Guest guest Posted April 6, 2005 Report Share Posted April 6, 2005 --- anders_lindman <anders_lindman wrote: Anders: Thoughts are binary in that they are about something which is defined by being everything other that that something is not. Maybe one can train oneself to use fuzzy thoughts, or rather, to try to blur one's own thoughts as they happen, to mix them up beyond recognition. That would be an interesting (new?) kind of meditation. Lewis: It is possible to mangle thoughts by why do that? Perhaps, you can sell the " mangled thought meditation method " for fifty bucks a pop. " How to mangle your thoughts beyond recognition. Become a blithering idiot in seconds! It will sell, I tell, Anders, it will sell...... Anders: LOL, it probably would. Lewis: Why train to make fuzzy or mixed up thoughts? They will simply be fuzzy, blurry, mixed up binary thoughts. And soon as you stop that game, the same process of production will continue. Thought production requires little effort. If one knows how it >operates one can do something about it. Anders: A thought appears as a simple object, but is in fact an extraordinary complexy yet cohesive entity. To define a thought about a car for example, we could define a car as car, but that would be a cyclic definition and would be cheating. Only by pointing out _all_ phenomena that the car is _not_ can the car be truly defined. Such definitons happens automatically in the brain, and so we can be fooled to believe that the definition is an easy task, when in fact it is an almost impossible task. How the brain/mind does this is an extraordinary mystery. Lewis: All of thought production, as is language production, is in the darkness, the mystery, and which, it seems, is forever removed from observation or understanding in any logical or intellectual sense. It cannot be seen or examined as we would a chair or clockworks. We are in that darkness always. It is possible to gently situate " attention " at the " point of sensation " of thought emergence, that is, at the " sensation of thought emergence " as thought appears from the darkness. In each appearance, this sensation is different and is experienced differently. But being so situated, one can see the emergence of the thought(s) and the " underlying " thought object(s) held. As fmraerdy pointed out, there may be more than one or two or three or more and situated gently like this all can be seen as the thoughts emerge, move, perturbate or not etc. and disspate. When the underlying objects held are changed or altered the thoughts change and alter effortlessly. Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents./emoticontest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> > wrote: > > > > > > It's like fuzzy thinking, as you suggested, in that you are > holding > > > more than TWO thoughts in your mind (prefereably THREE) > > > simultaneously, without allowing them to instantly become merged > in > > > your consciousness as one - which is their innate tendency. > > > > That was perhaps an even more interesting kind of meditation. To > hold > > more that two thoughts in the mind at the same time! This I must > try. > > All this talk, talk, talk about what's going on, should - in right > order - lead you to the realization that the thoughts are just > happening to you, that you are not willing them into existence, NOR > can you predict accurately what you will say next, unless you've been > >>setup<< to predict it - as you just were - whereupon you can say, > in that instance only, to some small degree, that you can. But > usually - read: all the time - you can not predict what you will say > next. > > As such, you are quite asleep, that is, your consciousness is asleep > to what is happening therein - the thoughts are occurring, but there > is no one home to witness them. > > That is what awakening is about, also enlightenment, also liberation, > also whatever-you-call-it. > > In each instant, being conscious of what thoughts are flowing through > you, can only be achieved, by certain extraordinary efforts, and when > those efforts are not being made by you, you instantly fall back > asleep. > > Endlessing talking/ " thinking " about ideas, is sleep cubed. > Waking up, is controlling, intentionally, the thoughts flowing > through you, and the effort is tantamount to holding multiple > thoughts simultaneously at bay. > > The best thought to start the process is: " I am here now, I exist " > and when you get better at it, it's just a realization that you exist > where you are, like " coming to " . The second thought to hold at bay, > is " keep watching " . > > Those two thoughts MUST be held in place above your own ordinary, > dreaming consciousness, and when you inevitably drift off into > oblivion (talking/ " thinking " about thoughts) - when you literally > disappear, sometimes for hours, days, weeks - you must come always > back to those two thoughts, held intentionally in your conscious > awareness. Then, consciousness can study itself, in a way it can > NEVER do so otherwise, not by discussing the ideas of others, or > replying to email lists, or daydreaming you're actually awake all the > time, which are most definitely NOT. > > Practice can not be avoided, or dismissed as useless, or regarded as > pointless. That is why most (ok, MOST!!) people on these > " enlightenment " lists are still sound asleep, and don't know it. As > such, what they are talking about, is just talk for the sake of > talking, and worthless. I will try this practice. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > --- anders_lindman <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Anders: Thoughts are binary in that they are about > something which is defined by being everything other > that that something is not. Maybe one can train > oneself to use fuzzy thoughts, or rather, to try to > blur one's own thoughts as they happen, to mix them up > beyond recognition. That would be an interesting > (new?) kind of meditation. > > > Lewis: It is possible to mangle thoughts by why do > that? Perhaps, you can sell the " mangled thought > meditation method " for fifty bucks a pop. " How to > mangle your thoughts beyond recognition. Become a > blithering idiot in seconds! It will sell, I tell, > Anders, it will sell...... > > Anders: LOL, it probably would. > > Lewis: Why train to make fuzzy or mixed up thoughts? > They will simply be fuzzy, blurry, mixed up binary > thoughts. And soon as you stop that game, the same > process of production will continue. Thought > production requires little effort. If one knows how it > >operates one can do something about it. > > Anders: A thought appears as a simple object, but is > in fact an extraordinary complexy yet cohesive entity. > To define a thought about a car for example, we could > define a car as car, but that would be a cyclic > definition and would be cheating. Only by pointing out > _all_ phenomena that the car is _not_ can the car be > truly defined. Such definitons happens automatically > in the brain, and so we can be fooled to believe that > the definition is an easy task, when in fact it is an > almost impossible task. How the brain/mind does this > is an extraordinary mystery. > > > Lewis: All of thought production, as is language > production, is in the darkness, the mystery, and > which, it seems, is forever removed from observation > or understanding in any logical or intellectual sense. > It cannot be seen or examined as we would a chair or > clockworks. We are in that darkness always. It is > possible to gently situate " attention " at the " point > of sensation " of thought emergence, that is, at the > " sensation of thought emergence " as thought appears > from the darkness. In each appearance, this sensation > is different and is experienced differently. But being > so situated, one can see the emergence of the > thought(s) and the " underlying " thought object(s) > held. As fmraerdy pointed out, there may be more than > one or two or three or more and situated gently like > this all can be seen as the thoughts emerge, move, > perturbate or not etc. and disspate. When the > underlying objects held are changed or altered the > thoughts change and alter effortlessly. > > Interesting. This sounds like a more subtle self observation than I have practiced lately. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.