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 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:12 am

enigma wrote:...The first thought that occurs is there may be an energetic cost to spending too much time on the RT forum.
Yeah, a price to pay for morbid curiosity. :)
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.

Yes, its terminology where you and Mouse have missed each other, and Ananda and I have missed each other. There is nothing that I disagree with Ananda about.

There is also some history here. In the beginning, I felt the RT/Ciarin should be given a fair chance, not summarily dismissed. And I still think the technique is good. The rest of it is insanity.

I'm completely okay with using the "you" or "I" to refer to the false self. There are advantages to doing so. The you is direct; saying ego or false self gives a safer level of abstraction. Most of us in delusion use I or you to refer to the false self. Only someone with some experience with non-duality might use it to refer to Source or awareness. So for us pedestrians, I like using the you.
enigma wrote: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.
I was exploring Who am I, and in fact we were already discussing this technique in the thread "What is the most direct way to realize the "I" does not exist?"

I heard of RT here and when I read some of their stuff, it became immediately clear that the technique is good. We can separate the technique from the discoverer. I have no problem giving Ciarin credit for discovering the technique, and also no problem in the same breath saying that he is misguided. And also, there is nothing new about this particular inquiry. What is new is perhaps the directness.

The inquiry is a First Step. It is effective because it is direct and unrelenting.
Last edited by karmarider on Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:51 am, 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 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:17 am

enigma wrote:'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.
yes, as a teaching it's incomplete, but as a technique, it's fine. The inquiry discovers itself. Just like who am I, it becomes increasingly clear to the inquirer through experience what is meant by the you.

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

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by karmarider » Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:22 am

runstrails wrote: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.
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.

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

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by Ralph » Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:32 am

karmarider wrote :
And when I read some of their stuff, it became immediately clear that the technique is good. We can separate the technique from the discoverer. I have no problem giving Ciarin credit for discovering the technique, and also no problem in the same breath saying that he is misguided.
What exactly is the technique ? .. and Ciarin discovered it ?

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

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by karmarider » Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:46 am

The technique is this: is it true that you do not exist?

Did Ciarin discover it? Well, there is nothing new about it. What's perhaps new is the wording makes it direct and compelling.

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

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by Ralph » Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:48 am

karmarider 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.
Yes, I agree, "you do not exist" is compelling but "YOU do exist" is out of this world !!!!

hmm... how does one get from "you" to "YOU" ? :roll:

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

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by karmarider » Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:53 am

Ralph wrote:
karmarider 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.
Yes, I agree, "you do not exist" is compelling but "YOU do exist" is out of this world !!!!

hmm... how does one get from "you" to "YOU" ? :roll:

By capitalizing the letters. :)

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

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by Ralph » Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:55 am

:lol:

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 5:01 am

Karmarider thankyou for the integrity and openness of your responses. Ananda for the sublime clarity and enigma for just responding in truth as you see it.
enigma wrote:' 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.
I Know that the statement above is true, but to me and from what Barry Long states it is only true under the condition that " there is nothing arising inside".
So the following statement by Barry Long clearly lays this out.
barry long wrote:The intellect is smeared with all the rubbish of belief and religion, and the hopes and untruths that masters have spread. You cannot find the truth until you have expunged all that from inside of you. You'll never find the state of absence, which is the state of truth, unless you're able to be now – with nothing arising inside.

Do I have to remind the Buddhists of what the Buddha said? – ‘I have nothing arising.’ That means: no opinions, no beliefs, no mantras, no wanting, no trying, no effort, no clamour, no clutter – as a way of life.

What can you do to eliminate the clamour and the clutter? You have to stop reflecting on your emotions, on your thoughts, on your memory. You have to stop thinking, wishing, dreaming while you’re awake. While I do that, I exist. I only exist in the past – as a reflection on my memory, my emotions, or what I know. When there is only perception, now, in the senses, I disappear. Then there is the state of absence – no person, no individual. Just what is.

This is a negation of everything – except doing. Nobody on earth can stop doing. The problem is only that I produce an ‘I’ to reflect on what I am doing. There is nothing arising. But I am still ‘doing’ . . . The bird is singing and there are the trees, the skies, the clouds, and whatever my senses are reporting in sound and sight; that is the only reality now.
He is clear about it. When clamour and clutter is arising then "I" the personal false self exists. So this means to me, it is simply not enough, to see that the separate, volitional person does not exist . That is only a first step. To be the truth of that is to be conscious every moment of a greater reality, and in that greater reality of nothing arising the separate, volitional person literally does not exist because there is nothing arising.

What you both are saying is it is a first step. Barry Long states the living truth is more than just seeing or even knowing the truth, it is in the living of it by having nothing arising.
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 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:07 am

Mouse wrote:Karmarider thankyou for the integrity and openness of your responses. Ananda for the sublime clarity and enigma for just responding in truth as you see it.
enigma wrote:' 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.
I Know that the statement above is true, but to me and from what Barry Long states it is only true under the condition that " there is nothing arising inside".
So the following statement by Barry Long clearly lays this out.
barry long wrote:The intellect is smeared with all the rubbish of belief and religion, and the hopes and untruths that masters have spread. You cannot find the truth until you have expunged all that from inside of you. You'll never find the state of absence, which is the state of truth, unless you're able to be now – with nothing arising inside.

Do I have to remind the Buddhists of what the Buddha said? – ‘I have nothing arising.’ That means: no opinions, no beliefs, no mantras, no wanting, no trying, no effort, no clamour, no clutter – as a way of life.

What can you do to eliminate the clamour and the clutter? You have to stop reflecting on your emotions, on your thoughts, on your memory. You have to stop thinking, wishing, dreaming while you’re awake. While I do that, I exist. I only exist in the past – as a reflection on my memory, my emotions, or what I know. When there is only perception, now, in the senses, I disappear. Then there is the state of absence – no person, no individual. Just what is.

This is a negation of everything – except doing. Nobody on earth can stop doing. The problem is only that I produce an ‘I’ to reflect on what I am doing. There is nothing arising. But I am still ‘doing’ . . . The bird is singing and there are the trees, the skies, the clouds, and whatever my senses are reporting in sound and sight; that is the only reality now.
He is clear about it. When clamour and clutter is arising then "I" the personal false self exists. So this means to me, it is simply not enough, to see that the separate, volitional person does not exist . That is only a first step. To be the truth of that is to be conscious every moment of a greater reality, and in that greater reality of nothing arising the separate, volitional person literally does not exist because there is nothing arising.

What you both are saying is it is a first step. Barry Long states the living truth is more than just seeing or even knowing the truth, it is in the living of it by having nothing arising.
I don't have an issue with it. The disagreement is not about the truth of what he says, only the convoluted way in which he says it. Even in his quote above, I get lost in the "I's. Saying over and over that he is clear about it doesn't make him clear about it.

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.

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 10:17 am

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.

If that is so why do you focus on it if it is merely an illusion. In my experience anything that is unreal can't stand pure consciousness and disappears. 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.)
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.

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

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by karmarider » Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:11 pm

Mouse wrote: What you both are saying is it is a first step. Barry Long states the living truth is more than just seeing or even knowing the truth, it is in the living of it by having nothing arising.
My understanding is consistent with what Barry Long says. He does seem to mix up what the pronouns "you" and "I" refer to, but then to be consistent with the pronouns is a little awkward in conventional language.

Yes, the seeing that the volitionl person-I-ego-self does not exist is an interrim step. It's a pretty big step though. This is my direct experience.

What other steps remain are not in my direct experience, and I think conceptualizing about future steps can take me in the wrong direction, so to the extent possible, I stay with direct experience and conceptualize only my very next question. My conjecture is that embodied patterns and conditioning which build up over the years from the delusion of a volitional-self are let go of. And attention increasingly rests on Awareness, rather than objects on awareness.

My conjecture also is that this may be a whole lot easier to do when the false-self is seen through, than when it isn't.
Last edited by karmarider on Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by arel » Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:38 pm

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.

To respond to Karmarider on what he said somewhere in this thread... The whole business we are discussing here IS about shift in identity from personal I to the impersonal I. It seems that this shift is dependant on what we pay attention to.
What I say is only my viewpoint.

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

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by karmarider » Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:57 pm

arel wrote:To respond to Karmarider on what he said somewhere in this thread... The whole business we are discussing here IS about shift in identity from personal I to the impersonal I. It seems that this shift is dependant on what we pay attention to.
The last part about attention I agree with. Attention seems to have lot to do with it.

The identity part--well, that's tricky, the words are tricky. In my experience, identities have remained. They are just not my identities.

That's my paygrade right now--when I get promoted, maybe I'll see it differently. :)

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

Re: BARRY LONG

Post by bruce lee » Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:25 pm

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.

Post Reply