Faceless

THE VEIL THAT BLANKETS BE-ING (THE HAPPENING)

51 posts in this topic

Just now, Faceless said:

Don’t accept or deny knowledge, as the entity that accepts or denies, is in itself a movement of (experience, knowledge, memory), as the i, (time). 

Quite so.

accepting/denying of knowledge --> perpetuates this "entity"/"I"/knowledge censor, which is one and the same as perpetuating the movement of thought-self/mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To accept -or- deny reflects choice, and choice reflects thinking/desire/memory, and so accepting/denying indicates thought-self in movement.

Edited by robdl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, robdl said:

You probably meant this but to be clear and for the benefit of others reading, the "I" doesn't accumulate the past.  The "I" is the accumulated past; they are one and the same.

@robdl The intent of this distinction is clear to me if you're trying to establish clear communication.
However, even if the I is the accumulated past, the accumulation is being perpetuated by the so-called fear that is caused, again, by the accumulated past (or, in other words: I). Therefore, I is not only the accumulated past itself, but also the accumulation.

So, saying that 'I' accumulates the past is not wrong.

 


The true heresy is hearsay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Faceless said:

This is not about abandoning anything my dear friend. Simply understanding the entire movement of thought. 

To see how it all as one unitary movement. 

And I wouldn’t say I have accumulated that much knowledge either. Merely watched some videos on thought that Krishnamurti has made. Could count those videos with use of two hands. 

For me personally, fear,(the i) ended long before I came across Krishnamurtis excellent sharings. I see his communication technique as efficient. 

@Faceless Okay, so here goes another question:

From what I understood from our previous interactions, unless insight is found, the only movement that is at play is the movement of time (I).
If that movement is mechanical, fragmenting in nature - then how is it possible to point at insight to that movement?
If insight is opposite in its nature to the mind, then it is impossible for the mind to find it.
So: insight has to be always present if it is ever to be discovered.

In this sense, everybody have always been timeless without noticing it.
Wouldn't then your call to find insight be an assumption that you make about others?
Wouldn't it be much more efficient to change your assumptions about them?


The true heresy is hearsay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, tsuki said:

@robdl The intent of this distinction is clear to me if you're trying to establish clear communication.
However, even if the I is the accumulated past, the accumulation is being perpetuated by the so-called fear that is caused, again, by the accumulated past (or, in other words: I). Therefore, I is not only the accumulated past itself, but also the accumulation.

So, saying that 'I' accumulates the past is not wrong.

 

Not wrong per se, but partial and susceptible to being misconstrued based on the dualism/separativeness of language.

Can we combine yours and mine and refine it to say that the "I" is the both the static content of and active process of accumulation?

Edited by robdl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more that is spoken about something that is outside of the mind's grasp, the more confusion (and reinforcement of the "self" illusion) that will eventuate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, robdl said:

Not wrong per se, but partial and susceptible to being misconstrued based on the dualism/separativeness of language.

@robdl Language is partial only as long as the mind takes possession of it.

To me, there is nothing that can be said that cannot be misconstrued. No distinction can be made if the intent is to pick it apart.

12 minutes ago, robdl said:

Can we refine it to say that the "I" is the both the static content of and active process of accumulation?

We can, but it won't help in the slightest. Unless the audience knows what is being talked about, no amount of distinctions and clear, logical, deduction can help with this task. I think that the core of your teaching that can be explicated into a message like @Faceless wrote, has no effect other than opening potential for religion. Unless it is understood by the audience, the clear distinctions will be turned by the mind into dogma.
Dogma being the repeated usage of terms that the mind assumes it understands, but misses the point completely.

This is often seen in communication between non-dual beings that try to assert their mutual hierarchy by talking about non-duality.
It is impossible to see the non-dual nature of the other if you try to 'understand' their message in the traditional sense of the mind.

Most successful spiritual traditions deal with this problem by passing their knowledge in form of riddles that point at the insight upon solution.
Unless you understand them properly, they seem like nonsense. If you do, they reveal themselves to be jokes at your expense.
Take zen koans for example.


The true heresy is hearsay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, tsuki said:

 

We can, but it won't help in the slightest. Unless the audience knows what is being talked about, no amount of distinctions and clear, logical, deduction can help with this task.@Faceless

 

Right - no amount of logical communication is a substitute for the direct realization for oneself -- and so we point this out. And point to observation for one self.    We can't just communicate to someone how to ride a bike -- we have to point to them to get on a bike and learn for one self.  To get a taste for it for themselves.

 

Quote

Unless it is understood by the audience, the clear distinctions will be turned by the mind into dogma.
Dogma being the repeated usage of terms that the mind assumes it understands, but misses the point completely.

Right - and so we point this thought-trap out, too.  That the mind is sneaky, self-deceptive, and will use anything and everything to perpetuate its own movement, including even nondualistic ideas about the transcendence of mind. Thinking will use even thoughts that undermine thinking's existence, as long as thinking is perpetuated --- thinking doesn't care about the content of thought as long as thinking/thinker is nourished. And that this indeed is mind "missing the point".  To think about the thing is not the thing.

 

To me, communication with others mainly consists of pointing out thought-traps, and pointing out the necessity to observe for one self what the nature of thought-self is.  It would be a mistake to just pass along nondualistic knowledge about the nature of ultimate reality.

 

 

 

Edited by robdl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t get Faceless teaching. It’s to much mind noise that I stop reading and go back to my silence. Maybe that’s the point? I don’t know :) 

From my point of view the I is not the problem. The I is the only real I can find. But if I points to a body then we have a misunderstanding. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cirkussmile said:

I don’t get Faceless teaching.

 

 

It's ultimately not for the mind/intellect to "get."  The mind/intellect can only get it partially, in small pieces -- which makes a confused mess out of it.  Faceless is pointing to the holistic understanding behind it all, which is not of the intellect, but meta to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tsuki said:

From what I understood from our previous interactions, unless insight is found, the only movement that is at play is the movement of time (I).
If that movement is mechanical, fragmenting in nature - then how is it possible to point at insight to that movement?

Nice question. 

Ill make as simple as I can buddy. 

Conditioned movement of thought-self, which is both dynamic-always changing in process, yet static in content, cannot capture whole insight indeed. 

We cannot respond with that (dead static content), the past, to meet the dynamic wholeness of what is the case now. 

Also whole insight is not ‘found’ per say. Insight is not the result of cultivation of thought-volition, which is ultimately a reactionary response of fear-time,(psychological becoming). Insight comes in a flash when the mind-time ceases to move as the i,(experience, knowledge, memory).

Howsver, to start with an understanding of what thought can operate on, which is the known, as that is time based, can be understood with thought. To understand the nature of pleasure, desire, fear, and so on, the movement of time.

But to seek that which is timeless cannot be contained by the mechanism of thought, as the self-time. 

In regards to “time”, all we can do is understand what we can know, which is what is actually the case or the fact. Taking place within oneself, or can be observed. 

3 hours ago, tsuki said:

If insight is opposite in its nature to the mind, then it is impossible for the mind to find it?

Well I wouldn’t say insight is opposite to the nature of mind, but I see what you mean. The mind would create that distinction. Yes the mind-thought being finite-limited-partial cannot grasp the whole, Indeed. 

3 hours ago, tsuki said:

In this sense, everybody have always been timeless without noticing it.

Well if fear is continuing to influence action is that so? 

3 hours ago, tsuki said:

Wouldn't then your call to find insight be an assumption that you make about others?
 

Lol, well when I speak of all this it is a “we” type of deal. What I am saying is if fear-time is the fact, then that is the case. For time to say I am timeless is a movement of thought-time  itself. 

3 hours ago, tsuki said:

Wouldn't it be much more efficient to change your assumptions about them?

It’s an assumption for one to say, in accordance to knowledge(thought), that they are empty of fear-time, when they are in fact bound by fear-time. 

When we discuss this we are talking about us. There is no me and them distinction. Another invention of thought-duality. 

 

Does that clear it up at all, friend? 

 

Edited by Faceless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, robdl said:

It's ultimately not for the mind/intellect to "get."  The mind/intellect can only get it partially, in small pieces -- which makes a confused mess out of it.  Faceless is pointing to the holistic understanding behind it all, which is not of the intellect, but meta to it.

Exactly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, robdl said:

To me, communication with others mainly consists of pointing out thought-traps, and pointing out the necessity to observe for one self what the nature of thought-self is

That’s ultimately what we try and do. Connecting the dots type of sharing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, robdl said:

Right - no amount of logical communication is a substitute for the direct realization for oneself -- and so we point this out. And point to observation for one self.    We can't just communicate to someone how to ride a bike -- we have to point to them to get on a bike and learn for one self.  To get a taste for it for themselves.

 

45 minutes ago, robdl said:

Right - and so we point this thought-trap out, too.  That the mind is sneaky, self-deceptive, and will use anything and everything to perpetuate its own movement, including even nondualistic ideas about the transcendence of mind. Thinking will use even thoughts that undermine thinking's existence, as long as thinking is perpetuated --- thinking doesn't care about the content of thought as long as thinking/thinker is nourished. And that this indeed is mind "missing the point".  To think about the thing is not the thing.

Well said:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tsuki said:

What @Faceless wrote, has no effect other than opening potential for religion.

Good heads up:)

freedom to question is important. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thinking can't inherently transcend the "thinker", and thinking can't inherently see the whole thought-self loop (only unconditioned observation can), but thinking has some capacity to understand or at least get a sense of what some of the thought-traps are, and understand the nature of certain forms of thought (belief, knowledge, memory, and so on). So there is a starting point there, even though it's partial, limited understanding; non-holistic.

Edited by robdl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, robdl said:

thinking can't inherently transcend the "thinker", and thinking can't inherently see the whole thought-self loop (only unconditioned observation can), but thinking has some capacity to understand or at least get a sense of what some of the thought-traps are, and understand the nature of certain forms of thought (belief, knowledge, memory, and so on). So there is a starting point there, even though it's partial, limited understanding.

This helps to connect the dots for a holistic understanding of thought-self,(time), as all one unitary movement. 

Which is why we go into how fear, pleasure, desire, seeking psychologically, and as @robdl says memory, experience, and so on, are actually one unitary movement of time-thought as the i. 

Edited by Faceless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once that understanding-seeing is observed holistically, in that seeing is action in of itself. Action not influenced by the partial, limited, insight of thought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the ending of psychological time came with seeing how silly seeking psychological security in thought-time was. I saw that seeking security in something impermanent would only create further insecurity. In seeing  the truth of that fact was the ending of this seeking psychological security in time. I, (fear), saw how evading fear was only perpetuating fear. 

This came about without any form of knowledge at all. It came in a flash. I had been evading fear so long, that I all of a sudden saw the pattern was self feeding. 

That to me is perhaps the most important thing to understand first. With that there is less attempt to distort or corrupt any type of investigation into he self-thought. One can go about it all when there is a capacity to suspended ones own bias-prejudice. 

Which ultimately makes for less compulsion to evade a problem by seeking any ok answer as escape. It helps to stay with a problem and learn about it. Also eliminates all this motive-volition which fuels the veil of (experience, knowledge, memory), in which we then cling too.   

 

Edited by Faceless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Faceless said:

For me the ending of psychological time came with seeing how silly seeking psychological security in thought-time was. I saw that seeking security in something impermanent would only create further insecurity. In seeing  the truth of that fact was the ending of this seeking psychological security in time. I, (fear), saw how evading fear was only perpetuating fear. 

This came about without any form of knowledge at all. It came in a flash. I had been evading fear so long, that I all of a sudden saw the pattern was self feeding. 

That to me is perhaps the most important thing to understand first. With that there is less attempt to distort or corrupt any type of investigation into he self-thought. One can go about it all when there is a capacity to suspended ones own bias-prejudice. 

Which ultimately makes for less compulsion to evade a problem by seeking any ok answer as escape. It helps to stay with a problem and learn about it. Also eliminates all this motive-volition which fuels the veil of (experience, knowledge, memory), in which we then cling too.   

 

If you did LSD you’d be floored.  It would show you everything you’re trying to put to words. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now