Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > Amen and aaaaaah-choooo! > > > > Oops, a house of cards fell down. > > > > Sorry for my allergy. > > That's 'k, someone will build it back up again :-p. Sure, it must be kept going at all costs. Lots of emotion says so. Identification requires it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:53 PM > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > " Thought is not divided from the unthinkable. " > > > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we understand this? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > Thought doesn't understand anything. > > > > > > > > > > And there is no we apart from thought. > > > > > > > > > > The understanding does not involve understanding anything. > > > > > > > > > > We talk about it to befuddle thought more than it's already > > > > > befuddled. > > > > > > > > > > As if that were possible. > > > > > > > > Thought isn't befuddled here. Everything seems quite clear. > > > > > > You have a thought here? > > > > > > You are befuddled. > > > > Nobody said " I have a thought here " or " you have a thought here " . What was > > said is: " Thought isn't befuddled here " . > > Thought has never occurred here. Befuddled or unbefuddled. > > There is only here, here. > > I celebrate the befuddled thought. > > geo> You dont think? Thoughts, perceptions, feelings, come and go. No problem at all. Yet, here is here, unperceived and untouched by thought. Here is not somewhere else. Thoughts, perceptions arise/dissolve, and they are never here. And they aren't someplace else. Thought believes perception occurs in time, forms around relationships involving time. Thought can't touch here, the timeless one, yet thoughts realities are freely arising/dissolving. Like bubbles forming in the void, multicolored, with content that is indeed void .... This void is full of energy, has never been described. You could say that thought, although not touching here in terms of content, opinion, belief, etc., still has an instantaneous contact at this very now-moment, because there is no thought apart from energy. This can't really be described as contact though, because there is no thought content, no relationship for thought to have, etc. At this instant, thought has not formed, has not dissolved, and neither is nor is not. Thus, the teaching: there is neither creation nor destruction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:27 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:53 PM > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > " Thought is not divided from the unthinkable. " > > > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we understand this? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > Thought doesn't understand anything. > > > > > > > > > > And there is no we apart from thought. > > > > > > > > > > The understanding does not involve understanding anything. > > > > > > > > > > We talk about it to befuddle thought more than it's already > > > > > befuddled. > > > > > > > > > > As if that were possible. > > > > > > > > Thought isn't befuddled here. Everything seems quite clear. > > > > > > You have a thought here? > > > > > > You are befuddled. > > > > Nobody said " I have a thought here " or " you have a thought here " . What > > was > > said is: " Thought isn't befuddled here " . > > Thought has never occurred here. Befuddled or unbefuddled. > > There is only here, here. > > I celebrate the befuddled thought. > > geo> You dont think? Thoughts, perceptions, feelings, come and go. No problem at all. Yet, here is here, unperceived and untouched by thought. Here is not somewhere else. Thoughts, perceptions arise/dissolve, and they are never here. And they aren't someplace else. Thought believes perception occurs in time, forms around relationships involving time. Thought can't touch here, the timeless one, yet thoughts realities are freely arising/dissolving. Like bubbles forming in the void, multicolored, with content that is indeed void ... This void is full of energy, has never been described. You could say that thought, although not touching here in terms of content, opinion, belief, etc., still has an instantaneous contact at this very now-moment, because there is no thought apart from energy. This can't really be described as contact though, because there is no thought content, no relationship for thought to have, etc. At this instant, thought has not formed, has not dissolved, and neither is nor is not. Thus, the teaching: there is neither creation nor destruction. geo> is there any fundamental difference in the nature of a moving arm or leg, vibrations in the eardrums, colors dancing in the retina.....and thoughts? Is not this organism a child of the unknown, the unthinkable? Why thoughts not? It is in this sense that a agree with the statement on top: " Thought is not divided from the unthinkable. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 - geo Nisargadatta Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:50 PM Re: Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:27 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:53 PM > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > " Thought is not divided from the unthinkable. " > > > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we understand this? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > Thought doesn't understand anything. > > > > > > > > > > And there is no we apart from thought. > > > > > > > > > > The understanding does not involve understanding anything. > > > > > > > > > > We talk about it to befuddle thought more than it's already > > > > > befuddled. > > > > > > > > > > As if that were possible. > > > > > > > > Thought isn't befuddled here. Everything seems quite clear. > > > > > > You have a thought here? > > > > > > You are befuddled. > > > > Nobody said " I have a thought here " or " you have a thought here " . What > > was > > said is: " Thought isn't befuddled here " . > > Thought has never occurred here. Befuddled or unbefuddled. > > There is only here, here. > > I celebrate the befuddled thought. > > geo> You dont think? Thoughts, perceptions, feelings, come and go. No problem at all. Yet, here is here, unperceived and untouched by thought. Here is not somewhere else. Thoughts, perceptions arise/dissolve, and they are never here. And they aren't someplace else. Thought believes perception occurs in time, forms around relationships involving time. Thought can't touch here, the timeless one, yet thoughts realities are freely arising/dissolving. Like bubbles forming in the void, multicolored, with content that is indeed void ... This void is full of energy, has never been described. You could say that thought, although not touching here in terms of content, opinion, belief, etc., still has an instantaneous contact at this very now-moment, because there is no thought apart from energy. This can't really be described as contact though, because there is no thought content, no relationship for thought to have, etc. At this instant, thought has not formed, has not dissolved, and neither is nor is not. Thus, the teaching: there is neither creation nor destruction. geo> is there any fundamental difference in the nature of a moving arm or leg, vibrations in the eardrums, colors dancing in the retina.....and thoughts? Is not this organism a child of the unknown, the unthinkable? Why thoughts not? It is in this sense that a agree with the statement on top: " Thought is not divided from the unthinkable. " ....and I understand what you are saying, yes. Thought creates problems when there is a thinker....as if an entity thinking its thoughts, reinforcing the sense of separateness. Thought solving some practical issue may not be a trouble at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > geo> is there any fundamental difference in the nature of a moving arm or > leg, vibrations in the eardrums, colors dancing in the retina.....and > thoughts? > Is not this organism a child of the unknown, the unthinkable? Why thoughts > not? It is in this sense that a agree with the statement on top: " Thought is > not divided from the unthinkable. " I don't view things as actually separated, except perceptually, sensorily. My view of thought is that it is not separately existing from the no-thought truth. Yet, thought constructs realities of apparent separation. So, this is what I'm addressing when I say that no thought touches here. Diversity and unity are not separable. Now, when you ask me how I see things like a moving arm, a vibration in a retina, and thought, I need to clarify. Anything that is formed is related to thought, which is related to perception, sensation, memory, formation of time and space. All of these things go together, and I'm using thought to simply communication. So, I'm not referring to thought as a separated out activity in a localized brain when I make a statement like " no thought touches here. " I'm referring to thought that allows us to construct the image of a brain, the image of a retina, the image of a moving arm. When I speak of the image of a moving arm, I include the sense of weight, the location in space, the texture of the skin. I hope this clarifies for you how I'm using the term " thought " when I say that " thought doesn't touch here. " Thoughtforms depend on oppositions, opposing qualities, contrasts. Word meanings involve thought. So, I am like Don Quixote, dreaming the impossible dream. I'm using words to represent, where no representation is possible. It's fun for me, even thought it's futile. How to let people know about a truth with no opposite? How to let people know this - when the very perception of people I'm communicating with, depends on thought? It's hilarious actually. And the truth of this is freedom itself. So, why not go ahead and speak the unspeakable, have thoughts of no content that can't be located, share this which has no opposite and therefore no one outside of it to be shared with? A practice in futility. But we're smiling, so it's okay. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > ...and I understand what you are saying, yes. Thought creates problems when > there is a thinker....as if an entity thinking its thoughts, reinforcing the > sense of > separateness. Thought solving some practical issue may not be a trouble at > all. Thought tends to form with the contradictory conceptualization of a thinker apart from the thought. The reason this happens is due to the time template that thought involves. So, there apparently must be a " user " of thought, using thought formulations to get something over time. Thoughtforms also rely on an inside/outside division. So, there must be a being or awareness " in here " that is using thought to accomplish something " out there. " So, even though thought tends to view itself as a phenomena that occurs in time, for the use of thinker, to solve problems that have a solution that occurs in time - the actuality is different. Just as the thinker is not apart from the thought, neither is the problem, the practical issue. The practical issue thought solves is thought formulated. So thought goes on in a circular way, generating problems to be solved, with the solutions occurring over time, for the benefit of the thinker, on and on. When the instant of insight (now) occurs (now), the simultaneity is understood: thinker/thought external world/internal awareness problem/solution thought/thought-less truth time/no-time is/are unspeakably nondivided. This insight (now) changes everything, although nothing has been changed. Because internal/external are one, and because this involves no time, there is no occurrence as a perceived change of things in time, which are perceived in terms of separate things and events - separated over time and in location. Everything changes, nothing apparently is different. Thoughts still occur in human brains as always. Thinkers are imagined who are gaining benefits over time as thought solves problems. The conflicts that thought generates (me vs. you, having vs. losing, victory vs. defeat, pleasure vs. pain, etc.) continue building as humans evolve over time. Evolution being the change of thoughtforms in adaptatation to events that occur, conflicts that are dealt with, and environments that are experienced over time. I evolve without changing, I experience without having an existence, etc... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:50 PM > Re: Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:27 PM > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:53 PM > > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Thought is not divided from the unthinkable. " > > > > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we understand this? > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought doesn't understand anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > And there is no we apart from thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > The understanding does not involve understanding anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > We talk about it to befuddle thought more than it's already > > > > > > befuddled. > > > > > > > > > > > > As if that were possible. > > > > > > > > > > Thought isn't befuddled here. Everything seems quite clear. > > > > > > > > You have a thought here? > > > > > > > > You are befuddled. > > > > > > Nobody said " I have a thought here " or " you have a thought here " . What > > > was > > > said is: " Thought isn't befuddled here " . > > > > Thought has never occurred here. Befuddled or unbefuddled. > > > > There is only here, here. > > > > I celebrate the befuddled thought. > > > > geo> You dont think? > > Thoughts, perceptions, feelings, come and go. > > No problem at all. > > Yet, here is here, unperceived and untouched by thought. > > Here is not somewhere else. > > Thoughts, perceptions arise/dissolve, and they are never here. > > And they aren't someplace else. > > Thought believes perception occurs in time, forms around relationships > involving time. > > Thought can't touch here, the timeless one, yet thoughts realities are > freely arising/dissolving. > > Like bubbles forming in the void, multicolored, with content that is indeed > void ... > > This void is full of energy, has never been described. > > You could say that thought, although not touching here in terms of content, > opinion, belief, etc., still has an instantaneous contact at this very > now-moment, because there is no thought apart from energy. > > This can't really be described as contact though, because there is no > thought content, no relationship for thought to have, etc. > > At this instant, thought has not formed, has not dissolved, and neither is > nor is not. > > Thus, the teaching: there is neither creation nor destruction. > > geo> is there any fundamental difference in the nature of a moving arm or > leg, vibrations in the eardrums, colors dancing in the retina.....and > thoughts? > Is not this organism a child of the unknown, the unthinkable? Why thoughts > not? It is in this sense that a agree with the statement on top: " Thought is > not divided from the unthinkable. " > > ...and I understand what you are saying, yes. Thought creates problems when > there is a thinker....as if an entity thinking its thoughts, reinforcing the > sense of > separateness. Thought solving some practical issue may not be a trouble at > all. who the hell could it be trouble for in the first place? puleeeeeeze! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 > geo> is there any fundamental difference in the nature of a moving arm or > leg, vibrations in the eardrums, colors dancing in the retina.....and > thoughts? > Is not this organism a child of the unknown, the unthinkable? Why thoughts > not? It is in this sense that a agree with the statement on top: " Thought > is > not divided from the unthinkable. " I don't view things as actually separated, except perceptually, sensorily. My view of thought is that it is not separately existing from the no-thought truth. Yet, thought constructs realities of apparent separation. So, this is what I'm addressing when I say that no thought touches here. geo> Yes, in fact you are adressing the aspect of thought that is related to the imagined inner entity. Diversity and unity are not separable. Now, when you ask me how I see things like a moving arm, a vibration in a retina, and thought, I need to clarify. Anything that is formed is related to thought, which is related to perception, sensation, memory, formation of time and space. geo> Well...this needs clarification. Are you calling thought that aspect of the mind that assembles basic things like space? Or " physical " time by the watch? This complex assemblage is better named as consciousness, because it is simply all there is. It is what we call manifestation. If you call this as " thought " you will be using a very confusing nomeclature. All of these things go together, and I'm using thought to simply communication. So, I'm not referring to thought as a separated out activity in a localized brain when I make a statement like " no thought touches here. " I'm referring to thought that allows us to construct the image of a brain, the image of a retina, the image of a moving arm. When I speak of the image of a moving arm, I include the sense of weight, the location in space, the texture of the skin. geo> Again...this is consciousness. It is our human world as we perceive it. I would not call it thinking. I hope this clarifies for you how I'm using the term " thought " when I say that " thought doesn't touch here. " geo> You see..consciousness doesnt touch in here...the ground. And thought being an aspect of consciousness also. Thoughtforms depend on oppositions, opposing qualities, contrasts. geo> According to your usage thoughtformas is al there is. What is not a thought form? Word meanings involve thought. geo> Very confusing. Maybe its clear for yousrself, but your nomeclature is very confusing...and unique. What is then consciousness for you? Or you prefer not to use the expression altogether? So, I am like Don Quixote, dreaming the impossible dream. I'm using words to represent, where no representation is possible. It's fun for me, even thought it's futile. How to let people know about a truth with no opposite? How to let people know this - when the very perception of people I'm communicating with, depends on thought? It's hilarious actually. And the truth of this is freedom itself. So, why not go ahead and speak the unspeakable, have thoughts of no content that can't be located, share this which has no opposite and therefore no one outside of it to be shared with? A practice in futility. But we're smiling, so it's okay. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 > ...and I understand what you are saying, yes. Thought creates problems > when > there is a thinker....as if an entity thinking its thoughts, reinforcing > the > sense of > separateness. Thought solving some practical issue may not be a trouble at > all. Thought tends to form with the contradictory conceptualization of a thinker apart from the thought. The reason this happens is due to the time template that thought involves. So, there apparently must be a " user " of thought, using thought formulations to get something over time. Thoughtforms also rely on an inside/outside division. So, there must be a being or awareness " in here " that is using thought to accomplish something " out there. " So, even though thought tends to view itself as a phenomena that occurs in time, for the use of thinker, to solve problems that have a solution that occurs in time - the actuality is different. geo>Again..this is confusing. thought with an awareness of some inner entity is one thing. The mind process that understands our human world does not nescessarily needs such inner entity. It is the natural intelligence of the organism. It presents no problem at all - quite to the contrary. We need it. Just as the thinker is not apart from the thought, neither is the problem, the practical issue. The practical issue thought solves is thought formulated. So thought goes on in a circular way, generating problems to be solved, with the solutions occurring over time, for the benefit of the thinker, on and on. geo> Oh no. thought solving a math problem does not need an inner separate entiy. When the instant of insight (now) occurs (now), the simultaneity is understood: thinker/thought external world/internal awareness problem/solution thought/thought-less truth time/no-time is/are unspeakably nondivided. This insight (now) changes everything, although nothing has been changed. Because internal/external are one, and because this involves no time, there is no occurrence as a perceived change of things in time, which are perceived in terms of separate things and events - separated over time and in location. Everything changes, nothing apparently is different. Thoughts still occur in human brains as always. Thinkers ar e imagined who are gaining benefits over time as thought solves problems. The conflicts that thought generates (me vs. you, having vs. losing, victory vs. defeat, pleasure vs. pain, etc.) continue building as humans evolve over time. Evolution being the change of thoughtforms in adaptatation to events that occur, conflicts that are dealt with, and environments that are experienced over time. I evolve without changing, I experience without having an existence, etc... geo> I understand wht you are saying, but your usage of " thought " is unique. Again: what is consciousness according to your nomeclature? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 The conflicts that thought generates (me vs. you, having vs. losing, victory vs. defeat, pleasure vs. pain, etc.) geo> The recognition of a street, the ability to play some game, does not need to generate conflict. This is why it is confusing if you use " thought " as all this. Thought, thinking without the need of creating an inner psichological entity is possible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > geo> is there any fundamental difference in the nature of a moving arm or > > leg, vibrations in the eardrums, colors dancing in the retina.....and > > thoughts? > > Is not this organism a child of the unknown, the unthinkable? Why thoughts > > not? It is in this sense that a agree with the statement on top: " Thought > > is > > not divided from the unthinkable. " > > I don't view things as actually separated, except perceptually, sensorily. > > My view of thought is that it is not separately existing from the no-thought > truth. > > Yet, thought constructs realities of apparent separation. > > So, this is what I'm addressing when I say that no thought touches here. > > geo> Yes, in fact you are adressing the aspect of thought that is related to > the imagined inner entity. > > Diversity and unity are not separable. > > Now, when you ask me how I see things like a moving arm, a vibration in a > retina, and thought, I need to clarify. > > Anything that is formed is related to thought, which is related to > perception, sensation, memory, formation of time and space. > > geo> Well...this needs clarification. Are you calling thought that aspect of > the mind that assembles basic things like space? Thought is the formulation of time, space, objects, and coherent relationships. > Or " physical " time by the watch? It is thought that differentiates 'mental' and 'physical' and relates them. This complex assemblage is better named as > consciousness, because it is simply all there > is. There is no name for all that is. 'Consciousness' is a thought construct, an idea. As such, it relates to opposites like 'unconsciousness' or 'less consciousness.' Even the concept 'all' relates to 'part.' You can't have a concept that is all-inclusive. Concepts require opposites for definition. Any concept X requires a concept not-X, so that X has meaning. > It is what we call manifestation. If you call this as " thought " you will > be using a very confusing nomeclature. Not really. It's only confusing if you don't see that anything that has form is constructed, and any construct is formed in relation to a being that has a relationship to that construct, an awareness of that construct. Because the observer is never separate from the observed in actuality, the formulation of constructs is imaginary. Formulation of constructs depends on other constructs formulated. It is circular and imagined. What isn't imagined isn't formulated, has no relationship to a sentient being, is not an existent thing, is not of thought, and has no quality. Not even the quality you call 'consciousness.' Anything we can label and comprehend according to a label is thought-formulation. This includes the construct 'consciousness.' > All of these things go together, and I'm using thought to simply > communication. > > So, I'm not referring to thought as a separated out activity in a localized > brain when I make a statement like " no thought touches here. " > > I'm referring to thought that allows us to construct the image of a brain, > the image of a retina, the image of a moving arm. When I speak of the image > of a moving arm, I include the sense of weight, the location in space, the > texture of the skin. > > > geo> Again...this is consciousness. It is our human world as we perceive it. > I would not call it thinking. > > > I hope this clarifies for you how I'm using the term " thought " when I say > that " thought doesn't touch here. " > > geo> You see..consciousness doesnt touch in here...the ground. And thought > being an aspect of consciousness also. You're saying there is no 'consciousness' here, then. And I'm saying the same thing. It doesn't matter if I say 'thought gives the name and quality 'consciousness' and you say the reverse that 'consciousness' gives us thought. It doesn't matter because the meanings dissolve here. However, in conversing, I view consciousness as a type of awareness, and I view the more inclusive concept as 'awareness.' I would say that 'awareness' and thought go hand in hand, because you are aware of a thought, and can't have thought without awareness. When you are aware, but not of thought, then you also have no concept 'awareness.' When we talk about something like, 'the actuality of what being aware is, is not of thought,' we are trying to say something that words aren't designed to say. > Thoughtforms depend on oppositions, opposing qualities, contrasts. > > geo> According to your usage thoughtformas is al there is. What is not a > thought form? > > Word meanings involve thought. > > geo> Very confusing. Maybe its clear for yousrself, but your nomeclature is > very confusing...and unique. > What is then consciousness for you? Or you prefer not to use the expression > altogether? I see consciousness as a cellular property. I see awareness as not depending on a cellular organism. I don't think I'm so confusing. Niz saw awareness as a more embracing concept than consciousness, didn't he? -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > geo> Oh no. thought solving a math problem does not need an inner separate > entiy. It needs time. And time is thought-formulated. > geo> I understand wht you are saying, but your usage of " thought " is unique. > Again: what is consciousness according to your nomeclature? Consciousness is generated by an organism, allowing it to use energy to differentiate objects. Thought formulates the structure of the organism. Thought is the organism. The larger construct that maybe you and I would agree on might be " awareness. " I think you are using " consciousness " the way I would use " awareness. " However, looking deeply into the nature of " awareness, " the concept of awareness (thought-formulated) dissolves. This is why Niz said, " nothing not even the concept of 'nothing.' " He spoke of a truth prior to " awareness. " Thought does not touch this. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > The conflicts that thought generates (me vs. you, having vs. losing, victory > vs. defeat, > pleasure vs. pain, etc.) > > geo> The recognition of a street, the ability to play some game, does not > need to generate conflict. The conflict is there. It is time and death. The recognition of a street has meaning because it assists survival. Survival is the attempt to continue. Continuity is subject to time, limitation, violence, illness, aging, and death. > This is why it is confusing if you use " thought " as all this. > > Thought, thinking without the need of creating an inner psichological entity > is possible. Thought is time. Thought is continuity. Thought is subject to discontinuity. Discontinuity can't be touched by thought. Discontinuity is where truth opens ... as 'this' ... the unspeakable that you are ... no-thing ... not even 'nothing' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 He (Nis.) spoke of a truth prior to " awareness. " geo> Prior to consciousness. There is nothing wrong with it.... but I think you are not very familiar with nis's work ...are you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > He (Nis.) spoke of a truth prior to " awareness. " > > geo> Prior to consciousness. There is nothing wrong with it.... but I think > you are not very familiar > with nis's work ...are you? his work was exemplary. he made excellent cigarettes. nicely packed... full of aroma and flavor.. packing a welcomed robust " punch " to the throat and chest area.. vast amounts of straight tube delivered nicotine. competitively priced. what more could you want? but they keep asking for more. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Thursday, May 21, 2009 6:58 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > geo> is there any fundamental difference in the nature of a moving arm > > or > > leg, vibrations in the eardrums, colors dancing in the retina.....and > > thoughts? > > Is not this organism a child of the unknown, the unthinkable? Why > > thoughts > > not? It is in this sense that a agree with the statement on top: > > " Thought > > is > > not divided from the unthinkable. " > > I don't view things as actually separated, except perceptually, sensorily. > > My view of thought is that it is not separately existing from the > no-thought > truth. > > Yet, thought constructs realities of apparent separation. > > So, this is what I'm addressing when I say that no thought touches here. > > geo> Yes, in fact you are adressing the aspect of thought that is related > to > the imagined inner entity. > > Diversity and unity are not separable. > > Now, when you ask me how I see things like a moving arm, a vibration in a > retina, and thought, I need to clarify. > > Anything that is formed is related to thought, which is related to > perception, sensation, memory, formation of time and space. > > geo> Well...this needs clarification. Are you calling thought that aspect > of > the mind that assembles basic things like space? Thought is the formulation of time, space, objects, and coherent relationships. > Or " physical " time by the watch? It is thought that differentiates 'mental' and 'physical' and relates them. This complex assemblage is better named as > consciousness, because it is simply all there > is. There is no name for all that is. 'Consciousness' is a thought construct, an idea. As such, it relates to opposites like 'unconsciousness' or 'less consciousness.' geo> No, no, 'unconsciousness' and less consciousness.' are part of what nis calls consciousness. There are only three fields in nis. nomeclature. - identification with the body, or self-centeredness as an aspect of consciousness - consciousness, as all manifestation and -the ultimate, parabrahaman... (maybe awareness, I am not sure. Maybe someone could tell us) Even the concept 'all' relates to 'part.' You can't have a concept that is all-inclusive. Concepts require opposites for definition. geo> Of course. All inclusiveness is absolutely not touched by thought or conscepts. Any concept X requires a concept not-X, so that X has meaning. > It is what we call manifestation. If you call this as " thought " you will > be using a very confusing nomeclature. Not really. It's only confusing if you don't see that anything that has form is constructed, and any construct is formed in relation to a being that has a relationship to that construct, an awareness of that construct. geo> No way. The construct " table " is indeed out there - but out of the organsim. No need for some inner psich. entity. Because the observer is never separate from the observed in actuality, the formulation of constructs is imaginary. Formulation of constructs depends on other constructs formulated. It is circular and imagined. What isn't imagined isn't formulated, has no relationship to a sentient being, is not an existent thing, is not of thought, and has no quality. Not even the quality you call 'consciousness.' geo> Of course thought can not grasp consciousness, it is part of it. Anything we can label and comprehend according to a label is thought-formulation. This includes the construct 'consciousness.' > All of these things go together, and I'm using thought to simply > communication. > > So, I'm not referring to thought as a separated out activity in a > localized > brain when I make a statement like " no thought touches here. " > > I'm referring to thought that allows us to construct the image of a brain, > the image of a retina, the image of a moving arm. When I speak of the > image > of a moving arm, I include the sense of weight, the location in space, the > texture of the skin. > > > geo> Again...this is consciousness. It is our human world as we perceive > it. > I would not call it thinking. > > > I hope this clarifies for you how I'm using the term " thought " when I say > that " thought doesn't touch here. " > > geo> You see..consciousness doesnt touch in here...the ground. And thought > being an aspect of consciousness also. You're saying there is no 'consciousness' here, then. And I'm saying the same thing. It doesn't matter if I say 'thought gives the name and quality 'consciousness' and you say the reverse that 'consciousness' gives us thought. It doesn't matter because the meanings dissolve here. However, in conversing, I view consciousness as a type of awareness, and I view the more inclusive concept as 'awareness.' I would say that 'awareness' and thought go hand in hand, because you are aware of a thought, and can't have thought without awareness. When you are aware, but not of thought, then you also have no concept 'awareness.' When we talk about something like, 'the actuality of what being aware is, is not of thought,' we are trying to say something that words aren't designed to say. > Thoughtforms depend on oppositions, opposing qualities, contrasts. > > geo> According to your usage thoughtformas is al there is. What is not a > thought form? > > Word meanings involve thought. > > geo> Very confusing. Maybe its clear for yousrself, but your nomeclature > is > very confusing...and unique. > What is then consciousness for you? Or you prefer not to use the > expression > altogether? I see consciousness as a cellular property. I see awareness as not depending on a cellular organism. I don't think I'm so confusing. Niz saw awareness as a more embracing concept than consciousness, didn't he? geo> Cmon....He would never have a concept of awareness! Look...as I said...there is no problem with it...but you are not familiar with nis. nomeclature. I can see that you have gone deep into all this....but not nescessarily read much nis. avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 21/5/2009 19:20:30 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:04 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > The conflicts that thought generates (me vs. you, having vs. losing, > victory > vs. defeat, > pleasure vs. pain, etc.) > > geo> The recognition of a street, the ability to play some game, does not > need to generate conflict. The conflict is there. It is time and death. geo> Time according to the watch, yes. Death of the body, yes. The recognition of a street has meaning because it assists survival. geo> Yes, of the organism. Survival is the attempt to continue. geo> what is wrong with a heathy body? Continuity is subject to time, limitation, violence, illness, aging, and death. geo> The organism, of course. It will get old, ill...etc... > This is why it is confusing if you use " thought " as all this. > > Thought, thinking without the need of creating an inner psichological > entity > is possible. Thought is time. Thought is continuity. Thought is subject to discontinuity. Discontinuity can't be touched by thought. Discontinuity is where truth opens ... as 'this' ... the unspeakable that you are ... no-thing ... not even 'nothing' avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 21/5/2009 19:20:30 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:02 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > geo> Oh no. thought solving a math problem does not need an inner separate > entiy. It needs time. geo> According a watch, yes. And time is thought-formulated. > geo> I understand wht you are saying, but your usage of " thought " is > unique. > Again: what is consciousness according to your nomeclature? Consciousness is generated by an organism, allowing it to use energy to differentiate objects. Thought formulates the structure of the organism. Thought is the organism. The larger construct that maybe you and I would agree on might be " awareness. " I think you are using " consciousness " the way I would use " awareness. " However, looking deeply into the nature of " awareness, " the concept of awareness (thought-formulated) dissolves. This is why Niz said, " nothing not even the concept of 'nothing.' " He spoke of a truth prior to " awareness. " Thought does not touch this. -- Dan avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 21/5/2009 19:20:30 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thought isn't befuddled here. Everything seems quite clear. > > > > > > > > You have a thought here? > > > > > > > > You are befuddled. > > > > > > Nobody said " I have a thought here " or " you have a thought here " . > What was said is: " Thought isn't befuddled here " . > > > > BTW, that was an awfully crude attempt at befuddling thought ;-). > > Thought simply can't touch this, and doesn't. > > Thought arises and dissolves, never touches, has no impact. > > Because word meaning require thought, more than this can't be > stated. Anything can be stated. " This " isn't what was, or what will be. " This " isn't even 'what is', because 'what is' doesn't last long enough to exist. I could say that " This " is myself. Or my Self, to distinguish it from the usual " body with a history " version of the word myself. So ya see, " This " can be stated in ten million different ways. Infinite ways, really. None of these words communicate anything, but the words are free to come out. I have to be honest; I'm not interested in hearing anybody's words about This. I'm interested in talking about This sometimes, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Thus, the teaching: there is neither creation nor destruction. If you really believe anything is being taught, you are vain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > geo> is there any fundamental difference in the nature of a moving arm or > > leg, vibrations in the eardrums, colors dancing in the retina.....and > > thoughts? > > Is not this organism a child of the unknown, the unthinkable? Why thoughts > > not? It is in this sense that a agree with the statement on top: " Thought is > > not divided from the unthinkable. " > > I don't view things as actually separated, except perceptually, > sensorily. Senses and perception don't separate anything. Perception is 'here'. Is it happening somewhere else? > My view of thought is that it is not separately existing from the > no-thought truth. > > Yet, thought constructs realities of apparent separation. Yes, that's where the apparent separation is... if in fact it is at all. > I hope this clarifies for you how I'm using the term " thought " when > I say that " thought doesn't touch here. " Yes... and thought doesn't occur elsewhere either. We can distinguish between thought, and the " content of thought " ; what is bought into or believed in. Awareness can be immersed in thought, believing in its own projections. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Thus, the teaching: there is neither creation nor destruction. > > If you really believe anything is being taught, you are vain. Ramana offered the teaching. Tim said if Ramana really believed he was teaching, he was vain. Carly Simon said it takes one to know one. " You're so vain -- you probably think this song is about you. " -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > geo> Oh no. thought solving a math problem does not need an inner separate > > entiy. > > It needs time. > > And time is thought-formulated. > > > geo> I understand wht you are saying, but your usage of " thought " is unique. > > Again: what is consciousness according to your nomeclature? > > Consciousness is generated by an organism, allowing it to use energy to differentiate objects. > > Thought formulates the structure of the organism. > > Thought is the organism. > > The larger construct that maybe you and I would agree on might be " awareness. " > > I think you are using " consciousness " the way I would use " awareness. " > > However, looking deeply into the nature of " awareness, " the concept of awareness (thought-formulated) dissolves. > > This is why Niz said, " nothing not even the concept of 'nothing.' " > > He spoke of a truth prior to " awareness. " > > Thought does not touch this. > > -- Dan > There is no truth " prior to awareness " . *Truth* is a concept. Awareness is content absent of concepts. ~A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > geo> Oh no. thought solving a math problem does not need an inner separate > > > entiy. > > > > It needs time. > > > > And time is thought-formulated. > > > > > geo> I understand wht you are saying, but your usage of " thought " is unique. > > > Again: what is consciousness according to your nomeclature? > > > > Consciousness is generated by an organism, allowing it to use energy to differentiate objects. > > > > Thought formulates the structure of the organism. > > > > Thought is the organism. > > > > The larger construct that maybe you and I would agree on might be " awareness. " > > > > I think you are using " consciousness " the way I would use " awareness. " > > > > However, looking deeply into the nature of " awareness, " the concept of awareness (thought-formulated) dissolves. > > > > This is why Niz said, " nothing not even the concept of 'nothing.' " > > > > He spoke of a truth prior to " awareness. " > > > > Thought does not touch this. > > > > -- Dan > > > Conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm that it cannot touch. Can you see where this is going? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Thus, the teaching: there is neither creation nor destruction. > > > > If you really believe anything is being taught, you are vain. > > Ramana offered the teaching. > > Tim said if Ramana really believed he was teaching, he was vain. > > Carly Simon said it takes one to know one. > > " You're so vain -- you probably think this song is about you. " > > -- Dan They're all just words. It's a closed system. They mean whatever we want them to. I've blown over a house of cards. Next... :-p. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
