Jack River

Insight can be seen as a moment to moment seeing without the seen being limited to will/volition, knowledge/experience-memory. Its really a moment of clarity unburdened by thought. When the divison between me and what is being observed is seen-actualized as the I being one and the same process. Because in that, that divided process comes to a stop. Then there is a seeing that is not limited to duality. As in a seeing that is built upon a cultivated/progressive/habitual established routine(thought-the past) that is then modified more and more over time. It’s only in this divided type of insight that insights ‘come and go’. It’s only in those type of insights that the me is in conflict about trying to accumulate/maintain those insights. Insight is to seeing in to the entirety of a process/movement in which there is total-instantaneous action away from that process/movement. There is cumulative process of insights followed by action, and there is insight into this whole cumulative/time bound process, which is close to what I am referring to as INSIGHT. That is its own action. It’s extraordinary fosho.

The self is conditioned to block itself from going beyond what it itself has deemed ‘the impossible’. It will say it’s either possible or impossible, yet will not say honestly don’t know, let’s find out. The self is not free to go beyond its own inherent limits. It moves in its own groove. It's very nature implicitly establishes for itself its own prison walls in which that self enslaves itself perpetually. The Invention of the opposites and choosing between those opposites is a great example.

Right. There seems to be a projection of whether there is, or is not enlightenment, and a moving towards “it”. A self will not see that it has assumed it knows what enlightenment is and will pursue that assumption. Which is to pursue that of experience/knowledge(the past). To describe a seeing of what is. The what is of experience and perhaps beyond. As in to see without the burden of experience.

Yeah maybe.. Or maybe it points to an experience as the experiencer(the past/the image projection/and pursuit of our very own invention). Or are we referring to seeing with a cessation of experience?

That question is important. To an ego the notion of gradual change is favorable as opposed to instant change now. By not acting wholly-totally now the self sustains its own continuity as a result as being enslaved, violent etc.. This is ideal for sustaining self continuity, as in psychological evolution. It’s very subtle. The me will move from what is to what that confused and conflicted entity thinks should be. This seems like a productive and progressive action, yet is actually reactionary(resistance). The self will escape the fact of what is (violent) to the concept of non-violence. The self then is not looking to actually change fundamentally, but is then caught it’s own movement of desire moving towards pleasure(to feel psychologically secure). This is food for self. The me seems to avoid staying with what is(the reality). By moving away from that reality it ‘pogresses’-‘gradually’ towards its own fabricated image (opposite). To pursist in its own self constructed illusion. This prevents all change. It’s an isolated movement of volition/control, in which self/ego(psychological continuity of the i) thrives. This isolation seems to prevent all change. To move from one condition(form) to another. This seems to be a fundamental resistance to act, to change. The question would be is deep fundamental change instantaneous or gradual/progressive? That’s up for others to figure out though.

All opposites contain there own opposites Freedom and enslavement..Mind will react to enslavement and move towards the abstraction of freedom, which remains enslavement. The movement away from enslavement towards freedom, being reactionary, is a movement of fear, division, conflict. This is a form of positive or negative resistance. Freedom from enslavement is a reaction to enslavement which remains enslavement. Just like freedom form violence in which the mind invents and chases its own image of non-violence still has its root violence. The same goes with love. Mind will react to its state of non-love, being reactionary, and invent its own idea of love, conform to that idea, yet the mind will still be in a state of non-love. Enslavement has no opposite Freedom has no opposite Violence has no opposite Love has no opposite Enlightend perception/seeing is love(freedom). Enlightned perception/action has no opposite.

Then we don’t see that the witness is the thought/emotion (anger). Seems we then understand intellectually/conceptually (see it through a fragmented lens). Then we try and hypnotize ourselves by practice/habitual questioning. See what i mean? The understanding has its root in knowledge/experience-memory(fragments). Not insight, which is whole, and it’s own psychological non-action(action).

If we see that we are anger is there a problem?

Insight = action

@Viking fosho. what I wrote doesnt really help you as it will just become a memory which may be looked upon to carry out some kind of action. We generally accumulate knowledge through experience and apply that as some kind of solution to actualize an understanding. But you will know it when there is total/holistic insight. It will be instantaneous(not a product of memory/thought) and will be permanent. Insghts that have there root in the past will manifest as impermanent/dependent upon conditions. So they will be fleeting. Anyway again it will be very obvious when insight acts. It will not be the result of knowledge/experience-memory. That insight will not be born of any intellectual/conceptual, or cultivation of concentration/volition in the form of techniques, methods, systems...or an understanding in which there is an action/solution that follows. Insight = action. Hence ‘holistic’(undivided).

Do habits fall within the field of resistance? If we accept or condemn is that not still a reaction to what is?

We don’t actualize insight. Insight is not a divided process in which an action is carried out as a result of the insight. Insight is its own action.

What if you are anger?

Enlightened perception-seeing(to shine light upon-to see clearly), has no opposite. If this holistic perception has its root in an opposite, for example ego, that perception-seeing, remains that of ego, therefore not whole/undivided. Every opposite has its root in its own opposite.

As in conscious awareness? Yes. To attention...and perhaps even beyond(no I-no center). But that’s not for me to post about.

Any I does so yes.

Experience implies I. Thats what I’m referring to. The chooser that distinguishes itself between the process of choosing and the choosing. The choosing that arises out of divison. The little i is often still concluded upon as being the big I. This is a common trick of mind. Conclusion/identification in general is an indication of this. But anyway. I’m only talking about what is as it is apparent. Shine light on that what is. It’s up to others if they escape that what is or not. The degree that this escape comes to full stop determines a seeing of what lies beyond that of I. Also communication will be difficult when we are speaking of certain teachings. So with the distinction of little i, big I, this is revealed. Guess It all depends on how we speak about such matters.

The choosing between Suicide and no Suicide seems simply reactionary. Mind has concluded upon some construction of mind and acts on that image based on the minds preference(the past). Its essentially all positive/negative resistance of desire. This desire limits itself by jumping from one contradiction to another, one condition to another, one conflict to another.

The desire of psychological evolution seems to be the dangerous factor here. All things are conditioned and interdependent. The organism looks to keep itself healthy. Intelligence. But over time the mechanism that helped keep the organism healthy has actually started working against the organism as a whole. Thought is inherently setting limits and transcending those limits bringing about an imbalance. This imbalance arises from a fundamental confusion. This confusion manifests as desire. Desire as in psychologically, when given total importance, seems to distort things of the mind to meet its needs in order to escape fear of fear. So we seem to be always trying to escape our fear of fear, therefore strengthing fear/desire(duality/conflict).

We can talk about enlightenment with others but there is natural/mechanical tendency to chase that abstraction as well. What if we talk about what prevents an enlightened seeing? The what is as it is apparent. Could that be another way to go about communication?

Indeed. To see clearly. To enlighten (shine light upon) what is and not the distortion of what should be. It is definitely different than seeking “enlightenment” fosho.

Haha both seemed very resistant heh?

What’s non-duality? The reaction(resistance) to duality

The image itself is the distorter. The image is the past(time). Thats also the point of FREEDOM..as in no imposition of an image on ourselves/others/environment(action). To me the ultimate purpose. It demands tremendous energy, and that energy is consistently wasted on resistance to what is. Positive & negative resistance(time-ego).

It’s ok, doesn’t matter