robdl

If someone has something they want to teach, I'd say to give the benefit of the doubt and ask for clarification if you don't understand their point of view. Rather than allowing the ego to reflexively feel condescended to. Have a conversation, rather than a defensive pissing contest. Defensive egos miss opportunities for learning.

The stronger the ego, the more it particularly feels condescended to.

This is some of the most cogent teaching I've ever come across. Much appreciated. I hope people aren't skipping by these gems you're dropping.

This is all very relatable. But just remember that the sentiment of "the thing that's holding me back is EGO" is also ego, isn't it? egos want to kill the ego; only the mind would want to kill the mind. pure awareness has no concerns or desires over the presence of ego.

It rings true personally, for sure. Now the mind goes, "indeed this is the case with fear, pleasure, and desire and how they interrelate, but what to do about it?" Is it safe to say that there is nothing to do about it per se --- merely just to see it is sufficient?

^This I'm struggling with to see for myself -- how pleasure and fear inter-relate. What do you mean by "escaping pleasure" and it being a reaction of fear? Isn't pleasure always held/attached onto, not escaped from?

can you clarify?

Right. Better said. Gotcha.

If that is the mechanistic, self-perpetuating nature of fear, can the same be said for pleasure? Movement toward pleasure not actually being the action of the "pleasure seeker", but the result of the action of pleasure itself?

thank you, Sir.

movement away from fear being the action of fear itself? Like what was said previously: one movement within itself?

If "how to..." spiritual questions only perpetuate thought and reinforce the notion of the "I" or seeker, can it be said that the only constructive question, the only one worth asking, is in the form "Who is seeking/asking/looking to disidentify"?

Gurus like Neem Karoli Baba have acknowledged that psychedelics aren't enlightenment, but show you a glimpse --- more than can be said for mere mechanical observance of religious customs/rituals that you were born into.

Religions have their esoteric and exoteric parts. The exoteric part is intended for the general public, and is based on dogma, rituals, behavioural conduct, etc. Many/most who identify as buddhists in asian countries are looking at the exoteric part.

Bear the fact in mind that they're born into it, it's a part of their tradition --- and they're not necessarily taking 5meo or practicing self-inquiry to realize non-duality, know what I mean?

Identifying as a buddhist makes you conscious? It may make you completely unconscious.

Nice. Society is truly only interested in its self-perpetuation, not interested in the individual that belongs to the society. Goes back to Leo’s video about collective egos and how institutions, systems, societies have them. Society wants you to work, be cooperative and charitable with other members, consume, and obey the laws. And reproduce to maintain its continuity. Going inward serves no purpose for society. The law-abiding, productive, consumeristic individual who meshes with others is the perfect citizen, regardless of the personal suffering they may endure.

In the sense that any effort/volition of any kind is dualistic --- just ego self-perpetuation? Yeah. I can understand why the highest teaching may just be "Be silent" -- no methods, techniques offered -- with the subsequent teaching "...but don't even have the volition to be silent." Even while reading your post though, the mind still goes into "but what do I do about it..." mode, habitually.

So can it be said: thought/mind/ego disguises itself as something beyond or outside thought/mind/ego, taking the form "I want to kill my ego." It's like the analogy of the thief pretending to be the policeman to go after the thief.

How would you describe this? Recently I awoke to the sense of consciousness perfectly mirroring/reflecting reality, with no thought or interference.

If Proposition 1 is: use a meditation technique to awaken and Proposition 2 is: there are no techniques to awaken; all techniques involve the perpetuation of thought. What if this is a false choice? What if it's a combination of the two? Like the analogy Leo uses, going to the top of a high hill with a lightning rod, but having no control over whether the lightning actually strikes you --- only maximizing the probability of it striking? Is a meditation technique just equivalent to going to a high hill with a lightning rod?

I'd say yes. But I can intellectually explain how the "observer is the observed" and yet it's not actualized. The significance of that statement isn't appreciated to the depth that you appreciate it.

So would it be more accurate to say that the "observer" --- which is the core sense of "I" at the center of all experience, memory, perception --- is merely mechanical thought that has been personal-ized/self-ized?

Same as the "observer is the observed" right? I could never fully grock that statement, as I've heard it so many times it's starting to lose meaning, you know what I mean? Can you explain? Is it that the personal identity of questioner/observer/do-er is nothing more than self-less, impersonal, mechanical thought?

It's difficult to articulate, but the questioner/seeker/do-er that started the self-inquiry fades into silence at some point in the process.