Guest guest Report post Posted October 19, 2007 Thought, like eyesight, evolved because it helps the organism and its genetic package survive. The thought stream appears to be experienced by the entity but in fact is the origin of the sense of a separate self. Individual though streams emerge within the conceptual dream and form alliances for their mutual protection. Identity is formed by association as the sense of self expands its circle of protective alliances. Similar thought streams are attracted to one another and groups emerge which possess similar goals. The pseudo-entity becomes a member of a city.....a state......a country.....a church....a garden group.......a political party.....a sex club.....or the PTA.......all to prolong and protect its personal identity. This all occurs naturally without any input form the individual entity. It is as helpless as a ripple on a river. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > Thought, like eyesight, evolved because it helps the organism and its > genetic package survive. > > The thought stream appears to be experienced by the entity but in fact > is the origin of the sense of a separate self. > > Individual though streams emerge within the conceptual dream and form > alliances for their mutual protection. > > Identity is formed by association as the sense of self expands its > circle of protective alliances. > > > Similar thought streams are attracted to one another and groups emerge > which possess similar goals. > > > The pseudo-entity becomes a member of a city.....a state......a > country.....a church....a garden group.......a political party.....a > sex club.....or the PTA.......all to prolong and protect its personal > identity. > > This all occurs naturally without any input form the individual entity. > > It is as helpless as a ripple on a river. > > > > > toombaru > you didn't finish your thought. it is not to stop the thought, it is to simply realize that it cannot be believed. A witness if you will. Joe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " joe.irrelevant " <joe.irrelevant wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought, like eyesight, evolved because it helps the organism and > its > > genetic package survive. > > > > The thought stream appears to be experienced by the entity but in > fact > > is the origin of the sense of a separate self. > > > > Individual though streams emerge within the conceptual dream and > form > > alliances for their mutual protection. > > > > Identity is formed by association as the sense of self expands its > > circle of protective alliances. > > > > > > Similar thought streams are attracted to one another and groups > emerge > > which possess similar goals. > > > > > > The pseudo-entity becomes a member of a city.....a state......a > > country.....a church....a garden group.......a political party.....a > > sex club.....or the PTA.......all to prolong and protect its > personal > > identity. > > > > This all occurs naturally without any input form the individual > entity. > > > > It is as helpless as a ripple on a river. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > you didn't finish your thought. > it is not to stop the thought, it is to simply realize that it cannot > be believed. A witness if you will. > Joe > The " witness " is merely another thought. There is no-thing outside of thought. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " joe.irrelevant " > <joe.irrelevant@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought, like eyesight, evolved because it helps the organism and > > its > > > genetic package survive. > > > > > > The thought stream appears to be experienced by the entity but in > > fact > > > is the origin of the sense of a separate self. > > > > > > Individual though streams emerge within the conceptual dream and > > form > > > alliances for their mutual protection. > > > > > > Identity is formed by association as the sense of self expands its > > > circle of protective alliances. > > > > > > > > > Similar thought streams are attracted to one another and groups > > emerge > > > which possess similar goals. > > > > > > > > > The pseudo-entity becomes a member of a city.....a state......a > > > country.....a church....a garden group.......a political party.....a > > > sex club.....or the PTA.......all to prolong and protect its > > personal > > > identity. > > > > > > This all occurs naturally without any input form the individual > > entity. > > > > > > It is as helpless as a ripple on a river. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > you didn't finish your thought. > > it is not to stop the thought, it is to simply realize that it cannot > > be believed. A witness if you will. > > Joe > > > > > The " witness " is merely another thought. > > There is no-thing outside of thought. > > > toombaru > but the background of all thought is awareness. it must be so or a thought would never be realized as being just a thought. Joe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " joe.irrelevant " <joe.irrelevant wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " joe.irrelevant " > > <joe.irrelevant@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought, like eyesight, evolved because it helps the organism > and > > > its > > > > genetic package survive. > > > > > > > > The thought stream appears to be experienced by the entity but > in > > > fact > > > > is the origin of the sense of a separate self. > > > > > > > > Individual though streams emerge within the conceptual dream > and > > > form > > > > alliances for their mutual protection. > > > > > > > > Identity is formed by association as the sense of self expands > its > > > > circle of protective alliances. > > > > > > > > > > > > Similar thought streams are attracted to one another and groups > > > emerge > > > > which possess similar goals. > > > > > > > > > > > > The pseudo-entity becomes a member of a city.....a state......a > > > > country.....a church....a garden group.......a political > party.....a > > > > sex club.....or the PTA.......all to prolong and protect its > > > personal > > > > identity. > > > > > > > > This all occurs naturally without any input form the individual > > > entity. > > > > > > > > It is as helpless as a ripple on a river. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > you didn't finish your thought. > > > it is not to stop the thought, it is to simply realize that it > cannot > > > be believed. A witness if you will. > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > The " witness " is merely another thought. > > > > There is no-thing outside of thought. > > > > > > toombaru > > > but the background of all thought is awareness. it must be so or a > thought would never be realized as being just a thought. > Joe. > Hm, Joe, The background of thought is in the first line communication. Thought is verbal, silently speaking without voice. Some people also think aloud. And consciousness is the world of subjectivity which thought endlessly is verbalizing. And thought gets conscious because consciousness is the world we are sharing. And mostky we verbally share this world. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " joe.irrelevant " > <joe.irrelevant@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " joe.irrelevant " > > > <joe.irrelevant@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought, like eyesight, evolved because it helps the organism > > and > > > > its > > > > > genetic package survive. > > > > > > > > > > The thought stream appears to be experienced by the entity > but > > in > > > > fact > > > > > is the origin of the sense of a separate self. > > > > > > > > > > Individual though streams emerge within the conceptual dream > > and > > > > form > > > > > alliances for their mutual protection. > > > > > > > > > > Identity is formed by association as the sense of self > expands > > its > > > > > circle of protective alliances. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similar thought streams are attracted to one another and > groups > > > > emerge > > > > > which possess similar goals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The pseudo-entity becomes a member of a city.....a > state......a > > > > > country.....a church....a garden group.......a political > > party.....a > > > > > sex club.....or the PTA.......all to prolong and protect its > > > > personal > > > > > identity. > > > > > > > > > > This all occurs naturally without any input form the > individual > > > > entity. > > > > > > > > > > It is as helpless as a ripple on a river. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > you didn't finish your thought. > > > > it is not to stop the thought, it is to simply realize that it > > cannot > > > > be believed. A witness if you will. > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > > The " witness " is merely another thought. > > > > > > There is no-thing outside of thought. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > but the background of all thought is awareness. it must be so or a > > thought would never be realized as being just a thought. > > Joe. > > > > > Hm, Joe, > > The background of thought is in the first line communication. Thought > is verbal, silently speaking without voice. Some people also think > aloud. And consciousness is the world of subjectivity which thought > endlessly is verbalizing. > > And thought gets conscious because consciousness is the world we are > sharing. And mostky we verbally share this world. > > Werner > When do we make thoughts 'ours'? When we hear someone else's words--written or spoken? When it comes from nowhere? When we comtemplate/meditate? That's the crux of the issue. Knowing the source. Moreover, to ask the first question. IMHExperience. Peace, Anna Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " joe.irrelevant " > > <joe.irrelevant@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " joe.irrelevant " > > > > <joe.irrelevant@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought, like eyesight, evolved because it helps the organism > > > and > > > > > its > > > > > > genetic package survive. > > > > > > > > > > > > The thought stream appears to be experienced by the entity > > but > > > in > > > > > fact > > > > > > is the origin of the sense of a separate self. > > > > > > > > > > > > Individual though streams emerge within the conceptual dream > > > and > > > > > form > > > > > > alliances for their mutual protection. > > > > > > > > > > > > Identity is formed by association as the sense of self > > expands > > > its > > > > > > circle of protective alliances. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similar thought streams are attracted to one another and > > groups > > > > > emerge > > > > > > which possess similar goals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The pseudo-entity becomes a member of a city.....a > > state......a > > > > > > country.....a church....a garden group.......a political > > > party.....a > > > > > > sex club.....or the PTA.......all to prolong and protect its > > > > > personal > > > > > > identity. > > > > > > > > > > > > This all occurs naturally without any input form the > > individual > > > > > entity. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is as helpless as a ripple on a river. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > you didn't finish your thought. > > > > > it is not to stop the thought, it is to simply realize that it > > > cannot > > > > > be believed. A witness if you will. > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The " witness " is merely another thought. > > > > > > > > There is no-thing outside of thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > but the background of all thought is awareness. it must be so or a > > > thought would never be realized as being just a thought. > > > Joe. > > > > > > > > > Hm, Joe, > > > > The background of thought is in the first line communication. Thought > > is verbal, silently speaking without voice. Some people also think > > aloud. And consciousness is the world of subjectivity which thought > > endlessly is verbalizing. > > > > And thought gets conscious because consciousness is the world we are > > sharing. And mostky we verbally share this world. > > > > Werner > > > > > > When do we make thoughts 'ours'? When we hear someone else's > words--written or spoken? When it comes from nowhere? When we > comtemplate/meditate? Ho Anna, If I haven't understood you wrong then you want to know where from and why do thoughts spring from when they always seem to arise from nowhere ? There are external and internal physical impulses which at first start an uncious szatz and then a conscious chain of thoughts but there are also impulses which I have read follow the chaos theory: Very tiny impulses, the movement of an atom, can start a new chain of thought without any recohnizable reason. That way thoughts also can be fresh and new and so seemingly appearing to be creative. Werner > > That's the crux of the issue. Knowing the source. Moreover, to ask > the first question. > > IMHExperience. > > > Peace, > Anna > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " joe.irrelevant " <joe.irrelevant wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " joe.irrelevant " > > <joe.irrelevant@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought, like eyesight, evolved because it helps the organism > and > > > its > > > > genetic package survive. > > > > > > > > The thought stream appears to be experienced by the entity but > in > > > fact > > > > is the origin of the sense of a separate self. > > > > > > > > Individual though streams emerge within the conceptual dream > and > > > form > > > > alliances for their mutual protection. > > > > > > > > Identity is formed by association as the sense of self expands > its > > > > circle of protective alliances. > > > > > > > > > > > > Similar thought streams are attracted to one another and groups > > > emerge > > > > which possess similar goals. > > > > > > > > > > > > The pseudo-entity becomes a member of a city.....a state......a > > > > country.....a church....a garden group.......a political > party.....a > > > > sex club.....or the PTA.......all to prolong and protect its > > > personal > > > > identity. > > > > > > > > This all occurs naturally without any input form the individual > > > entity. > > > > > > > > It is as helpless as a ripple on a river. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > you didn't finish your thought. > > > it is not to stop the thought, it is to simply realize that it > cannot > > > be believed. A witness if you will. > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > The " witness " is merely another thought. > > > > There is no-thing outside of thought. > > > > > > toombaru > > > but the background of all thought is awareness. it must be so or a > thought would never be realized as being just a thought. > Joe. > The background of thought is sentience. Awareness and consciousness refer to the same phenomenon. Conceptual mentation......the naming process...and the resulting incessant roof-brain chatter names itself " thought " . Once it has given some " thing " a name....implicit is the assumption of its existential reality. Actually there is no such thing as " thought " . Oh.....I know......it seems so real doesn't it? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 20, 2007 Hi ladies and gentlemen, exploring the question about the origin of thought you both have presupposed the existence of time (and space). Rightly so, because without time there would be no thoughts. Agreed? On the other hand, time itself does exist as a thought only. Is this also correct? Well, then it follows that the mental concept " time " itself depends on time. This makes no sense, and one has to conclude that neither time nor any other thoughts are real. And because one cannot negate ones own existence it has to follow, that there must exist something real (other than thought). Sorry, this is not an attempt to go into the same old fruitless discussions, it is a real question (amongst others, admittedly) and not to ask them would mean, IMO, to hide ones head in the sand. Stefan >--- " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: >When do we make thoughts 'ours'? When we hear someone else's >words--written or spoken? When it comes from nowhere? When we >comtemplate/meditate? >That's the crux of the issue. Knowing the source. Moreover, to ask >the first question. >--- " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr replied: >If I haven't understood you wrong then you want to know where from >and why do thoughts spring from when they always seem to arise from >nowhere ? >There are external and internal physical impulses which at first >start an uncious szatz and then a conscious chain of thoughts but >there are also impulses which I have read follow the chaos theory: >Very tiny impulses, the movement of an atom, can start a new chain of >thought without any recohnizable reason. >That way thoughts also can be fresh and new and so seemingly >appearing to be creative. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 20, 2007 no.. no 'one' has a head to hide in the sand nor the in the sky. all is open and free and without focus or focal point. any apparent 'problem' is of apparency only and is without substance. the question posed is it's own answer. the answer is the negation that ever lasts... always in all ways, forever whilst the 'questioner' lasts. when the questioner and the question vanish... Ahhhhhh..... .... .. . *******************************NNB************************************ Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Hi ladies and gentlemen, > > exploring the question about the origin of thought you both have > presupposed the existence of time (and space). Rightly so, because > without time there would be no thoughts. Agreed? On the other hand, > time itself does exist as a thought only. Is this also correct? > > Well, then it follows that the mental concept " time " itself depends on > time. This makes no sense, and one has to conclude that neither time > nor any other thoughts are real. And because one cannot negate ones > own existence it has to follow, that there must exist something real > (other than thought). > > Sorry, this is not an attempt to go into the same old fruitless > discussions, it is a real question (amongst others, admittedly) > and not to ask them would mean, IMO, to hide ones head in the sand. > > Stefan > > >--- " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > >When do we make thoughts 'ours'? When we hear someone else's > >words--written or spoken? When it comes from nowhere? When we > >comtemplate/meditate? > >That's the crux of the issue. Knowing the source. Moreover, to ask > >the first question. > > > >--- " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> replied: > > >If I haven't understood you wrong then you want to know where from > >and why do thoughts spring from when they always seem to arise from > >nowhere ? > >There are external and internal physical impulses which at first > >start an uncious szatz and then a conscious chain of thoughts but > >there are also impulses which I have read follow the chaos theory: > >Very tiny impulses, the movement of an atom, can start a new chain of > >thought without any recohnizable reason. > >That way thoughts also can be fresh and new and so seemingly > >appearing to be creative. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 20, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Hi ladies and gentlemen, > > exploring the question about the origin of thought you both have > presupposed the existence of time (and space). Rightly so, because > without time there would be no thoughts. Agreed? On the other hand, > time itself does exist as a thought only. Is this also correct? > > Well, then it follows that the mental concept " time " itself depends on > time. This makes no sense, and one has to conclude that neither time > nor any other thoughts are real. And because one cannot negate ones > own existence it has to follow, that there must exist something real > (other than thought). > > Sorry, this is not an attempt to go into the same old fruitless > discussions, it is a real question (amongst others, admittedly) > and not to ask them would mean, IMO, to hide ones head in the sand. > > Stefan > > >--- " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > >When do we make thoughts 'ours'? When we hear someone else's > >words--written or spoken? When it comes from nowhere? When we > >comtemplate/meditate? > >That's the crux of the issue. Knowing the source. Moreover, to ask > >the first question. > > > >--- " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> replied: > > >If I haven't understood you wrong then you want to know where from > >and why do thoughts spring from when they always seem to arise from > >nowhere ? > >There are external and internal physical impulses which at first > >start an uncious szatz and then a conscious chain of thoughts but > >there are also impulses which I have read follow the chaos theory: > >Very tiny impulses, the movement of an atom, can start a new chain of > >thought without any recohnizable reason. > >That way thoughts also can be fresh and new and so seemingly > >appearing to be creative. > Hi Stefan, I did not understand what you meant with thought and time. Maybe it is because I cannot relate thought to philosophy. Thinking or thought is a fact one cannot meet and change in any way with the help of logic and philosophy. But a simple question: Is there any difference between thinking and speaking ? In my understanding thinking is just voiceless speaking and speaking is thinking aloud. In both cases the motivation is communication, a social function. If one is alone with no one around and yet thinking (voceless speaking) endlessly is going on then what is the drive behind ? It seems there is only one reason: The fear of remaining alone in this vast solitude of the void. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 20, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > wrote: > > > > Hi ladies and gentlemen, > > > > exploring the question about the origin of thought you both have > > presupposed the existence of time (and space). Rightly so, because > > without time there would be no thoughts. Agreed? On the other hand, > > time itself does exist as a thought only. Is this also correct? > > > > Well, then it follows that the mental concept " time " itself depends > on > > time. This makes no sense, and one has to conclude that neither time > > nor any other thoughts are real. And because one cannot negate ones > > own existence it has to follow, that there must exist something real > > (other than thought). > > > > Sorry, this is not an attempt to go into the same old fruitless > > discussions, it is a real question (amongst others, admittedly) > > and not to ask them would mean, IMO, to hide ones head in the sand. > > > > Stefan > > > > >--- " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > >When do we make thoughts 'ours'? When we hear someone else's > > >words--written or spoken? When it comes from nowhere? When we > > >comtemplate/meditate? > > >That's the crux of the issue. Knowing the source. Moreover, to > ask > > >the first question. > > > > > > >--- " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> replied: > > > > >If I haven't understood you wrong then you want to know where from > > >and why do thoughts spring from when they always seem to arise > from > > >nowhere ? > > >There are external and internal physical impulses which at first > > >start an uncious szatz and then a conscious chain of thoughts but > > >there are also impulses which I have read follow the chaos theory: > > >Very tiny impulses, the movement of an atom, can start a new chain > of > > >thought without any recohnizable reason. > > >That way thoughts also can be fresh and new and so seemingly > > >appearing to be creative. > > > > > Hi Stefan, > > I did not understand what you meant with thought and time. Maybe it > is because I cannot relate thought to philosophy. Thinking or thought > is a fact one cannot meet and change in any way with the help of > logic and philosophy. > > But a simple question: > > Is there any difference between thinking and speaking ? > > In my understanding thinking is just voiceless speaking and speaking > is thinking aloud. In both cases the motivation is communication, a > social function. > > If one is alone with no one around and yet thinking (voceless > speaking) endlessly is going on then what is the drive behind ? > > It seems there is only one reason: The fear of remaining alone in > this vast solitude of the void. > > Werner 'you' are always alone there are no 'others'. 'fearing' is an identity assumed by a vapor. the vastness does not acknowledge. Haaaaaaa...ahhhhhh... ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 20, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: >I did not understand what you meant with thought and time. Maybe it >is because I cannot relate thought to philosophy. Thinking or thought >is a fact one cannot meet and change in any way with the help of >logic and philosophy. Hi Werner, I agree, but this is not relevant (I did not want to change anything). Does a mental conception, like the one of time, belong to the realm of thoughts and thinking, yes or no? If yes, my question still stands (see below). If no, we have to talk about the question where time and space are coming from. Stefan >Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > wrote: > >exploring the question about the origin of thought you both have >presupposed the existence of time (and space). Rightly so, because >without time there would be no thoughts. Agreed? On the other hand, >time itself does exist as a thought only. Is this also correct? >Well, then it follows that the mental concept " time " itself depends >on time. This makes no sense, and one has to conclude that neither >time nor any other thoughts are real. And because one cannot negate >ones own existence it has to follow, that there must exist something >real (other than thought). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 20, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > >I did not understand what you meant with thought and time. Maybe it > >is because I cannot relate thought to philosophy. Thinking or thought > >is a fact one cannot meet and change in any way with the help of > >logic and philosophy. > > Hi Werner, > > I agree, but this is not relevant (I did not want to change anything). > Does a mental conception, like the one of time, belong to the realm of > thoughts and thinking, yes or no? If yes, my question still stands > (see below). If no, we have to talk about the question where time and > space are coming from. > > Stefan Surely, Stefan, Conepts belong to thought and therefore also the concepts of time and space. I told you that I haven't understood you. And I see also nothing you should change and why you should. But I wonder if you have realized that my main interest was not time and space but to convey why thought is constantly babbling ? And that is much, much more relevant, at least I think so. It seems that no one wants to face this fear of remaining alone, which in my eyes is the main if not only reason why thought can't be quiet and so by endless babbling it creates the illusion of not being alone. It is similar like whistling in a dark forest Werner > > > >Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > > wrote: > > > >exploring the question about the origin of thought you both have > >presupposed the existence of time (and space). Rightly so, because > >without time there would be no thoughts. Agreed? On the other hand, > >time itself does exist as a thought only. Is this also correct? > >Well, then it follows that the mental concept " time " itself depends > >on time. This makes no sense, and one has to conclude that neither > >time nor any other thoughts are real. And because one cannot negate > >ones own existence it has to follow, that there must exist something > >real (other than thought). > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 20, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > >I did not understand what you meant with thought and time. Maybe > it > > >is because I cannot relate thought to philosophy. Thinking or > thought > > >is a fact one cannot meet and change in any way with the help of > > >logic and philosophy. > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > I agree, but this is not relevant (I did not want to change > anything). > > Does a mental conception, like the one of time, belong to the realm > of > > thoughts and thinking, yes or no? If yes, my question still stands > > (see below). If no, we have to talk about the question where time > and > > space are coming from. > > > > Stefan > > > Surely, Stefan, > > Conepts belong to thought and therefore also the concepts of time and > space. I told you that I haven't understood you. And I see also > nothing you should change and why you should. > > But I wonder if you have realized that my main interest was not time > and space but to convey why thought is constantly babbling ? And that > is much, much more relevant, at least I think so. > > It seems that no one wants to face this fear of remaining alone, > which in my eyes is the main if not only reason why thought can't be > quiet and so by endless babbling it creates the illusion of not being > alone. It is similar like whistling in a dark forest > > Werner > > It appears here that the unrelenting thought stream is needed to sustain the illusion of a separate entity. Those moments in meditation.....runner's high.....sportman's groove...sexual orgasm.....when the thinking machine is not pumping out thoughts....the entity disappears. Thought.....it appears......is the necessary ingredient in the formation of the dream of separation. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 20, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > >I did not understand what you meant with thought and time. Maybe it > >is because I cannot relate thought to philosophy. Thinking or thought > >is a fact one cannot meet and change in any way with the help of > >logic and philosophy. > > Hi Werner, > > I agree, but this is not relevant (I did not want to change anything). > Does a mental conception, like the one of time, belong to the realm of > thoughts and thinking, yes or no? If yes, my question still stands > (see below). If no, we have to talk about the question where time and > space are coming from. > > Stefan > > > >Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > > wrote: > > > >exploring the question about the origin of thought you both have > >presupposed the existence of time (and space). Rightly so, because > >without time there would be no thoughts. Agreed? On the other hand, > >time itself does exist as a thought only. Is this also correct? > >Well, then it follows that the mental concept " time " itself depends > >on time. This makes no sense, and one has to conclude that neither > >time nor any other thoughts are real. And because one cannot negate > >ones own existence it has to follow, that there must exist something > >real (other than thought). P: Everything is real. Unreality doesn't exist. An illusion is just a misinterpretation of reality. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 20, 2007 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > >I did not understand what you meant with thought and time. Maybe it > > >is because I cannot relate thought to philosophy. Thinking or thought > > >is a fact one cannot meet and change in any way with the help of > > >logic and philosophy. > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > I agree, but this is not relevant (I did not want to change anything). > > Does a mental conception, like the one of time, belong to the realm of > > thoughts and thinking, yes or no? If yes, my question still stands > > (see below). If no, we have to talk about the question where time and > > space are coming from. > > > > Stefan > > > > > > >Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > > > wrote: > > > > > >exploring the question about the origin of thought you both have > > >presupposed the existence of time (and space). Rightly so, because > > >without time there would be no thoughts. Agreed? On the other hand, > > >time itself does exist as a thought only. Is this also correct? > > >Well, then it follows that the mental concept " time " itself depends > > >on time. This makes no sense, and one has to conclude that neither > > >time nor any other thoughts are real. And because one cannot negate > > >ones own existence it has to follow, that there must exist something > > >real (other than thought). > > P: Everything is real. Unreality doesn't exist. An illusion is just > a misinterpretation of reality. > > > What is a thing? Can you give an example? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 20, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: >Conepts belong to thought and therefore also the concepts of time and >space. I told you that I haven't understood you. And I see also >nothing you should change and why you should. >But I wonder if you have realized that my main interest was not time >and space but to convey why thought is constantly babbling ? And that >is much, much more relevant, at least I think so. >It seems that no one wants to face this fear of remaining alone, >which in my eyes is the main if not only reason why thought can't be >quiet and so by endless babbling it creates the illusion of not being >alone. It is similar like whistling in a dark forest Dear Werner, I agree with you in that matter of the inner dialog, no problem. But I had used Annas question concerning the " source of thought " (and your explanation) as an excuse to offer my two cents about source, time and thought. For me those two cents are not theoretical or philosophical, not more or less than your observation about the babbling mind. You say, that you do not understand me, so I will rephrase my observation. 1. thoughts presuppose time. 2. time is itself a thought (mental concept) 3. Point 1. and 2. in conjunction make no sense If you still find this too theoretical, please close your eyes and try to find a thought which is not happening in time. I suppose it will not be possible. Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 20, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > >I did not understand what you meant with thought and time. Maybe > > it > > > >is because I cannot relate thought to philosophy. Thinking or > > thought > > > >is a fact one cannot meet and change in any way with the help of > > > >logic and philosophy. > > > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > > > I agree, but this is not relevant (I did not want to change > > anything). > > > Does a mental conception, like the one of time, belong to the realm > > of > > > thoughts and thinking, yes or no? If yes, my question still stands > > > (see below). If no, we have to talk about the question where time > > and > > > space are coming from. > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > Surely, Stefan, > > > > Conepts belong to thought and therefore also the concepts of time and > > space. I told you that I haven't understood you. And I see also > > nothing you should change and why you should. > > > > But I wonder if you have realized that my main interest was not time > > and space but to convey why thought is constantly babbling ? And that > > is much, much more relevant, at least I think so. > > > > It seems that no one wants to face this fear of remaining alone, > > which in my eyes is the main if not only reason why thought can't be > > quiet and so by endless babbling it creates the illusion of not being > > alone. It is similar like whistling in a dark forest > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > It appears here that the unrelenting thought stream is needed to > sustain the illusion of a separate entity. > > Those moments in meditation.....runner's high.....sportman's > groove...sexual orgasm.....when the thinking machine is not pumping > out thoughts....the entity disappears. > > > Thought.....it appears......is the necessary ingredient in the > formation of the dream of separation. > > > toombaru > Why not just staying with the fact that thought endlessly is babbling, Tomb ? You see, we live in the illusion of being a separate entity, at least I do it, and that illusion is a fact we have no remedy for. And there is no escape as long as thought is needing an exsiting object to have a real reference for the noun " I " or " Me " - mo matter to which ideas, hopes and explanations one is refuging. All else is just philoophizing in order to escape this fact of having no remedy. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 20, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > >I did not understand what you meant with thought and time. Maybe it > > > >is because I cannot relate thought to philosophy. Thinking or > thought > > > >is a fact one cannot meet and change in any way with the help of > > > >logic and philosophy. > > > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > > > I agree, but this is not relevant (I did not want to change anything). > > > Does a mental conception, like the one of time, belong to the realm of > > > thoughts and thinking, yes or no? If yes, my question still stands > > > (see below). If no, we have to talk about the question where time and > > > space are coming from. > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > >Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >exploring the question about the origin of thought you both have > > > >presupposed the existence of time (and space). Rightly so, because > > > >without time there would be no thoughts. Agreed? On the other hand, > > > >time itself does exist as a thought only. Is this also correct? > > > >Well, then it follows that the mental concept " time " itself depends > > > >on time. This makes no sense, and one has to conclude that neither > > > >time nor any other thoughts are real. And because one cannot negate > > > >ones own existence it has to follow, that there must exist something > > > >real (other than thought). > > > > P: Everything is real. Unreality doesn't exist. An illusion is just > > a misinterpretation of reality. > > > > > > > >T: What is a thing? > > Can you give an example? P: Sure, I'll be happy to tell you how I make things. By a combination of attention, imagination and thoughts I draw forms on the blank of the whole. Much lile a painter draws on a piece of paper. Whatever attention focus on becomes a thing, no matter if its a tree, a thought, a feeling, or a rope taken as as a nake. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 20, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > >I did not understand what you meant with thought and time. > Maybe > > > it > > > > >is because I cannot relate thought to philosophy. Thinking or > > > thought > > > > >is a fact one cannot meet and change in any way with the help > of > > > > >logic and philosophy. > > > > > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > > > > > I agree, but this is not relevant (I did not want to change > > > anything). > > > > Does a mental conception, like the one of time, belong to the > realm > > > of > > > > thoughts and thinking, yes or no? If yes, my question still > stands > > > > (see below). If no, we have to talk about the question where > time > > > and > > > > space are coming from. > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > Surely, Stefan, > > > > > > Conepts belong to thought and therefore also the concepts of time > and > > > space. I told you that I haven't understood you. And I see also > > > nothing you should change and why you should. > > > > > > But I wonder if you have realized that my main interest was not > time > > > and space but to convey why thought is constantly babbling ? And > that > > > is much, much more relevant, at least I think so. > > > > > > It seems that no one wants to face this fear of remaining alone, > > > which in my eyes is the main if not only reason why thought can't > be > > > quiet and so by endless babbling it creates the illusion of not > being > > > alone. It is similar like whistling in a dark forest > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears here that the unrelenting thought stream is needed to > > sustain the illusion of a separate entity. > > > > Those moments in meditation.....runner's high.....sportman's > > groove...sexual orgasm.....when the thinking machine is not pumping > > out thoughts....the entity disappears. > > > > > > Thought.....it appears......is the necessary ingredient in the > > formation of the dream of separation. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > Why not just staying with the fact that thought endlessly is > babbling, Tomb ? > > You see, we live in the illusion of being a separate entity, at least > I do it, and that illusion is a fact we have no remedy for. And there > is no escape as long as thought is needing an exsiting object to have > a real reference for the noun " I " or " Me " - mo matter to which ideas, > hopes and explanations one is refuging. > > All else is just philoophizing in order to escape this fact of having > no remedy. > > Werner and that explanation is made.... just to escape the fact... that it doesn't explain a goddamn thing. there is more aware clarity in a Romper Room than in your philosophy. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 20, 2007 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: >P: Everything is real. Unreality doesn't exist. An illusion is just >a misinterpretation of reality. True, but when I said " unreal " I meant that it is impossible. But maybe it is possible, I don't know. For sure it is a big joke. Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 20, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > >Conepts belong to thought and therefore also the concepts of time and > >space. I told you that I haven't understood you. And I see also > >nothing you should change and why you should. > >But I wonder if you have realized that my main interest was not time > >and space but to convey why thought is constantly babbling ? And that > >is much, much more relevant, at least I think so. > >It seems that no one wants to face this fear of remaining alone, > >which in my eyes is the main if not only reason why thought can't be > >quiet and so by endless babbling it creates the illusion of not being > >alone. It is similar like whistling in a dark forest > > Dear Werner, I agree with you in that matter of the inner dialog, no > problem. But I had used Annas question concerning the " source of > thought " (and your explanation) as an excuse to offer my two cents > about source, time and thought. For me those two cents are not > theoretical or philosophical, not more or less than your observation > about the babbling mind. You say, that you do not understand me, so I > will rephrase my observation. > > 1. thoughts presuppose time. > 2. time is itself a thought (mental concept) > 3. Point 1. and 2. in conjunction make no sense > > If you still find this too theoretical, please close your eyes and try > to find a thought which is not happening in time. I suppose it will > not be possible. > > Stefan > Ok, Stefan, You are so right. And because you have realized this tremendous observation that point 1 and 2 together make no sense you now have got a quiet mind as soon you are alone and no longer any thought is chattering - great. Werner Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 20, 2007 Nisargdatta spoke about Thought(s) often. I don't have any of his books with me now though. Anyone know what his opinions about thoughts were? I think he had things put into the proper perspective, spiritually speaking. Brian Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 20, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: >Ok, Stefan, > >You are so right. And because you have realized this tremendous >observation that point 1 and 2 together make no sense you now have >got a quiet mind as soon you are alone and no longer any thought is >chattering - great. Well, I do not think that the mind can be quiet. It is its very nature to babble. When it is quiet it means it is not there. But the question that follows from point 1. and 2. is: Can it be " not there " ? Is there anything else than thoughts? What do you think? Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
