• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About robdl

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,488 profile views
  1. Is there an analyzer that stands apart from what is being analyzed? The analyzed being knowledge, memory, fear, experience -- and this too being what constitutes the "analyzer." The analyzer and the analyzed are one and the same. Conditioned thought analyzing conditioned thought; fear analyzing fear. So any kind of analysis will be inherently conflicted, biased, conditioned, confused, partial/limited, and so on -- based on a false division of analyzer-analyzed. One fragment of thought, as the "analyzer", acting as the judge/censor of the other analyzed thought-fragments.
  2. "You" think there is an "I" that is apart from "fear." The false division-distance between this "I" and "fear" will only further nourish conflict, fear, inward division. "You" ARE the fear. The fear is "you". Both "fear" and "I" being made out of thought and within the self-reactive, self-perpetuating movement of thought. When this is realized, then there is no division, no conflict, and therefore no problem. But as long as an "I" is standing apart from fear, this conflict will persist. The "I" is merely made out of accumulated experience/knowledge/memory, and so is "fear." They are of the same movement. Both "fear" and "you" are thought's self-illusions.
  3. The effort, the "hard concentration" is nothing other than the movement of thought itself. There is no task to let go, as that is a goal, and thought is nourished by tasks/goals. Thought is always looking for something "to do", "to achieve/accomplish". This is a passive, choiceless awareness. Effortless, goal-less. Observation for observation's sake. Motives, effort, hard focusing, concentration, etc., is all thinking in disguise. Can you see that is that is the very nature of thought itself to struggle, achieve, exert, seek, or escape; to either validate/justify or condemn/reject/resist its own (thought) movement?
  4. Although - is there an entity that is distinct/separate from the fear "it" faces? Or are "fear" and the "I"-entity inseparable; of one and the same unitary movement (of thought)? The fear-facer and the fear are one and the same. No distinction between them. Only thought creates the division.
  5. The very desire/will to control, eliminate thought or the very fear/aversion toward thought's presence are both actually thought in disguise. Thought is extremely sneaky and self-deceptive that way. Thought thinks it is going to end thought, but in actuality, it has no intention of doing so. Thought is only interested in its own perpetuation. @pluto8 If one approaches meditation through any lens of desire, motive, fear, striving, or will, the meditation will be corrupted by it -- as these are all forms of thought. Thought will be influencing, dictating the observation; perpetuating division.
  6. You seem to have a resistance, an adversarial relationship toward thought. You want to control thought; to exert your will to do so. But "you"/"I" IS thought! There is no "thinker" of thoughts! But "resistance" IS thought! But "control" IS thought! But "will" IS thought! Thought uses the notion of a self/"I" to self-perpetuate. Thought uses resistance to self-perpetuate. Thought uses control to self-perpetuate. Thought uses will/effort/volition to self-perpetuate. To be a "thinker" that is trying to push away, control, suppress "their" thoughts is to only nourish the very movement of thought itself. This is how thought operates --- it creates a false division of thinker/thoughts, which breeds conflict (resistance, volition, suppression, aversion), which breeds more thinking.
  7. Krishnamurti also called it "observation without the 'observer." The "observer" being just what you referenced -- the past, motive, conditioned experience/memory/knowledge
  8. The subtlety of this may be missed, and it's important. Thought's seeking action is time. Seeking and psychological time are one; both thought's movement from what-is. Different names/concepts for the same thing.
  9. An ego mind is quick to seek enlightenment and use any tools/methods/knowledge at its disposal to reach such a goal, but what is the meaning of this endeavour if the nature of seeking, methods, and goals are not understood at all? To not understand that the seeker, the seeking action itself, the method/knowledge employed, and the goal are all one and the same movement of thought as a self-feeding loop? Is this to be understood at the end of a "process" over "time", 20 years down the road? Or can this be understood now or at any time? The mind loves time, procrastination, projecting a goal ahead, progress, graduality ---- as these all allow mind to self-sustain. Mind has no need, use for the Now -- and in fact, is always in escape/seek mode from it. Movement away from what is.
  10. The direct insight can never be communicated to anyone. It has to be seen for oneself. But what can be communicated to others? The nature of thought, its tricks, and its traps. So I like to start there -- sharing what has been directly observed. We can't really talk about enlightenment, but we can communicate thought's seeking quality for objects, which includes the object of enlightenment
  11. Indeed. Citing videos, Leo, traditions, spiritual masters, etc., is only at the conceptual understanding level, which means it's only at the level of ego mind: thought-self seeking security in conceptual/spiritual knowledge/belief to sustain its own movement. There must be direct, whole insight into all of this. And the insight is completely beyond concept/intellect. There is no external spiritual authority for it.
  12. Quite so. Thought is incredibly cunning, sneaky, and self-deceptive --- and will use even notions of time/enlightenment/meditative techniques to sustain and strengthen its movement.
  13. It's a question of inattention vs. attention. There is essentially no difference between getting lost in thought while standing in line at a grocery store and getting lost in thought while in "meditation." Calling it "meditation" doesn't give it any special significance. Getting lost in thought in half-lotus posture or with one's eyes closed doesn't give it any special significance. Ego mind is happy to self-perpetuate standing in line, and ego mind is happy to self-perpetuate sitting with eyes closed. In both cases, thought-self is simply in operation, reacting to/within itself --- invoking a false sense of an "I" being lost in thought.
  14. I try to describe the nature of thought-self and its various traps. To set off on pursuing a technique or meditation, without understanding of thought and its traps (which includes any effort, motive, volition, etc.), may only nourish, strengthen thought-self and its traps. Thought-self will use anything and everything to self-perpetuate, including non-dual concepts, knowledge, and spiritual techniques, including "meditation." So I'm not talking about enlightenment or meditation results necessarily, only about the perils of "meditation" and any "techniques" it involves. I'd argue that to seek enlightenment/pursue do-nothing meditation, without understanding all of this (i.e. the very nature of the seeking/effort/striving quality of thought itself) is putting the cart before the horse. Meditation then becomes thought ("I") using thought (i.e. effort, knowledge, technique) to try to end thought --- which is inherently self-contradicting. A self-feeding loop.
  15. This can become a semantics argument in terms of what's implied/connoted by "technique." Technique, in the standard sense of the word, is employing a method (i.e. knowledge/skills) to achieve a particular result. But if Do Nothing meditation is coloured by this --- coloured by striving/achieving, knowledge, a goal, effort --- then the meditation has been corrupted by thought. So that's the key thing here -- putting semantics aside. Is the meditation corrupted by effort, goals, striving, employing knowledge (i.e. all different forms of thought being invoked)? To be more precise and refine the wording we're using, monkey mind isn't where "I"/"you" is lost in thought, because this implies a "thinker" who's getting lost in "their" thoughts. "Monkey mind" is "I". They are one and the same thing. There is no "I"/"you" that stands apart from monkey mind and is the subject/possessor of it. Where monkey mind is in operation, "I" is in operation --- and vice-versa. They are inseparable. It is only thought that creates the false division between "I" and monkey mind. One fragment of thought, as "I", labels another fragment of thought as "monkey mind" -- but these two fragments are all within the same movement of thought. It's not: I have monkey mind; It is: "I" is monkey mind. They are one and the same movement of thought-self. Monkey mind is thought acting/reacting to itself through memory, desire, fear, imagination, etc. This self-feeding action of thought also invokes an "I". So monkey mind in operation = "I"/ego in operation = Doing. Thought, ego mind, monkey mind, I, and self are seemingly distinct and separate terms, but they're all one and the same thing.