Thought

[Guest guest]

> 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

> >

>

> Stefan: Why do thoughts presupose time?Time is thought,

yes.Yesterday, tomorrow, next week, last year etc. That is all thought.

But thought does not happen yesterday tomorrow etc. It always happens

now. It doesn't need time.It only needs now. Z

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " brian_outlier " <lake.001 wrote:

 

>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

 

From " I am that " :

 

" Your thoughts and feelings exist in succession, they have their span

in time and make you imagine yourself, because of memory, as having

duration. In reality time and space exist in you; you do not exist in

them. They are modes of perception, but they are not the only ones.

Time and space are like words written on paper; the paper is real, the

words merely a convention. "

 

" The mind produces thoughts ceaselessly, even when you do not look at

them. When you know what is going on in your mind, you call it

consciousness. This is your waking state - your consciousness shifts

from sensation to sensation, from perception to perception, from idea

to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the direct

insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the mind. The

mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the body; you

identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and call

it: 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness is

the cognisance of consciousness as a whole. "

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote:

 

>Stefan: Why do thoughts presupose time?Time is thought,

>yes.Yesterday, tomorrow, next week, last year etc. That is all thought.

>But thought does not happen yesterday tomorrow etc. It always happens

>now. It doesn't need time.It only needs now. Z

 

Any event presupposes time, and thought is an event. A thought has

a duration. If not, it could not be recognized, and then it would not

be a thought. And when it is recognized it is already of the past.

 

On the other hand, the timeless has no duration. It cannot be an

event. Only something that was never born, that has never started,

that never came into existence could be called timeless. And this

would also never die. The timeless cannot " happen " .

 

Stefan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge

wrote:

>

> 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

>

 

 

Please remember, Stefan, that thought is verbal talking without voice.

 

When it has voice it is no longter called thought but speaking, in

order to communicate something to another.

 

Thought appears in that language you grew up with: German.

 

If you see that then your question if there is anything else than

thought is the same as asking is there anything else than verbal

communication - nwith voice called speaking or without voice called

thought.

 

Werner

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote:

 

>Please remember, Stefan, that thought is verbal talking without voice.

>When it has voice it is no longter called thought but speaking, in

>order to communicate something to another.

>Thought appears in that language you grew up with: German.

>If you see that then your question if there is anything else than

>thought is the same as asking is there anything else than verbal

>communication - with voice called speaking or without voice called

>thought.

 

Is your definition not too narrow? A symbol, an image, a musical

phrase... an emotion, even the sense of presence (I Am): thoughts.

Solving a mathematical problem is done by thought. A skilled dancer

can " think " in movements. Etc...

 

But to be clearer, I dare to use the term " mind " , or even

" consciousness " for my #1. and #2.:

 

1. consciousness presuppose time.

2. time is itself a part of consciousness (a mental concept)

3. Point 1. and 2. in conjunction make no sense

 

The question is:

Is there anything else than consciousness?

 

Stefan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote:

>

> >Stefan: Why do thoughts presupose time?Time is thought,

> >yes.Yesterday, tomorrow, next week, last year etc. That is all

thought.

> >But thought does not happen yesterday tomorrow etc. It always

happens

> >now. It doesn't need time.It only needs now. Z

>

> Any event presupposes time, and thought is an event. A thought has

> a duration. If not, it could not be recognized, and then it would

not

> be a thought. And when it is recognized it is already of the past.

>

> On the other hand, the timeless has no duration. It cannot be an

> event. Only something that was never born, that has never started,

> that never came into existence could be called timeless. And this

> would also never die. The timeless cannot " happen " .

>

> Stefan

>

Stefan: Time is imagination.Any event is mostly imagination--this

happened, then that happened ,then that happened--that is all

imaginary. It is like ash. The fire is NOW.If you say " This thought

lasted 3 minutes or took three minutes to develop " That is all

history.All you were ever aware of was the Now.It is eternal, has

duration but no time.And saying has duration, even that is wrong

because it involves memory.All we can really say it:there is

now.Time is a picture happening NOW--past picture, future picture,

even present picture--present is a picture since it involves

comparison with past or future.When they say there is no time, it

means this:no future, no past, no present(as picture). Z

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

>

> >Please remember, Stefan, that thought is verbal talking without

voice.

> >When it has voice it is no longter called thought but speaking, in

> >order to communicate something to another.

> >Thought appears in that language you grew up with: German.

> >If you see that then your question if there is anything else than

> >thought is the same as asking is there anything else than verbal

> >communication - with voice called speaking or without voice called

> >thought.

>

> Is your definition not too narrow? A symbol, an image, a musical

> phrase... an emotion, even the sense of presence (I Am): thoughts.

> Solving a mathematical problem is done by thought. A skilled dancer

> can " think " in movements. Etc...

>

> But to be clearer, I dare to use the term " mind " , or even

> " consciousness " for my #1. and #2.:

>

> 1. consciousness presuppose time.

> 2. time is itself a part of consciousness (a mental concept)

> 3. Point 1. and 2. in conjunction make no sense

>

> The question is:

> Is there anything else than consciousness?

>

> Stefan

>

 

 

Stefan,

 

I don'r quite see why time is so important for you. Do you dream of

living in timeless Now ?

 

Surely consciousness needs time but your beating heart does too. You

cannot stop consciousness and you cannot stop your beating heart.

 

Consciousness is all there is.

 

Werner

[Guest guest]

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.

 

 

 

 

Do you think that there is an entity that lives in illusion?

 

How about the possibility that the illusory entity is itself the

fundament and vortex out of which all confusion emamates?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

There can be no escape of an imaginary prisoner from an imaginary

prison but understanding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> All else is just philoophizing in order to escape this fact of having

> no remedy.

>

> Werner

>

 

 

 

 

There is no remedy for a disease that does not exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

..

>

> Consciousness is all there is.

>

> Werner

>

Yes, consciousness is all there is because being is all there is and

being is aware. Z

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote:

>

> 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

>

 

 

 

I think that conceptual thought is merely the naming of perceptions

.....which after receiving a name are mistaken for a reality that

exists outside of their conceptual separation.

 

 

When the concepts " mind " and " thought " are assumed to be objects and

then the mentation-process attempts to analyze its own creations

........things get a little muddled up.

 

The naming of things material can benefit the organism........the

naming of its own internal reflections create a secondary reality that

emerges concurrently with the illusory entity.

 

This phenomena is is the " suffering " of which the Buddha speaks....

the " dream " of Wei Wu Wei....and the " city " of Jan Cox.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote:

>

> .

> >

> > Consciousness is all there is.

> >

> > Werner

> >

> Yes, consciousness is all there is because being is all there is and

> being is aware. Z

>

 

 

 

What is consciousness again?

 

I forgot.

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote:

 

>Stefan: Time is imagination.Any event is mostly imagination--this

>happened, then that happened ,then that happened--that is all

>imaginary. It is like ash. The fire is NOW.If you say " This thought

>lasted 3 minutes or took three minutes to develop " That is all

>history.All you were ever aware of was the Now.It is eternal, has

>duration but no time.And saying has duration, even that is wrong

>because it involves memory.All we can really say it:there is

>now.Time is a picture happening NOW--past picture, future picture,

>even present picture--present is a picture since it involves

>comparison with past or future.When they say there is no time, it

>means this:no future, no past, no present(as picture). Z

 

Of course is time imagination, exactly this was my point.

And it is all history, thats what I am saying.

And yes, it involves memory.

And all this means TIME.

And imagination

Of course.

 

What else are you, Tom, but imagination?

Do you think, this imagined entity

can live in the timeless now?

No! When time is gone, Tom is gone.

And then there is finally silence.

 

You say:

" All we can really say it: there is now "

 

No, no, no!

When " we " say " now " it has already passed.

And when there is " now " there can be no " we " .

This is the mysterium and the beauty:

In the here and now " we " disappear.

 

Nisargadatta has said:

See the false as the false.

He did not say: ignore the false.

He said: see it!

 

And about the real now:

Ask him!

He says that he is there.

And he has something to say

About it.

 

Stefan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote:

 

>I don'r quite see why time is so important for you. Do you dream of

>living in timeless Now ?

>Surely consciousness needs time but your beating heart does too. You

>cannot stop consciousness and you cannot stop your beating heart.

>Consciousness is all there is.

 

Hi Werner,

 

I was waiting for this last statement all the time,

I knew it would come, but for tonight I had almost given up.

I am glad you have finally made up your mind! :-)

 

Now I can complete my list:

 

1. consciousness presupposes time.

2. time is itself a part of consciousness (a mental concept)

3. Point 1. and 2. in conjunction make no sense

4. Consciousness is all there is (no salvation from outside)

5. This means the conflict between point 1 and 2 is unsolvable.

6. Consequently I am forced to negate my own existence.

 

My practical summary is, that it is better

to live with open questions

than to be closed in answers.

 

Stefan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

 

>I think that conceptual thought is merely the naming of perceptions

>....which after receiving a name are mistaken for a reality that

>exists outside of their conceptual separation.

>

>When the concepts " mind " and " thought " are assumed to be objects and

>then the mentation-process attempts to analyze its own creations

>.......things get a little muddled up.

>

>The naming of things material can benefit the organism........the

>naming of its own internal reflections create a secondary reality that

>emerges concurrently with the illusory entity.

>

>This phenomena is is the " suffering " of which the Buddha speaks....

>the " dream " of Wei Wu Wei....and the " city " of Jan Cox.

 

Yes, you are right. But sometimes it is good to stick to a " secondary

reality " in order to clear things up a little. It should never be

forgotten that there is no consciousness, no thought, no mind... when

one really looks this is quite obvious. What is - is - and it reveals

itself all the time... or not? And for whom? Oh no, not again!

 

Stefan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

>

> >I think that conceptual thought is merely the naming of perceptions

> >....which after receiving a name are mistaken for a reality that

> >exists outside of their conceptual separation.

> >

> >When the concepts " mind " and " thought " are assumed to be objects and

> >then the mentation-process attempts to analyze its own creations

> >.......things get a little muddled up.

> >

> >The naming of things material can benefit the organism........the

> >naming of its own internal reflections create a secondary reality that

> >emerges concurrently with the illusory entity.

> >

> >This phenomena is the " suffering " of which the Buddha speaks....

> >the " dream " of Wei Wu Wei....and the " city " of Jan Cox.

>

> Yes, you are right. But sometimes it is good to stick to a " secondary

> reality " in order to clear things up a little.

 

 

 

I wonder if that is possible.

 

It seems similar to working on your nighttime dreams...while dreaming.

 

Perhaps the most that one can hope for is lucid dreaming in any " reality " .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It should never be

> forgotten that there is no consciousness, no thought, no mind... when

> one really looks this is quite obvious. What is - is - and it reveals

> itself all the time... or not? And for whom? Oh no, not again!

>

> Stefan

>

 

 

 

:-)

 

 

 

It's all quite a.............

 

 

 

hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote:

> >

> > 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

> >

>

>

>

> I think that conceptual thought is merely the naming of perceptions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

who is doing the naming???

 

who is the perceiver of the perceptions so named?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> ....which after receiving a name are mistaken for a reality that

> exists outside of their conceptual separation.

 

 

 

 

 

'outside of their perceptual separation'?????????

 

this makes no sense.

 

thought can not deal with....

 

nor does it have consideration for

 

anything outside of it's 'perceived seperation'.

 

it can not and does not 'enter it's mind'

 

 

 

 

 

> When the concepts " mind " and " thought " are assumed to be objects and

> then the mentation-process attempts to analyze its own creations

> .......things get a little muddled up.

>

 

 

 

 

 

not exactly.

 

but armchair philosophers do a dandy job of muddling things up.

 

as has been proven above.

 

and it's accomplished without much 'mentation' process whatsoever.

 

 

 

 

 

> The naming of things material can benefit the organism........the

> naming of its own internal reflections create a secondary reality that

> emerges concurrently with the illusory entity.

>

> This phenomena is is the " suffering " of which the Buddha speaks....

> the " dream " of Wei Wu Wei....and the " city " of Jan Cox.

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....the marketplace of Bernadette Roberts, the Agony in the Garden of

 

Christ, the Donut Delight running out of glazed donuts on the late

 

night police beat, the self emerging, pretentious sounding, loony

 

logic, flotsam and jetsam nonsense coming down the toombaru river, the

 

.....

 

 

my my my...the list is endless.

 

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba "

<Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote:

> > >

> > > 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

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > I think that conceptual thought is merely the naming of perceptions

>

who is doing the naming???

 

 

Why.........that would be the Namer of course.

 

 

>

> who is the perceiver of the perceptions so named?

 

 

 

And that would be the Perceiver.

 

 

 

Bobby,

 

You ask such silly questions.

 

 

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

> What is consciousness again?

>

> I forgot.

>

>

> toombaru

>

Consciousness=knowing=knowledge=everything. The knower, the known, the

knowing are one.How else can it be? Being is a jealous god- not only

shall there be no gods before it, there shall be no anything either

before it or besides it.We know that being is conscious because we know

that we are.We know that we are being because being has , of necessity,

to occupy fully every atom and every nook and cranny of every atom in

order for the atoms and the nooks and crannies there of to exist at

all. Z

[Guest guest]

Thanks for that. Like a breath of fresh air.

 

Just seems to make more sense when it comes from Nis.

 

Thank goodness he wasn't around to have to deal the internet, and his

message is available via books and not message boards!

 

Brian

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " brian_outlier " <lake.001@> wrote:

>

> >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

>

> From " I am that " :

>

> " Your thoughts and feelings exist in succession, they have their span

> in time and make you imagine yourself, because of memory, as having

> duration. In reality time and space exist in you; you do not exist in

> them. They are modes of perception, but they are not the only ones.

> Time and space are like words written on paper; the paper is real, the

> words merely a convention. "

>

> " The mind produces thoughts ceaselessly, even when you do not look at

> them. When you know what is going on in your mind, you call it

> consciousness. This is your waking state - your consciousness shifts

> from sensation to sensation, from perception to perception, from idea

> to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the direct

> insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the mind. The

> mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the body; you

> identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and call

> it: 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness is

> the cognisance of consciousness as a whole. "

>

[Guest guest]

> > 1. consciousness presupposes time.

>

>

Werner: I ask again, why does consciousness presuppose time?Time is

tomorrow , yesterday--it is projection. It is therefore

imaginary.Consciousness abides in the NOW.It doesn't presuppose time.

Time rides across it like John Wayne rides across the screen of a movie

theatre--or used to many and many a year ago. Z

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba "

> <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > 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

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I think that conceptual thought is merely the naming of perceptions

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > who is doing the naming???

>

>

> Why.........that would be the Namer of course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

and what's the Namer's name?

 

 

 

 

 

 

> > who is the perceiver of the perceptions so named?

 

 

 

>

>

>

> And that would be the Perceiver.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and what prithee tell doth the Perceiver perceive?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> Bobby,

>

> You ask such silly questions.

>

>

>

>

> toombaru

 

 

 

 

 

toombaru,

 

 

you give such air-headed, non-answering replies.

 

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " brian_outlier " <lake.001 wrote:

>

> Thanks for that. Like a breath of fresh air.

>

> Just seems to make more sense when it comes from Nis.

>

> Thank goodness he wasn't around to have to deal the internet, and his

> message is available via books and not message boards!

>

> Brian

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Niz had no message.

 

that was the message.

 

burn all the books.

 

..b b.b.

 

 

 

 

******************************NNB*************************************

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " brian_outlier " <lake.001@>

wrote:

> >

> > >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

> >

> > From " I am that " :

> >

> > " Your thoughts and feelings exist in succession, they have their span

> > in time and make you imagine yourself, because of memory, as having

> > duration. In reality time and space exist in you; you do not exist in

> > them. They are modes of perception, but they are not the only ones.

> > Time and space are like words written on paper; the paper is real, the

> > words merely a convention. "

> >

> > " The mind produces thoughts ceaselessly, even when you do not look at

> > them. When you know what is going on in your mind, you call it

> > consciousness. This is your waking state - your consciousness shifts

> > from sensation to sensation, from perception to perception, from idea

> > to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the direct

> > insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the mind. The

> > mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the body; you

> > identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and call

> > it: 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness is

> > the cognisance of consciousness as a whole. "

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote:

>

> > > 1. consciousness presupposes time.

> >

> >

> Werner: I ask again, why does consciousness presuppose time?Time is

> tomorrow , yesterday--it is projection. It is therefore

> imaginary.Consciousness abides in the NOW.It doesn't presuppose time.

> Time rides across it like John Wayne rides across the screen of a

movie

> theatre--or used to many and many a year ago. Z

 

 

Hi Tom,

 

I don't read all posts because my poor eyesight simply doesn't allow it.

So I am sorry if I missed your question and you had to repeat it.

 

But as I could see it wasn't really a question but you rather wanted to

tell your views about time.

 

Nevertheless:

There are two different times, the physial time of the watch and the

psychological time which is past and future.

 

The creation of consciousness in the brain needs time and in addition

it workds serial. The data which has to become conscious is serially

shifted into its corresponding parts of the brain where it is made

conscious. That way we can listen to someone speaking or birds singing,

watch a movies or tv because they all happem serially, bit for bit.

 

Sound waves happen serially, light too, and so on. Thefore one cannot

deny and neglect physical time which repeatedly I have seen on this Niz

list which is utter nonsense.

 

Btw, because til now there was no way to explain what consciousness is

by traditional means of mechanic physics neuroscience has developed a

theory using quantum mechanis which can explain it.

 

Now, you cannot avoid physical time else when time stood still you

instantly had to die when your heart stops beating.

 

But psychological time created by thought is the topic one is

discussing in fora like this here. But often people confuse

psychological time with physical time.

 

Future is the projection of the past and it is just appearing in

thought but nowhere else. Therefore we have only to deal with that one.

 

Werner

 

 

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba "

<Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba "

> > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@>

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > 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

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I think that conceptual thought is merely the naming of

perceptions

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > who is doing the naming???

> >

> >

> > Why.........that would be the Namer of course.

and what's the Namer's name?

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

Bobby,

 

By definition, the one doing the naming would be the namer.

 

The only reality is in the accepted meaning of the words.

 

The namer's name is namer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

>

>

> > > who is the perceiver of the perceptions so named?

>

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> > And that would be the Perceiver.

>

>

>

 

 

The perceiver would by definition be the one who perceives.

 

We are not discussing here the existential reality of a perceiver

separate from that which is perceived but merely the

conceptual-consensus reality.

 

 

 

 

 

>

>

>

>

> and what prithee tell doth the Perceiver perceive?

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

The perceiver perceives perceptions.

 

 

 

>

>

>

> > Bobby,

> >

> > You ask such silly questions.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > toombaru

>

>

>

>

>

> toombaru,

>

>

> you give such air-headed, non-answering replies.

>

>

> .b b.b.

>

 

 

 

 

There is no deeper meaning to words that refer to that which exists

only in the conceptual realm.

 

 

You can't find anything in the names of perceptions.

 

 

 

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba "

> <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba "

> > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@>

> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 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

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I think that conceptual thought is merely the naming of

> perceptions

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > who is doing the naming???

> > >

> > >

> > > Why.........that would be the Namer of course.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > and what's the Namer's name?

> >

> >

> Bobby,

>

> By definition, the one doing the naming would be the namer.

>

> The only reality is in the accepted meaning of the words.

>

> The namer's name is namer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i refer not to a definition.

 

i clearly am referring to the substantive aspect of the defined.

 

who in the namer's named name...

 

is the 'one' who 'defines' and who thus 'is':

 

the phantom defining and 'accepting' the meaning of the emulation?

 

'you' dance with your shadow around and around that simple fact.

 

interesting..

 

and cute as all get out in " Capacity " which is " THAT " allowing it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

> > > > who is the perceiver of the perceptions so named?

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > And that would be the Perceiver.

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> The perceiver would by definition be the one who perceives.

>

> We are not discussing here the existential reality of a perceiver

> separate from that which is perceived but merely the

> conceptual-consensus reality.

>

>

>

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > and what prithee tell doth the Perceiver perceive?

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

> The perceiver perceives perceptions.

>

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> > > Bobby,

> > >

> > > You ask such silly questions.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > toombaru

> >

> >

>

>

> > toombaru,

> >

> >

> > you give such air-headed, non-answering replies.

> >

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

>

>

>

>

> There is no deeper meaning to words that refer to that which exists

> only in the conceptual realm.

>

>

> You can't find anything in the names of perceptions.

>

>

>

>

>

> toombaru

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you have no idea what baba can do.

 

not in your wildest dreams in Vastness do you approach His Glory!

 

Deeps beyond Deeps that exist beyond toombaru's ken..

 

are plumbed through and are made known as Identity in .b bobji.

 

your meanings are as shallow as the conceptual world limiting you.

 

baba offers Grace Unlimited which is made available and free..

 

'you' are that Grace..that Freedom...that Limitlessness..

 

All Certain...All Trusted...All Complete..

 

once and for all...

 

once you quit trying to be that which you aren't..

 

and once you stop being so air-headed as to embarrass yourself so.

 

 

..b b.b.