Emanyalpsid

I am enlightened; sincere seekers ask me anything in relation to the path

156 posts in this topic

18 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

In that sense, attention is the opposite of focus. You mean awareness of what is without focussing and without interpretating? That is what I mean with equanimity.

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). 

18 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

How can something be unconditioned?

Like I said I cannot teach this, it is for attention (unconditioned awareness/observation/understanding which is action to that SEE’s this. 

 

18 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Thanks for trying, but I don't follow your logic yet

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. 

Edited by Jack River

Share this post


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

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. 

 

25 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Thanks for trying, but I don't follow your logic yet. Also, I dont really know where you want to go with all of this?

"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. "

In that sense, attention is the opposite of focus. You mean awareness of what is without focussing and without interpretating? That is what I mean with equanimity.

"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)."

How can something be unconditioned?

I think emanyalpsid is pointing to something I was trying to point to as well (again disclaimer, if your happy remain, but if your interested in stretching understanding, keep eyes and ears open).  The notion you tell yourself that your seeing from unconditioned awareness is still an idea you believe.  To let go of this is I guess to be more in the unknown.  For a while when I let this in it opened another layer of being free, because there is less that was being upheld, controlled within. This letting go lead to more letting go and the recognition you shared in a post above that you can't really ever claim to be anywhere, fixed/not fixed, so to claim enlightenment is kinda silly (only reason I ever said I was in 1 post ever was because seomeone asked and I hoped that saying yes would help others  trust more, but its a double edge sword to make a claim with that word, you repel people to, and honestly my awakening process is not going to be the same for others, everyone needs life, other teachers, self inquiry, time, no-time).  Then for what ever reason I can't explain, one day, boom I woke up to who I really was and who we really all are, Self/God and its remained, wasn't expecting it, didn't believe it was ultimately real prior.  Seemed like after 18 years of seeking, facing death, tons of self idea's, observations, connecting with spiritual teachers and hearing them and feeling their presence, connecting with spirits, drug experiences, and a culmination of the last few months, the last thing that seemed to be the final step was waking up to a knowing/memory of my original source, like the literal experience we can all relate to, one moment we dont know where our keys are that were placed somewhere, and then all the sudden you go oh ya they were right here, in my pocket, how silly, AND the memory of doing it is there with it.  It was like remembering being Self/God before birth.

 

Edited by Mu_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

The notion you tell yourself that your seeing from unconditioned awareness is still an idea you believe

No I’m sorry my dude. That’s not what I’m saying. 

 

33 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

To let go of this is I guess to be more in the unknown

There is no letting go along anything as that is action born of reaction. That’s the point. 

33 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

Seemed like after 18 years of seeking, facing death, tons of self idea's, observations, connecting with spiritual teachers and hearing them and feeling their presence, connecting with spirits, drug experiences, and a culmination of the last few months, the last thing that seemed to be the final step was waking up to a knowing/memory of my original source, like the literal experience we can all relate to, one moment we dont know where our keys are that were placed somewhere, and then all the sudden you go oh ya they were right here, in my pocket, how silly.

 

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. ?

Edited by Jack River

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jack River said:

No I’m sorry my dude. That’s not what I’m saying. 

 

There is no letting go along anything there is no 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. ?

Ya we seem to have fundamental differences in word selection.  At times you seem to be speaking about almost the exact same thing I am, and at others perhaps a little different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

Ya we seem to have fundamental differences in word selection.  At times you seem to be speaking about almost the exact same thing I am, and at others perhaps a little different. 

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 xD

Edited by Jack River

Share this post


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

Which also includes will/desire/choosing. 

No, equanimity is everything without will/desire/choosing

Quote

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. 

I still get the feeling your attention is what buddhists call equanimity. But if you can't explain it, maybe you want to look at it a bit more to understand what it is. If it is really unconditioned or not. How this attention came to be. If it is, it came to be and is therefore not unconditioned. If you don't want to, then don't. :)

Indeed logic and language are decisive for understanding each other. Therefore, it might be interesting to read a bit into Buddhist texts. Not the original, but the common. Also, if you don't want to, then don't.

Also, because you are posting here, there must be something for you to find here.

Edited by Emanyalpsid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

still get the feeling your attention is what buddhists call equanimity.

Yeah I dont know, I was lucky to not really get caught in such teachings. 

27 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

But if you can't explain it, maybe you want to look at it a bit more to understand what it is.

No I explained it pretty well actually. Just takes self observation of “movement/process” with its thought/reaction loop that feeds itself. 

27 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

How this attention came to be. If it is, it came to be and is therefore not unconditioned. If you don't want to, then don't. :)

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. 

Edited by Jack River

Share this post


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

Yeah I dont know, I was lucky to not really get caught in such teachings. 

How come you say this?

Quote

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.  

Mutual dependency is also a conditioning but no causation. 

However, they more you say, the less I understand what you mean.

You are very convinced that it is unconditioned, however god is also unconditioned. Therefore you will not verify what it is, because it is in your believe unverifiable.

If you sleep, in the moments without dreaming, is it still there, I mean present in awareness? If you are unconsciousness, is it still there present in awareness?

Edited by Emanyalpsid

Share this post


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

You are very convinced that it is unconditioned

Has nothing to do with “i”. 

 

1 hour ago, Emanyalpsid said:
1 hour ago, Jack River said:

Yeah I dont know, I was lucky to not really get caught in such teachings. 

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. :)

Edited by Jack River

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Edited by Jack River

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Jack River said:

Has nothing to do with “i”. 

 

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 thought 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. :)

 

17 minutes ago, Jack River said:

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. 

These observations are of a enlightened mind and if being lived, is from everything I've read and experienced is what is referred to as Freedom, real freedom.  If you have read nothing and came to this somehow, consider yourself lucky....I guess lol, or fortunate, although all just is Self we rest within and as.... 

Would you say that within any of your awakening God/Self/Creation understanding has been sparked?  Like something consumes you in a way that is undeniable and its pure love....  Not to sound esoteric, but its the best analogy I can think of.  Peoples awakenings and differences fascinate me.

Edited by Mu_

Share this post


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

If you have read nothing and came to this somehow, consider yourself lucky....I guess lol, or fortunate, although all just is creation we rest within and as.... 

I have watched some YouTube in the past but this has just hit me recently. I have had conversations with people like robdl and faceless which have set me up though. Although 99% of it is from me looking at myself without resistance. Faceless helped me a lot here. He suggested I just stop accumulating info and watched how all the subtle ways I escaped fear. This set me up to not move within the limits of psychological becoming. So I could explore the nature of thought without thought acting as its own inherent limitation that prevents understanding/seeing/observing. As in not being torn between the emotion/thought reaction to self sustain. Thought seems to seek security first and foremost which makes understanding/seeing/learning difficult. So really by facing what is head on that really opened the window for me to see what is. 

Edited by Jack River

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

Also are you on this forum learning still, teaching, a little of both? 

How would you say your quality of life has changed as a result of these understandings.

Would you say you've become a kinder person and more connected with people?

 

Relationship is the essence of life to me. Relationship is why I’m on the forum. 

Quality of life is most excellent now. Changed my life totally. 

Definetly more connected.?

Edited by Jack River

Share this post


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

Has nothing to do with “i”. 

 

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. :)

Well, Buddhism or what it is really about, is not really a train of thought in it's essence. It tells you to do self-inquiry, to learn about your self in order to dissolve the self, the same as what you did. The self is in essence the same as we are all humans. This is verified, not by a train of thought, but by the direct experience of others. That is the advantage of using a method. The advantage of only focusing on your own thoughts is that you are not distracted by looking for meaning in what others say in a method. The problem is that you don't really know where you end as you can not relate this to someone else his experience until you learn about other methods. 

So, because you used the word 'unconditioned,' this triggers me as this means that you think that something would exist upon itself. If something exists upon itself, there is a self left.

Edited by Emanyalpsid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jack River said:

@Mu_ but learning/observation which is meditation never ends?

Would you say in this sense meditation is synonymous with attention? 

Or is it more of a result of holistic understanding? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

The advantage of only focusing on your own thoughts is that you are not distracted by looking for meaning in what others say in a method. The problem is that you don't really know where you end as you can not relate this to someone else his experience until you learn about other methods. 

 

Well..

Who’s focusing?

Or are “my” thoughts mine? :)

 

 

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