Speaking Freely

[Dominic]

@DanMcD

‘Ending’ is ending, not for something. Ending is emptying, opening…not continuing.

But what do I need emptying for, or non continuation? When I cannot escape isolation through immersion in reality, because reality is isolation, what is that at that point?

[DanMcD]

@Dominic

But what do I need emptying for, or non continuation? When I cannot escape isolation through immersion in reality, because reality is isolation, what is that at that point?

You/I don’t “need “ it because we don’t exist.

[Viswa]

@Inquiry

The “I” is not empty. It is full of itself; its beliefs, values, fears, desires, etc. On the rare occasions when it is honest, it acknowledges the worthlessness of its psychological content, and the harm it does by retaining it.

‘Acknowledging’ is another kind of conflict - that is one ‘I’ acknowledges another ‘I’.

Just ‘observe’ everything (i.e. I)

@Inquiry

There’s no seeing until the conflict is resolved, and the resolution is realizing you don’t know what should/should not be.

Yes. But we are not escaping from what-is and go for what should be.

just ‘observe’ the ‘what-is’ i.e. ‘I’ (in your terms - become honest and ‘observe’).

@Dominic

What is the psychological significance of ending here? Is ending relief, is ending salvation? Is ending hope? There is pleasure, there is comfort and the escape to them, but when the thing escaped to is the thing escaped from, and there is nothing left to escape to, does there need to be an end any longer?

We are not trying to end anything.

We are just ‘observing’ the ‘I’ as the whole (which is pleasure,comfort,etc…).

@Dominic

That is, when I keep a factor isolation, and a factor pleasure, and I am seeking to escape isolation, through pleasure, through comfort, but pleasure, and comfort are isolation, then what is the psychological necessity any longer for an end?

Then there will be conflict. If you ‘see’ that - there is a factor of pleasure,comfort in this ‘I’ - don’t stop there. ‘Observe’ that too - see why this factor is present always. Don’t try to escape.

@Inquiry

There needs to be an end to your conflict. Until it is resolved, you’re seeking the end.

Of - course. But he is saying what is there after ‘observing’ the whole ‘I’ (not escaping with ‘what should be’ and conflict).

You too try to ‘observe’ the whole ‘I’ - see is there something blocks one to observe - if so bring it up - we can inquire about that - we can clear the obstacle - and see it as a whole (i.e. beliefs,images,fear,etc…)

@Dominic

But what do I need emptying for, or non continuation? When I cannot escape isolation through immersion in reality, because reality is isolation, what is that at that point?

No ‘need’ for ‘emptying/not emptying’ - you can see that actuality is isolation and so fear arises right? - in this very ‘seeing’ - there is an immediate response - unless there is another factor of pleasure,comfort, and trying to seek for it, is present to block one from ‘seeing’ this.

@DanMcD

You/I don’t “need “ it because we don’t exist.

Hi. I think they are not asking - what happens after it ends.

They say this ‘I’ is there - and don’t jump of to end it.

So go on with them from the start ‘I’ - we can learn/inquire together.

@dominic said this,

@Dominic

That is, when I keep a factor isolation, and a factor pleasure, and I am seeking to escape isolation, through pleasure, through comfort, but pleasure, and comfort are isolation, then what is the psychological necessity any longer for an end?

Just go with him - what this pleasure,comfort and isolation,sufferings - then we all can inquire together.

[DanMcD]

@caviswa_gmail_com

They say this ‘I’ is there - and don’t jump of to end it.

It was indeed a “jump” to say that “we don’t exist” but from that non-place, the ‘I’ can be seen in its entirety. The ‘I’ which is the fear and suffering and confusion. Where thought struggles to maintain a kind of equilibrium. A false equilibrium based on fear. And to hide the fear.

[Viswa]

@DanMcD

It was indeed a “jump” to say that “we don’t exist” but from that non-place

What do you mean by this non-place?

And from there you are seeing this ‘I’ ?

Then differentiating you from ‘I’ ?

[DanMcD]

@caviswa_gmail_com

What do you mean by this non-place?

What sees the ‘I’ process in the moment? Who? From where? From what ‘place’?

@caviswa_gmail_com

And from there you are seeing this ‘I’ ?

There’s not a “you” seeing it. The ‘you’ / ‘me’ is the ‘self’ / thought?

@caviswa_gmail_com

Then differentiating you from ‘I’ ?

No there is no differentiation, Psychologically there is only the ‘I’. What ‘sees’ the ‘I’ is ‘awareness’?
Where is this ‘awareness’ located? In the brain? Everywhere? Who can answer that? It is no-thing in no-place?

But it is right that the ‘I’ is fear and suffering. (And throw in “evil” as JK said.)

[Viswa]

@DanMcD

But it is right that the ‘I’ is fear and suffering. (And throw in “evil” as JK said.)

Yes. Yes. But ‘I’ also includes everything like beliefs,idea,image,pleasure,comfort,etc…

@DanMcD

There’s not a “you” seeing it. The ‘you’ / ‘me’ is the ‘self’ / thought?

Yes.

@DanMcD

What ‘sees’ the ‘I’ is ‘awareness’?

In my view - No.

The ‘I’ observes ‘itself’. If we say it is ‘awareness’ - it becomes an agent to look the ‘I’.

The thought gets aware of itself.

@DanMcD

What sees the ‘I’ process in the moment? Who? From where? From what ‘place’?

The ‘I’ observes ‘itself’ - so there is no other place,person,etc…

[DanMcD]

@caviswa_gmail_com

The ‘I’ observes ‘itself’ - so there is no other place,person,etc…

I have no problem with that.

[Inquiry]

@caviswa_gmail_com

The ‘I’ observes ‘itself’ - so there is no other place,person,etc…

The “I” is just a word, a symbol. It can’t observe or do anything. There is only thought, and it can be confused. It’s confused when it refers to itself as I, or as the self, because these terms don’t help to describe what’s going on. They just muddle the matter.

There’s awareness and there’s thought. Thought is both spontaneous and deliberate. That is, it operates freely, and it operates calculatingly for purposeful reasons. Not all thought is conscious, but that which is conscious, the mind can be aware of and attentive to.

When the mind cares to know what it is doing, it attends to the operation of thought no less than everything else the mind is aware of. But if the mind attends only to deliberate thought, it’s clueless as to what thought is doing spontaneously, which means the mind is more interested in self-promotion, achievement, success, than in self-knowledge.

[Natarajan]

@Inquiry

Not all thought is conscious, but that which is conscious, the mind can be aware of and attentive to.

Thought/Feeling which is not conscious doesn’t stay that way, it finds manifestation in action as behavior, eventually leading to conflict. Therefore awareness when in operation naturally extends to awareness of action, every movement the physical makes, without needing any additional effort.