The phenomenon of fragmentation

[Faceless]

2 minutes ago, robdl said:

Right. To use an analogy - if you write about the process of riding a bike and how it works, it’s not something that’s meant to just be committed to the reader’s memory, to be believed. It’s just putting into words the direct (non-verbal/non-intellectual) thing that is being pointed to. 

That’s it. 

[Faceless]

11 minutes ago, SOUL said:

It is easy to understand, it's contradictory and convoluted. Point to someone else and say 'you aren't paying attention' yet be unaware of one's own inattentiveness. Oh....and be authoritative while doing it using words like must, can't, never or always. Hah

It’s ok soul

We understand??

Edited September 19, 2018 by Faceless

[SOUL]

1 minute ago, Faceless said:

It’s ok soul

We understand??

We? You speaking for others again? Not so apparent you do understand.

[SOUL]

Let me do what I say not to do and get complicated.

Observing our self is the simple part of it. Being aware of thoughts, emotions, senses, impulses, urges and everything that bubbles up as the content of our consciousness. This exercise of being aware but not actively attaching to what is the content in our consciousness is the simple. Just doing this simple exercise will have profound effect in consciousness.

The complication comes in when we try to analyze the content of consciousness as if it has some secret message for our liberation. Does it? Or is it what keeps us bound? So if we investigate every detail and facet, break it all down so we think we know every bit of minutia about the content.... it's what? Still the content that often is what keeps us bound and suffering.

All this fragment movement fear thought conceptualizing is just analyzing the content of consciousness. All systems of understanding are analyzing the content but it's the content that is to most the source of their suffering. So sifting through the baggage of consciousness isn't necessarily ceasing the suffering.

What really does effect our conscious experience of ceasing suffering is breaking the bonds of attachment to the content. This doesn't mean we have to wipe it away to nothing or treat it as if it's evil incarnate because there are many ways to manage the content that fits each of our situations, there's no one way to do so.

Although, mitigating or breaking the attachment to the content, whatever we ultimately do with that content, can reduce and cease the self induced suffering we experience in consciousness. There is nothing wrong with analyzing the content but often the ego seizes on the process and uses it to continue the suffering, not being a cessation of it.

The simple approach is the passive observation of the content and letting it all just be what it is, the complicated approach is the analyzing of content as if there is meaning to it. One isn't right and the other wrong, they are what they are.

Hopefully that wasn't too complicated.

Edited September 19, 2018 by SOUL

[robdl]

11 minutes ago, SOUL said:

Let me do what I say not to do and get complicated.

Observing our self is the simple part of it. Being aware of thoughts, emotions, senses, impulses, urges and everything that bubbles up as the content of our consciousness. This exercise of being aware but not actively attaching to what is the content in our consciousness is the simple. Just doing this simple exercise will have profound effect in consciousness.

The complication comes in when we try to analyze the content of consciousness as if it has some secret message for our liberation. Does it? Or is it what keeps us bound? So if we investigate every detail and facet, break it all down so we think we know every bit of minutia about the content.... it's what? Still the content that often is what keeps us bound and suffering.

All this fragment movement fear thought conceptualizing is just analyzing the content of consciousness. All systems of understanding are analyzing the content but it's the content that is to most the source of their suffering. So sifting through the baggage of consciousness isn't necessarily ceasing the suffering.

What really does effect our conscious experience of ceasing suffering is breaking the bonds of attachment to the content. This doesn't mean we have to wipe it away to nothing or treat it as if it's evil incarnate because there are many ways to manage the content that fits each of our situations, there's no one way to do so.

Although, mitigating or breaking the attachment to the content, whatever we ultimately do with that content, can reduce and cease the self induced suffering we experience in consciousness. There is nothing wrong with analyzing the content but often the ego seizes on the process and uses it to continue the suffering, not being a cessation of it.

The simple approach is the passive observation of the content and letting it all just be what it is, the complicated approach is the analyzing of content as if there is meaning to it. One isn't right and the other wrong, they are what they are.

Hopefully that wasn't to complicated.

We are ultimately talking about the whole structure-mechanism of thought-self/ego. The nature of thinking-ego itself, not just the content of thought. 

Of course the content of thought can have its dots connected to explain-reveal the whole process of mind/thought-self. And therefore content is relevant to mention.

Edited September 19, 2018 by robdl

[SOUL]

2 minutes ago, robdl said:

We are ultimately talking about the whole structure-mechanism of thought-self/ego. The nature of thinking itself, not just the content of thought. 

Of course the content of thought can have its dots connected to explain-reveal the whole process of mind/thought-self. And therefore content is mentioned.

@Faceless  Read my long post that he quotes and explain in it where he misunderstands/distorts/ignores what I said. If you are as attentive as you suggest it will be obvious. Please.

[Faceless]

9 minutes ago, robdl said:

We are ultimately talking about the whole structure-mechanism of thought-self/ego. The nature of thinking-ego itself, not just the content of thought. 

Of course the content of thought can have its dots connected to explain-reveal the whole process of mind/thought-self. And therefore content is relevant to mention.

Indeed. We have stated this many times, and  in other threads as well. 

@SOUL

I read your post, you don’t seem to see-understand quite yet what we have been doing. It’s evident in that post. I don’t feel you should agree with what we are doing. You say you are abaiding as awareness or what ever. That great!! I’m very happy for you, friend. 

I am not interested in debate though. 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Faceless

[robdl]

2 minutes ago, SOUL said:

@Faceless  Read my long post that he quotes and explain in it where he misunderstands/distorts/ignores what I said. If you are as attentive as you suggest it will be obvious. Please.

We are not talking about the analysis of all thought content: that would be an endless pursuit. A pursuit played by thought itself. 

The direct insight we are talking about is whole  and immediate. It’s not a linear, gradual process of analyzing thought content. 

 

[robdl]

The direct insight sees the whole movement of thought-self. This is holistic insight. 

It’s not the analytical, conceptual activity of the intellect that analyses all thought content.

[SOUL]

@Faceless Let me give a hint.

Content of consciousness......

Content of thought.......

I could go complicated about it but it can be simply viewed on what's skewed too.

[robdl]

@SOUL the insight is whole. To discuss thought’s nature on the forum should not be confused for the non-verbal insight itself, which is what is being pointed to.

Unconditional observation - no “analyzer” there to analyze. As analyzer implies the movement of thought.

[robdl]

1. Unconditional attention is the thing. Direct insight.

2. What is unconditional attention then? Are we sure we’re not just subtly thinking?  Can thought sneakily hijack attention?

3. Then what is the nature of thinking then? Do we understand thought’s subtlety? 

Hence these discussions arise.

Edited September 19, 2018 by robdl

[Faceless]

10 minutes ago, robdl said:

1. Unconditional attention is the thing. Direct insight.

2. What is unconditional attention then? Are we sure we’re not just subtly thinking?  Can thought sneakily hijack attention?

3. Then what is the nature of thinking then? Do we understand thought’s subtlety? 

Hence these discussions arise.

Great questions

I would say it’s significant to go into indeed. 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Faceless

[SOUL]

11 minutes ago, robdl said:

The direct insight sees the whole movement of thought-self. This is holistic insight. 

It’s not the analytical, conceptual activity of the intellect that analyses all thought content.

Any movement of thought self insight you think you are getting is part and parcel of the content of consciousness. You imagine about thought movement and yet others imagine thoughts are sticky and both visions of the content work for the viewer of it. Those two characteristics in the imagery are very differing perspectives of how thought and/or self exists or behaves within consciousness.....from that there's still some climbin' up the tree before we get to whole... unity.....holistic.

Being......

[Faceless]

5 minutes ago, SOUL said:

You imagine about thought movement

The image(the i), doesn't observe movement. The image (the i), projects itself as observation. 

That’s the point. 

[robdl]

11 minutes ago, SOUL said:

Any movement of thought self insight you think you are getting is part and parcel of the content of consciousness. You imagine about thought movement and yet others imagine thoughts are sticky and both visions of the content work for the viewer of it. Those two characteristics in the imagery are very differing perspectives of how thought and/or self exists or behaves within consciousness.....from that there's still some climbin' up the tree before we get to whole... unity.....holistic.

Being......

Thought clings-attaches-identifies. Some call this a sticky action, indeed. I have as well. 

Thought reacts to/within itself mechanically, as an identification-attachment process, as it seeks security in its own movement. 

This is all true and seen wholly. 

So you’re characterizing it as separate, conflicting perspectives but they’re unitary.

It’s one and the same.

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by robdl

[SOUL]

27 minutes ago, robdl said:

@SOUL the insight is whole. To discuss thought’s nature on the forum should not be confused for the non-verbal insight itself, which is what is being pointed to.

Unconditional observation - no “analyzer” there to analyze. As analyzer implies the movement of thought.

Then why do you post so much stuff on this forum analyzing about the characteristics and behavior of thoughts? It sure is a lot of complicated pointing, pages of pointing at thoughts.....haha

[robdl]

1 minute ago, SOUL said:

Then why do you post so much stuff on this forum analyzing about the characteristics and behavior of thoughts? It sure is a lot of complicated pointing, pages of pointing at thoughts.....haha

As I said up above: 

1. Unconditional attention is the thing. Direct insight.

2. What is unconditional attention then? Are we sure we’re not just subtly thinking?  Can thought sneakily hijack attention?

3. Then what is the nature of thinking then? Do we understand thought’s subtlety? 

Hence these discussions arise.

[Faceless]

6 minutes ago, robdl said:

As I said up above: 

1. Unconditional attention is the thing. Direct insight.

2. What is unconditional attention then? Are we sure we’re not just subtly thinking?  Can thought sneakily hijack attention?

3. Then what is the nature of thinking then? Do we understand thought’s subtlety? 

Hence these discussions arise.

Again this seems pretty important. 

[SOUL]

1 minute ago, robdl said:

As I said up above: 

1. Unconditional attention is the thing. Direct insight.

2. What is unconditional attention then? Are we sure we’re not just subtly thinking?  Can thought sneakily hijack attention?

3. Then what is the nature of thinking then? Do we understand thought’s subtlety? 

Hence these discussions arise.

Yes, thoughts have hijacked your experience.... I talk about being, awareness and consciousness, you talk about thought self ego fear.... what is the focus of your attention?  Not subtle it's so obvious. Hah