Faceless

Only attention without action as “the i” stops feeding the loop. And if there is (no attention), be aware/attentive of the inattention. We can not force ourselves to be attentive as that implies fragmented action. But there can be attention that we are inattentive. Do you see the beauty in this?

So to observe/be aware of, we need to be able to identify what is divided action. Then there can be awareness of what we have understood as fragmentation. Then we don’t persistently move within that same pattern of division.

Right there needs to be an (understanding-seeing), that we are feeding into that divisive movement. If we are not aware that we are feeding the loop then we keep nourishing that loop, (the continuity of fragmentation).

Indeed..the self is the loop. Yes, the fact of this phenomenon is the consequence of divided action (fragmentation) of the self.

As long as we see that there is only thought in movement, and “the i” with its compulsion to control other fragments like fear, jealousy, anger, and so on, is just another fragment, then we will not get caught up that loop. If we see the truth in the fact of this, there is no further conflict. As conflict implies a division between the i and what it wants to control.

Which leads to this divided action; I will dissolve my ego by meditation, chemicals, knowledge and so on. This is all subtle forms or control.

Right now one may be thinking in response to what we are saying. There is apparently “the i” and “the i” is responding with this movement of thought to understand what we are saying. So we have already came into this with divided attention, or are pre-assuming very subtly, that “the i” is different from that movement of thinking itself. Any attempt to understand that which is whole, with divided attention, such as above, will lead to incoherent understanding. It’s like starting a math problem off incorrectly. Every step applied after that mistake will lead to the inevitable error in the end. The error here being thought splitting the i and the movement of thought.

@Ingit I’ll tell you this, in most cases it seems to just snap all of a sudden.

It’s ok. So we keep at it until we understand is all.

Everything I talk about is phenomenon that can be seen in oneself. With careful/unbound/non-resistant observation. Not at all do I see any of it as concept (abstraction). If we see it all as conceptual, then we have placed it as being seperate from the self. Again another movement of division-fragmentation.

Is it a mere concept? Or do you see this movement actually in yourself as a fact? Not some information other than yourself,(abstract), but to see that in your self actually. To conform to a concept is one and the same movement as feeding the self; action influenced by this false division between the entity conceiving and that which it conceives, and between the entity that conforms and that which it conforms too.

Without this whole understanding awareness will always be dualistic, therefore not awareness.

Seeing this holistically is its own action. One will not need to act after seeing/understanding this phenomenon as movement. There is no gap between the seeing-understanding and action. The seeing-understanding is action. This is to have a holistic insight into the whole nature of fragmentation. That insight is whole action in and of itself. This is intelligent action unbound by the conditioned movement of self-thought.

Yeah, but only in the cessation of this process of fragmentation can there be integration. That’s why understanding holistically this phenomenon of fragmentation as (one single movement) is essential. If there is no understanding there can be no awareness of this movement in motion. Action must be whole in order to stop this pattern of division from manifesting. Because fragmented action will only feed itself. Or as I have put it before.. THE SELF FEEDING LOOP ⭕️ OF CAUSALITY WILL CONTINUE TO NOURISH ITS OWN DIVISIVE MOVEMENT.

To see how everything connects as one unitary movement is quite fascinating. That alone is enough to remain patient for me.

? Its not that difficult. Just takes patience.

Identification as in... There is (seeing-perception), (contact), (sensation), then there is identification with thought that creates the image according to its accumulated content, (the past). That is the beginning of desire, then desire (the i) is born. This is movement as the psychological entity,(the self).

The way I write here on the forum has its place. Communicating (holistic understanding) is difficult when communication (language) implies the emphasis on distinctions/duality. Everything I talk about can be observed as phenomenon of and as “our” experiencing.

People use to tell me I had ADD as well. But i just wasn’t interested in learning what was being offered.

Now would you say that fear and the self are one movement. The self implies it’s content(experience, knowledge, memory), fear implies the self (what has been) in resistance to (what is). So the self clings to its experience, knowledge, memory, to evade the uncertainty of what is, by imposing what has been. Because the self seeks security in what is recognized or familiar. Identification itself implies clinging to more of the same. Identification implies fear. The self is fear.

Excellent. I take it we are meeting?

Just saying that without your personal memory capacity, you wouldn’t know who you were. This movement of Indentification with thought would not be able to take place.

If you mean by this not moving positively or negatively then yes, that implies the cessation of this fragmentation.

Originally I was saying that any action positive-negative continues to fragment. To break pre-conceptions or to de-fragment still implies divided action. Even the motive to break pre-conceptions is a conditioned response born of this false division. It just depends on whether or not there is volition-effort-choice being applied as a means. But then form what I understood there was a misunderstanding on how fear and the entity who controls fear was really the same movement of divided action.

Without the memory of all that, is there a you? That conditioned movement that observes according to that conditioned content of the past.