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