robdl

to the point about different people having different subjective concepts/ideas about the nature of thought-self/ego — that is worth going into more. 1. Thought is attachment-clinging. Let go of attachment to not suffer. 2. Thought-self is a self-feeding loop. 3. Thought is fragmented, as one thought-fragment takes the form of an “I”-fragment to judge/control/take possession of other thought fragments. Fragmentation is the false division between the thinker and thoughts when in fact thought-self is a unitary process. 4. Thought seeks security in its own movement. 5. The ego is only interested in its own survival. 6. Thought is a movement away from what-is/the dynamic now. 7. There is no self: it’s an illusion. 8. The observer is the observed. Are we understanding that these are all compatible and just different verbal expressions of the one thing, not conflicting beliefs/viewpoints? That the one thing could be called a movement, loop, attachment, illusion, survival mechanism, fragmentation - without any contradiction? That the groking of all these expressions flows from the holistic insight?

@SOUL do you see that the stickyness-identification-clinginess of thought and the self-reacting/identifying movement of thought are one and the same thing? Thinking is a process-movement of reactive attachment-clinging. So thought is sticky but it’s also a self-reactive movement. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

All thought needs is a thinker/knower/self — even if the thinker is thinking/knowing/theorizing about nonduality.

As I said up above: 1. Unconditional attention is the thing. Direct insight. 2. What is unconditional attention then? Are we sure we’re not just subtly thinking? Can thought sneakily hijack attention? 3. Then what is the nature of thinking then? Do we understand thought’s subtlety? Hence these discussions arise.

Thought clings-attaches-identifies. Some call this a sticky action, indeed. I have as well. Thought reacts to/within itself mechanically, as an identification-attachment process, as it seeks security in its own movement. This is all true and seen wholly. So you’re characterizing it as separate, conflicting perspectives but they’re unitary. It’s one and the same.

1. Unconditional attention is the thing. Direct insight. 2. What is unconditional attention then? Are we sure we’re not just subtly thinking? Can thought sneakily hijack attention? 3. Then what is the nature of thinking then? Do we understand thought’s subtlety? Hence these discussions arise.

@SOUL the insight is whole. To discuss thought’s nature on the forum should not be confused for the non-verbal insight itself, which is what is being pointed to. Unconditional observation - no “analyzer” there to analyze. As analyzer implies the movement of thought.

The direct insight sees the whole movement of thought-self. This is holistic insight. It’s not the analytical, conceptual activity of the intellect that analyses all thought content.

We are not talking about the analysis of all thought content: that would be an endless pursuit. A pursuit played by thought itself. The direct insight we are talking about is whole and immediate. It’s not a linear, gradual process of analyzing thought content.

We are ultimately talking about the whole structure-mechanism of thought-self/ego. The nature of thinking-ego itself, not just the content of thought. Of course the content of thought can have its dots connected to explain-reveal the whole process of mind/thought-self. And therefore content is relevant to mention.

Right. To use an analogy - if you write about the process of riding a bike and how it works, it’s not something that’s meant to just be committed to the reader’s memory, to be believed, taken as a system of knowledge. It’s just putting into words the direct (non-verbal/non-intellectual) thing that is being pointed to; that is to be ultimately figured out by oneself.

That’s right - this is the dynamic aspect. And the crux of what we’re pointing to. The communication of it, which can appear as rigid-static because of language-concepts, should not be mistaken for the actual (non-)doing of it.

If there’s inattention, there can be the experience of a psychological self-entity that wants to protect and attack. If there’s attention, then what essentially was resistance-fear can drop away.

That’s right - dynamic, as contrasted to the accumulated/past.

In truth it is actually a dynamic learning. Observation of oneself day to day, observation of relationship with others day to day. Even attention to thought’s action-reaction in these conversations we are having right now.

If you’re entering this discussion (or any of us) with a certain level of bias-prejudice-assumption-conclusion based on past experience/discussions, approaching this with the accumulated baggage of the past — and not with an open mind and fresh set of eyes — this exactly speaks to what @Faceless and I have been talking about. Viewing through the lens of the past — preventing understanding-communication; the past perpetuating-projecting itself. This is how thought-self operates. It’s a movement of the past, that measures-accepts-rejects in accordance with itself, seeking its own security-permanence. Thought-self mechanically and reactively accepts-rejects the new, in accordance with the old, to perpetuate the old.

Thought is infinitely sneaky, deceptive, subtle. If you're going to tell someone to watch-guard the property, it's helpful to point out the ninjas that will be coming in camouflage at 3 a.m.

The thing is, when a lot of people meditate, they may be just thinking with their eyes closed/legs crossed. Because they may not appreciate all of thought's subtlety. To be in thought's trap but not realize it. So we share-discuss what those myriad of thought traps may be and what thought's nature is. Meditation may only serve to fuel ego, as "meditator," as "seeker", if thought is poorly-wrongly understood. Thought-ego can exploit this ignorance/lack of understanding for its own purposes.

my comment was in reference to people getting ahead of themselves - getting caught up in non dual knowledge without understanding thought's nature first. Wanting to transcend ego without even really understanding ego's nature first.

@Faceless Setting out to transcend that which is poorly/falsely understood. Tricky.

Good breakdown - this is good for people to know/have context.

The tricky thing I see with this, which hopefully you can speak on as you're better versed in the method, is the fact that the motive-intent-desire-effort-doing to label thoughts is itself subtly thought in action. Intent-effort-doing don't stand apart from thought, but are one and the same movement as thought. The intent-effort-doing action to label thoughts/observe ego doesn't stand apart from ego, but is also sneakily one and the same as ego --- to put it another way. So I'm curious if there's a way to label thoughts without reinforcing the "labeller"/"I"/"do-er"; without reinforcing this effort-intent movement of thought. Thought-self/ego can sustain itself through a myriad of ways, including thought-labelling, because the division in thought between thinker/labeller/"I" and labelled thoughts is still in operation. That's all thought needs, a thinker. If thought can perpetuate a thinker, (through intent-effort-method (labelling)), it gets to self-sustain.

Very significant here. Can you go into this pleasure component a bit more? People are likely not aware of the pleasure involved.

But this may only essentially be a non-dual concept, piece of knowledge, that thought-self finds security in. Thought-self loves non-dual knowledge. The doing-trying-reactive thought-self, taking security in the idea-concept of ever-present effortless, passive attention. It's like people who say "happiness lies within" but who are perpetually seeking happiness in the external. They've simply adopted "happiness lies within" as an idea-concept to take refuge in. Can you see how thought loves to take security-belief in enlightenment theory-concept?

We think we want-seek enlightenment, but if you become unconditionally aware, there is insight into thought's mechanical, compulsive wanting-seeking nature. It's in thought's nature to seek-want-strive, but if we're not passively, attentively aware of that movement, we are then lost in thought --- identified with the wanting-seeking; meaning the "I" is in operation.