Jack River

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jack River

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
    USA,Santa Cruz
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,623 profile views


  1. How Much Pleasure Enlightenment Gives You
    How Much Pleasure Enlightenment Gives You
    I know. It's an odd model and it's got ego written all over it. And not just in the literal sense

  2. The genius art of the ego and person
    The genius art of the ego and person
    Thats a good one dude

  3. Why do people who have realized non-duality eat animals?
    Why do people who have realized non-duality eat animals?
    We think that there’s an “I” that stands apart from experience and knowledge and opinion. 
    An “I” that has desires and experiences in life and gains knowledge and forms opinions out of that, for instance on meat-eating, that the “I” then holds. 
    When in reality — accumulated thought experience-knowledge-desire itself just seeks experiences, beliefs, opinions, and information that reinforce-validate-sustain that very same accumulated movement.

  4. Much thanks
    Much thanks
    The "me"/"I" is made out of thought, which includes knowledge/memory/experience.  
    Knowledge-memory-experience sound like 3 distinct thinks but it's all thought, all "the known".   
    The "I" and "the known"(knowledge) are one and the same thing.
    Thought-self seeks security in the known.  Thought-self seeks security in knowledge.  Same thing.

  5. One big question for gurus
    One big question for gurus
    Read again.. This really does capture why it’s so hard to listen to others, and why we get hurt so much. Then we record the hurt and it keeps happening by remembering. And the fear just keeps going and going. 

  6. Emotions are not real
    Emotions are not real
    Emotions can manifest as physical sensation but physical sensation, much like thought, can be passively, choicelessly observed. 
    Whole observation includes both thought and sensation content; no exclusion of either. It’s all just perceivable content.  Directing focus on either thought or sensation specifically indicates motive/effort/desire, therefore the operation of thought-self.

  7. Emotions are not real
    Emotions are not real
    Whole seeing,can also be called witnessing awareness,is seeing with detached observation,the whole movement/simultaneous arising, (i.e.,one unitary movement), of the "I-thought, and fear/feeling of being stuck".
    This is psychological time  that Faceless and Jack refer to.

    That arising creates a division from the wholeness of Being,creating suffering i.e.,fear. That identification with thought,the "me" ,and the fear that arises along with it, further perpetuates that unitary movement into deeper separation/fragmentation, creating a self feeding loop. Stuck in the mind and can't get out. Psychological time.

     I'm stuck,is the start of the mind/time/fear/thought psychological game.
    Whole seeing is being the detached empty awareness in which that whole movement is seen,without being involved with or getting attached to it.
    Thus, that one movement is fully accepted,seen and allowed to dissolve in a flash. No suffering and no perpetual self feeding  loop. No getting stuck in psychological time.

  8. Emotions are not real
    Emotions are not real
    Division, fear, abstraction, Psychological time....
    As long as this false division of “me” and “my fear” is not seen through, there will be this resistance and endless conflict between what is, and what should be. 
    As long as I see myself separate from fear, “i” which is one and the same movement of fear, will escape what is, and seek security in the abstraction,(what should be). For example; “i” fear now, and I hope to get rid of this fear tomorrow, or, “I” am psychologically insecure now, but “I” will be psychologically secure in the future. Both (“the i”), and the (will be in time), implies an illusion seeking security in illusion. 
    If we see that fear and “the i” are actually one unitary movement of time, then we see the absurdity in reducing the fact to an abstraction. In the seeing of this fact there is nothing left to do than to stay with the fact. To escape to the abstraction means we resist what is. This implies we are caught in the illusion of psychological time. 
    This constant seeking security in time implies divided action, (action influenced by the belief in this false division between “me” and fear). It’s a perpetual movement of the unrealized  unitary movement of fear, which endlessly attempts to evade itself, which nourishes that very incomplete and dualistic movement-illusion. 
    So, when we seek security in time, As in; today I am sad, but (tomorrow I will be happy), we are then inviting a movement influenced by fear,(evading the fact of sadness), and (inventing the idea or abstraction of happiness, which I will get in time). This is the movement of fear seeking security in time, and is one and the same movement of desire,(the self), seeking security in pleasure, gratification, or satisfaction by means of thought-time. The illusion seeking shelter in itself. 
    We don’t see that feeding that pattern of Time-fear, is what brings about psychological insecurity. When this movement of time is absent, then there is no me as the individual entity, and when there is no individual me, there is no fear to seek security away from itself. To try and capture and maintain psychological security is an illusion. We are trying to secure, or make permanent, that which actually creates insecurity, and has no permanence. We, believing that we are the individual entity, brings about psychological insecurity by that falsity being acted upon. 
    As long as fear is in movement, so will be illusion, self deception, (being the same as seeking security in psychological time), which will inevitably bring about this psychological dependence on time. 
    Again, when we seek security in thought-time,  we are acting in accordance to the idea that “the i” is actually separate from that which it wants to change. If we see the truth in the fact that there is no division, we see the futility in an illusion pursuing this false security in the illusion of time, (psychological becoming). 
    Do we see that there is no entity distinct from thought, but just the movement of thought? 
    Can we see that the only reason there is this seeking security time is because of fear?
     And can we see that the only reason there is this fear, is because we feel the experiencer as being actually different from that which that experiencer experiences? 
    When we see this with our whole being, (holistic insight), that notion of division ceases -dissolves. Then no more of this neurotic striving to capture and sustain psychological security. 
    When we stop seeking psychological security, we stop feeding the loop of fear-division-conflict-suffering-time, which is the same as (divided action or incomplete action). Then there is freedom to observe without the burden of (time-attachment-the self), as @who chit just mentioned, and we can then observe holistically, or be choicelessly aware, without motive, volition, or direction, as @robdl just mentioned. 
    To conclude on the significance of all this....
    To see deep in our bones that there is no “i” to seek psychologically, then there is communion, and one who can live in and as ultimate freedom. Then one can live in, and as TIMELESS BE-ING. 

  9. The ego needs to be integrated, not destroyed
    The ego needs to be integrated, not destroyed
    Ego = thought = “I” = mind
    All one and the same thing. 
    The “I” is made out of thought.  Mind is made out of thought. Ego is made out of thought.

  10. I have a crippling fear of failure that ironically leads me to fail
    I have a crippling fear of failure that ironically leads me to fail
    "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.

  11. I have a crippling fear of failure that ironically leads me to fail
    I have a crippling fear of failure that ironically leads me to fail
    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.

  12. Fear of fear
    Fear of fear
    To seek freedom from fear implies an action that is taken in reaction to the very problem, FEAR. 
    To utilize a means that is the result of reaction is in itself a movement of fear. 
    Any movement of fear can never end the movement of fear, but will only perpetuate that very movement. 
    Its only in the absence of reaction “free of a motive/means” that this very movement of fear will cease to manifest. 
    To act in accordance to reaction implies an evasion of fear itself. Any movement of reaction, and to attain an answer to escape the problem of fear is the very reason fear takes place. To seek an escape through the means of thought “plan of action” is to avoid the very problem altogether. 
    There must be an understanding of the origin of FEAR and it’s relationship to security/insecurity. 
    To see and understand how these movements interdepend and feed off one another. To understand the problem of fear is in itself the means in ending it. 

  13. What comes first?...
    What comes first?...
    Process of experience/thought/self
    A) Perception 
    D) thought/desire “identification with the center...”The experience of “i” and what that “i” experiences is born. But remember these are one and the same movement actually. Feelingns and emotions reside within the movement of identification of thought/THE “i”.....Remember that feelings and emotions are given continuity by the movement of thought. If that movement wasn’t in motion there would be no entity that identified with them in the first place. 
    And then through memory of that experience thought operates and creates the desire to repeat that experience through the seeking of E)pleasure. 
    Until we understand the whole of the nature of how experience is born we will remain slave to this process of experience. 
    If one wants to empty the mind of its conditioned content/movement so there is consciousness with NO-THING IN IT, one has to be able to understand the entire movement so that thought/self/experience does not leave a mark on any new experiencing. 
    Then there is this no process “absolute” that are good friend @Nahm speaks of 

  14. Escape to abstraction
    Self Analysis implies abstraction, which nourishes division-duality
    Specifically having to do with @Feel Good‘s question yesterday. 
    Sorry for late response. I spent yesterday without a head. 
    To analyze the self-thought loop, that implies we are separate from that which we analyze. Only then is there this formulation of concept accumulation, (abstractions), that follow, in which then are adhered too by control and imitation. Thought-self has then created an abstraction out of a fact, then is either compelled to accept or condemn certain abstractions in accordance to its own accumulated bias-prejudice, and so on. 
    As far as the content we attempt to analyze, “We are it”. There is nothing “we” can do about “it”. To do anything about it will ultimately causes contradicting action because you’re going into the observation dividing yourself from the fact from the very beginning. What is observed,(the fact), and “you” are one and the same movement of the fragmented nature of thought. 
     Can we watch without any movement of division-abstraction as “the i”, fear-time, (psychological becoming)?? 
    Can we see (holistically), the fact of it all without accepting or condemning according to our machanical impulse to self sooth the psyche-self. 
    Holistic understanding will not come from analyzing your self. If there is any form of duality taking place, (contradicting desires, seeking psychological security), will then prevent actual understanding of the fact,(what is the case).
    Nothing I write is meant to be a conceptually accumulated, or treated as an idea to be pursued, but is only a pointing to something that can be observed in ourselves. Only if this (analysis), being abstraction based understanding, is not being employed of course. 
    In observation without analysis there will be no form of abstraction. As long as we see “the i” as being separate from that which it is observing there will be positive and negative action of the self, (volition-desire), that will inevitably evade what is, to what should be.
    An example of action influenced by this false notion the perceiver being separate from that which it perceives. 
    The majority of ‘my’ posts are only to point out the inner ongoings of thought-self for the most part. But we have to be able to observe free-of this accumulation,(experience, knowledge, memory), which is inevitably bias in its very nature. 
    Ultimately yes, (FEAR-TIME), perpetuates this self feeding loop of itself. Thought seeking security in itself. 

  15. Headlessness
    No way, as way, to headlessness
    No way, as way, to headlessness
    Only a head knows it is, only a head knows it is not. 
    To know or not to know, only a head questions. 
    Only a head seeks answers, and evades problems. 
    Only a head escapes its own invented punishment to its own projected reward. 
    Only a head has a point of view, opinion, perspective, only a head needs one. 
    Only a head invents and fortifies the continuity of the space between here and there, (subject-object). 
    Time as ‘the i’ invents the space between that which is infinite(whole). 
    What a way to utilize freedom when there is the possibility and the luxury of leisure.
    To sit or to walk, without absolutely any movement of identification. No movement of imagination, no movement of time as the i who is separate from THE HAPPENING. One holistic movement/non-movement of beauty and joy which is timelessness. One dynamic-stillness which is empty, yet immense.  
    But how does this come about?
    A partial explanation of how this mysterious happening comes about...
    As the mind tries to capture the immensity of this phenomenon, it soon finds that any movement of mind to recall the event reduces the actual essence the occurrence itself. The minds capacity being finite can never express the actuality of the actuality. Nor can it really remember as there was not an entity recording in the first place. What I know after some some time investigating this movement of (dynamic stillness), which seems to be both movement and non-movement simultaneously, as strange as that may seem. 
    In this actualized sustained passive attention, being (non exclusive), to all movement of the self-thought; there is a cessation of all positive-negative movement of volitional pursuit. Non-reaction, non-response; not to accept, or condemn, any feeling or thoughts as they arises. To let thought-feelings die on there own without introducing incomplete action as the i who controls, suppresses, and restrains. Complete negation and cessation of all fragmented action influenced by the false notion of division, as the i distinct from thought, others, and the entire happening itself. In this awareness there is not just whole undivided attention of thought-self, but also attention to all surroundings, (THE HAPPENING), in its entirety. Attention so entire that ‘the i’ who attends is totally vacant. 
    With this total passive awareness there is no movement of registration, which then allows for an absence of recollection, in which there is no content to project itself as a veil over the next moment of now. With this comes a suspension of identification, as in No (i), time. Absolutely no static content of the self and it’s accumulation, being imprinted and carried over onto each dynamic now. With this passive awareness empty of (volition-desire), is an immeasurable beauty and mysteriousness that cannot ever fully expresses in words,(measure). 
    There is an obviousness to this indeed. In order to see WHAT IS, “the i” with all its accumulation, being limitated and narrow must end. 
    It’s apparent that there is not a ‘way or how to’ when it comes to the loosing of ones head. Any method, system, routine, or any other mechanical means to loose ones head implies volition-will, strife, and this perpetual desire to attain a projected goal in time. This movement of thought as the i seeking security in its own movement, is the very reinforcement of the veil of the conditioned consciousness itself. Only positive-negative movement of the i functions in such a pattern. 
    When it comes down to it, this a question of whether or not (experience, knowledge, memory), as the i, can ‘actually’ cease to operate now. Then there can be an unconditioned seeing, void of the mechanical impulse to forecast and anticipate what may come in time. Ultimately implying that all fear-time-thought, (accumulation-projection) must cease to manifest itself. A sustained movement of non-conditioned movement of action-reaction, which is in essence, the movement of the self. 

  16. Much thanks
    Much thanks
    Faceless has given that advice to me as well - about forum time.  I carve out time daily to just sit/passively observe the fact of what's happening in thought, being aware for any conditioned lens through which observation is taking place such as volition, seeking, etc.  But it is fun, fulfilling to get on the forum and share/discuss/learn this stuff with others.
    I do agree about fear as well, because it has so many subtle forms, because the nature of thought-self movement itself has a fearful quality --- even in desire, even in knowledge --- which we normally think of as something different, distinct from fear.  But at the deepest level, desiring/seeking in thought, trying to know/attain knowledge in thought, and fearing/escaping in thought are all the identical mechanism of thought --- the mechanism of seeking security in its own movement.  The mechanism of movement away from the fact/what-is.  This movement away from what is, this seeking security in its own movement is expressed as knowledge, desire, belief, fear, and so on --- but normal thinking can't grasp this; holistic insight ultimately grasps this.
    People through normal intellectual faculties can appreciate fear in thought -- overt fear, like worry about the future -- but it's hard for them to grasp that something innocuous like looking for knowledge is the identical thought-self-fear mechanism.

  17. Much thanks
    Much thanks
    It’s quite fascinating/fun when you go into it — learning through relationship. Seeing how others may view you through an image-lens, and that lens being a reflection/reinforcement of their own ego. 
    I see this with my older sister - who often sees me through the past-image lens of the child/little brother, which reinforces her identity/ego status as the oldest sibling/pecking order of the family.

  18. Much thanks
    Much thanks
    It’s quite difficult to say what love is, but you can kind of point to it through negation; by understanding what it is not. By seeing that love is clearly not thought’s search for psychological security. And that love is clearly not formed out of prior images/conditioning; as these are all fear movements.
    I think you may get a sense now of what I mean by love being of a higher order (than thought).

  19. Much thanks
    Much thanks
    Seeing through the veil of one’s own ego will therefore affect one’s compulsion to see others through a projected image, and then something like love actually has a chance to come into being.

  20. Much thanks
    Much thanks
    One can also see how a parent’s love for their children can be distorted by thought-fear. Projecting an image about the child then expecting them to live up to that image, and becoming sad/disappointed when the child fails to do so.  That image put into the parent by fear/culture/tradition/experience/conditioning, then projected on to the child. 
    Therefore they are not in true dynamic relationship, but the parent is seeing the child through this image/the past; the parent is merely in relationship with the image. This image is also a reinforcement/nourishment of the parent’s own ego/self-image. The parent is feeding their ego through projections about the child.

  21. Much thanks
    Much thanks
    People may never be in direct relationship with one another. They are mutually in relationship with the image they’ve constructed out of the other. Images out of the dead past. But they are seeking security in this image of the other, because it gives a sense of permanency/stability, and also reinforces their own self-image. But people are dynamic and can’t be captured by an accumulation of images. 
    When it’s all about accumulated past images, love becomes a matter of nostalgia, sentimentality - and is that love? Or just holding onto the past?
    Relationship based on past images is a dead relationship, as relationships are living, dynamic. The living, dynamic quality reflects more as love — free of the past/thought/fear

  22. Much thanks
    Much thanks
    When there are influences of escape from loneliness, jealousy, psychological dependency, and seeing the person through a static image you have built up about them (seeing them through the past/conditioned memory), not seeing them through the dynamic present - then how can love be?

  23. Much thanks
    Much thanks
    Thought is always seeking security in its own movement, so the quality of thought is essentially fear. And when fear is in operation, love can’t exist. Or a version of it distorted by thought/fear will exist. 
    This can be observed in a lot of relationships - the action of thought/fear colouring the love - manifesting as insecurity, jealousy, neediness/escape from loneliness, mutual gratification, seeing the partner through an image you have of them, and becoming upset when they deviate from that image. And they love that person so long as the person gratifies their desires, fulfills their expectations. The movement of thought-fear makes relationships a matter of transaction, mutual gratification, desire, escaping fear.

  24. Much thanks
    Much thanks
    So one must not just consider worrying thoughts or overtly fearful thoughts, but all the subtle thoughts like belief, desire, seeking for knowledge, seeking for identity, and so on. To focus just on the worrying thoughts is too biased/narrow attention; akin to (partial) self-analysis.

  25. Much thanks
    Much thanks
    It’s kind of funny because since thought is seeking security in its own movement, the very quality of thought/thinking itself is fearful.  As this insecure/seeking nature has the same quality as fear. So if one were to focus on fear, they’d have to wholly observe all of thinking anyway!