robdl

When the whole structure of thought-self is understood, not just selective fragments of thought, then the nature of fear will simultaneously be wholly understood.

That which is doing the psycho-analyzing (the analyzer) is one and the same as that which is being analyzed (the fear/conditioning/experiences/assumptions/beliefs/memories). The fear/conditioning/beliefs/memories IS the analyzer. The psycho-analyzer is the thief in a policeman's uniform. Or as @Jack River put it:

There's what-is (happening in thought). Anger then is what-is; a fact. I think this is how you mean it. The anger can't be denied or rejected. And there's considering all thinking (i.e. past/future projection), which includes anger/fear, as an escape from or resistance to what-is, which is the dynamic now.

Is anger what-is, or resistance (as the past) to what-is? You can look at it both ways indeed, depending on the semantics of "what is".

The mind wants to be anywhere but the present/Now, and anger is a way in which it revives the past to evade the present.

If anger is arising out of a negative experience/memory --- the past --- then the past is asserting-sustaining itself in the present, which is a movement away from what-is. Recollections of the past and projections of the future are always a movement away from what-is. Desire works in the same way. Desire, arising out of positive experience/memory --- the past --- asserting itself in the present as a movement away from what-is.

"I" and "resistance" or "fear" are all one and the same thing -- it's all a self-feeding loop of thought. It's thought that divides a self/"I" from "resistance", which creates the falsity of an "I" letting go of "resistance." An "I" can get pre-occupied with the effort-action in "letting go" and this may only fortify-reinforce the "I".

Ego/mind/thought is so sneaky and self-deceptive, it conjures a false division between "I" and "fear"/"anger". A division that serves to both empower-sustain the "I" and the "fear"/"anger", and by reinforcing them, allows the survival of ego mind. Ego mind runs on this division/apparent self. It's the lifeblood of thought/thinking.

Bingo. Thought breeds this division, and the division breeds more thought (such as in the form of fear/anger). Cause is effect is cause, in a self-feeding loop.

There can arrive a quality of attention where the distinctions made between fear and anger dissipate, and it's made aware that these emotions are just a unitary self-feeding loop of movement away from what-is.

Indeed. Thought by its nature separates/labels/distinguishes/categorizes/defines, but it's ultimately a single, unitary movement of self/thought/resistance-to-what-is.

The mind/intellect can only get things in limitations and pieces and will also run it through the filter of its own accumulated knowledge --- the past meeting the present. The intellect/mind is a conditioned veil in this manner. The holistic-direct insight is beyond intellect/conditioned veil and inherently gets the whole of it; not limited pieces. Once the holistic insight has occurred, then there will be a capacity to understand the verbal communication of it as completely coherent and logical, and resonating with one's own direct insight of it, as if the person communicating it was speaking from the exact same place as you. It's quite gnarly actually. It's almost like listening to an out of tune radio with a lot of static, getting things in scattered pieces with a lot of noise/confusion as to what's being communicated. Then after the holistic insight, it comes in high-def crystal clear quality.

Indeed. Ego = self = mind = thought = "I". All the same thing. Ego isn't bad thoughts. That which accepts/rejects thoughts as good/bad is also thought/self/ego!

looking at the fact with the eyes of the past, which is the choosing/chooser --- liking-disliking. And the liking-disliking is the perpetuation/nourishment of the past.

Perhaps it's better not to ask for a way, but for rather, for you to describe-explain what is meant by "seeing of the fact" or "staying with the fact."

Thought will claim even being present in the moment, indeed. Thought's happy to use non-dual concepts to its end.

As in, what "it" chooses to see is based on the validation-sustainment of the "I", and what "it" chooses not to see is based on what is not relevant to that goal and/or what undermines that goal?

Indeed. "I" can maintain itself by controlling-judging other parts of thought it deems "conscious thought", and by dividing itself from other parts of thought it deems as "unconscious thought." Thought thinking it controls certain realms of thought = reinforcement of thinker/"I". Thought dividing itself from certain realms of thought which it thinks it can't control = reinforcement of thinker "I".

would you then say that thought has conceptually, falsely divided conscious mind from subconscious mind?

1. Thought perpetuates the illusion of "I". 2. "I", thinking itself separate from Thought, comes into conflict with Thought. a.k.a. resistance. 3. But unconditional awareness sees (not the personal "I" that sees) that Thought and "I" are a unitary (thought-self) movement and the division between the two was just invoked by the nature of Thought itself. Thought invokes division-fragmentation as this perpetuates thinking; thought's mechanistic nature to self-sustain. 4. Division in thought, between thinker and thoughts, naturally creates conflict and reaction, which is the very fuel for more thought itself. Thinker sustains thought, and thought sustains thinker; co-feeding and co-sustaining. So thought depends upon this division as a way to perpetuate. No division means no conflict-resistance, and therefore no fuel.

If the "I" is in operation, which thinks it's apart from resistance, resistance will be experienced-imagined as happening to "you". But if "I" and "resistance" are observed as unitary, then thought is just seen for what it is --- a movement of resistance (movement away from what-is), that is just seeking security in itself (rather than "you" being in conflict with it).

The "I" IS the resistance. That is why it's so confusing and frustrating. Because an "I" (thought fragment) keeps dividing itself from the "resistance" and either resists-fears it or wishes to do something about it (let go of it, surrender, etc.), but the "resistance" and "I" are one and the same movement. So when the "I" and "resistance" are observed as a unitary movement, then where is the resistance? Is there any longer an "I" that is trying to do something about the resistance? If there is no divison between "I" and "resistance," then is there conflict?

@Pouya do we realize that we regularly observe thought through the thought-fragment of "I"? The "I" which steers, chooses, and reacts to thought in accordance with its own content (memory, desire, effort-intent, etc.)? So if thought is observed with no choosing, effort, desire, or pre-conclusions, then is thought being observed in a free way, free of the "I"-lens? Observation without the "Observer"? That is what can be investigated.

@Pouya If thought is unconditionally observed --- no "I"-lens that is corrupting-driving it --- the content of "I" will spill out to merge with the flow of thought. The self-imagery-experiences-memory-knowledge that constitute the "I" will be observable along with the rest of thought. Thought and self observed as a single, unitary movement. That is the meaning of the Observer is the Observed.

Some people call it the Witness. Some people call it Observation Without the "Observer." Some call it Unconditional Observation. There's watching, but it's not through the lens of conditioning-bias-motive (the "I") --- the lens that actually feeds thinking and is one and the same as the thinking. Watching thought with no "I"-lens.