This is all very well, but apparent separation from The Consciousness, (and with that loss of identity with the Consciousness-as-Self) is not bought about simply by saying "I" am doing etc. because that is merely identification with the body as self, which occurs after separation has already happened.

Rather separation is bought about by visualizing ones-self as: "I" am a this" or "a that" for example it is always a pre-existing entity that is now golfing or eating etc. e.g. "I" am eating and so forth.

Who is this "I"?

First of all to think of this "I" is to separate from The Self because it is an "I" imagined in the statement: "I Am" it is an "I" seen as "over there" (the "I" at which we point, when we say to ourselves "I..") i.e. it is an "I" inferred by language; an "I" who pre-existed the action as it were. It is this which is the cause of the  definition of a self or doer, in the infinite.

for example Siva Sutra states:

"By non-contemplation of Me, are you bound."

This is to say that by not contemplating upon the Consciousness (which is the omnipresent truth) is the cause of bondage.

For example to entertain the idea that "You-the-formless-Consciousness" are nothing more than a human body or an "I' inferred into existence by reference to an "I", who is doing this or that in the guise of the body, is to be bound to that inferred "I". because that "I" is thought of as the self.

It is this which causes definition in the Infinite of a doer, of an "I".

It is therefore not the doing that is the problem, but the "I-ness" which is defined in the Omnipresent at the very moment that the concept of "I" is sought in the Consciousness. At that point (as that point) as the conceptual "I", the mind comes into being as the matrix of location or existence in the dimensionless absolute.

Previous to the appearance of the particular "I", "I"-the-Omnipresent appear as The Cosmos in my own awareness as the support, as the ground, as the foundation upon which the particular "I" is founded; for without the pre-existence of "I"-the-Omnipresent, appearing as the Omnipresent Cosmos, a particular "I" could not appear within it.

There could never be any "I" at all, nor could any Cosmos appear in any awareness which might exist without "I"; The Cosmic manifestation in awareness is therefore dependant upon "I" and any manifested particular  "I" is dependant upon the manifestation of Cosmos.

Energy formed by Will, to appear in Consciousness as "I" and because of that appearance in consciousness, "I" appear as "The Mind"; because mind can only be known to exist due to the appearance of that which is thought; previous to this. previous to the thought, there appeared nothing and the form of "I" could not be noticed.

Never-the-less it is "I" the formless infinite which did the looking and because of that caused the birth in myself of "I-The Mind".

So then looking or conceptualizing is the cause of that which is referred to as "the not-self".

Contemplation upon the Omnipresent, upon the Cosmic "I", Upon the resident in the consciousness, as opposed to constant thought of an "I" in the Mind" or as The Mind or Soul seems to be the way of it.

Yet how can contemplation upon the absolute be done, when to contemplate upon any "I" requires the contemplator, and hence separation between contemplator and that which is contemplated?

Ah! It is to realize that that which contemplates upon The Absolute or omnipresent is that Very Absolute Omnipresence itself....