robdl

Cool

Thought is the known/knowledge, and therefore that is thought's sole interest. Thought seeks security in the known, which is to say thought seeks security in its own movement. Knowledge perpetuates thought/the thinker.

There's an inherent contradiction in thought using thought to end thought. Thought can "think" it can achieve that, but it will only be thought's self-deception. Thought is partial, limited and can't see the whole. Holistic understanding means that the total thought-self movement/loop is observed. To not observe from within the loop, which is to be caught in it, but to see the loop itself. Observation free of the influence of the "me." Or as @Faceless puts it so eloquently:

Questions, even deeper epistemological questions, can be a trick of the mind to perpetuate itself. Questions perpetuate the "questioner" and the "questioner" perpetuates questions. The questions and the questioner are of one and the same movement. So belief systems are certainly dangerous, as any belief is a movement of thought-fear/thought seeking security/permanence in an abstraction. A belief is a movement away from what-is. It's thought in escape/seek mode, and thought thrives on this escaping/seeking action. But (epistemological) questions of the intellect, too, are equally dangerous, as they nourish the movement of thought-self. Questions arise out of knowledge frameworks/memory, and so where questions are asserted, knowledge (i.e. the past) is being perpetuated/invoked. Thought uses questions/philosophical problems to perpetuate its own movement/perpetuate the past. There is thinking about questions/problems and there is insight into the whole nature of thinking/the movement of thought-self; and the former will never be the means to appreciate the latter.

Indeed. The movement of this biased thought-self loop can be seen holistically for what it is. Seeing that is free from and not being skewed by the "me", as that is skewed seeing from inside the loop; being caught in it.

The "bias" is the "you"; the "you" is the "bias." They are one. That may be what you meant, but the limitations of language divides them - separating "you" and "bias." Bias isn't possessed by "you"; bias (i.e. memory/conditioning) is the "you." Or to put it another way: things are observed to be negative (or positive) in thought because observation is taking place through the lens of the "you" --- the (conditioned, biased) accumulated experience/memory/knowledge/desire. This (biased) lens directs/influences/corrupts the observation --- self-perpetuating thought-self in the process.

Detachment is not just a mere outward physical act/behaviour, where one goes off to live in a cave. After all, you could be living in a cave, and yet be thinking about food and sex the whole time. Detachment is an inward quality. The outward expression of that flows from that inward state, whatever it may be, but you don't try to imitate/conform to the (detached) outward expression. The fact is, you can be in the midst of a worldly life yet be totally detached from it. And conversely, you can be in the midst of a life of renunciation, yet inwardly be completely attached.

Ah, a fool who persists in his folly becomes wise, so to speak? hehe.

Putting it in more concrete terms, the "I" is made out of thought, thought coming out of memory, knowledge, experience, desire, fear, etc. (all born of the past). The observer ("I") is the observed (accumulated memory, knowledge, etc. -- i.e. the past).

This is ultimately the crux of it. We can share insights with one another as "pointers" but it may only be received at an intellectual level. It has to be seen for oneself, and this "seeing" is not intellectual. The intellect, which is thought, is partial. And the ultimate seeing of this is unified, total.

The "I" is the past.

Indeed. The searching/seeking action for an endpoint, or escaping from what-is toward an abstraction or endpoint, is in fact one and the same as the loop itself. The loop is this searching/escaping/seeking action. Or putting it another way, mind is movement away from what-is.

Thought is actually hilarious in a way. Thinking that it will strive to break out of the loop. Like someone who's dug themselves a hole saying, "Okay, I'll just dig my way out of here." Or trying to put out a gasoline fire by trying to extinguish it with gas. Perpetuating the cause of the problem in a futile attempt to end the problem lol.

Thought, in the form of the "thinker" or "I", inherently creates a sense of separation from other thoughts, so it becomes "My problems" or "I'm stuck in a thought-loop." But in actuality, "I" and problems/the thought-loop are of one and the same movement, only thought doesn't realize this is so. @zoey101 Can you see how astonishingly sneaky/self-deceptive thought is? It conjures an "I" and then forgets/doesn't realize it has done so. Then the "I" reacts against other thoughts as if it were the possessor of those thoughts. But it's all just the movement of thought.

Indeed. Problems nourish "I" and "I" nourishes problems. As it's thought nourishing thought, either way you look at it - stuck in a loop. But it's important to know: "You" = thought loop = ego. All one and the same thing/movement of thought-self. When you say "you" are stuck in the loop and this results in strengthening the ego, it sounds if the "you", loop, and ego are different things. But the "you", the loop, and ego are different expressions for one and the same thing! The loop is the ego/"you"!! The movement of thought seeks security in itself. This is ego. This is a loop. This is "I." All one and the same.

Let's say "you" are angry at someone. The "I" has separated itself from the "anger". The "I" then resists/fights this anger or justifies/relishes in it. But the "I" and the "anger" are one and the same movement of thought-self. If there is holistic understanding into all of this, where can there be conflict if the "I" and "anger" aren't seen as separate? As @Faceless pointed to, the division/duality of thinker-thought breeds/implies conflict.

The "I" separates itself from mind's problems and then feels that the problems need to be solved or denied. But "problems" and "I" are within one and the same movement of thought-time. This is what is meant by the observer ("I") is the observed ("problems").

The movement of thought-self invokes problems then goes about dwelling on the problem, which perpetuates the sense of the "I" or "thinker" or "problem haver/solver." You say "I created all my problems." You could also say "problems created 'I"". Both statements are true, as the "I" is made out of thought, as are problems. So either way, you are saying, "thought causes/creates thought." Thought is self-sustaining in this manner. I (thought) create problems (thought) = thought causing/creating thought. Self-feeding thought loop.

This is why ambition can be perilous to oneself and to others, depending on the nature/extent of it. Not of the ambition to learn a new language, or to learn a musical instrument, but the deeper, more psychological ambition.

Right, results in the fear/insecurity to maintain the existing power/contentment to cling to pleasure, or the seeking of more power/contentment to address the fading satisfaction/pleasure of the existing power/contentment.

Right, as the intellect itself is/of/in the loop, and therefore can't go beyond the loop and see the loop wholly --- holistic seeing-understanding of the unitary movement, as you say. The intellect can't grasp what is meta to itself.

let's say one is in a state of powerlessness, and out of that comes fear/insecurity, and a desire for power. one attains power, but then clings to it, protects the power, fears the loss of it, paranoia sets in --- breeding fear/insecurity again. A totalitarian leader really exemplifies this reactive nature of desire-fear.

Indeed. 1) The "I" seeks psychological security to become. 2) Fear/desire (thought) seeks security in its own movement. These are two apparently completely separate notions, which may confuse some and be seen as conflicting, but they're just two different ways to describe the one self-sustaining movement of thought-self.

To escape is to seek, and to seek is to escape (from what-is). Fear is coloured by desire, and desire is coloured by fear. Because desire and fear are both one and the same, both movement from what-is.

As thought-self itself is akin to a self-feeding loop that goes full circle, the full-circle concepts for it naturally reflect that quality.