BARRY LONG

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums
karmarider
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by karmarider » Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:06 pm

Well, the description is not quite right, that's not what it feels like, though I don't know if I can come up with a better description.

This is an on-going thing, so I don't know how it will turn out. So far there is a lightening. Emotions cannot build up in a feedback loop like they used too. (Though I had prior to this become pretty skilled at letting go of emotions). There is some detachment yes, some passivity, but also more integration Sometimes there is confusion; sometimes there is a feeling of being lost, unhinged. My head is full, I didn't sleep well for a week, then I slept for 18 hours. This is an on-going inquiry for me, which I describe here (http://eckhart-tolle-forum.inner-growth ... =10&t=7907) and on my website.

Concurrent to this inquiry, I am reading Jed Mckenna, and he makes sense in way which he did not before.

Someone with a higher pay-grade can perhaps describe what it feels like when the recognition of no-personal-self is complete.

User avatar
Ananda
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:35 am
Location: Manchester, England
Contact:

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by Ananda » Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:15 pm

Hello karmarider,


No offense to you intended, but your post sounds copy and pasted word for word from something that I've read over at RT.
Thought creates a thinker
Yes, the thinker is itself a concept- an assumption.

There are thoughts, and so you believe there is a you experiencing these thoughts. But the you is just an idea. Thoughts exist. You do not.
There are a few problems with this.

First of all, the assumption of there being a thinker is not the same as a 'you' that experiences, or knows, thoughts. In fact, it's a performative contradiction to state that there are thoughts, but no 'you' that experiences them. The statement 'there are thoughts' presupposes a 'you' that knows and objectifies them- a subject is necessary for a statement of objective knowledge to be made. You contradict yourself when you make a statement of knowledge but then deny yourself as the subject of it. To say 'there are thoughts, but no you' is a self-refuting statement, it is impossible both logically and experientially.

The 'you' is not an idea, because you know all ideas, even the idea of 'you' is known and objectified by you. You are not an idea, nor an idea about yourself- you are the subject only, by which ideas are known and objectified.
A personal I does not exist.
And you are not a personal I.
so awareness becomes my awareness, life becomes my life. But it's just awareness. And just life.
This can be admitted only if a) you are a personal I and b) awareness is an object. You are neither a personal I, and neither is awareness an object. Awareness can not be possessed, and nor can it be known objectively. Awareness is synonymous with the subject only, you can not turn it into an object of knowledge. To say 'there is awareness, but not you' is also another self-refuting statement, and also commits the fallacy of infinite regression by attempting to turn awareness into an object, something known. If awareness is something known, an object, then by what is it known if not another awareness? Thus, there is an infinite succession of awarenesses that all seem to know and objectify each other- which is false.
There is a body. It's just not your body, because you do not exist.
The statement 'There is a body' contradicts the statement 'you do not exist' - you must exist in order to make the first statement, if you don't exist, then you can not know there is a body. You refute your own teaching each time you deny your existence.
You is just an idea, which came about from reflection on memories and self.
All ideas are known to you. If 'you' is just an idea, then you have to admit a further you to which the idea of 'you' is known- and therefore objectified.
It's about seeing the I does not exist
A non-existent Self cannot see its own non-existence. It is another performative contradiction to say 'look and see there is no you' . Would you ask a dead man to know he is dead? If I do not exist, then I can not look and see anything, so the teaching is pointless. To state 'look and see there is no you' assumes there is a 'you' that is being asked to look and see. To state 'there is no you' denies this subject, therefore the teaching is pointless and contradictory. If it is possible to 'look and see there is no you' then 'you' exists, and the teaching refutes itself. The only way this teaching can ever stand is as a dogmatic statement, made by nobody for nobody (thus rendering the idea of liberation redundant). It cannot be tested or known to be true- because to be tested requires a subject to objectify knowledge regarding it's accuracy, which would therefore refute the teaching.

It is utter nonsense to state you do not exist, it becomes immediately self-refuting and falsified when it is uttered.
You can never deny your existence, in doing so you affirm it. That you exist is self-evident, it can never, ever be refuted- because it's true.

This teaching is crap, it's rubbish. It doesn't work, at all. It fails logically and experientially, because it can never be put to the test without admitting it is wrong. Those who say they are liberated by this five minute teaching are wrong, they are deluded, and have also contradicted themselves. There is no method in this teaching, it is dogmatically asserted by its proponents who simply reassert that it is true until you accept that it is true. Then they ask you to go off and do the same.

You can never know if this teaching is true, because if you can then it is false- that is how absurd it is.

They don't tolerate criticism of the teaching, nor do they offer any method by which it can be tested. All they say is 'look and see, is it possible?' - which is again self-refuting. The reason why they don't accept criticism is because their claims are based on circular reasoning. The teaching is 'the truth' because they are liberated, and you are not. They are liberated because the teaching is 'the truth'. That's it. If you don't accept this then you are a self-obsessed and dishonest egomaniac who isn't interested in the truth. If you question it, then who are you to question it? You are not enlightened, they are, therefore your criticism isn't valid. :roll:

The teaching is founded on a basic misunderstanding of what non-duality means. They say that reality is non-dual because there is no subjectivity, there is no 'you' - only objects. Actual non-dual teaching says that reality is non-dual because the substance of objects is you, the subject- the division is not really true. I have never read any text that denies the existence of the Self, and I can refer to many that refute the idea (no you). I am not appealing to authority here; one's own experience alone is enough to refute the teaching, however, I am pointing out the ignorance of established teachings that is evident when this teaching originated, clearly its author completely missed the point and now insists that the teaching is truth stripped of all the spiritual context.

I'll understand if by 'you' you are only referring to the personal self (ego), and not the real you, ie awareness, but that's not what this teaching is about- it's a complete denial of all subjectivity. I asked at the forum and they said that the teaching is not about seeing the false sense of self, it's a straightforward denial of 'you' in any and all senses- the ego is only loosely connected with their teaching, as an afterthought. The problem is not the ego, not the false sense of self created in the mind, the problem is you- ego exists as an idea, as a necessary function of the body, but you don't exist at all. Get rid of you first, deal with ego later. That's about the gist of it.

I'm not attacking you, karmarider, just the teaching, it is naive and lazy.

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

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by karmarider » Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:47 pm

Ananda wrote:Hello karmarider,

No offense to you intended, but your post sounds copy and pasted word for word from something that I've read over at RT.
You are wrong. Those guys believe that seeing no-you is enlightenment. Not to mention that they are meglo-maniacal. However, the inquiry can be separated from where it comes from, and it's a powerful inquiry. Any overlap is coincidental.
Thought creates a thinker
Ananda wrote:Yes, the thinker is itself a concept- an assumption.
We agree.
There are thoughts, and so you believe there is a you experiencing these thoughts. But the you is just an idea. Thoughts exist. You do not.
Ananda wrote:There are a few problems with this.

First of all, the assumption of there being a thinker is not the same as a 'you' that experiences, or knows, thoughts. In fact, it's a performative contradiction to state that there are thoughts, but no 'you' that experiences them. The statement 'there are thoughts' presupposes a 'you' that knows and objectifies them- a subject is necessary for a statement of objective knowledge to be made. You contradict yourself when you make a statement of knowledge but then deny yourself as the subject of it. To say 'there are thoughts, but no you' is a self-refuting statement, it is impossible both logically and experientially.

The 'you' is not an idea, because you know all ideas, even the idea of 'you' is known and objectified by you. You are not an idea, nor an idea about yourself- you are the subject only, by which ideas are known and objectified.
This is a matter of terminology. We've had this problem before.

The you in "you do not exist" refers to the false idea of I, the personal I. This does not deny what is undeniable. Of course there is Existence which experiences objects.

So it is incomplete to say that "you do not exist" but there are good reasons for this. This makes the inquiry direct. Most people who are in delusion see the you as the personal I, not as awareness, and so it works. And those who understand conceptually that there is awareness, might have the assumption that the personal-I jumps from egoic identification to awareness. So, it's better to keep this inquiry to what it is, direct and focused on the false you.

And when the no-you is seen, the inquiry can continue. It must continue.

Unlike the people at RT, I don't see that this is complete. Jed Mckenna is very helpful here, and he describes this very well as the First Step.
A personal I does not exist.
Ananda wrote:And you are not a personal I.
Yes, you is the personal-I in this case. You don't like this terminology. I do.
so awareness becomes my awareness, life becomes my life. But it's just awareness. And just life.
Ananda wrote:This can be admitted only if a) you are a personal I and b) awareness is an object. You are neither a personal I, and neither is awareness an object. Awareness can not be possessed, and nor can it be known objectively. Awareness is synonymous with the subject only, you can not turn it into an object of knowledge. To say 'there is awareness, but not you' is also another self-refuting statement, and also commits the fallacy of infinite regression by attempting to turn awareness into an object, something known. If awareness is something known, an object, then by what is it known if not another awareness? Thus, there is an infinite succession of awarenesses that all seem to know and objectify each other- which is false.
I completely agree. You in this case = personal I. Awareness cannot be objectified.
There is a body. It's just not your body, because you do not exist.
...
Ananda wrote:It is utter nonsense to state you do not exist, it becomes immediately self-refuting and falsified when it is uttered.
Only if you are attached to a particular terminology. There is nothing you have said here, or in other posts, that I disagree with. I am able to see that to you "you" refers to the undeniable Source (existence, awareness). For some reason, you are not able to see that "you" for me in this inquiry refers to the false I.

Ananda wrote:I'll understand if by 'you' you are only referring to the personal self (ego), and not the real you, ie awareness,
Ok, then we agree, and I take my previous statement back. You're mixing me up with your view on Ciarin's teaching. Let's keep that separate.
Last edited by karmarider on Sun Dec 05, 2010 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by karmarider » Sun Dec 05, 2010 4:20 pm

On the teaching over at Ciarin's RT, our opinions are similar.

The technique is still powerful and valid. I've given it a fair shake and I will recommend it to people. The technique does not lead directly to enlightenment. It is what Jed Mckenna calls the First step, or the first seeing, and it's powerful first seeing. It's more powerful than other techniques I've explored. It's as effective as releasing, for a First step.

I have many issues with RT.

Those guys believe they are enlightened when they are not. So they stop looking once they see the no-self.

I have my doubts as to how many people have actually had the recognition. There is a great deal of pressure to get the recognition quickly, and get promoted to "free" others. It's pretty easy to parrot the recognition and my guess is that's what lot of their people are doing.

Recently, they organized a coordinated attack on another spiritual forum. (the moderators here may want to be aware). The meglomania has turned militant.

There was an exchange with Scott Kiloby, and it looks like Kiloby has removed his support.

There is a great deal of inexperience and immaturity there, as evidenced by their belief that abusing seekers and calling them pussies and cunts is a way of keeping them interested.

RT has all the makings of a cult. There are blind followers. They are all stuck in the same abusive style of freeing others; it's strange they are abusive in the same way. They are not open to any sort of discussion or criticism. People get banned if they show the least bit of disagreement. They don't behave as the fearless enlightened. They behave as the fearful dogmatic.

You can't call this a teaching. It's a technique, not a teaching. As a teaching it's circular. You can't argue with us until you are us, but of course if you're us, there is no need to argue.


I don't want to rant. But I do encourage people to explore the technique. Not the site.
Last edited by karmarider on Sun Dec 05, 2010 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ananda
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:35 am
Location: Manchester, England
Contact:

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by Ananda » Sun Dec 05, 2010 4:38 pm

Hello karmarider,
You are wrong
Honestly, almost word for word what you've just said I've read elsewhere, atleast once, on that forum. I immediately (possibly hastely) jumped at your post because I've definitely seen it all before- I thought you'd adopted their teaching verbatim, which is why I deconstructed your post. I apologise if I caused any offense. What they do is use the same teaching over and over- and when asked to elaborate they all say basically what you just posted, seems to be like a bad rash that spreads.
Those guys believe that seeing no-you is enlightenment
That's right, which is of course nonsense. If you do not exist, then you cannot see that you do not exist. They fail to notice the glaringly obvious.
Not to mention that they are meglo-maniacal.
Ciaran tried recently to get the attention of a well known teacher, Scott Kiloby. Kiloby seemed interested at first, but reconsidered after RT raided another forum and Scott heard about it. They've also began to be branded a cult, which is not surprising.
However, the inquiry can be separated from where it comes from, and it's a powerful inquiry
The inquiry (look and see there is no you) requires your existence in order to be possible. So it is either a non-starter or it's conclusion (there's no you) is false. You'd have to modify the inquiry as 'look and see there is no individual self' or something, in order for it to be rational- and that's been done before by folks like Ramana. I suppose that's why you find the inquiry helpful.
The you in "you do not exist" refers to the false idea of I, the personal I. This does not deny what is undeniable. Of course there is Existence which experiences objects.
Yes, which is why I attacked your post but also noted that you might only be referring to the false sense of self.

When somebody says 'you' what are they referring to? It's always the conscious subject. We don't say 'you' to an object, because all objects are, naturally, not-Self. We don't say 'you' to a stone, because we know the stone is not a conscious subject. Even when we say 'you' and think we are referring to the ego, or the body, we're actually not. The ego, the false sense of self, is an idea, and ideas are objects only- we don't refer to ideas as 'you'. I have a problem with the terminology because it supposes that 'you' is equivalent to the false sense of self, when it's not. You aren't the ego, the false sense of self. Even when you believe you are, you're not - and the word 'you' isn't referring to you as it either. The true impart of 'you' is always the Self, the awareness, not anything that you are aware of. The 'you' is undeniable because it really only relates to the Self, and which is why the statement 'you do not exist' must either be qualified (the ego does not exist) or rejected as false.
This makes the inquiry direct. Most people who are delusion see the you as the personal I, not as awareness.
That's right, but the inquiry 'You do not exist' appears to be denying the existence of the Subject, or awareness, so it serves no purpose in discerning between the personal I and awareness. it's like throwing the baby out with the bath water. If a person, in delusion, equates themselves with the ego, then it is infinitely better, and more direct, to say 'you are not the ego' or ' you are not the body', rather than 'you do not exist'- because 'you do not exist' on its face removes the possibility for further inquiry. This is probably why the RTers reach a complete dead end with their teaching- because they have been fooled into believing they do not exist, rather than attempting to discern between themselves and the ego.
I completely agree. You in this case = personal I. Awareness cannot be objectified.
Yeah. The only way the RTers can rationalize their teaching is by falsely objectifying awareness. You (the subject) do not exist, therefore you are not awareness, and awareness is an object.
For some reason, you are not able to see that "you" for me in this inquiry refers to the false I
Well, as I've said, I've attacked your use of terminology because others (RT) use it very literally and don't equate it with the false sense of self. I'm glad that it's helped you, though.

You're mixing me up with your view on Ciarin's teaching. Let's keep that separate.
Sure.


:)


edit- You said most of what I was going to say. :)

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

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by enigma » Sun Dec 05, 2010 7:28 pm

Interesting exchange here. :shock:
The first thought that occurs is there may be an energetic cost to spending too much time on the RT forum. On the other hand, the theme of this thread (for me anyhoo) is a lack of clarity in the use of terms; some declaring the teachings of Barry Long to be particularly clear, while I seem to notice precisely the opposite. The jumbling and redefining of the pronouns and the assigning of existence to objects makes communication with the followers of that teaching very difficult.

To continue with that theme, I find myself very cautious in using the term 'you' to refer to Consciousness/Awareness/Beingness/Self. I think Barry uses the term 'me' to refer to the same, though I'm not even sure.

I didn't get the impression that KR got interested in self inquiry from the RT forum, but I could be wrong about that too. In any event, I don't think we need to fight an RT battle here.

arel
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:11 pm

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by arel » Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:56 pm

"You do not exist" is a shift in perspective, but perspective nevertheless. Maybe it is meant to point that what you are is more like "nothing".... But It's incomplete the way it is, and maybe is good as a first glimpse only. Ananda logically and experientially, in a simple way, shows how incomplete it is. The thing that annoys me is when people present this personal view as a God perspective. It is seductive for people to take something as truth when it is expressed in that way. Where it is just a personal perspective. When people have got attention of a good number of other people, either through some type of media, or in the way how "attractively" they express themselves, then there is responsibility. It's important to recognize this responsibility.
What I say is only my viewpoint.

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

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by enigma » Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:21 pm

'You do not exist' is a bit careless, I agree. Hopefully, when somebody says that, they mean the person you think you are doesn't exist. When it's said that the separate, volitional person does not exist, this is true, and as difficult as it is to hear, it's extremely important to realize.

runstrails
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2231
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:33 am

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by runstrails » Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:31 pm

Why not keep it simple (like Tolle) and say "you are not your thoughts" or "you are not your story". After all, personhood cannot be separated from thoughts/story. And frankly, sometimes, its handy for the person to exist, like when you have to get practical things done. As Andy has said elegantly, try telling the IRS that you don't exist. For most of us, there needs to be a balance between practical everyday living and spiritual philosophizing.

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

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by Mouse » Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:39 pm

enigma wrote: On the other hand, the theme of this thread (for me anyhoo) is a lack of clarity in the use of terms; some declaring the teachings of Barry Long to be particularly clear, while I seem to notice precisely the opposite. The jumbling and redefining of the pronouns and the assigning of existence to objects makes communication with the followers of that teaching very difficult.
I write this for everybody elses benefit.

In my experience 'you' refers to another body. I use the subject "I" when refering to the subjective. I sometimes don't define 'I' because everybody is at a different level of "I" . There is only one "I" in the universe and 6 billion 'yous'.

'Me' refers to the place where 'I am'.

'self' refers to memory and emotions. In it's purified form is the sensational state of the body - the body being now.

Ego refers to the supremely intelligent principle that protects the survival of the body.

Psyche refers to the place that starts inside the body where the life is felt, self is felt, where thoughts occur.

That is not confusing, the only controversial definition is ego. Otherwise is there another name that describes the principle that looks after the survival of the body that is in common use?
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.

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

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by enigma » Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:09 pm

Mouse wrote:
I write this for everybody elses benefit.
You mean besides me? Hehe.
In my experience 'you' refers to another body. I use the subject "I" when refering to the subjective. I sometimes don't define 'I' because everybody is at a different level of "I" . There is only one "I" in the universe and 6 billion 'yous'.
'Me' refers to the place where 'I am'.
So Me refers to the location of the one subject? What is that location?

'self' refers to memory and emotions. In it's purified form is the sensational state of the body - the body being now.
Are thoughts and feelings and sense perception included, or just memory and emotions?

Ego refers to the supremely intelligent principle that protects the survival of the body.
Does that include the body's immune and endocrine systems?
Psyche refers to the place that starts inside the body where the life is felt, self is felt, where thoughts occur.
Where does that happen inside the body?

That is not confusing
It is to me, myself and I.

arel
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:11 pm

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by arel » Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:25 pm

enigma wrote:
Ego refers to the supremely intelligent principle that protects the survival of the body.
Does that include the body's immune and endocrine systems?
Psyche refers to the place that starts inside the body where the life is felt, self is felt, where thoughts occur.
Where does that happen inside the body?
That's for you enigma to find out.

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?
What I say is only my viewpoint.

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

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by enigma » Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:02 am

arel wrote:
enigma wrote:
Ego refers to the supremely intelligent principle that protects the survival of the body.
Does that include the body's immune and endocrine systems?
Psyche refers to the place that starts inside the body where the life is felt, self is felt, where thoughts occur.
Where does that happen inside the body?
That's for you enigma to find out.

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).

Ralph
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 12:08 am

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by Ralph » Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:19 am

Who was born first, you or the world? As long as you give first place to the world, you are bound by it; once you realize, beyond all trace of doubt, that the world is in you and not you in the world, you are out of it. Of course your body remains in the world and of the world, but you are not deluded by it .
~ Nisargadatta

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

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by Mouse » Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:49 am

Enigma you only know you have an endocrine system because of your memory, based on what someone has told you.

Psyche refers to the living reality of the subjective experience. It is refered to as in the body because the usual condition is of not being able to feel the sensational reality that appears to be inside the body that is there every moment. So to say it is in the body is to redirect the attention to where it can be perceived, that is coming back towards home, towards consciousness. For the intelligence to pass into the psyche requires great stillness because at the surface is memory , emotion and what I know.

Is that clear?
Last edited by Mouse on Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
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.

Post Reply