robdl

I honestly don't have the intellectual capacity to "conceptualize" ego/thought's movement to the level that people may allege, even if I wanted to. That's what so funny to me . Because it's not coming from intellect. Intellect may shine and polish the wording communication of it, but the source is not intellect.

These aren't "my" beliefs, opinions, knowledge. These are the facts of ego's/thought's operation that anyone may be able to see for themselves, entirely independent of whatever I have to say about it.

A belief arises out of thinking. Unconditioned insight into the totality of thought's structure is what realizes the above. Operating from within the loop vs. insight into the whole loop itself are quite different indeed.

Ego will pretend that there is a thinker apart from thoughts. A thinker which is subject to thoughts. Divided action, as you say. But ego, after hearing about ego concepts, takes the sneakiness a step further by even pretending that there is an "I" apart from "ego" -- an "I" that has relationship to ego. Basically ego will take anything, including even nondual knowledge, and still make a divided action out of it, as its inherent nature to do so.

Indeed. That which rejects-affirms aspects of ego and seeks to transform it is nothing other than ego itself. The transformer and the transformed are a unitary process, not two separate processes. Ego is so sneaky it will pretend that there is an "I" in relationship with "ego," or an "I" that "has" an ego, as if they were two separate things.

Observation without the lens/veil of the "observer"/"me". Unconditioned observation, undistorted by the "me" and its accumulated thought content.

In actuality, does a thinker experience thought-fear? Or does thought-fear experience a thinker which divides itself from the fear? If it's the former, we will try to fight it, overcome it. But if it's the latter, then we can realize that the effort-resistance to overcome fear is the very perpetuation of fear; the very feeding of fear/ego itself.

This is where thought/fear is sneaky. That which wants to overcome the fear is also one and the same process as the fear. The mind/ego creates the false duality of a fearful entity that is opposed to fear, but it is one, unitary process. This false duality, or division between thinker and thought, is what fuels the ego/fear. The ego is sustained by the division between thinker and thought. Fear is sustained by the division between fearful entity and fear. As fear is thought.

Thought is always recalling the past, or projecting the future. Notice how psychological fear works in the exact same way? And desire too? As they should, since they're just thought, after all. Then you end up getting a self-reacting loop of desires and fears, breeding one another. So is there anything special about desire or fear? Or does the ego just love desire/fear because they elicit the strongest attachment-clinging-reaction, and therefore best serve the ego's function to self-perpetuate?

Yeah, fear thrives under inattention. With attention, it can disappear.

Thought is very sneaky. And so fear therefore is, too. As thought and fear are one and the same. Thought pretends that there is a "thinker" of thoughts; pretends that there is an "I" that is subject to all thoughts. Fear, naturally, pretends that there is a fearful entity ("I") apart from its "fear"; an entity which is subject to fear. The division between thinker and thoughts, or the division between fearful entity and fear, is what reinforces the thought/fear. Duality in operation. Essentially, thought/fear feeds itself by creating an I-entity/self that is apart from "its" fear. As mentioned, this division nourishes-reinforces the thinking/fearing. So look at fear as a kind of trick that ego-mind is playing on itself to self-sustain.

thought's sneaky and self-deceiving nature is also to be observed and learned about.

Quite so. People may assume that positive (or identifying) actions may reinforce self more than negative (or disidentifying) actions, but both reinforce self.

Indeed. If the self gets rid of an idea, what has influenced that disidentification/removal? Is it not the bias-conditioning (conclusions/time) that the self has clung to? The divided action as the "chooser"? Even in disidentification and getting rid of ideas, there will be the underlying work of clinging-attachment (the past) that's influencing that action. Disidentification and the clinging of the past can't be so easily separated apart. The loss of an idea may be the very movement of clinging itself. The loss of an idea in accordance to experience-knowledge-memory will serve to validate that very accumulated content.

To unconditionally observe that self, fear, and desire are one unitary thought movement. A self-feeding loop, which conjures a “self” apart from “fear” to fuel its movement.

There’s nothing more “fear” loves-needs than an “I” to set itself apart from fear. The very division which fuels it.

We must not take for granted that there is an “I” experiencer which experiences fear. We have to investigate whether fear itself is actually creating the “I”. Is fear a trick of ego-mind to sustain itself?

Is there an “I” apart from fear? An “I” that resists-escapes “fear”? What if it was learned that fear (and reaction-opposition to it) produces the “I”? That fear feeds itself by reacting to itself and this reaction-identification process creates the “I”? Can ego-mind fuel itself by creating the false division between fear and an experiencer of it?

I’ve vaporized the hcl form of it. You don’t have to snort the hcl/oxalate form.

the lower mind can use the intellect/upper mind as its outlet, without the intellect knowing so. So intellectualization/rational-decision making often has the lower mind as its master. There is an emotion-based decision, and the intellect steps in to rationalize it as if the intellect was in control. In this sense, it is hard to distinguish a "lower mind" from an "upper mind" --- just "mind."

Or putting it another way, "Observation without the 'Observer'". Observation that is not taking place through the viewing lens of the past/accumulated thought/"me".

I've heard a lot of conflicting advice on long-term storage temperature. Some say freezer is a must, others say room temperature, away from any vent or heat source, is sufficient. There doesn't appear to be any actual scientific info available to say one way or the other. Just anecdotal.

Indeed. Grouping/identifying/categorizing is inseparable from measuring-comparing, and measuring-comparison always breeds this antagonism/competition/division.

I'm not denying differences between people, but the question is do we group/identify/categorize people based on those differences, and reinforce our own identify/self-image in the process? Does this not breed further division-conflict-separation?

The mechanism of thought that wants to label/separate/group/categorize/compare/identify someone as "orange level being" is the same mechanism of thought responsible for racism/identifying-grouping another. Thought wants to compulsively separate/compare/identify/label/group, whether it be based on race, or some conceptual stage model.