tsuki

@non_nothing Laziness is when you should do it, but for some reason - don't. Awareness is the freedom to do it, or not to do it and it doesn't matter which you choose.

The whole lecture is very interesting, but I am specifically pointing to 1:09:37. This is the part in which he talks about thinking with the 'empty mind'. Just as a curiosity to explore.

@Outer Yes, you know all the ways in which logic can call things illogical. Is there any lens other than logic that you use to see the world? In before: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem It would be like treating logic as insult. @Charlotte I'm sorry for derailing your thread. We'll get past it eventually.

@Outer You calling my nonsense 'red herrings' tells me that you get off it as well. It is not logical to use logic, but it is perfectly illogical to both use it and not use it. Logic has its places, but existential, or phenomenological questions are not within its domains. To logic, certain things just are what they are. My presence here does not threaten your little bastion from my perspective. It may only look like that through your little manhole.

@Outer Why is it logical to use logic?

@Outer Oh, so we're playing along the lines of clear language. Huh? I thought that it is, what it is. Why do you want to know why does she want to know?

@Outer Hahaha. Did you like it? What belief did I just contradict?

@Faceless It is not only about text. It's about reality itself. Try acknowledging that the same 'thing' that goes on and lets you read this text happens all the time. As you look around your home and see a table with a computer, you are reading reality itself. There is no such thing as a table unless you read it. That is because you know to look for a table. When you learned how to read - you learned to look for words and notice them in relation to the sounds people make when they speak. In the same sense you can understand yourself as you read your own posts, you can read yourself as you look around. In this sense, thought is not merely 'monkey chatter' that goes on forever. Thought is everything, but since you are new to text - you may not have noticed it. Text is just a very powerful mechanism of storing understanding so that it can be transcended through self-reflection. If this self-reflective movement is mastered (internalized), it can be brought (or noticed) in everyday situations. When you speak to a cashier, you may use her as a mirror to read yourself off her by observing your own reactions. This self-reflective movement is not something to be done for the sake of something else (fear). It is just a not-yet recognized conditioned movement of a different kind than what you call thought. This 'tower of observers' I was speaking of lately is another dimension of time to be recognized. Time is not only fear between exclusive opposites, but this mechanical movement can be seen within insight, or 'fear' of fear. 'Fear' is here similar, but not exactly the same than fear. Once you see the similarity it becomes much more acceptable to call it that.

@Charlotte My current answer is: The moment we notice for the first time that we've been doing something that can be named (such as listening to music), the like or dislike is 'created' by the relationship to our conscious beliefs. If, for example - we recognize that we're listening to music in relationship to our religious beliefs, we may 'create' dislike, as it contradicts something important. We can also create pre-expectations of what is wrong and what is right if some belief is so important that it occupies our conscious attention all the time. This belief is what constitutes identity. Then, we observe our everyday occurrences and judge things as good or bad automatically. This is what 'steers' us towards and away from things. If we are not conscious of the mechanics of fragmentation, contradiction and belief - it is very difficult to observe oneself in everyday life. So, in short - it is a phase of 'changing' consciousness that is necessary to prime the mechanism of self-reflection via suffering.

@Charlotte Let me answer this question as I understand it, with full awareness that @Faceless may mean something else. This may be a good way to bring us closer together. So - basically, fragmentation is the difference between yes and no. Everything, always is either yes, or no. For example, for some people: Democracy is yes and totalitarianism is no Pizza is yes and vegetables are no Philosophy is yes and meditation is no Art is yes and pop-culture is no Pen is yes and pencil is no I am not establishing valid preferences here, but giving an example of what a prototypical person may be fragmented into. There is an attraction towards yes, and repulsion away from no. This attraction and repulsion is what fear is. The movement of thought is the preference of one over the other in everyday situations. The so-called conditioned mind is the mind that cannot see this movement that attracts and repulses between opposites. The so-called unconditioned mind is the one that can see the unity of opposites (for example, the unity between democracy and totalitarianism) and acknowledges that both outcomes are the same. It is holistic in its nature. The biggest problem with this definition of fragmentation is that the difference between yes and no is meaning. The unconditioned mind is the meaningless mind, and for the conditioned, meaning is yes (attractive) and meaninglessness is no (repulsive). To even begin working with this definition, one has to be willing to accept that meaninglessness and meaning are not mutually exclusive. Even if it appears as contradiction. This contradiction is what is the main obstacle in transition from the meaning-seeking mind to meaningless-seeking mind.

@now is forever Zooming

@Faceless This is it. That is the movement I am speaking about. It is not a movement through effort, but via seeing through the past. Can you observe as the past is being accumulated and then discarded via stepping foot on a new world? This new world is 'empty' because it is not yet populated by observation of how this movement itself works. Once this knowledge is accumulated, the next step is taken. Into a new world. It is not a movement of effort, of trying to understand myself. It is effortless. I can see through myself as if I saw through a fraud. In this sense, there is an interplay of knowledge and seeing through. This very text is a knowledge of how it works and once I can see through it, I take a next step into the 'unknown'. It is the moment of 'death' and then, the empty observer is born. It feels like a self-constructing tower of observers, all looking down, and the moment one is born, the other watches him and understands what he does. In doing that, the one being watched vanishes and the next is born, watching the watcher.

@MarkusSweden Huh, wouldn't the same be true for the person that meditated for 20 years? Would that person be willing to start philosophizing? Why can't we do both? Because we have to commit to either one, or the other?

@Nahm Let's just keep being presents for each other to unwrap . There is unity in the mutual friction of the Ego.

@Faceless Bingo. That is what Observation of fear feeds on. This is what keeps it in motion. As I write this sentence, it ate itself, as it implied that it fears fear.

@Nahm Are you willing to find your answer as you wrote it within my answer as I wrote it? I can see agreement between us. There is a clue in my signature.

@Nahm To 'me' that felt attacked? No. The gift was the attacked 'me' for the embodied self-awareness to unpack. The feeling was just the paper that I found myself wrapped in. Thank you for your question.

@GreenDragon It is good that you can distill observation into conclusions. That is an important skill. The other important skill is to actually keep them open without agreeing, or disagreeing with them and seeing for yourself how long they can last on their own. Why people misunderstand non-duality is because it directly dismantles many beliefs they hold as meaningful. For example: Christian culture under superficial inspection claims that you are separate from god.

Funny how personally attacked I feel by this thread.

@Faceless Are you going to address this post? Can the movement that passively 'feeds off' be observed? Try reading your own posts and observe as you become 'disinterested' in them. Can you (passively) observe this passive observation of dualities in the text? This passive observation of duality is what effortlessly 'disarms' them so that they do not attract and form knowledge. How about this then: As you read this text in which I'm describing the disarming movement, this very movement is what disarms what I'm describing. Storing knowledge that starts the thought 'for good' is impossible because whatever is perceived is being disarmed, even this very text. This balance between construction of meaning (thought) and destruction of meaning (insight) is what keeps the balance. As I have described this very movement by introducing meaning to it, it disarms it and becomes 'stronger'. Stronger in the sense that it can now see through itself and becomes something else, unknown to itself. It is impossible to tell whether this movement is in fact still, or in motion. It perpetuates its own operation by negation of meaning. In this sense it is like conditioned mind, but opposite in nature. This is the root of dynamic stillness. Creation and annihilation of meaning through inattentive observation. This is the nature of infinite creativity. Try describing it yourself and observe yourself as you do it. You have to observe the text and observe the observer at the same time.

@Zweistein How about that? Beige - The unknown as unity Purple - Split of the unknown into the 'self' and the 'other'. Red - Recognition of meaning that separates 'the self' and 'the other' Blue - Recognition of possibility of common meaning and co-existence for the sake of it Orange - Unity of 'the self' and 'the other' under creation of independent meaning Green - Total unity through recognition of creation as meaning. Next tiers undergo the same steps, but with respect to various kinds of meaning. EDIT: Nope, I don't like the creation part. It should be more ambiguous like 'action' or 'movement'.

@Saumaya @Faceless This is the nature of infinite creativity. It produces knowledge 'out of nowhere' and then, as you write it, it understands the conditioned parts of it. In seeing of its own conditioning by inspecting its own writing, it becomes more aware of the conditioning. That is why creativity deepens as you write. In a sense - it becomes its own fuel. This is how infinite creativity works. It is a positive feedback loop. This is the nature of boudlessness. See my signature.

@Faceless It is not intellectualization if you are willing to look into it yourself. The point it not to understand what I write, but to understand what you write, by reading your own writing. It is not 'a point' for any reason in particular that seeks better circumstances. It is only in the unconditioned mind that rejects reasons that growth is rejected because it implies something else. One can still grow for no reason, even if there is nowhere to grow. Just as there is dynamic stillness, there is also constant growth that does not imply change. Paradox is what the 'conditioned mind' is always-rejecting. It is the 'vs' that constitutes the difference between yes and no. Paradox is what the 'unconditioned mind' is always-accepting. It is the '=' what constitutes the unity of yes and no. Reason and no-reason are not mutually exclusive. They are the mirror image of one another. By turning reason inside-out, you do not abolish reason. You just turn limit into limitlessness, which is a constant state of anti-reason. To the mind that is bound by reason, the reason is not a limit. To the mind that is bound by no reason, the reason is a limit. The unconditioned mind is defined in opposition to the conditioned mind. The conditioned mind sees what itself does and transcends its own limit by flipping inside-out. As far as I can recall, you mentioned that your son has started to build his head. How is it possible to turn headful from headless? This is the same movement of flipping inside-out. This flipping movement that annihilates the mind into nothing is what constitutes infinite creativity. That is, however established only on the basis of actual understanding of the workings of the mind. It is possible to flip inside-out this very flipping by careful inspection of what it does. Inquire into that, friend. The conditioned mind is not a disease to be cured that produces symptoms. It is co-present within the unconditioned mind. The only difficulty is to see its annihilated nature. It is not a movement of measure. You only see it as a movement of measure because you treat the movement of measure as a symptom of the conditioned mind to be cured. Can you see how the unconditioned mind sees the conditioning everywhere? It is the compulsive seeking of conditioning for no particular reason. And it is content with having no reason for it. You may call my post the movement of measure only because the no-mind sees it. It is not something bad. It is something to be aware of, for no particular reason. Language is not dualistic. The no-mind is bound by duality between duality and non-duality. Treat it as a chance to self-inquire into the nature of headlessness. A state that has no nature is a state defined in opposition to nature. The annihilated-mind feeds off this flipping. See it for yourself. This, and thank you for your open-annihilated-mindedness .

@robdl The unconditioned mind is not bound by no reason for a reason. It is bound by no reason for no reason.

@Faceless Necessity is not the reason for action. You are not bound by necessity, and yet - you still do things. That is precisely the point.