robdl

If you guys aren't using the ?/??/??? nomenclature the same way, and other readers are confused by it, I'd suggest returning to normal language

It looks like you and @Faceless aren't quite meeting each other on the knowledge point. Faceless is saying knowledge and mind are one and the same movement. Knowledge being made out thought/the past/the known/memory and the mind/thought-self loop being made out of thought/the past/the known/memory. Knowledge is thought-self and thought-self is knowledge. Knowledge perpetuates mind, and mind perpetuates knowledge. But to say "all knowledge is the same" is not quite getting at the point above.

For context, Ramana Maharshi's response to this --- how can thought be used to end thought --- was as follows: "The mind will subside only by means of the enquiry 'Who am I?'. The thought 'Who am I?', destroying all other thoughts, will itself finally be destroyed like the stick used for stirring the funeral pyre." But can thought ("I"/"doer") use thought (self-inquiry/who am I?) to end thought? That's the question, as it would seem inherently contradictory.

Yeah, the "I"/observer thinks it's separate/apart/split from what it observes, and then goes about analyzing it. But the analyzer is the analyzed. Crazy, huh?

Indeed. To not look from inside the loop as "I", but to look upon the whole loop itself. No analysis of the loop, but a holistic, non-verbal insight of the loop for simply what it is. Observation without looking through the conditioning lens of the "observer." And a moment is all it takes, quite so. The first time it came as a flash.

Right...seen by..... but not seen by the "I" because the "seeing" has caught a glimpse of the whole movement of "I"/thought-self. In the "seeing" comes with it the action (of patterns falling away). Not action conducted by the "I".

Indeed. The "me" and mental positions/attitudes were one and the same movement of thought-self.

Realizing now those previous movements toward holding mental positions were fear-driven/thought seeking security in itself?

I put 5meo-dmt (hcl version) on tin foil and put a flame to the underside so it didn’t get direct flame. The tinfoil was at the bottom of a plastic bottle and I inhaled from the top hole of the bottle. That’s one quick and dirty way of doing it in a pinch

Ego/mind/thought-self seeks security in its own movement. Desire/fear in thought are two key ways in which thought self-perpetuates/self-sustains. The actions carried out are then a reflection of this compulsive/mechanical nature of thought-self that is always seeking or escaping, desiring or fearing, to perpetuate itself/ego mind. The actions are therefore fear-driven, bred out of mind’s reactivity within itself.

As the movement of the past is a movement/escape from what-is/the now. This is also the quality of fear: escape; movement away from what-is/the now. The “past” and “fear” are different expressions of the same thing, which is thought seeking security in its own movement by resisting the Now.

The past = experience/knowledge/memory = thought/mind = self/“I”. All of these are interchangeable; one and the same movement.

Is a memory, which is a thought, an image of the past, not a movement away from what-is, the now? Is a memory a form of resistance to the now? Meeting the now with the past? Is this not the very inherent nature of mind/memory/“I” (all one and the same) to meet the now with the past?

We can all agree that memory is a response of thought, a response of the past. But what is the relationship to memory? I have memories or “I” is memories ? Does an “I” separate itself from memory, or are memory and “I” seen as one and the same movement of ego mind/thought-self?

Can we see that the mind seeking identity, the mind seeking pleasure, the mind escaping fear, the mind seeking knowledge, and the mind seeking answers are all one and the same as thought seeking security in its own movement? To see the fact of it directly, not to ponder, accept/deny the concept of it via intellectual thinking?

We want answers to our questions but do we not need to question/investigate the very nature of questions themselves, and what we hope to gain from the answers? Does the mind use questions to perpetuate itself/perpetuate the “questioner”/“I”? Does the mind seek knowledge in the form of answers to its questions because the mind itself is made out of knowledge/the known, and is therefore always accumulating what can be known to perpetuate itself? Is it not the compulsive nature of mind/thinking to create problems, questions, or issues, then go about trying to solve them, in a self-feeding loop? Will questions and their answers just perpetuate more questions? Does one seek answers to questions or observe this very quality of seeking inherent to mind itself?

The “I” separates itself from a negative emotion, and this creates conflict. The “I” wants to deny or escape the negative emotion. But this denial/escaping action only perpetuates insecurity/fear/conflict. There must be holistic insight to realize that the “I” and negative emotion are one and the same. The emotion watcher is the content of emotion.

Escape from negative emotions, wanting to stop them, is a reaction out of fear. It (fear) is a resistance/struggle against what-is. This resistance/struggle against what-is is thought/self (fear) in action, being perpetuated. Thought/self and fear are one and the same movement. And the mind goes “what to DO about it?” - but this very desire to do, this movement of effort/volition, is also a subtle expression of this fear/thought-self. Effort/volition is a movement away from what-is, just like fear is.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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?

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

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.

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.