens of others teach) it seems unclear at times because of how he says it, and the irony is that some are going out of their way to declare it a particularly clear teaching, or else that just arose out of the discussion about it being unclear, not sure.

Again, no insult intended, but Mouse seems very unclear to me as he talks about how clear it all is, and I'm not even certain I disagree with what's being said but it keeps looking like there are conceptual misunderstandings going on, so I'm a bit curious about it.

User avatar
Mouse
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:15 pm
Location: Kyogle, Australia

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by Mouse » Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:31 am

Enigma you need to clarify your realisation. So as I can tell it is not just an intellectual statement.

So to make it clear Enigma you have said it is all just "Life Lifeing" and in another place you call it all just "God Godding". So to say that, that implies, you are "That" realised every moment or one with that every moment? No separation? How wonderful! Please make this clear because you are saying you can't have it two ways.

Are you one with that reality called God every moment? Yes or No?

And to answer that 'there is no I' is not sufficient in this case because 'That or God' is not personal.

I ask this because you imply it but are not clear about it. Whereas Barry Long is clear in his statement "I am one with that every moment" and he would make that clear so that the people could question him and he would demonstrate his knowledge of what that is for the people.
I have been inspired by Barry Long's teaching and I write this so as to acknowledge my source of inspiration. It is a wonderful help, and it is a wonderful gift.

bruce lee
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:09 am

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by bruce lee » Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:30 am

i find it confusing sometimes as many people on here say that self doesnt exist, or talk about going beyond self, but to me self isnt just some vague airy fairy notion or mind image about who we think we are, its the thing in me that thinks its seperate, and can work it out, the part of me that argues when it knows its pointless, that takes offence and closes up knowing well that its making more pain,, all that is my self,,,not my body thats pure and programmed to survive,,

karmarider
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by karmarider » Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:46 am

bruce lee wrote:i find it confusing sometimes as many people on here say that self doesnt exist, or talk about going beyond self, but to me self isnt just some vague airy fairy notion or mind image about who we think we are, its the thing in me that thinks its seperate, and can work it out, the part of me that argues when it knows its pointless, that takes offence and closes up knowing well that its making more pain,, all that is my self,,,not my body thats pure and programmed to survive,,
Right, that's it. This thing you say which is a vague airy fairy mind image which thinks its seperate, does not actually exist. Look for it. It doesn't exist.

Plorel
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:59 pm

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by Plorel » Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:11 am

There is good reason to say you do not exist. To say you are not ego or you are not the false self or you are not thoughts or you are not story is accurate, but, at least in my experience, is not compelling enough. People usually agree with that without looking. "You do not exist" is compelling.
Thank you for those contributions karmarider. This seems so important. It goes along with Eric's signiture, "ask questions that are dangerous", "ask questions that could change your life". There are so many many new age groups and countless videos on youtube about how a time has come where (global) change is crucial and how we have to put aside our selfish striving to come together to demonstrate love and compassion.

And the "I" watches this, gets a good feeling (part of this videos are really well made with cool pictures...), nodds to itself and thinks that this is a good message and that it will try to be less selfish and more loving and compassionate. Why are there so many people that turn to this message? I guess its because its so easy to align with ones prefabricated belief-system. Its sounds nice, doenst stir too much mud and doesn't question the assumptions, people have build their life on.
Who am I without my story?

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by enigma » Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:40 am

Mouse wrote:Enigma you need to clarify your realisation. So as I can tell it is not just an intellectual statement.

So to make it clear Enigma you have said it is all just "Life Lifeing" and in another place you call it all just "God Godding". So to say that, that implies, you are "That" realised every moment or one with that every moment? No separation? How wonderful! Please make this clear because you are saying you can't have it two ways.

Are you one with that reality called God every moment? Yes or No?

And to answer that 'there is no I' is not sufficient in this case because 'That or God' is not personal.

I ask this because you imply it but are not clear about it. Whereas Barry Long is clear in his statement "I am one with that every moment" and he would make that clear so that the people could question him and he would demonstrate his knowledge of what that is for the people.
This isn't about the teachings of Enigmaism. No such thing, and I'm not going down that road. We're discussing the teachings of Barry Long, and how you have interpreted them.

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by enigma » Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:44 am

bruce lee wrote:i find it confusing sometimes as many people on here say that self doesnt exist, or talk about going beyond self, but to me self isnt just some vague airy fairy notion or mind image about who we think we are, its the thing in me that thinks its seperate, and can work it out, the part of me that argues when it knows its pointless, that takes offence and closes up knowing well that its making more pain,, all that is my self,,,not my body thats pure and programmed to survive,,
Yes, I see the confusion here and I'm pretty clear about the source of the confusion. What you describe as the self is an illusion. It's a belief structure in a separate me which we refer to as ego. self, me, ego are all the same and made up of nothing but thought.

User avatar
Mouse
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:15 pm
Location: Kyogle, Australia

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by Mouse » Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:00 pm

bruce lee wrote:i find it confusing sometimes as many people on here say that self doesnt exist, or talk about going beyond self, but to me self isnt just some vague airy fairy notion or mind image about who we think we are, its the thing in me that thinks its seperate, and can work it out, the part of me that argues when it knows its pointless, that takes offence and closes up knowing well that its making more pain,, all that is my self,,,not my body thats pure and programmed to survive,,
Bruce thank you for starting this thread as it has allowed me to go into the contradiction I see between Barry Long's statement and nonduality teachings. So thanks to you and everyone that has contributed.

With regard to your post I find that it is the emotion that is separate and gives the feeling of separation, subtle as it may be. When the perception is grounded in the sensational whole of the body there is no feeling of separateness.

Making love is the most wonderful way to really get into the body, as well as a fast track way to identify the personal self. Because up it comes to join in the action with wanting and trying. The pure and beautiful sensation of the body making love, and the forceful presence of the personal self is brought into sharp contrast. This reveals the cause of sense of separation.

Being the body doesn't mean I am the body it just means I am not separate from it. I am one with it.
I have been inspired by Barry Long's teaching and I write this so as to acknowledge my source of inspiration. It is a wonderful help, and it is a wonderful gift.

randomguy
Posts: 967
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:00 am

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by randomguy » Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:30 pm

Does Barry teach the source-of-sense-of-separation-mama-jama?
Do the yellow-rose petals
tremble and fall
at the rapid's roar?
- Basho

karmarider
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by karmarider » Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:11 pm

Plorel wrote:
There is good reason to say you do not exist. To say you are not ego or you are not the false self or you are not thoughts or you are not story is accurate, but, at least in my experience, is not compelling enough. People usually agree with that without looking. "You do not exist" is compelling.
Thank you for those contributions karmarider. This seems so important. It goes along with Eric's signiture, "ask questions that are dangerous", "ask questions that could change your life". There are so many many new age groups and countless videos on youtube about how a time has come where (global) change is crucial and how we have to put aside our selfish striving to come together to demonstrate love and compassion.

And the "I" watches this, gets a good feeling (part of this videos are really well made with cool pictures...), nodds to itself and thinks that this is a good message and that it will try to be less selfish and more loving and compassionate. Why are there so many people that turn to this message? I guess its because its so easy to align with ones prefabricated belief-system. Its sounds nice, doenst stir too much mud and doesn't question the assumptions, people have build their life on.
The ideas of spirituality and love and compassion provide a safe and socially-sanctioned way of remaining trapped. The opposites aren't it either. All of these ideas can be dropped.

the key master
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by the key master » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:10 pm

Waddup?
Bruce Lee said,

i find it confusing sometimes as many people on here say that self doesnt exist, or talk about going beyond self, but to me self isnt just some vague airy fairy notion or mind image about who we think we are, its the thing in me that thinks its seperate, and can work it out, the part of me that argues when it knows its pointless, that takes offence and closes up knowing well that its making more pain,, all that is my self,,,not my body thats pure and programmed to survive,,
I find it helpful to diffentiate between the "idea/image of separate self" and the "sense of being the thinker". Even a thought about now is at best a fragmented representation. The image of separate self depends on, and is a part of, these fragmentations. Human beings are still guided by thought as we traverse through the timeless flow, even thoughts which are "grounded in separation". For instance, later on today, "I" am going to take "my friend" out for a slice of pizza. So we must see and understand that there is nothing inherently wrong with the "fragmentation of reality".

Yet, this unique ability of thinking to fragment leads to the illusory sense of actually being the ego/mind. Karmarider is right, in that there is no "thinker here", only a stream of thoughts arising and subsiding inside that which is timelessly present. It is the "sense of being the thinker", or the "feeling sense that there is a separate self thinking certain thoughts and having certain experiences", which ultimately must be seen through.

There are a few ways to go about realizing there is no thinker as a distinct and separate entity. One would be, to find the Self, awareness, and hold onto it. Ananda is solid in expressing this, a method which could allow you to glimpse and abide in that which you timelessly are. Adyashanti's True Meditation would be a similar kinda thingy. The more clock time one spends in "Pure Awareness", the quicker realization would dawn, I imagine anyway.

Coupled with this, I advocate not just "watching thinking", but understanding, seeing where the mind may be emotionally conflicted with reality, seeing where its being falsely believed that things should or could be different than they are right now. This type of inquiry/observation is more personal in nature, because the mind itself is seeking to understand how and why it thinks the way it does. Because is it not the emotional pull of thinking which often cuts us off? Typically, there is some "emotionally vested thought" which is either being strived for or avoided. We thus understand how the mind plays the role of "emotional manager", which is a role it plays under the false pretenses of being a separate self.

As we begin to understand our own minds, we are simultaneously dismantling the implicit framework necessary to maintain the illusion that there is actually a separate self or separate thinker. Sometimes, the freedom the mind actually seeks is from the emotional pain that it wants to avoid, and if that is the case, freedom is through the pain, always, and not from it.

User avatar
Mouse
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:15 pm
Location: Kyogle, Australia

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by Mouse » Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:45 pm

karmarider wrote:
The ideas of spirituality and love and compassion provide a safe and socially-sanctioned way of remaining trapped. The opposites aren't it either. All of these ideas can be dropped.
Have you really loved?

Human love is what you are talking about. To really love I have to give up my self.
I have been inspired by Barry Long's teaching and I write this so as to acknowledge my source of inspiration. It is a wonderful help, and it is a wonderful gift.

User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6391
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by Sighclone » Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:08 pm

km -

This is a gem:
This type of inquiry/observation is more personal in nature, because the mind itself is seeking to understand how and why it thinks the way it does. Because is it not the emotional pull of thinking which often cuts us off? Typically, there is some "emotionally vested thought" which is either being strived for or avoided. We thus understand how the mind plays the role of "emotional manager", which is a role it plays under the false pretenses of being a separate self.

As we begin to understand our own minds, we are simultaneously dismantling the implicit framework necessary to maintain the illusion that there is actually a separate self or separate thinker. Sometimes, the freedom the mind actually seeks is from the emotional pain that it wants to avoid, and if that is the case, freedom is through the pain, always, and not from it.
The mind is actually subject to a deeper entity, the Heart. Ramana goes on at length about this in "Talks..." Seeing past the mind, seeing the mentally-created "false self" is only a plateau. Resting there is "spiritual bypassing" or "Zen sickness" if there are Heart-level issues still creating fixations and blockages to freedom. The mind can end-run, offer concepts, create rationalizations, create arbitrary re-prioritization, etc. But it cannot defuse deeper emotions. They must be brought to the light of consciousness and transmuted in the crucible of Source.

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce

Post Reply