Jack River

@Mu_ @Emanyalpsid?

Thats the point, is the “movement/process” of attachment/resistance/identification aware through its own veil, or...?

I feel you brah.. There is no movement unless there is This is what I just referred to. That depends on the degree and quality of awareness. Do you see what I am saying dude?

To me it seems to be, Attention is action that is whole..and in that “state” self identity is not in movement. SEEING is its ending. This ofcourse can be seen as the process unfolds. That is not a distraction to me. The distraction is inattention itself. Inattention seems to be the state of (thought/emotion reaction loop that feeds itself). If that makes sense

I use to know, from accumulating knowledge, that this movement was an illusion, but that still did not mean I understood the whole of the movement. This seems to determine the degree of embodiment/action in our day to day relationship. I “knew” with divided attention this movement was illusion before, as I conformed to that idea. But to actually see this “movement” with its reaction and maintain a relationship with it is a lot different than believing it as an idea. This seems to be the barrier to actually embodying/complete action.

Sure. But that illusion/impression is as real as self makes it. That’s why it’s so gnarly. Thats kind of the point as well. The path is the same process of the self. From the standpoint of the self who is identified with the impression/“process of divison” that “movement” is very real. If innatention is taking place, that is the fact(what is taking place) as a state of innatention.

Observation of this whole process of self/path(fixed projected structure) is pretty gnarly. SEEING it as the unit of movement/time that it is.

@Mu_ fosho. the word implies a quality condition or state, but I wouldn’t refer to it as a state/condition. This “place” where knowing is not.

Fosho. The negation goes on.

I Am’ness

It may soon become clear with insight that the path and the self that walks it is the same process. We soon see too that self has always walked some path or another. The self and the path are mutually dependent parts of one unit in movement of time from the “past/present which projects a future”.

As the path and the one who walks it are one unit time. The path and the walker are the same process.

This Ralston dude seems to be pointing to the I Am’ness. Seems the conditioned response of self projects it’s fixed nature right from the start of the enquiry. This self movement is its resistance/attachment/identification. So there is identification with the content/experience....The I AM_the experience/content, what ever that may be at the moment. The pointing is to the I AM’ness. But it’s implicit as the self to project it’s static fixed content and experience as the “me”. To let the experience/content flower and die seems to express this as well.

It seems attention to innatention/attachment starts with the understanding/observation of innatention/attachment Once that understanding/observation is seen as a whole as one unit in movement of self, as the cycle of innatention/resistance/attachment/identification, then seems to arise this “state” of attention. A seeing without the veil of self. This seems to be a very violent and fast process. Almost seems to be simultaneous. As I have suggested before, understanding/observation is action. One undivided action. Where dualistic verbal/intellectual understanding as the self, seems to be an understanding that is a two step process. The understanding comes first via (projection of self), then an action is carried out by that understanding. Self/thought seems to at that point be influencing the understanding and then action. Or observing through the conditioned veil of self then acting which seems to get caught up in that same action/reaction cycle of resistance/attachment/innatention(emotion/thought reaction loop). Your experiences seem to unfold as such dudes?

Right. @SOULinteresting but not totally visualizing the illustration. We can say that the dualistic behavior or movement of self is its emotional/thought/feeling reaction that moves in a process/cycle of cause-effect-cause-effect right? This is what we could refer to as a state of inattention right? A movement of self that feeds its own movement in a constant state of inattention. So the duality in itself seems to be in the movement of self that reacts to its own resistance/identification-attachment as if that self were separated from the state of resistance/identification-attachment. Which seems to necessitate this duality. So that all seems to be the duality in itself. Then can we say that the “state” of attention, which implies no duality/divided attention/awareness is not an opposition or opposite born of the dualistic self, but an energy that doesn’t get wasted feeding it’s own process?

Here are a few reasons I needed freedom first. Freedom not to condemn/accept or judge. Freedom to look without choice as the chooser with its preconceived conclusions. Freedom to suspend bias/prejudice in order to attend/learn something new. Freedom from psychological reaction which moves in a particular direction away from what is to what should according to its preconditioned notions. Freedom from ego/self that out of its own self serving agenda clings to its own accumulated content/thought/the past in order to secure itself psychologically. Freedom to inquire without being influenced by reward and the fear of punishment. Freedom to explore/observe/learn free of the past(self/thought) which meets the now and corrupts observation/learning/exploration because it cannot observed objectively the new without the old distorting the new. Psychological time/becoming seems to prevent a seeker from seeking with true/honest intent. Psychological freedom means an ability to start the search with humility. Freedom from dependence on any kind of authority. Freedom from the dependence on being certain, content, psychologically secure. Freedom from the compulsion to attach to any ol possible answer and instead be able to stick with a problem long enough to understand it even if it hurts. That kind of freedom my dude. It was important to understand the seeker before any seeking took place. That way we are not jumping from one illusion to another. Or one conflict to another. Which means no running from fear but staying with it. Basically freedom to learn/observe free of conflict. Conflict seems to destroy clear observation. Hell, this is all pretty recent for me. I’m actually fine with things the way they are now. Everything is just fine as it is. How we all treat each other is all I really care about now.

Plus, It’s pretty silly to say be aware or be attentive. How would we know what that was until we recognized inattention. We can’t be attentive without understanding what is not attention. We can’t come to attention without understanding inattention. They seem to go together huh?

I didn’t take the advaita self inquiry path, but I did through self understanding/observation see that there was only a the questioning itself the whole time. Then “the questioner” stoped interfering with the integrity of any particular question as a result. So there becomes the capacity to question, observe, think, without the conditioned influence of the questioner, observer, thinker. This makes for a much more coherent movement of investigation/inquiry/exploitation dudes.

Attachment/inattention does seem to lead to attention and therefore insight. Seems that without that state of innatention/attachment, we wouldn’t be able to learn about what wasn't attention or what was the barrier to insight/action. The awareness of inattention seems to bring about a more coherent attention/awareness-insight/action. So even attachment/inattention has its place. Could we say this was for the most part correct, or not?

Seems insight arises with attention. Attention that is not influenced by choice as the chooser, which is not an attached/identified/ state rooted in resistance with “its” likes and dislikes. Also seems this insight is itself understanding which is its own action. It’s not a verbal/intellectual understanding which is followed by the chooser that then applies that verbal/intellectual understanding and converts it to action. Anyone else notice this?

So yours and my obstacle seems to be very much related. As I assume is common across the board of human consciousness.

Fosho. But it seems to be the same obstacle. As this movement from and away from fear implies control as the controller. As in an expression of the false division of self and what it wants to control. Seems the self and control/fear are all really the same. You see what I mean?

@Serotoninluv @winterknight Biggest barrier seemed for me to be freedom from a reward/punishment or (fear) to really start being able to transcend ego emotion/thought reaction cycle. You guys see this pattern being common among human consciousness?

Yeah I see them as the same anyhow. But from the place of confusion, fear, that divided state of self, observation seems to be constantly based on reward/illusion which makes it always partial/limited. You know what I mean. Freedom that I refer too was in itself bliss/peace-nothingness/emptiness. It was a freedom without searching that was influenced by a reaction of lack of freedom. See what I mean?

@Serotoninluv that sense of depending on reward or “bliss” seems to lead to illusion. As the self clings to such an idea of bliss as that “future state” to be attained. Ego seems to project its reward in time. Such as projecting enlightenment as a fixed thing in time/future.