Faceless

If your meditation is a movement of concentrated thought than it makes sense this disconnected feeling from the body. Concentration or centralization implies focus on one aspect of a specific objective and excludes everything else. There’s concentration and then there’s attention. Concentration-partial or fragmented experiential observation attention-whole or totality experiential observation Personaly...when I first realized the me was an illusion I felt I was beyond the realm of thought. But later realized this movement of thought was disguised as the timeless state. I realized that my imagination”thought” was creating this sense discontention and isolation. Anyone else experience this?

Leo is on to it.. Truth is beyond the realm of reality. Truth can not be attined in the movment of thought. Truth is active, dynamic, alive. Reality is different than truth. Reality is of thought/knowledge,time. Reality is a projection of thought itself. It is limited, static, and a dead thing. Truth in its deepest sense can never be attained by the limited nature of reality..“no thing” or emptiness of the mind is getting close to this timeless state we call truth. What do u guys think? does this seem like a rational observation?

U think so? Why do we need conflict psychologically? Isn’t self improvement a movment of desire by the center? This attempt to be better is the reason we are not. How can the “entity” that needs to be better improve its self? This seems rather contradicting to say the least. This attempt to be better is a movment by the ego to become psychologically secure. It’s a projection by the self according to ones dispositions. Isn’t the idea of self improvement going about it the wrong way? It seems like this “improvement” of the self is nothing more than an attempt to become liberated through the movment of time/thought/knowledge. What do u think?

Do we realize that we are conflict? Conflict is not an idea. We can see it in ourselves and in society. The nature of thought is divisive, contradicting, misleading, and a movment of confusion. Conflict is psychological disorder. Anyone else see this?

What is the nature and structure of the ego? In the understanding of the whole process and it’s implicaations we can distinguish with clarity when we are inattentive of the ego and it’s movmet. If we do not know the nature of ourselves “ego” we will not be able to identify various motives as they arise. If we are not aware of the substance of our motives honestly arrogance, antagonism, violence and so on will be projected on to others.

Isn’t the intention to become “enlightened” motive to sustain and validate ones sense of self esteem? Both are movemts of desire to self gratify. So doesn’t this imply that enlightenment and self esteem are both subjective projections of the same movment of thought “desire” Is there actually any distinction between the two? The root of this movment is the center “Ego” is it not?

Thought has its place. But nothingness is freedom. A mind with “no thing” as its content is free. Maybe Afonso means thought in the context that we attempt to capture a sense of security in the relationship and reaction to fear. Thought in its very nature is to anylize certain stimuli through subjective awareness or perception to establish a sanctuary for the body or mind. That is what I got from that comment. He might imply that thinking in this sense is the reaction to fear and the desire to self sustain. This seems reasonable, rational to me...I could be wrong though.

Thought in its very nature works in abstractions. But insight “to see” the nature and structure of thought is a form of truth... To see the falseness in the false the truth is revealed.

Desire is a movement in thought. Any movement in thought is a movement of the the ego. The desire to “become” enlightened is a progression through the realm of thought. Any movement through the realm of thought will never go beyond thought. Isn’t that what we want? To be free from the the self... Desire is a manifestation of thought “ego”. How can we say we want to be become enlightened when we don’t know what it is to be so? Is this desire to become enlightened just another product that thought has created and projected?

Is the higher self a conceptual construct based off the assumption and disposition that the lower self is actual in its nature? Is there a self at all? Or is the self a series of thoughts trying to identify itself through thought?

How do we know there is a higher self? How do we know there is a lower self?

How do we know there is a higher self? How do we know there is a lower self?