Faceless

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    4,948

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Faceless

  2. Posted · Edited by Faceless

    15 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

    And the minute you start actually "being' without any lens, your mind creeps in to try and identify the happening. 

    As to identify implies psychological dependence on the known(thought). Impermanence in search for permanence, psychological insecurity seeking psychological security. Self feeding illusion. 

    Thought implicitly sets the limit and continuously transcends that limit. 

  4. Posted

    29 minutes ago, robdl said:

    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.  

     

    Indeed..

    As effort, motive, intent, are implicit within this conditioned movement of thought. 

     

  7. Posted · Edited by Faceless

    9 hours ago, now is forever said:

    to go back to the model we are very quickly at freuds model of the self, aren’t we?

    Freud? I don’t know what that is..  :)

    model? Well I would say we are not using a model as in accordance to some precostructed concept. 

    9 hours ago, now is forever said:

    is this why you talk about control? how can you expect answers if you are treating the question as if it was an answer already?

    We’re not expecting answers. We are not looking for solutions, but just to observe the fact-understand what is the case. 

    The thread is to build interest in self understanding. Not understanding according to content but simply watching movement. When I look at thought-self I don’t look through the veil of content-thought, being knowledge. That would be content, which is static/old, which is then attempting to make sense of something that is dynamic and in an ongoing-continuous process of change. Therefore this is about observation of the movement of thought/self. 

    We are using thought to write here on the forum, but to observe the movement of thought, thought as in past concepts, theory’s, philosophy is not used. This observation may be more difficult if we always look through the veil of conditioned thought. 

    To observe ourselves in accordance to that content of thought is to not actually observe ourselves as we are, or what is actually happening, but to observe ourselves through the eyes-lens of another.

    Either way “my” or “your” lens or another’s lens, all lenses being content accumulated which responds as thought. 

    Is that clearer, friends?

  10. Posted · Edited by Faceless

    2 hours ago, now is forever said:

    truth is the unchangeable essence, dynamic is just truth in movement aka time?

    :)

    what is meant by ‘truth is dynamic’ is truth is alive. Truth cannot be contained by that of memory/knowledge(thought), that which is dead, old, non-living. 

    That which is old (of memory- being static) (as in content of thought) perpetually projects itself in place of each new dynamic happening. So we can never meet the new without limit. Limit being the past(thought-self). 

    We also project that content onto each other in relationship. This causes this disorder in relationship. We impose our own image on the other. This is the same pattern of trying to meet the NEW (alive-active movement of the self, which is always changing, with that of the old (static content of memory-what has been).  That which we have recorded about that individual. We then never meet that person actually. We then meet others with our idea, image, of them. Which is not meeting then, not being in relationship actually. 

    Are we meeting? :)

  11. Posted · Edited by Faceless

    I’m not sure what you meant by entropy as I am not familiar with many concepts as I have read no books. I have looked up entropy just now and got a slight glimpse at what is meant by that term.

    I wrote this in another thread a day or two ago. As of now I see a slight similarity to what I have said countless times from observation,  in regard to the relation to this term entropy. 

     

    I was hesitant to post this here, but it does is direct relationship with his phenomenon of fragmentation. 

     

    What does it imply when we ask how to do this, or how do I do this? 

    Is it the accumulation and response of experience, knowledge, memory(thought) “the i”?

    And isn’t thought always old, dead, static? 

    If I ask (how to), isn’t that pulling what has been in the past (accumulation of thought, and “I”, also of thought, am looking to apply that towards Truth, which is dynamic? 

    To ask how to implies the aquistiton & application of thought-self which is of the past, which is static, thought is never new/dynamic...So when I ask how to in order to get this, “sacred Truth”, which is always new, I am pulling from that which is old (thought). Therefore the old is simply carried over on top and in place of, that which would have made room for “the newness-aliveness of now”. 

    So to pull from the old (static), is to project the old. Or as I have said to project ones own personalized (static), version of truth. 

     

    This could be an example of this movement towards entropy-disorder. Like I said I’m not familiar with many concepts. But all of this can be Directly observed in the movement of thought-self.  

     

     

     

     

  12. Posted · Edited by Faceless

    32 minutes ago, robdl said:

    There is nothing for the "I" to do.

    Perhaps any movement of this “i” is itself a fragmented movement, and nourishes further fragmentation by continuing to move within the limitation of fragmentation. Can one see that any action by “the i” sustains the i? 

    The question is can this be seen for ones self. 

  13. Posted

    The contradiction of the center or “I”, moving from that fragmented state to wholeness. 

    The means (the accumulation of knowledge, experience, memory), and the response-application of thought, (content-guidance), in the form of practices, routines, systems that pursues the goal. 

    Is it possible that the utilization of the means, (content-guidance-path), actually nourishes the continuity of self(psychological time)? 

    Is the accumulation-conformity too, and application of that content-guidance/path, with all its implications, actually one and the same movement? 

    Interesting Questions to anyone interested

  14. Posted · Edited by Faceless

    @MiracleMan

    I can see you have put some energy into this. That’s very important indeed. 

    What you have written in response can really move along the thread. So if we can I would like to go one step at a time with what you wrote. If that is ok.:)

     

    54 minutes ago, MiracleMan said:

    so in a sense I'm trapped, I feel trapped.

    This thread is mostly about understanding the reality of illusion/self deception or moving in accordance to incomplete or contradictory action. 

    That being said, seeing the fact of all these traps and “the selfs” mechanical/habitual compulsion to be influenced by them, wouldn’t then a holistic understanding-attention/awareness to those traps as they arise be beneficial and therefore imply freedom to act without the burden of those traps? 

    Would it be intelligent to say that awareness is freedom?

  15. Posted · Edited by Faceless

    32 minutes ago, Feel Good said:

    Do you want me to cut and paste the comments you made about Leo's advices as merely being "goal setting excersise" and that people here don't need cognitive development in he form of forum discussion / debate nor do they need to build self esteem?

    What do you have to say in defences of those statements? They look like projections to me and gross misunderstanding of what personal development, enlightenment and actualize.org. 

    What is your main purpose here? To play this krishnamurti character while trying to indoctrinate people into believing the krishnamurti dogma ? 

     

    I stand behind everything I write here on the forum. If one reads very carefully with ‘actual attention’ to what I write, one will then understand that improving the practical-functional aspect of ones life is a necessity if they feel that way of course. Leo is great at this indeed.

    But what I share has to do with self improvement psychologically. To understand the illusion of psychological growth, psychological progression. I have said many times to cultivate thought in practical/functional affairs is healthy if that is what one wants, but to cultivate thought in the attempt to bring about psychological order, well, I feel responsible in sharing the falseness of that with fellow me’s. 

    You can cut and paste away... 

    I’m a roast, baste me?

  17. Posted · Edited by Faceless

    @Feel Good first off you have specificity said you want nothing to do with me before.

    So why the contact?

    :)Second, actually read what was written above. I never said don’t meditate, but simply sharing how the self seeks security in thought.

    If ones sees the significance of this, meditation is effortless, a joy, and beautiful in and of itself.

    Also, after seeing the whole of this psychological becoming in time, all other mechanical behavior ceases instantly in ones daily life. 

  18. Posted · Edited by Faceless

    Even meditation can become a mechanical process of the self seeking security in thought. A movement of psychological becoming by “the illusory I”. 

    Any time there is this attempt to evade the fact of psychological insecurity, implies that the entity as “the i” is stil deeply identified with thought and therefore is nourishing the false division between the meditator and the process of meditation. 

    Can there be an attention of this movement to evade the fact of insecurity and chase the idea of security? 

    And can we see that to indulge in this mechanical pattern actually feeds this action-reaction pattern of psychological time, and therefore the illusion of self?

     

  21. Posted · Edited by Faceless

    8 minutes ago, B_Naz said:

    So the new is never new.

    Thought happening now is the response of the past(experience, knowledge, memory). 

    8 minutes ago, B_Naz said:

    Projecting the old is new and vice versa

    So what this movement of thought/thinking “now” is of the old. Thought is conditioned from the past. 

     

    8 minutes ago, B_Naz said:

    If Truth is dynamic, it cannot be achieved via static means, through thought. 

    That’s for you to look into more. You must be able to see it yourself. 

    8 minutes ago, B_Naz said:

    also love how this topic was supposed to be from an epistemological perspective and turned into the validity of Truth and thoughts, haha. 

    It all goes together. My intention was to show that we must understand the reality of illusion. As your tittle was, “How do I know if I am manipulating myself”?? :)

     

  22. Posted

    1 hour ago, B_Naz said:

    The thing that I'm still trying to figure out is how to leads to the same destination.

    What does it imply when we ask how to do this, or how do I do this? 

    Is it the accumulation and response of experience, knowledge, memory(thought) “the i”?

    And isn’t thought always old, dead, static? 

    If I ask (how to), isn’t that pulling what has been in the past (accumulation of thought, and “I”, also of thought, am looking to apply that towards Truth, which is dynamic? 

    To ask how to implies the aquistiton & application of thought-self which is of the past, which is static, thought is never new/dynamic...So when I ask how to in order to get this :sacred Truth, which is always new, I am pulling from that which is old (thought). Therefore the old is simply carried over on top, and in place of the new. 

    So to pull from the old (static), is to project the old. Or as I have said to project ones own personalized (static), version of truth. 

    Are we closer to meeting here?:)

  24. Posted · Edited by Faceless

    :)

    Here we are taking about observing the reality of illusion. 

    Before there is proceeding towards Truth, reality (res.) or  “things” (of mind/thought), must be observed/understood...As in sensation, reactions to sensations, the responding of sensations as an idea, which are created by thought. 

    Can one investigate whether there is Truth or Not without understanding that which is, or which causes illusion?

    If not, won’t such illusions corrupt/distort the investigation...We are starting nearer to home friends. Can’t go beyond that which one hasn’t yet begun.?