Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Toom - > > Thought ceases. > > This now-moment, untouched by thought, is not defined as anything. > > It is not " now " as opposed to " then. " > > There is no thought-commenting about it being now, or something else other than now. > > It is timeless. > > Never touched by thought. > > Thought never grasps this. And yet.....you're thinking about it? > > Going round and round with questions gets nowhere. > > There is no question here. > > With thought occurring, this now still is not touched. " This " is merely the perceptual input as interpreted by the mnemonic debris of the phantom self no matter which way it is looked at. It's ideas about its now are as irrelevant as any its ideas about its gods and gurus. All of its ideas refer back to something that never existed......its self. > > The energy of thought is " now, " yet thought never knows " now. " > > No belief is involved. Of course it is. Your...and my...world is composed o f nothing but belief. > > It is remarkable, what this is. > > Which has never been commented upon. > > Pristine. > > - D - Nope. Not any word. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Toom - > > Thought ceases. > > This now-moment, untouched by thought, is not defined as anything. > > It is not " now " as opposed to " then. " > > There is no thought-commenting about it being now, or something else other than now. > > It is timeless. > > Never touched by thought. > > Thought never grasps this. > > Going round and round with questions gets nowhere. Repeating over and over, " there is no such thing as now " gets nowhere, too. Particularly considering that if 'there is no now', the words would never get uttered, now ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Toom - > > > > Thought ceases. > > > > This now-moment, untouched by thought, is not defined as anything. > > > > It is not " now " as opposed to " then. " > > > > There is no thought-commenting about it being now, or something else other than now. > > > > It is timeless. > > > > Never touched by thought. > > > > Thought never grasps this. > > > > Going round and round with questions gets nowhere. > > Repeating over and over, " there is no such thing as now " gets nowhere, too. > > Particularly considering that if 'there is no now', the words would never get uttered, now ;-). > Namaste, Yes that is right, there needs to duration to have any time...that's why it all never happened as there is no time...Tony Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Toom - > > > > > > Thought ceases. > > > > > > This now-moment, untouched by thought, is not defined as anything. > > > > > > It is not " now " as opposed to " then. " > > > > > > There is no thought-commenting about it being now, or something else other than now. > > > > > > It is timeless. > > > > > > Never touched by thought. > > > > > > Thought never grasps this. > > > > > > Going round and round with questions gets nowhere. > > > > Repeating over and over, " there is no such thing as now " gets nowhere, too. > > > > Particularly considering that if 'there is no now', the words would never get uttered, now ;-). > > > Namaste, > > Yes that is right, there needs to duration to have any time...that's why it all never happened as there is no time...> For frogs.......there are no sky scrapers. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > For frogs.......there are no sky scrapers. > > > > > toombaru > Only fly capers? ~A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Toom - > > > > Thought ceases. > > > > This now-moment, untouched by thought, is not defined as anything. > > > > It is not " now " as opposed to " then. " > > > > There is no thought-commenting about it being now, or something else other than now. > > > > It is timeless. > > > > Never touched by thought. > > > > Thought never grasps this. > > > > Going round and round with questions gets nowhere. > > Repeating over and over, " there is no such thing as now " gets nowhere, too. > > Particularly considering that if 'there is no now', the words would never get uttered, now ;-). > Namaste, Yes that is right, there needs to duration to have any time...that's why it all never happened as there is no time... --- End forwarded message --- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 11, 2009 > > From my house to yours: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG8K4kYTpG0 ;-) > > Love, > Anna Thanks, Anna. What a great song! To hear this song is to immediately be enlightened - no wonder it rose to #1 so fast. To see it with all those serious Biblical quotes superimposed was really humorous. They forgot this one: Romans 3:23 (New International Version) 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, LOL, -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Toom - > > > > Thought ceases. > > > > This now-moment, untouched by thought, is not defined as anything. > > > > It is not " now " as opposed to " then. " > > > > There is no thought-commenting about it being now, or something else other than now. > > > > It is timeless. > > > > Never touched by thought. > > > > Thought never grasps this. > > > > > > And yet.....you're thinking about it? No. > > > > > Going round and round with questions gets nowhere. > > > > There is no question here. > > > > With thought occurring, this now still is not touched. > > > > > " This " is merely the perceptual input as interpreted by the mnemonic debris of the phantom self no matter which way it is looked at. No. > It's ideas about its now are as irrelevant as any its ideas about its gods and gurus. There aren't any ideas about it. > All of its ideas refer back to something that never existed......its self. There is no " its " , just ideas arising, dissolving. > > > > The energy of thought is " now, " yet thought never knows " now. " > > > > No belief is involved. > > > > > Of course it is. > Your...and my...world is composed o f nothing but belief. Nope. > > > > > It is remarkable, what this is. > > > > Which has never been commented upon. > > > > Pristine. > > > > - D - > > > > > Nope. > > Not any word. > That's what I said. -- Dan -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Toom - > > > > Thought ceases. > > > > This now-moment, untouched by thought, is not defined as anything. > > > > It is not " now " as opposed to " then. " > > > > There is no thought-commenting about it being now, or something else other than now. > > > > It is timeless. > > > > Never touched by thought. > > > > Thought never grasps this. > > > > Going round and round with questions gets nowhere. > > Repeating over and over, " there is no such thing as now " gets nowhere, too. > > Particularly considering that if 'there is no now', the words would never get uttered, now ;-). Yup. It's strange when thought starts going 'round and 'round telling itself how it can never get to the truth because it doesn't exist but it can't help but try to exist and its whole world is imaginary but is all there is for it - as if there were an it there it was commenting to. There is something really pernicious and even sadly comical about a thought process like that. - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Toom - > > > > > > Thought ceases. > > > > > > This now-moment, untouched by thought, is not defined as anything. > > > > > > It is not " now " as opposed to " then. " > > > > > > There is no thought-commenting about it being now, or something else other than now. > > > > > > It is timeless. > > > > > > Never touched by thought. > > > > > > Thought never grasps this. > > > > > > Going round and round with questions gets nowhere. > > > > Repeating over and over, " there is no such thing as now " gets nowhere, too. > > > > Particularly considering that if 'there is no now', the words would never get uttered, now ;-). > > > Yup. > > It's strange when thought starts going 'round and 'round telling itself how it can never get to the truth because it doesn't exist but it can't help but try to exist and its whole world is imaginary but is all there is for it - as if there were an it there it was commenting to. > > There is something really pernicious and even sadly comical about a thought process like that. > > - Dan - > Do you know what's even sadder? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Toom - > > > > > > Thought ceases. > > > > > > This now-moment, untouched by thought, is not defined as anything. > > > > > > It is not " now " as opposed to " then. " > > > > > > There is no thought-commenting about it being now, or something else other than now. > > > > > > It is timeless. > > > > > > Never touched by thought. > > > > > > Thought never grasps this. > > > > > > Going round and round with questions gets nowhere. > > > > Repeating over and over, " there is no such thing as now " gets nowhere, too. > > > > Particularly considering that if 'there is no now', the words would never get uttered, now ;-). > > > Yup. > > It's strange when thought starts going 'round and 'round telling > itself how it can never get to the truth because it doesn't exist > but it can't help but try to exist and its whole world is imaginary > but is all there is for it - as if there were an it there it was > commenting to. > > There is something really pernicious and even sadly comical about a > thought process like that. Such is the " I " . A belief that there is something separate and apart from thought, thinking the thoughts, addressing the thoughts. It's really quite absurd, ridiculous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Toom - > > > > > > > > Thought ceases. > > > > > > > > This now-moment, untouched by thought, is not defined as anything. > > > > > > > > It is not " now " as opposed to " then. " > > > > > > > > There is no thought-commenting about it being now, or something else other than now. > > > > > > > > It is timeless. > > > > > > > > Never touched by thought. > > > > > > > > Thought never grasps this. > > > > > > > > Going round and round with questions gets nowhere. > > > > > > Repeating over and over, " there is no such thing as now " gets nowhere, too. > > > > > > Particularly considering that if 'there is no now', the words would never get uttered, now ;-). > > > > > > Yup. > > > > It's strange when thought starts going 'round and 'round telling > > itself how it can never get to the truth because it doesn't exist > > but it can't help but try to exist and its whole world is imaginary > but is all there is for it - as if there were an it there it was > > commenting to. > > > > There is something really pernicious and even sadly comical about a > thought process like that. > > Such is the " I " . A belief that there is something separate and apart from thought, thinking the thoughts, addressing the thoughts. > > It's really quite absurd, ridiculous. > No more ridiculous than hummingbirds. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Toom - > > > > > > > > > > Thought ceases. > > > > > > > > > > This now-moment, untouched by thought, is not defined as anything. > > > > > > > > > > It is not " now " as opposed to " then. " > > > > > > > > > > There is no thought-commenting about it being now, or something else other than now. > > > > > > > > > > It is timeless. > > > > > > > > > > Never touched by thought. > > > > > > > > > > Thought never grasps this. > > > > > > > > > > Going round and round with questions gets nowhere. > > > > > > > > Repeating over and over, " there is no such thing as now " gets nowhere, too. > > > > > > > > Particularly considering that if 'there is no now', the words would never get uttered, now ;-). > > > > > > > > > Yup. > > > > > > It's strange when thought starts going 'round and 'round telling > > > itself how it can never get to the truth because it doesn't exist > > > but it can't help but try to exist and its whole world is imaginary > but is all there is for it - as if there were an it there it was > > > commenting to. > > > > > > There is something really pernicious and even sadly comical about a > thought process like that. > > > > Such is the " I " . A belief that there is something separate and apart from thought, thinking the thoughts, addressing the thoughts. > > > > It's really quite absurd, ridiculous. > > > > > > No more ridiculous than hummingbirds. Or one's thought about hummingbirds, with " hummingbirds " assumed to be apart from the thought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Toom - > > > > > > > > Thought ceases. > > > > > > > > This now-moment, untouched by thought, is not defined as anything. > > > > > > > > It is not " now " as opposed to " then. " > > > > > > > > There is no thought-commenting about it being now, or something else other than now. > > > > > > > > It is timeless. > > > > > > > > Never touched by thought. > > > > > > > > Thought never grasps this. > > > > > > > > Going round and round with questions gets nowhere. > > > > > > Repeating over and over, " there is no such thing as now " gets nowhere, too. > > > > > > Particularly considering that if 'there is no now', the words would never get uttered, now ;-). > > > > > > Yup. > > > > It's strange when thought starts going 'round and 'round telling > > iitself how it can never get to the truth because it doesn't exist > > but it can't help but try to exist and its whole world is imaginary > but is all there is for it - as if there were an it there it was > > commenting to. > > > > There is something really pernicious and even sadly comical about a > thought process like that. > > Such is the " I " . A belief that there is something separate and apart from thought, thinking the thoughts, addressing the thoughts. > > It's really quite absurd, ridiculous. > Yes, Tim, The thinker is the thought. Apart from that thought is verbal and is responding to one's cultural conditioning. Its aim is to eventually get communicated. We are social beings, cultural ants. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Yes, Tim, > > The thinker is the thought. Thanks so much, 'your high-ness', for verifying my paltry suspicions ;-). It never would have been clear " the thinker is the thought " , without Sri Sri Sri Sri Werner's incredible insights. Or not ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Yes, Tim, > > > > The thinker is the thought. > > Thanks so much, 'your high-ness', for verifying my paltry suspicions ;-). > > It never would have been clear " the thinker is the thought " , without Sri Sri Sri Sri Werner's incredible insights. > > Or not ;-). > Sorry Tim, My post was not aimed to offend you but rather was meant as a signal to the public that in this case I firmly assist you and that you are not totally alone in this world ... Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Yes, Tim, > > > > The thinker is the thought. > > Thanks so much, 'your high-ness', for verifying my paltry suspicions ;-). > > It never would have been clear " the thinker is the thought " , without Sri Sri Sri Sri Werner's incredible insights. > > Or not ;-). LOL. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Toom - > > > > > > > > > > Thought ceases. > > > > > > > > > > This now-moment, untouched by thought, is not defined as anything. > > > > > > > > > > It is not " now " as opposed to " then. " > > > > > > > > > > There is no thought-commenting about it being now, or something else other than now. > > > > > > > > > > It is timeless. > > > > > > > > > > Never touched by thought. > > > > > > > > > > Thought never grasps this. > > > > > > > > > > Going round and round with questions gets nowhere. > > > > > > > > Repeating over and over, " there is no such thing as now " gets nowhere, too. > > > > > > > > Particularly considering that if 'there is no now', the words would never get uttered, now ;-). > > > > > > > > > Yup. > > > > > > It's strange when thought starts going 'round and 'round telling > > > iitself how it can never get to the truth because it doesn't exist > > > but it can't help but try to exist and its whole world is imaginary > but is all there is for it - as if there were an it there it was > > > commenting to. > > > > > > There is something really pernicious and even sadly comical about a > thought process like that. > > > > Such is the " I " . A belief that there is something separate and apart from thought, thinking the thoughts, addressing the thoughts. > > > > It's really quite absurd, ridiculous. > > > > > Yes, Tim, > > The thinker is the thought. > > Apart from that thought is verbal and is responding to one's cultural conditioning. Its aim is to eventually get communicated. We are social beings, cultural ants. > > Werner Werner - Thought is way, way more than just verbal. It constructs the sense of reality. Where there is any construction of a sense of reality from sensation, there is thought. When there is recognition that a sensing occurred, there is thought. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, Tim, > > > > > > The thinker is the thought. > > > > Thanks so much, 'your high-ness', for verifying my paltry suspicions ;-). > > > > It never would have been clear " the thinker is the thought " , without Sri Sri Sri Sri Werner's incredible insights. > > > > Or not ;-). > > > > > Sorry Tim, > > My post was not aimed to offend you but rather was meant as a signal to the public that in this case I firmly assist you and that you are not totally alone in this world ... > > Werner Werner - Thanks for clarifying. Some of this may be a matter of semantics. The way you said, " Yes, Tim " then rephrased what he had said - came across like " you got it right, Tim, but let me rephrase what you were trying to say so it's more clear. " Possibly, if you said something like, " that thought has occurred to me, as well, " or maybe " yes, I agree with you, Tim " it wouldn't come across like you're giving approval from on high. This communicating business sure is funny stuff... - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 11, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:02 PM Re: In Nisargadatta... (Dan) Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Toom - > > > > > > > > > > Thought ceases. > > > > > > > > > > This now-moment, untouched by thought, is not defined as anything. > > > > > > > > > > It is not " now " as opposed to " then. " > > > > > > > > > > There is no thought-commenting about it being now, or something > > > > > else other than now. > > > > > > > > > > It is timeless. > > > > > > > > > > Never touched by thought. > > > > > > > > > > Thought never grasps this. > > > > > > > > > > Going round and round with questions gets nowhere. > > > > > > > > Repeating over and over, " there is no such thing as now " gets > > > > nowhere, too. > > > > > > > > Particularly considering that if 'there is no now', the words would > > > > never get uttered, now ;-). > > > > > > > > > Yup. > > > > > > It's strange when thought starts going 'round and 'round telling > > > iitself how it can never get to the truth because it doesn't exist > > > but it can't help but try to exist and its whole world is imaginary > > > > but is all there is for it - as if there were an it there it was > > > commenting to. > > > > > > There is something really pernicious and even sadly comical about a > > > > thought process like that. > > > > Such is the " I " . A belief that there is something separate and apart > > from thought, thinking the thoughts, addressing the thoughts. > > > > It's really quite absurd, ridiculous. > > > > > Yes, Tim, > > The thinker is the thought. > > Apart from that thought is verbal and is responding to one's cultural > conditioning. Its aim is to eventually get communicated. We are social > beings, cultural ants. > > Werner Werner - Thought is way, way more than just verbal. It constructs the sense of reality. Where there is any construction of a sense of reality from sensation, there is thought. When there is recognition that a sensing occurred, there is thought. - D - Impersonal. Take yourself, is the thought process as recognition of sensory imputs working there? Is there any instance where it is not? -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 11/8/2009 13:08:46 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, Tim, > > > > > > The thinker is the thought. > > > > Thanks so much, 'your high-ness', for verifying my paltry suspicions ;-). > > > > It never would have been clear " the thinker is the thought " , without Sri Sri Sri Sri Werner's incredible insights. > > > > Or not ;-). > > > > > Sorry Tim, > > My post was not aimed to offend you but rather was meant as a signal to the public that in this case I firmly assist you and that you are not totally alone in this world ... > > Werner > The self will....as a last resort.....cling to its aloneness. At least its got that going for it. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 11, 2009 > > Impersonal. > Take yourself, is the thought process as recognition of sensory imputs > working there? Is there any instance where it is not? > -geo- > > > > > > > It's not in Barstow. :-0 toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:02 PM > Re: In Nisargadatta... (Dan) > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Toom - > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought ceases. > > > > > > > > > > > > This now-moment, untouched by thought, is not defined as anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not " now " as opposed to " then. " > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no thought-commenting about it being now, or something > > > > > > else other than now. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is timeless. > > > > > > > > > > > > Never touched by thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought never grasps this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Going round and round with questions gets nowhere. > > > > > > > > > > Repeating over and over, " there is no such thing as now " gets > > > > > nowhere, too. > > > > > > > > > > Particularly considering that if 'there is no now', the words would > > > > > never get uttered, now ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > Yup. > > > > > > > > It's strange when thought starts going 'round and 'round telling > > > > iitself how it can never get to the truth because it doesn't exist > > > > but it can't help but try to exist and its whole world is imaginary > > > > > but is all there is for it - as if there were an it there it was > > > > commenting to. > > > > > > > > There is something really pernicious and even sadly comical about a > > > > > thought process like that. > > > > > > Such is the " I " . A belief that there is something separate and apart > > > from thought, thinking the thoughts, addressing the thoughts. > > > > > > It's really quite absurd, ridiculous. > > > > > > > > > Yes, Tim, > > > > The thinker is the thought. > > > > Apart from that thought is verbal and is responding to one's cultural > > conditioning. Its aim is to eventually get communicated. We are social > > beings, cultural ants. > > > > Werner > > Werner - > > Thought is way, way more than just verbal. > > It constructs the sense of reality. > > Where there is any construction of a sense of reality from sensation, there > is thought. > > When there is recognition that a sensing occurred, there is thought. > > - D - > > Impersonal. > Take yourself, is the thought process as recognition of sensory imputs > working there? Is there any instance where it is not? > -geo- Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:02 PM > Re: In Nisargadatta... (Dan) > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Toom - > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought ceases. > > > > > > > > > > > > This now-moment, untouched by thought, is not defined as anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not " now " as opposed to " then. " > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no thought-commenting about it being now, or something > > > > > > else other than now. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is timeless. > > > > > > > > > > > > Never touched by thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought never grasps this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Going round and round with questions gets nowhere. > > > > > > > > > > Repeating over and over, " there is no such thing as now " gets > > > > > nowhere, too. > > > > > > > > > > Particularly considering that if 'there is no now', the words would > > > > > never get uttered, now ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > Yup. > > > > > > > > It's strange when thought starts going 'round and 'round telling > > > > iitself how it can never get to the truth because it doesn't exist > > > > but it can't help but try to exist and its whole world is imaginary > > > > > but is all there is for it - as if there were an it there it was > > > > commenting to. > > > > > > > > There is something really pernicious and even sadly comical about a > > > > > thought process like that. > > > > > > Such is the " I " . A belief that there is something separate and apart > > > from thought, thinking the thoughts, addressing the thoughts. > > > > > > It's really quite absurd, ridiculous. > > > > > > > > > Yes, Tim, > > > > The thinker is the thought. > > > > Apart from that thought is verbal and is responding to one's cultural > > conditioning. Its aim is to eventually get communicated. We are social > > beings, cultural ants. > > > > Werner > > Werner - > > Thought is way, way more than just verbal. > > It constructs the sense of reality. > > Where there is any construction of a sense of reality from sensation, there > is thought. > > When there is recognition that a sensing occurred, there is thought. > > - D - > > Impersonal. > Take yourself, is the thought process as recognition of sensory imputs > working there? Is there any instance where it is not? > -geo- Geo - Yes, this is what I am stating from first-hand observation, Geo. When any sensation registers, thought is there. It is not a matter of " for me. " The " for me " is a type of thought, but sensing/thought/memory can arise without the thought " for me " being part of it. It is not that I don't want " for me " to be there, or that I think it would be wrong - what arises, arises, as is. I'm simply observing that it is possible for sensing/thought to arise without " for me " being included in that thought. -- D -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:27 PM Re: In Nisargadatta... (Dan) Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:02 PM > Re: In Nisargadatta... (Dan) > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Toom - > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought ceases. > > > > > > > > > > > > This now-moment, untouched by thought, is not defined as > > > > > > anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not " now " as opposed to " then. " > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no thought-commenting about it being now, or something > > > > > > else other than now. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is timeless. > > > > > > > > > > > > Never touched by thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought never grasps this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Going round and round with questions gets nowhere. > > > > > > > > > > Repeating over and over, " there is no such thing as now " gets > > > > > nowhere, too. > > > > > > > > > > Particularly considering that if 'there is no now', the words > > > > > would > > > > > never get uttered, now ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > Yup. > > > > > > > > It's strange when thought starts going 'round and 'round telling > > > > iitself how it can never get to the truth because it doesn't exist > > > > but it can't help but try to exist and its whole world is imaginary > > > > > > > > > but is all there is for it - as if there were an it there it was > > > > commenting to. > > > > > > > > There is something really pernicious and even sadly comical about a > > > > > > > > > thought process like that. > > > > > > Such is the " I " . A belief that there is something separate and apart > > > from thought, thinking the thoughts, addressing the thoughts. > > > > > > It's really quite absurd, ridiculous. > > > > > > > > > Yes, Tim, > > > > The thinker is the thought. > > > > Apart from that thought is verbal and is responding to one's cultural > > conditioning. Its aim is to eventually get communicated. We are social > > beings, cultural ants. > > > > Werner > > Werner - > > Thought is way, way more than just verbal. > > It constructs the sense of reality. > > Where there is any construction of a sense of reality from sensation, > there > is thought. > > When there is recognition that a sensing occurred, there is thought. > > - D - > > Impersonal. > Take yourself, is the thought process as recognition of sensory imputs > working there? Is there any instance where it is not? > -geo- Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:02 PM > Re: In Nisargadatta... (Dan) > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Toom - > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought ceases. > > > > > > > > > > > > This now-moment, untouched by thought, is not defined as > > > > > > anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not " now " as opposed to " then. " > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no thought-commenting about it being now, or something > > > > > > else other than now. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is timeless. > > > > > > > > > > > > Never touched by thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought never grasps this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Going round and round with questions gets nowhere. > > > > > > > > > > Repeating over and over, " there is no such thing as now " gets > > > > > nowhere, too. > > > > > > > > > > Particularly considering that if 'there is no now', the words > > > > > would > > > > > never get uttered, now ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > Yup. > > > > > > > > It's strange when thought starts going 'round and 'round telling > > > > iitself how it can never get to the truth because it doesn't exist > > > > but it can't help but try to exist and its whole world is imaginary > > > > > > > > > but is all there is for it - as if there were an it there it was > > > > commenting to. > > > > > > > > There is something really pernicious and even sadly comical about a > > > > > > > > > thought process like that. > > > > > > Such is the " I " . A belief that there is something separate and apart > > > from thought, thinking the thoughts, addressing the thoughts. > > > > > > It's really quite absurd, ridiculous. > > > > > > > > > Yes, Tim, > > > > The thinker is the thought. > > > > Apart from that thought is verbal and is responding to one's cultural > > conditioning. Its aim is to eventually get communicated. We are social > > beings, cultural ants. > > > > Werner > > Werner - > > Thought is way, way more than just verbal. > > It constructs the sense of reality. > > Where there is any construction of a sense of reality from sensation, > there > is thought. > > When there is recognition that a sensing occurred, there is thought. > > - D - > > Impersonal. > Take yourself, is the thought process as recognition of sensory imputs > working there? Is there any instance where it is not? > -geo- Geo - Yes, this is what I am stating from first-hand observation, Geo. When any sensation registers, thought is there. It is not a matter of " for me. " The " for me " is a type of thought, but sensing/thought/memory can arise without the thought " for me " being part of it. It is not that I don't want " for me " to be there, or that I think it would be wrong - what arises, arises, as is. I'm simply observing that it is possible for sensing/thought to arise without " for me " being included in that thought. -- D -- Sensing, thinking may happen without any sense of inner entity. But it can also happen with the sense of inner observer as a kind of background. The nature of those two kind of thoughts are different. The former is limited, bounded...the later is equaly limited and bounded but is seen as that. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
