In my view - when we ‘observe’ - this comfort blocks one because - it is an image of “Having pleasure with someone/something (i.e. with wife,parents,friends,house,car,children,mobile,money,name,fame,position,pride,etc…)” - and immediately belief arises that “This is the highest experience of happiness one can have” and so we feel very comfortable/attached with it.
Whenever we feel down in our life - these comforts provides security(i.e. pleasure) and ‘thought’ arises as an imagination of “what happens if we lose it?” - Because of this - ‘fear’ arises.
Yes there is all that, but also I observe it has an immersive quality to it, as in I feel like I am really living, and it helps to keep me distracted from what deeper fears I may be, and acts as a form of anaesthetisation. The implications of this looking in an unconditional way at conditioning, or suffering, so as to see the whole movement, is that the life can simply be drained from comfort, such that I have no psychological comfort to go back to. But that is all part if the reality which stands to be swept away. So at a conscious level I may be all for looking at the whole of this, and the whole of that, provided the whole is what I get to imagine it to be, while at a sub-conscious level I am not doing what is required because I am psychologically tethered in ways that my demand for comfort won’t allow me to face.
Now, Situation - 1
Say, with whom/which i lived comfortably - is lost/left. i.e. from something/someone i got pleasure - i felt secured from deeper fear/sufferings - now i lost it.
Now I’m alone - I suffer.
I suffer - not because i lost them/that - it is due to from whom/which i felt security - that ‘pleasure’ i lost.
So, I’m isolated. If i seek for another comfort - to secure me from this suffering, like alcohol/women/etc… - then there is conflict - because i’m trying to escape from that suffering.
Situation - 2
Say, there is a risk of losing my attachment (i.e. wife,job,etc…).
Now arises fear that - “How I’m going to live without them/that ?”.
So, I suffer a lot - not because of I’m going to lose them/that - but the security i’m getting from them/that - is at risk.
I fear that I may become lonely. So i strive/work hard to keep them/that with me.
Yes exactly so, and the factor that emerges at the loss, or even the threat of loss was there throughout, and from the very outset, and was the driver that took me into it, in the manner I entered it. That is, what I was really seeking and why. And when the comfort fails, then I am pitched back out into it, so I either seek new cover, or I look at what this thing really is.
So - shall we look what this ‘suffering’ really is?
As we see that - thought brings “that pleasure,security (i.e. past)” back - and so we cry that - we lost it - as we believe that - “This is the highest experience of happiness one can have”.
or
when we see a person who is happy with that comfort - we cry - as we believe that - “This is the highest experience of happiness one can have”.
The brain’s demand for comfort and security allows it to seek it through attachment? It is based on fear, isn’t it? Attachment can always be lost. So there is always the unconscious fear that it can disappear. Can this be observed?
Exactly - it’s fear - and so it runs for ‘security’.
We saw that - this ‘seeking for security,pleasure’ is the root of sufferings. So in this very seeing - the suffering ends.
i.e. the blockage of comfort is broken (No belief of “Highest happiness” and no image of ‘pleasure’ arises - as we are aware that - these are the root of sufferings).
So, now we ‘observe’ this movement of ‘I’ - which is only ‘fear’ (as every belief/idea/image of pleasure is gone).
The fear arises because ‘I’ see that everything disappears and ‘I’ am afraid death will come and ‘I ‘ will have not understood what this life was all about. It will have been this small petty thing.
Yes. In other words - the ‘I’ becomes empty - and so it fears to live with this ‘emptiness’ till death.
In this very seeing - the ‘fear’ ends.
There is ‘emptiness’ with no images/belief/idea of person/place/thing.
This mind ‘now’ ‘choice-lessly aware’ of everything.
Whenever thought arises ‘to seek pleasure’ - it’s aware of itself - and it calms down immediately.
So, there is actual relationship with everything in this ‘emptiness’.
We have ‘responsibility’ to take care of physical body and dependents (i.e. parents,wife,children). We earn and spend money - only for food,cloth,shelter,education and other necessities - as we don’t have any ‘desire’ for ‘comfort and luxuries life’. But - even if we couldn’t fulfill this responsibility - we accept that we tried our best - but we failed - but we won’t suffer as we are not attached and ‘choice-lessly aware’
Even if we couldn’t pay EMI for house/car/etc… - we won’t suffer - we will try our best - and if failed - we will arrange to sale the house - and will move for a rented house - as we are ‘choice-lessly aware’.
Even if someone speaks bad words/insults us in a stage/office/public - we won’t suffer/angry - as we don’t have any ‘image’ of ‘me’ to get hurt - we will sit with him and ask “what makes you to speak like this? - please show me the reason so i can learn and change my behavior if it is required” as we are ‘choice-lessly aware’
This ‘nothingness’ is the ‘unconditioned,pure consciousness’ - and there is continuous learning in this.
Everything we see and every second we live feels ‘beautiful/joy/bliss’.
If you’re not interested in your thoughts, your feelings, your reactions, your behavior, you’re ignoring what you are. Most people do this. Why acknowledge what you are from moment to moment when you can be working at something exciting and promising? Why find out what you are when you can find the path to success? Why face what-is when you can aspire to what-should-be?
Can the conditioned mind be curious? Can it explore and discover and learn? If not, we’re doomed.
Don’t you find certain things interesting and worthy of closer examination? Don’t you learn about that which you turn your attention to? You must be interested in something that you’re following the movement of and learning about.
You keep asking “who”? and I keep repeating that there is no who. There’s only thought doing what it does. Thought can be curious and open to exploration and discovery, how ever conditioned it is to operate methodically rather than intelligently. The conditioned mind has powers of inquiry and discovery, and the scientific method to substantiate its findings.
Only certain things? - Not whole?
It means observing & learning of part ‘I’ - by part another ‘I’ (i.e. fragmented ‘I’)?
i.e. observer and the observed is different?
Can you see that? - We are just interested to see - only which we want to ‘learn’ - and not the whole movement of ‘I’ (i.e. beliefs,image,pleasure,pain,etc…)?
We are just comforting us to look only the ‘I’ ‘wishes/desires’ to see - can you see that?
You’re over-thinking it, bringing in K-isms, and retreating to your comfort zone. Watch yourself or not. There’s nothing to argue about or discuss. If you have better things to attend to than your own moment to moment operation, you can deny that it’s possible.
“These images comes in form of thought. And this thought to be aware of itself is the awareness you said - Isn’t it?”
To say it is thought, is the process of naming things. The awareness is not naming things, it is not of thought. Isn’t it obvious there is the observer, observing? And there is the division, thinking these are are separate points, internal and external, which we have assumed was normal. Now some one comes along and says, the observer is the observed. See it.
