Faceless

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    4,948

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Faceless

  1. Posted · Edited by Faceless

    @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.

     

  2. Posted · Edited by Faceless

    9 minutes ago, robdl said:

    If there is no divison between "I" and "resistance," then is there conflict?

    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. 

  4. Posted · Edited by Faceless

    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. 

  5. Posted · Edited by Faceless

    35 minutes ago, Ingit said:

    AS I am reading all those above replies, I'm getting confused though

    :)

    ‘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? 

     

     

     

  12. Posted · Edited by Faceless

    5 minutes ago, SOUL said:

    Yes, thoughts have hijacked your experience.... I talk about being, awareness and consciousness, you talk about thought self ego fear.... what is the focus of your attention?  Not subtle it's so obvious. Hah

    :)

    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?

  13. Posted

    6 minutes ago, robdl said:

    As I said up above: 

    1. Unconditional attention is the thing. Direct insight.

    2. What is unconditional attention then? Are we sure we’re not just subtly thinking?  Can thought sneakily hijack attention?

    3. Then what is the nature of thinking then? Do we understand thought’s subtlety? 

    Hence these discussions arise.

    Again this seems pretty important. 

  15. Posted · Edited by Faceless

    10 minutes ago, robdl said:

    1. Unconditional attention is the thing. Direct insight.

    2. What is unconditional attention then? Are we sure we’re not just subtly thinking?  Can thought sneakily hijack attention?

    3. Then what is the nature of thinking then? Do we understand thought’s subtlety? 

    Hence these discussions arise.

    Great questions:)

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

  16. Posted · Edited by Faceless

    9 minutes ago, robdl said:

    We are ultimately talking about the whole structure-mechanism of thought-self/ego. The nature of thinking-ego itself, not just the content of thought. 

    Of course the content of thought can have its dots connected to explain-reveal the whole process of mind/thought-self. And therefore content is relevant to mention.

    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. 

  19. Posted

    8 minutes ago, robdl said:

    The communication of it, which can appear as rigid-static because of language-concepts, should not be mistaken for the actual (non-)doing of 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. 

  24. Posted · Edited by Faceless

    5 minutes ago, robdl said:

     

    If there’s inattention, there can be the experience of a psychological self-entity that wants to protect and attack. 

     

    Indeed. Psychological problems only arise when there is inattention. 

    It’s only in inattention that there is fear, defenseivness, conflict, and so on. 

    Action speaks for itself. It’s quite obvious when there is no attention to movement. 

  25. Posted

    When psychological time is seen through, there is no more meeting the now, (as in relationship with nature, ourselves, others), with that of the past(thought), being static. 

    There then is a dynamic learning/observing/attention, which meets all the now without that burden. 

    If we meet the now influenced by the past(the image), it shows in our actions. 

    We will not be able to learn, attend, and communicate with others. We will be unable to be in relationship with others, and will always resist the uncertainty of the continuous changing of now.