Faceless

This is why it’s said liberation can take a minute or a lifetime, or maybe even perhaps never.

@Ingit Will “the i” go with it? Or is it implicit within the structure of “the i”, that there will be resistance, and therefore delay, prolong, and procrastinate this to be captured in time by means of thought? As in psychological becoming(time). This is what I mean by it takes NO TIME-cultivation. If it does, thought-time/psychological becoming has created a block. As long as we move within the limited field of time/thought, there will continue to be this Paralysis.

Key question!!!...? Is there resistance, which implies conflict, if there is no division between “the me” and what that “me” resists? If there is only a movement of resistance, what other “thing” is present to cause conflict-opposition? It takes two for there to be something to conflict-oppose, make for a dispute.

The more we depend on answers, and are not willing to maintain a relationship with the problem, we will remain in a state of paralysis. Can life (being dynamic), be met being bound by this state of paralysis, which is (static)?

This doesn’t have to be a long drug out process of accumulating ideas, theory’s, and concepts. This doesn’t take time-cultivation to understand either. This can come in a flash of instantaneous holistic insight. For me no such questions were asked to understand this. It wasn’t the result of accumulating knowledge, and wasn’t something “I” sought after. It was apparent when the seeker was ACTUALLY SEEN THROUGH, and in that seeing was the ending. “I” am not special, anyone can do this. Just takes a willingness to stand and go it alone.

‘We’ may want to start nearer to home.. Understand our motives in which are influenced by fear, uncertainty, insecurity; this mechanical need to accumulate knowledge about awareness/perception. Once we have gone into and understood structure of self deep enough, and have whole insight into its nature, then there can be attention to that unitary movement of thought. From there your questions you have opened up in this thread will be seen as a result. If we don’t understand the image maker (the i), such questions of “is awareness different than perception”, will be inventions of thought(images). From the standpoint of one who hasn’t understood the image maker, there is no difference between awareness and perception. Both will be mere images simply because when there is no attention to this image making, “the i” implicitly will invent the image of awareness or perception. Can we observe without the image might be a question to go into... If we could observe without the image-time, what would that imply?

Fragmentation... “the individual” and “society/world” Control implies division, the controller and the thing to be controlled; this division, as all division, brings about conflict and distortion in action and behavior in relationship. This fragmentation is the work of thought, one fragment trying to control the other parts — call this one fragment, the controller, which tries to control “apparent parts” of thought. This false division followed by action, (divided action), is limited action and the mischief maker. The controller is the controlled. Fragmentation is the effect of seeing oneself as ultimately separate from that which is thought, felt, perceived, and so on. Or for the controller, “the i”, wants to control fear, but the controller is also a fragment of fear. Also the controller wants to control desire, but the controller is just another fragment of desire trying to control an opposing fragment of desire. Thought in its very nature is fragmentary and this causes confusion and sorrow, which effects the psychological field (psyche), and is reflected out into the world. Inwardly, is “the i” separate from fear? And outwardly, are we as “individuals” seperate from society/world? Inwardly, “the i” sets out to control fear...a fragment that sets out to to control a fragment, and so on, moving towards the abstraction. And that same inward movement of fragmentation is expressed outward born of this false notion that “the individual” is fundamentally seperate from the society, in which we invent abstract ideals and so on to solve fundamental problems that arise within that society. The fact is disorder, (the fact), is constantly evaded by seeking security in the abstraction that thinks will bring about order, by the intellect, in the form of analysis. But just as analysis cannot bring about order in the relationship with ourselves, so the same the application of analysis as applied on political science to bring about order in relationship between (man-woman) kind. This outward disorder, (corruption in society) is merely a reflection of the inner disorder of “the individual”. And vice versa.... The individual is the reflection of the society, and the society is an expression of the individual. The cause and the effect are one and the same movement of fragmentation. Political science may have its place in practical matters, but when it comes to relationship in society/the world, this application of incomplete action only causes more disorder. IS THIS PROCESS OF FRAGMENTATION THE ROOT OF THIS DISORDER, AND THE REASON FOR THIS FAILURE IN THE ATTEMPT TO APPLY POLITICAL SCIENCE AS A MEANS TO BRING ABOUT ORDER IN SOCIETY/THE WORLD?

Exactly

Oh yes..Thought loves to imitate, conform to patterns... mechanical indeed.

well to be fair, even an image loves to imitate BE-ing...it loves it Thought is very subtle. It’s mechanical tendencies will invent invent invent...sneaky sneaky

The theorizing, knowing, and thinking sustains, nourishes, and perpetuates the thinker, knower, self.

Very very Sneaky

That can be as simple as conforming to some idea, concept, non-dual theory, and then regurgitating it in a thread. Thought loves to do this..it loves it ❤️

Speaking about Be-ing is fine if that’s what you want to do...but is it subtle?...i think not... It’s fairly easy to accumulate a couple of non-dual lines and throw them here on the forum. It’s obvious when ‘we’ do this?

Again this seems pretty important.

The image(the i), doesn't observe movement. The image (the i), projects itself as observation. That’s the point.

Great questions I would say it’s significant to go into indeed.

Indeed. We have stated this many times, and in other threads as well. @SOUL I read your post, you don’t seem to see-understand quite yet what we have been doing. It’s evident in that post. I don’t feel you should agree with what we are doing. You say you are abaiding as awareness or what ever. That great!! I’m very happy for you, friend. I am not interested in debate though.

It’s ok soul We understand??

That’s it.

Indeed. The thought/self is very complicated. As is the communication of this phenomenon in the form of words. But the approach that is implicit in this communication is as simple as simple can be. We are meeting something very complex/complicated (the self), quite simply.

Just because we are posting in a thread about this process of divided action-fragmentation doesn’t mean it’s meant to be conformed too. I don’t understand what’s so difficult about that to understand.

And as all that implies psychological time-fragmentation.

We are not talking about a system, technique, theory, concept, that is to be confirmed too. We have said this many times. As all that implies conformity, static, rigidity.

This is a daily, all day attention, observation, awareness. An effortless attention/awareness without the burden of the chooser.