robdl

Is the "I" seeking-striving toward enlightenment? Or is there passive, effortless attention toward this seeking-striving movement in thought? Instead of wanting enlightenment, can you understand wanting-seeking? Watch its action in thought?

Do "you" think that there's something for the "I" to attain-achieve-experience?

The beauty of what faceless is saying is that it can be observed directly for oneself. He's not asserting spiritual authority, to trust in his credibility. You could expose him for a contradiction about some biographical detail, but what he's saying still holds 100% true and can be confirmed for yourself.

And what negatively-positively reacts to resistance isn't aware it is also one and the same unitary movement as this resistance. Thought is so sneaky, self-deceptive this way. Thought thinks it's an "I" that is standing separate from the resistance that needs to address the resistance, that dislikes the resistance, not realizing that this "I" is of the exact same movement.

Yeah, the wanting to let go of resistance, out of dislike for the resistance, is this very resistance in operation! Resistance perpetuating resistance. Resistance-fear-thought feeds on itself in this manner. Through this negative-positive reactivity to itself.

Notice how projecting images-impressions onto faceless as him being deluded, wrong, not credible, not knowing, conceptual, etc., subtly sustains-reinforces-defends one's own self-image as being non-deluded/right/aware/knowledgable/enlightened/credible? One's own self-image and the image projected onto another aren't totally separate, independent phenomena; they are heavily interdependent, inter-reacting. Self-image feeds the movement of images about others; images about others feeds the movement of self-image. Co-feeding, co-perpetuating. The self-image will project images onto others, out of its own movement, to fortify itself. In relationship, one must be aware of the images projected about others are a defense-reaction out of one own's self-image, to sustain this self-image. When you see someone going after someone else all the time, taking potshots at them, trying to take them down a notch (which faceless sees a lot of), it's always about what's going on in their own self-image/ego movement. The question is, can we observe this movement in ourselves?

I and mind are one and the same. Mind conjures the "I" out of its own thought-movement. The tricky, sneaky thing is that which sets out to shut down/kill the ego-mind IS THE ego-mind, only it doesn't realize that's so. The ego-mind likes to play these games, because they sustain-nourish the "mind killer", the "I", the "do-er". But the ego-mind actually has no intention of killing/shutting down the mind. That would be self-undermining, self-defeating. But it likes to pretend that it does have the intention.

Definitely. Having a limited or false understanding of resistance can be the fuel for resistance. Resistance loves-needs reactivity (action-reaction) toward it; resistance does not want to be fully seen-understood.

Thought/self/"I" doesn't know how to be; thought only knows how to perpetuate its own movement, which is through more thought; more doing. Thought/self/"I" is always craving a "how to" -- as "how" implies a method, effort, knowledge, or doing. But the catch is that the methods, efforts, knowlege, or doing used becomes the very perpetuation of thought-self itself. Thought-self is very sneaky this way. It wants to try, to do, to exert, to apply -- as these are the very activities that sustain its movement. Thought likes to avoid being, and instead, compulsively seeks more knowledge, more how-to's --- i.e. perpetuating itself through more thought/doing. So if we can't exert or try, can we be effortlessly, passively aware? That is what you may want to investigate. Can there be attention that has no goal, no intent, no effort? Can thoughts be watched without bias, motive, control, or choice? Without any prior beliefs, conclusions, or expectations that condition how the thoughts are watched? If the desire to control arises, can there be passive awareness of this momentary, fleeting desire? ***As long as there is an "I" that assumes it is the "thinker" of its thoughts, there will naturally be the compulsion to want to control-shape thought, to do something about thought.*** Through unconditioned awareness, it can be observed that the "self"/"I" is just made out of thought-experience-memory. It can be observed that thought and self are a unitary movement; no division between thinker and thoughts. It's a different quality of observation. Observation with no conditioned, personal lens through which thought is viewed.

Meditation is unconditioned awareness-attention. If it is conditioned attention (i.e. intent/effort), then it is merely just thinking.

If there is an "I" that is apart from resistance, that wants to do something about resistance, then both the "I" and resistance are getting mutually reinforced/fed. This division between thinker and thoughts is what fuels thinking. Therefore we can't approach thoughts with any effort, goal, intention.

It's not about absorbing-understanding all of this content-information. It would only be partial/conceptual understanding at best, anyway. It's to watch the movement of thought, without effort, motive, or intent -- without the lens of prior knowledge, conclusions, or beliefs. Unconditioned, whole observation. Understanding flows (like water from a faucet) from that unconditioned observation.

The content of this thread can be re-contextualized after actual observation of thought-self has taken place. It goes from conceptual-theoretical to factual-observational-insightful. But the latter won't happen until this unitary movement of thought-self is directly/wholly seen-understood for oneself. Something can make sense intellectually but that is inherently limited because it's still through fragmentation --- through the "I"-fragment lens. The intellect will understand certain concepts about thought's operation but it can't wholly understand the thought-self movement because it is a perpetuation of that very movement. Understanding the concepts should not be mistaken for total insight.

Thought/ego thinks there's some role for it in all of this. Something for the thinker to do. Unconditioned, whole awareness simply sees-understands. Call it observation without the "observer." There is nothing for the "I" to do.

“How it’s done” — can you see how that could imply invoking a method, an effort, a “doing” — the very operation-perpetuation of the “I”-fragment itself? If there’s nothing to do, no effort to exert, no knowledge or method to employ — can there be passive, effortless awareness-attention? Investigate this.

Thought creates a division out of its movement: "thinker" vs. "its" thoughts. The thoughts sustain-reinforce the "thinker" and the "thinker" feeds-sustains-projects the "thoughts." A type of co-feeding happens. Thought needs this thinker|thoughts division (fragmentation) because it's the fuel for thought's movement. When there is no "I" fragment, i.e. no division, thought is deprived of its fuel.

The "I"/sense of personal identity-awareness itself being a fragment of thought, and perception taking place through this "I"-fragment. Perceiving through the "I"-fragment is perceiving through a conditioned, selective lens. Thought creates an "I"-fragment out of its own movement, and then this "I"-fragment influences/breeds thought. But it's all one, unitary movement of thought. Perceiving through the "I"-fragment is perceiving through the lens of conditioned memory, experience, knowledge, belief, and so on.

Knowing more things from books may only strengthen the "knower" --- thought's attachment/identification/clinging to knowledge that sustains a self-image/"I". Of course, you can find books that echo the above Sentence, but is it merely absorbed as more knowledge, or is it actualized? Thought loves non-dual knowledge.

The ego/thinking projects images out of its own movement, doesn't realize it has done so, then chases those images from the perspective of a separate fragment ("I"). But the Chaser and Chased are one unitary movement. It becomes obvious how Chasing (Seeking) perpetuates this division-fragmentation.

The ego's pursuit of its end may just be the pursuit of a concept-abstraction-idea of an "end" projected out of the ego; a concept-abstraction-idea that sneakily only sustains the ego/self-image.

Right. As the "intent of seeking truth" could just be a by-product/expression (action-reaction, as you say) of our experience, conditioning, knowledge (thought-self).

In the time-goal-effort (pursuit) of ego-lessness, ego sneakily and happily self-sustains, self-nourishes.

To me, it's interesting/revealing that the mind is perpetually and mechanically wanting something, whether it be wanting something worldly (money, validation, identity, success) or wanting something metaphysical (Truth, Answers, Enlightenment); something "lower" or something "higher." Are we certain that it's not the exact same thought mechanism (of wanting-seeking) at play for either case? Is it possible for the ego/mind to deceive-delude itself by wanting something associated with being "ego-less"? Is ego that sneaky-tricky or can we trust ego? Should we investigate-observe the very nature of wanting-seeking in and of itself? By wanting things and pursuing them, are we conditioned with assumptions-conclusions-beliefs at the outset of the pursuit, thereby starting the pursuit in a faulty, corrupted direction?

Hehe, one if not the best

Indeed. The ego/self-image, as "knower", as "wise", identifies a threat to its permanence-continuity, and projects (defends-reacts) the other as "not knowing" or "unwise" -- thereby self-reinforcing/preserving the "knower" or "wise" self-image. But the self-image and its projection is a unitary thought movement (Observer is the Observed), except the ego/self-image doesn't realize it.