Self Analysis implies abstraction, which nourishes division-duality

[Faceless]

4 hours ago, Nahm said:

Seems like the difference here is the realization of no self (nullification of fear) , and the realization of Self (actuality of Love, absence of fear / knowing fear is just Love).

For me the actual ending of fear implied love. Wasn’t like there was a next step really, but I just saw that thought, fear, time, and so on were all distinctions if you will, or functions of order-disorder within a “higher order” (TRUTH) WHAT IS. 

Edited August 8, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

This is why I share this sacred with others in my writing sometimes. To be able to observe for an hour or two without the veil of (experience, knowledge, memory) is a indescribable movement of creativity. To see everything as it actually is without any form of registration, recollection, and therefore no identification is quite mysterious indeed. And this just continues to deepen. 

Edited August 8, 2018 by Faceless

[Big Guru Balls]

22 minutes ago, tsuki said:

Wouldn't that make Buddha or Jesus half-baked prophets though?
Why would anybody wish for others to be enlightened?

Were they making enlightenment a big deal,or,were they driven by choiceless compassion? Given they were fully realized,were they not driven by divine will,not personal will. "Not my will,but Thy will, be done".
 

 

Edited August 8, 2018 by Big Guru Balls

[Faceless]

2 hours ago, Feel Good said:

Does "seeing" continue

Yes. If you had a holistic insight into fear, that insight will continue to light the way in perception. 

 

2 hours ago, Feel Good said:

because I spontaneously saw for a moment how the I wants to continue to express, only now it feels contrived and self serving.

Reaction-response, a movement of causation-time. 

2 hours ago, Feel Good said:

It was a momentary "ah ha" far removed from belief in what you're saying, but rather recognition in being able to see in myself what you're pointing too. 

 

Due to the cessation of fear,(reaction-resistance) there is no influence of compulsive attachment and projection of (experience, knowledge, memory) as the i. So there is freedom to look-see with fresh eyes that don’t analyze and so on. To see without the veil which ultimately implies fear-time. 

Edited August 8, 2018 by Faceless

[tsuki]

1 hour ago, Faceless said:

                              Non-Fear

                                     I

                                   ?

                                     I

                                  Fear

@Faceless I can understand what you wrote and I agree, although I can see that it is only partial.
Either because you didn't notice it, or because you simply didn't want to go this deep.

The difference between our understanding is that even if you do not make a duality of Fear - Non-Fear and say that Love has no opposites, the there is still a duality between ? and love (in your sense of the word as Non-Fear vantage point that observes the mind).

As you zoom out of the ? to observe it - you experience the state of the beautiful infinite creativity which deepens.
I relate to this experience, as I am undergoing it myself. 

What I suggest you explore is to introduce that very infinite creativity with no thought - the high vantage point - to everyday situations where you would normally expect to need thought. The point is that you can learn for yourself that you actually don't need ? at all.

The distinction between the high vantage point and ? is false. As you zoom out of ?, the thought is still in place, but its movement gets more subtle. As you observe the [??] (what you called the high vantage point) that observes ?, at some point you will see the similarity between these two movements. Given enough time and consideration, they will actually be recognized into one and the same ?. That is when you know that whatever you are describing as ? right now is actually the same movement of duality, but very diluted. Very subtle. The more you zoom out, the more subtle it gets.

As you observe that ? is equal to ??, then you will be able to zoom out of ?? to arrive at ???.
There is still possibility of observation of the movement.

After some time - you will instantly recognize movements at all levels of magnification and ? will be the zoom itself.
This is what I mean by self reference. As you zoom, the level that that is observed is the same as the level that observes.

[tsuki]

1 hour ago, Faceless said:

This is why I share this sacred with others in my writing sometimes. To be able to observe for an hour or two without the veil of (experience, knowledge, memory) is a indescribable movement of creativity. To see everything as it actually is without any form of registration, recollection, and therefore no identification is quite mysterious indeed. And this just continues to deepen. 

@Faceless Bring this indescribable movement of creativity into the everyday experiences. You don't need ? any longer.

[Faceless]

11 minutes ago, tsuki said:

Bring this indescribable movement of creativity into the everyday experiences. You don't need ? any longer.

This mysteriousness i speak of is not premeditated as a result of volition-time. 

Creativity will act on everyday experiences, but this is not what I’m referring to. Im referring to creativity at its essence. This is cessation of experience. 

Edited August 8, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

The “high vantage point” was just a way expressing that there is no limited partial insight-seeing. No movement of thought and then action. But the holistic insight is action in and of itself. 

[tsuki]

8 minutes ago, Faceless said:

This mysteriousness i speak of is not premeditated as a result of volition-time. 

@Faceless If we speak of the same mysteriousness, then it is not, and yet - you can observe its structure.
It is not ?. It is ??. It bears resemblance to ?, but it is not it.

Unless you inquire into the nature of ??, it will feel like it is pure, holistic oneness.
Unless you inquire into ? it also feels like pure, holistic oneness.

Edited August 8, 2018 by tsuki

[Faceless]

@tsuki

What are the implications of this? to you? 

One reason I ask is you are making multiple ??? when one ☝️ suffices as what ever number you use. 

Edited August 8, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

In observation-seeing, as long as this? influences and determines action, holistic insight (action) is not. 

Do you see it?

Edited August 8, 2018 by Faceless

[tsuki]

Yes. ? is represented by my first picture.
The structure of ? is such that it sees a polarity.
When ? sees a choice between A and B, then it can choose A or B if it is clear what to choose.
It knows what to choose when there is a polarity. One is (+) and the other is (-).

That something is good and something is bad. 
That something is right and something is wrong. 
That something is just and something is unjust.

This is what knowledge is. Knowledge is polarity that attracts, or repulses the mind.
Whatever (+) is, it is preferred over (-). This a mechanical, dead motion of choice.
When we are as ?, we feel as if I am choosing it, but from ?? it is apparent that there is this attraction and repulsion.
That there is actually no choice (freedom) involved.
Whatever you ( @Faceless ) describes within your posts always looks like ?? to me.
It is always the same and I see resemblance of ? within your ??.
I know that you write from ?? because of what you write, but I can still see resemblance to ?.
Inquire into what you do as ?? so that you can actually observe the mechanical motion of this creativity.
When you describe ?? by the means of ? it feels like infinite creativity.
Like never-ending shift of perspective. That you simply cannot keep up with yourself.
It is completely unexplainable by ?.

Edited August 8, 2018 by tsuki

[Faceless]

2 minutes ago, tsuki said:

This is what knowledge is. Knowledge is polarity that attracts, or repulses the mind.

Knowledge is also one and the same movement of mind. Do you agree on that? 

[Faceless]

3 minutes ago, tsuki said:

It is completely unexplainable by ?.

That’s it lol. It is unexplainable

this is what I mean as well. Perhaps Thought-self-time is bound by ??. 

To see the whole is to see it all as one unitary movement of time. 

[tsuki]

2 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Knowledge is also one and the same movement of mind. Do you agree on that? 

Yes. All knowledge is the same from the point of view of ??.
It is silly and childish. What you do on the forum when you describe the workings of ?, it is what I called knowledge of knowledge.
By analogy, knowledge of knowledge is to ??, what knowledge is to ?.
It constrains its movement. It chooses for ?? what to do.
You can only see that from ??? or above.

[Faceless]

The essence of the insight cannot be communicated, but only pointed two with the mechanism of thought-duality. 

Agian we agree that )experience, knowledge, memory) is one and the same movement of time-the I? ??

Edited August 8, 2018 by Faceless

[robdl]

6 minutes ago, tsuki said:

Yes. All knowledge is the same from the point of view of ??.
 

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.

[tsuki]

@Faceless Yes. To experience, knowledge, memory I would also add belief.
All of those are what create polarity of opposites that attract or repulse the mechanical choice.

This same very mechanism is present in ??, but it is not apparent.
Just like experience, knowledge, memory and belief are not apparent in ?.

Only by self-inquiry of ? you get to know how ? works.
Only by self-inquiry of ?? you get to know how ?? works.

[tsuki]

1 minute ago, robdl said:

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.

@robdl When you observe yourself as ? without ??, knowledge cannot be easily found.
As you observe yourself as ??, 'knowledge' of ?? cannot be easily found without ???.

[Faceless]

2 minutes ago, tsuki said:

When you observe yourself as ?

“You” being ?? cannot observe this ?

what do you guys think? 

Edited August 8, 2018 by Faceless