robdl

Yeah, it's seeing the fact itself that ultimately sets us free, not the theory/abstractions --- abstractions do perpetuate the questioner/abstraction collector. But can theory --- negating theory that questions the existence of self --- serve as a stepping stone or starting point before seeing the fact takes place? How does one start with facts, unless they spontaneously arise? I know that a stepping stone or starting point implies time/the movement of self, but is this not a necessary concession?

Theory that nourishes the movement of self/meditator/thinker = bad theory. Theory that undermines or brings awareness to the movement of self/meditator/thinker = good theory. Good theory should undermine the notion of the "questioner," not give answers to questions (thereby reinforcing the "questioner"/duality). Good theory negates, and starves the "questioner" of answers, concepts, and beliefs. This is how you can get a lot of theory from a quality teacher, and in that theory, you'll have no direction to go in, no technique to employ or positive action to engage in, and nothing/no-thing to do. It's theory that almost leaves no trace behind; leaves as little room as possible for self-deception.

What if the theory that one learns also includes the notion that the map isn't the territory, and that the intellect serves as an obstacle? This is self-undermining theory, so it's not conventional theory.

I'd be curious to know to what extent @Leo Gura used the obstacles he encountered toward the end of the first two weeks --- extreme boredom, meaningless, etc. --- as the basis for his self-inquiry, i.e. "Who is aware of this boredom?" And if he had any success penetrating the boredom with self-inquiry.

The movement of self — the subtlest authority.

Any experience lends itself to being questioned/doubted/seen as an illusion. But nonduality isn't an experience, it's BEING. I'd argue that being can't be doubted in the same manner an experience can.

Definitely. Self-inquiry can actually amplify the cunning, sneaky nature of thought, as you go into the question "To whom does this thought occur?" and the mind responds with very subtle movements of self. These subtle movements of self are subsequently observed and their origins are inquired into.

that form of inquiry is a tool intended to turn attention inward --- instead of accepting/rejecting/identifying with thought content, emphasis is placed on the observer itself of the content. If the tethers to the thought content are weakened, then the movement of ego/self/thought is weakened. The movement of thought is deprived of its fuel (identification, choice, etc.). Even if the subtle perception arises "I am observing thought," this also must be seen as thought content and inquiry must be made into who has observed that thought.

In your view Faceless, would the self-inquiry "Who/what am 'I'?" and/or "To whom does this thought occur?" be one way to "start with the one who judges," and avoid becoming the observer who observes through the lens of psychological accumulation? Or would such a self-inquiry still be a form of positive movement of the self? I always wonder if that form of self-inquiry is compatible with your view of proper observation (observing without the observer).

Thanks man -- I'm encouraged. I'll keep investigating.

I indeed see the inherent duality of the "thinker" watching thoughts. Just struggling with how one observes without doing this --- thought watching itself, as you mentioned. But I'm also aware that "how" questions invite effort, method, time, technique --- which is further duality. So I'm kind of at an impasse.

But you realize everyone else is God too*. So where's the speciality?

Hey Faceless, can you go into that a bit more -- "thought itself watching as thought arises"? I'm trying to understand the subtle distinction between thought itself watching and the thinker watching. Can "thought itself watching" only be described in negating terms and not in any positive terms? If you put it in any positive terms, then I'm guessing it reinforces the watcher entity?

what method of intake was the 25 mg?

It seems logical that the movement of thought can't straighten itself out. The problem can't fix itself. But can the deep understanding or experience of the processes of thought create its own action that straightens thought out? That I do not know for sure.

Perhaps it's not quite right for me to say that thought is a mechanical process - maybe that's only true in some aspects. "Mechanical" can have a connotation of orderliness -- a cohesive system -- and the movement of thought is far more disjointed, fragmented, disorderly, self-undermining, self-deceiving, self-forgetting. Like you said, losing track of its own movement. A watch, as mechanical as it is, doesn't lose track of its own movement.

So if thought can conjure a “thinker” out of its movement, then the “thinker” gives this sense of permanence, structure, and continuity you speak of. I see that. But if thought is just mechanical, why is it concerned with permanence? Why not just be in flux and insecure, without permanence, operating in its natural way? Or is thought inherently just seeking permanence and there’s no answer as to why?

We can say it's fear of the void, fear of emptiness, fear of boredom, loneliness. Or we can say perhaps on a more fundamental level that striving sustains the striver, seeking experience sustains/perpetuates the experience seeker. Thought seeking experience to self-sustain thought and the illusory sense of thinker?

I'd be curious what your next 5-meo trip is like. You mentioned that the new psychedelic was the most potent/deep. Your next 5-meo trip will let you know whether it was you, or the new substance.

I think it's fair to say that whether you go gradual or urgently and drastically is a function of everyone's particular individuality.

But this Consciousness is Aware in and of itself --- Self-Aware. That's how Consciousness and Awareness can be used interchangeably, with no confusion or contradiction.

It seems as though fear, being an escape from 'what is', can disguise itself as almost anything --- boredom, complacency, doubt, rationalization, desire.

Egos going after Faceless is like some kind of cosmic skit or play.

Two of the primary qualities of letting go are openness and surrender.

Can it be said that the doubting mind will doubt an experience, as any experience is susceptible to doubt --- be it in real life, a dream, hallucination, etc. So the mind projects the Absolute as an experience, and therefore can doubt its realness or actuality. But if the Absolute is trans- or non-experiential, and so totally self-evident, it's not susceptible to mental doubt in the same way. It transcends mental doubt because it isn't experience, it's being.