Jack River

So instead of learning/accumulating about a particular type/way of thinking, I instead learn about thought and its nature in general. All thought no matter how distinct seems fundamentally in structure the same. So I don’t learn any certiain type of thought but explore thought in its totality, it’s movement/process as a whole. Everything we need is contained within ourselves. Or a as a most excellent dude once said all you need is the book of the self.

Has nothing to do with “i”. How come you say this? To me the more we accumulate a teaching that points to a thing described, the more of a veil of thought content becomes attached too it and looks through that veil when observing/learning or seeing what-is. To learn any particular train of thought is to learn about that train of thought and when we conform or adhere to that form of text there is a inherent tendency to not observe what is actual, but the description itself. So if I learn about myself through frued, Buddha, Jesus or who ever I am not learning about myself, but about them. So creates a fundamental resistance to looking without a veil of the past which makes us project accordingly to that veil/content. So instead of me looking at what is in myself I project what i have read as an abstraction. Thought seems to do this mechanically/habitually. So to me, understanding myself means understanding thought as it is directly in my own experience. To me there is not point to learn about me though reading about any particular train of thought like Buddhism/advaita/or other psycholo analytical source. This is what the self does that sustains it’s own continuity/movement. The self looks to its content(thought) and thinks it will free itself by those means. But to me those means are what actually keeps that loop of reaction/action (self/thought) division in place. When the self looks to thought, as in its its accumulated knowledge/experience that very action feeds the self which is also born of the selfs accumulated knowledge/experience. This is seen with ATTENTION. It demands an unconditioned seeing to end that movement of divison. It’s both simple yet difficult.

Anyway thanks @Emanyalpsid. Most excellent to talk with you 😎🤙

Yeah I dont know, I was lucky to not really get caught in such teachings. No I explained it pretty well actually. Just takes self observation of “movement/process” with its thought/reaction loop that feeds itself. This is why I can see there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what I’m saying. The thing to see is this intelligent action that is unconditioned is not derived from the process of causation with its conditioned action/reaction. Intelligence works through that vehicle of the intellect/thought. But it’s essence is not born or that limited movement. Its like a one way relationship. Intelligence doesn’t arise from thought with its conditions, but intelligence can act on that conditioned process. Which in most cases is what makes for a total and holistic action that ends that transmutation process. Or cause and effect cycle loop. This is what seems to bring about that nonbeing that I referred before. To not move positively/negatively in any direction. No direction of time or pursuit towards an End which is conditioned by the means. The path determines the end. And truth is never fixed.

I feel ya man.. It’s difficult to communicate. It all kinda depends on what content we have accumulated over time. I find it much easier to communicate with people who haven’t read a lot of traditional texts or learned about this stuff through books. I feel I will be able to communicate with people who spent most there time looking at themselves. There seems to be an inherent barrier in the communication when past content is listening and not attention itself. For me I'm glad I never really attached to anything I read. It all seems to tacitly blur out a coherent understanding/observation/ quality of learning

No I’m sorry my dude. That’s not what I’m saying. There is no letting go along anything as that is action born of reaction. That’s the point. For me I saw “my process”/“path”/“self movement” was a constant resistance to death. For me the “seeking, self idea's, observations influenced by will/desire/choice as “the chooser”, connecting with spiritual teachers and hearing them and feeling their presence, connecting with spirits, drug experiences was a long process of resistance to death. But as I said before, what I am saying needs to be observed in yourself. With attention that is not directed in a particular direction. Intelligent Action which is not the product of transmutation( the process of moving from one condition to another). I can safely say that we have not meet in our communication as that seems highly unlikely when learning/understanding is influenced by the veil of self/the past. Anyhow thanks for your response dude. 🤙

Which also includes will/desire/choosing. But attention has no opposite. That’s the groovy thing about it. It is not the result of reaction. All opposites have there roots in there own opposites. Choice/will/desire/concentration/attachment/identification and such are all actions that arise from a reaction(conditioned). Like I said I cannot teach this, it is for attention (unconditioned awareness/observation/understanding which is action to that SEE’s this. You will not be able to see what I mean by following “my” logic. Because you meet “my logic” with the veil of your logic(conditioned). That’s why I say this is all seen directly in yourself, as in actually.

The self seems to transmute one way or another, or from one condition to another. This seems to be what sustains its own continuity. To project its own fixed conditioned content and project that in time. Can we say that this is necessary to move from one condition to another, or to end that movement from one condition to another in its action/reaction conditioned process?

I understand, this can easily be thought excluding though. That is for attention to observe. This attention i refer to is what sees the whole of that. That unconditioned observation acts to bring total attention and put an end to inattention. The self does not seem to like to attend. That attending seems to be a direct threat to the self. As concentration/focus seems to sustain the continuity of the self loop veil with its conditioned seeing/learning. Pretty gnarly when it’s observed in its totality.

Yeah “enlightenment” to me is pretty narrow. I don’t like to talk about it. Just seems to corrupt communication. The whole teacher/enlightenment fad, kinda kills it all for me The way I see it is, to say I am this or that is to place ourselves in a fixed state. To say I am this implies I have conformed to what has been/memory. The point to me of it all is “knowing” is to make a thing fixed/static. To identify with such is to still be attached/identified. To meet each moment without knowing/identification with a “thing” which is fixed, is to live each moment free and actively. To embrace change without clinging to static content (thought) of what has been or what the self projects in time. Then there is just what is, from moment to moment, which is really not moment to moment, but is now.

🤙 but what ever I say will not bring about a holistic understanding which is undivided action. All that is done with self understanding/reflection. We can point at things of the self but ultimately self seeing/observing must be directed inward which we find out is the outwrd. To me that seems to be 99% of the game. Without having the “ability” to attend, which is total and unconditioned it seems we can never learn without our past influencing learning itself. Which makes that learning limited and somewhat corrupt. Again attention sees the whole of this and ends it. That’s is the insight/action connection as we were talking about before.

You see the i will leave will shed attributes in order to direct its energy on another thing. Yes to see that thought/the thinker is a conformed too process/movement of subject/object. But as that is correct so is the fact that the action of leaving behind/excluding. I’m not sure if that is what you were implying though. Again, what I am referring to as concentration/focus can be cultivated/developed. It is a form of learning but is seems to be inevitably limited to the veil of content as “the cultivator”. So any learning/observation starts on certain assumptions/predispositions of that cultivator/self. And that cultivator will leave behind/exclude various activities to pursue its goal/end. This still falls under concentration/focused intent as the self. The veil of its content/thought being inherently bias still influences observation/learning/action, and is a divided(conditioned)action. The attention I speak of cannot be cultivated. It isn’t a conditioned movement of thought/self/time. I hope this is making it clearer in what I mean by attention. Or what is not attention with regards to my original post.

@Emanyalpsid I do intent to read through more of what you wrote, but I might want to make clear as well that I don’t think I can help anyone. What I write shouldn’t be looked at as a teaching. I can not teach this stuff, and to me it cannot be necessarily taught. Anyway give me some more time to go through more of your post

I think people will make what I say a lot more difficult than it is actually is. I did this about three or more months ago too. We seem to give the word attention different meanings and use it differently. When I say attention that means to the whole of something not a part of the whole. To me that is an unconditioned observation. Observation that doesn’t exclude parts, or that doesn’t move in a particular direction as will/desire/choice. So when I use the words concentration/focus that to me implies observation directed on a point/part of the whole. To me that activity of focus/concentration is seeing through the veil of thought/self. It is a movement that arises out of thought and its reaction according to conten/the thinker. So to concentrate on something or to focus on a thing is to see it through the veil of i, or that very action of concentration/focus arises from desire/will/choice as the chooser. To me attention on this process/movement/content as a whole is itself is not to exclude an observation by any means. Attention is whole and is not of control, as concentration/focus imply the controller with its directional pursuit, and the seeing that is conditioned by its own content. To see through the controller is to see through the veil of concentration/identification with the controllers content(thought) or its response of knowledge/experience or memory. So, to simply not pay attention to something is a movement of concentration/focus as we are excluding from experience according to the what the choosers wishes to direct its focus on. You see thought will exclude/choose not look at certain parts of experience and will choose to focus on others. In that there is will/choice/desire. That movement of desire/self is influenced by its content(thought). Whoch is why looking through the veil of self is always limited to “the controller” or the veil of thought, which is always a movement to exclude parts. As when we look thought that veil of thought/the thinker we are limited to seeing/observing through its concepts/verbal interpretation, though is bias/prejudice, as “the chooser” who is always influencing observation/seeing according to its likes/dislikes. So attention is none of that. It’s unconditioned. It doesn’t exclude, not of control, will/desire/choice. And is not observing through the bias/prejudice nature of thought/as the thinker(a seeing/observation uneffected by the process of identification with what is familiar). Just to clear up what I meant by what is not attention with regards to what I posted.

It can be seen actually that truth and liberation go together. Without one the other is not. Another thing we may see, freedom from, is not freedom at all, as that implies a reaction...liberation is never the result of a reaction It does take a degree of freedom to even explore/investigate/inquire. Otherwise such investigation/inquiry/exploration runs crooked/corrupt. Seems to me understanding “the seeker” is pretty important in order or explore beyond, right?