robdl

The images one projects about others always shows what self-image is being nourished/defended/reinforced, as the ego/self-image projects images out of its own movement that validates-sustains the very same movement. This is how we learn through relationship.

If you tell someone to be "passively aware", they may unwittingly and subtly do so through the lens-fragment of effort-motive-intent. Ego sneakily will use "passive awareness" for ego's purposes. They may not realize-understand that any movement of effort-motive-intent is seeing from ego; the lens-fragment in operation. So it's useful to understand the various subtle thought-forms --- volition, intent, focus, seeking, anticipation --- all serve fragmentation, are ego in operation, and corrupt passive observation. I think that's all @Jack River is getting at, that for passive observation to take place, there must be some understanding about the subtle thought-forms that can undermine-prevent passive observation.

The fear-antagonism faceless speaks of could also be referring to when someone has their spiritual authority attacked/exposed, and the fear-defense-antagonism that can breed. Disciples attacking the guru's critics, the movement of fear rationalizing-dismissing the behaviour, etc. Basically the dependency on that authority and self-identification with that authority perpetuates fear that defends the authority, defends-sustains the identity with it.

It goes beyond gender. Any form of escaping, movement away from what-is, security-seeking is this "fear" quality he's referring to. It's any avoidance-escape-resistance in thought. All of thinking is flavoured by fear, male or female, as all thinking is fuelled by this escaping/movement away from what-is action. If you sit down to meditate and the mind immediately goes to think about food or tv, or something you did earlier that day, as an escape from the stillness/boredom/present moment, THAT escaping action of thought is fear-aversion-resistance in operation. Fear is subtle and can disguise itself as mere resistance to boredom/the emptiness of the present moment. This is how fear and desire are so similar and one and the same. Both fear and desire are a movement away from what-is. Desire seeks, and fear escapes, but seeking and escaping are one and the same movement of thought; thought self-perpetuating by invoking the past/imagined future. Thought seeks security in its own movement and will use subtle fear-desires to do so.

Is it an ego projecting peace or is there a peace having seen through ego? Is the peace from within thought’s loop or from having seen-understood the loop itself?

Thought-self divides fear from desire as distinct opposites. Total observation into the movement of thought reveals that fear/desire are a single, unitary movement; one and the same action of thought-seeking.

The apparency of the division is dissolved. The falsity of the separation is dissolved/seen through. Dissolved. Seen-through. Realize-ended. The question is whether this has been insighted directly, wholly, or recited by thought-knowledge.

Psychological freedom from division-conflict

Thought labels, categorises, separates, conceptualizes, divides, distinguishes, creates opposites. It’s the duality of thought/thinking. It’s the fuel for thought’s self-perpetuation, which is its only goal; to seek security/permanence in its own movement, through this dualistic-divisive action.

To see that thinker, thoughts, psychological time as past/projected future, fear, and desire are all one and the same unitary movement. All previous distinctions made between these things now dissolved. Astonishing - to see this holistically. True non-duality. Not a concept of it.

The ego/mind, after all, which is the (false) division-distinction between a “thinker” and “its thoughts.” The division-distinction that perpetuates-nourishes ego/mind as thoughts breed “thinker” and “thinker” breeds thoughts. Co-perpetuation, co-feeding, but ultimately a single, unitary thought-self movement. Self-feeding thought loop. Thought-self reinforces division-distinction; feeds on it. Unconditioned awareness dissolves them. Division-distinction = ego survival

It is not awareness-attention through the lens of “I” that’s being referred to. You’re quite right — if that were the case it’d be just another fragment-division in operation. It is whole, undivided, passive attention. Unconditioned attention. Attention of a different quality than the usual divided attention through the lens of “I”, which always has a motive, desire, effort (i.e distorting effect) as it attends.

When there is awareness with no distorting lens, then there is unconditioned awareness; true meditation. Seeing-understanding of the whole structure of thought-self rather than being stuck within the loop via the lens-division.

@Ingit I’d go back to the first page, my first post in this thread for additional clarity on this division in thought/thinking. Go through it slowly

The division-fragmentation that creates the apparent separation between “I” and the remainder of thought. Not talking about the split of a single thought.

Yeah, If there is division in thought —between the thinker and their thoughts, between the “I” and that which it fears — then the thought-division (fear) pattern perpetuates, gets nourished. If there’s an “I” that “thinks” it’s seeing all of this, that can subtly be the thought-division in disguise.

By the way, I’m really sorry to hear how much you’ve been suffering with all of this. I hope you’re able to open up some gaps of peace through seeing how the mind can habitually take it away. Not to avoid-suppress-deny our living problems, not to dismiss them as illusory, but to bring awareness-understanding to the process of mind and its constant perpetuation of problems-questions. If there’s a problem, which is a type of thought-resistance, to attempt to escape the problem by calling it illusory or denying it, is a continuation-reaction of the thought-resistance, just disguised in a different form.

The practical addressing-solving of life problems may require 10% of the day, but the mind will spend 95% of the day wrapped up in them, in my experience. That 85% difference - we need to investigate. Is it necessary? Is the mind indulging, creating much more additional suffering?

The thing is that the mind creates-perpetuates problems even when we happen to be sitting silently, for example, while family problems are temporarily dormant at that time. The mind will dwell on old problems that have been addressed already, anticipate problems that may or may not occur, or problems that can be addressed when necessary at a later point. In this way, the mind is always escaping to the past/projected future, and avoiding what-is, the present moment.

Can we say that awareness and meditation without motive-intention (unconditioned observation) are one and the same?

I love the fact that you can roundhouse kick a guy's skull in, potentially knocking him unconscious and leaving him with lasting brain damage, but you can't kick him in the groin (where there is a protective cup). That's where they draw the line.

Thought needlessly creates a question-problem "what's so bad about suffering?" - then goes about trying to answer it. Then argues over the answers it gets, based in accordance with its existing beliefs-assumptions-conclusions. Thought's self-perpetuating nature in action. Cause-effect-cause. Self-feeding loop.

why do you want to eliminate your ego? What do you want exactly? Before we discuss the goal, we must explore the desire, motivation, intentions.

Have you considered that the mind may be throwing out these kinds of questions-problems to procrastinate, distract, and therefore perpetuate itself? To avoid true meditation/facing what-is? If you get a satisfactory answer to this question, what do you intend to do with that answer? How will this answer serve you? What is the crux of your actual problem here?

Suffering, by its very definition, is negative. You're basically asking, why is negativity negative? What makes stupidity stupid? What makes hardship hard? What's so inherently painful about pain? What's bad about badness? What's depressing about depression? What's problematic about a problem? If you see nothing wrong with suffering or no inherent problem with it, then you're not actually talking about suffering, as it's defined/understood.