Guest guest Posted March 5, 2003 Report Share Posted March 5, 2003 You can't experience anything except through thought. You can't experience your own body except through the help of thought. The sensory perceptions are there. Your thoughts give form and definition to the body, otherwise you have no way of experiencing it. The body does not exist except as a thought. There is one thought. Everything exists in relationship to that one thought. That thought is "me". Anything you experience based on thought is an illusion. All insights, however extraordinary they may be, are worthless, because it is thought that has created what we call insight, and through that it is maintaining its continuity and status quo. There is reincarnation for those who believe in it. There is no reincarnation for those who do not believe in it. But you have to ask this fundamental question: "What is there now that will reincarnate? Is there any such thing as a soul, 'I', or psyche?" Whatever you see or experience is created, by the knowledge we have, of that which is being seen or experienced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2003 Report Share Posted March 6, 2003 Hiya Prem, - "omprem" <omprem <> Friday, March 07, 2003 09:30 PM Re: Thought creating thought > OM Sandeep > > That was certainly more than two cents worth. Probably about > $9.98 CDN. > > You made the comment, "You can't experience anything except > through thought." And presumably this statement was intended > to carry some meaning. Yet, asked to provide proof of the > assertion, in other words amplify the meaning, you choose to > avoid doing that by dismissing the question in the following > manner, "The very question "where's the proof of this > statement?" ..... is a thought in omprem's mind, which got > actualized as an Email message through cyber space. :-) If you re-read (that is if you are moved to at all), you will see I have actually answered you in what appeared to you as dismissive. Neverthless, let's look again. Rather than a theoritical discussion, give me Prem, an example of an experience which for you, is not a thought or a series of thought. And lets' unravel that. > My question to you again is You can't experience anything > except through thought." is a thought in Sandeep's mind: what is > the basis for that thought?" The basis is simple. Any experience, whether profound or profane is cognized as an "experience" (the content is immaterial) and this cognition is a thought or a series of thought. The experience of licking an ice-cream cone or visioning Maa Shakti, is a thought. A feeling, whether for the divine or for the devil, is a thought, with maybe an associated sensation in the body-mind complex. Do you disgaree? If yes, that is perfectly fine, .............your experience of "disagreeing" with the prattling, is it not a thought? <LOL> > Please actualize your response as message on this board. > > Similarly, with the question "Is intuition thought?", you choose to > equivocate by changing the question slightly. You responded, > "The cognition of intuition, as "intuition", is a thought." My > question remains, "Is intuition thought?" I repeat my earlier response. As soon as you have cognized intution as intuition, the cognition is a thought. What is not a thought, nothing can be said about it, including the statement "nothing can be said about it" > > The scriptures tell us that Pure Consciousness has no content. > Therefore, (1) thought and experience seem to be separate, (2) > thought depends upon 'me-ness' or a sense of separation, (3) > Pure Consciousness is being or (4) place your comments here: 1)Forget the scriptures. 2)That Pure Consciosuness has no content is pure spuctum tauri. For who is observing that pure Consciousness has no content? 3)All experience is nothing but the cognition of the "experiencing" which has occurred. In experiencing, there is none to cognize the experiencing as "experiencing". 4)Involvement with thought, as "I thought such and such", "I decided such and such among these options", that involvement needs a "me" to take ownership. As stated thoughts occur even in a body-mind complex, which has labeled as a sage. The absence of an entity to take ownership, is the dissipation in the moment. 5) Anything said about Pure Consciousness is a concept. And thus offer you another concept which is the closest approximation.. Pure Consciousness is ...............neither beingness ...........nor ...........non-beingness. > ______________________ > > Dobe dobe do. > > If Pure Consciousness is being and everything else is doing, > then Shakti is not Pure Consciousness and we have to use > Shakti in the form of spiritual practices to overcome Shakti. That assumption if prevailing in the moment, then drives "Prem", in that moment. And so long it is happening, it is thus appropriate. For it takes all the infinite varieties of acts to make a Grand circus, the Leela. "Beingness" and "doing-ness" are not two. Some conceptual terms have been used to try and point to this... There is only Consciousness (for the time being take this premise and then later on we will explode even this premise) Consciousness- in- repose, ..........is the Noumenon, Source, Awareness-not-aware-of-itself, Void of Nothingness, Plenum of all potentialities. In this awareness-not-aware-of-itself, ...........arises a sense of awareness of Impersonal Presence,.......... for no reason, except that it is it's nature to do so. Potentiality to be potential, must actualize it's potential at some time. With this arising of the sense of Impersonal Presence............... ..........Consciousness-in-repose .........."becomes" ................Consciousness -in-movement. I ..........."becomes" .......... I AM Shiva......... "becomes" .........Shakti The becoming has been put in ""........ "", because the becoming is ................AS-IF. The "becoming" then proceeds to entitification, the arising of the personal self, the "me". As I prattled earlier I--------------> I AM--------------> I am "Prem" And thus seeking, (no matter in what form, what path, what hoopla taking place) is..... I am "Prem"---------------------> I AM------------------>................ There is no "we" or "you" who is using anything, let alone Shakti, to do anything. It is all Shakti doing, ..............which is personal entitification attempting to recover back it's impersonality, through a particular, appropriately conditioned manifested object. Shakti recovering back itself as Shiva, through a particular so programmed instrument. "Prem" can do nothing. "Prem" has no independent existential reality to do or not to do something, anything. Yes "doings" occur in the moment, .........moment to moment to moment, ..........through a manifested conditioned instrument, which society has labeled "Prem". Whether these doings are labeled spiritual or mundane, depends on the intrinsic prevailing conditioning-in-the-moment, in "Prem" and in the society around "Prem". The truth is that 'Prem" does not live. "Prem" is lived. Moment to moment to moment. Now let's go back to that famous bromide, which any so called Guru worth his or her salt, keeps bandying about. "There is only Consciousness." Let's take the analogy of the "wave" and the Ocean. An observer, walking on the sea-shore, can observe, cognize, and thus validate, that the wave has no independent existential reality. That there is only the Ocean. This observation is possible, because the observer walking on the sea-shore, is separate from the wave-Ocean continuum. All observation, all experience, needs this separation and thus all observations, all experiences, all realizations, can only occur within the gestalt of duality. And are thus of no import. Now imagine, there is no observer on the sea-shore. That there is no sea-shore at all. There is only the Oceanic beingness. If there is only Oceanic beingness, who or what is not this Oceanic beingness, to cognize "it" as Oceanic beingness? If there is only Consciousness, who or what is not this Consciousness, in order to note ............."there is only Consciousness". Thus, ..........."There is only Consciousness", ..............is only a concept. Mind you, concepts are useful. Just like thorns. You use one thorn to dig out another deeply embedded thorn. And then lay both the thorns aside. Not replace one with the other. > > Your comments will be appreciated. > > Remember. You cannot introduce your comments while being the wave and then avoid critique by pleading that you are now the > ocean. Prattling, commeting, dear Prem, happens through a "wave", never by the "wave", no matter what the label of that "wave". As far as avoiding, I do not seek anything from you Prem, even your agreement or acceptance, thus the question of avoiding is moot. > Again, a confusion between the relative and the Absolute. Whatever you say.:-) How about dropping both, as both are concepts anyway. > > If you frame your comments as the wave, please respond as the wave. If you frame your comments as the ocean, then the > comments will be much different and we will agree totally. :-) > > I am aware of the half-second time-lag between between when an unconscious decision has been made at the cellular level > and the making of that same decision at the conscious level (Libet 1979). That is not what LIbet's study established, but let it be. > But we cannot make the assumption that there is no 'me' to cognitize the decision. Rather there is a diffuse 'me' spread through >each cell and because of karma perhaps spread over different times. This diffusion is a different 'me' from the one that we are >used to dealing with and the time-lag is perhaps the time needed to marshall the means of implementing the decision. One way >to view this marshalling process is as a narrowing or dumbing down of focus. So, from that statement, may I assume that you believe,......... you as the entity me-Prem, have the independent volition to think, decide among options (which are thoughts) and take action on the decision taken and thus achieve either success or failure against an intended goal, objective, whether that goal is spiritual stuff or mundane icons? Would this be your position, your belief structure? If yes, once again rather than a theoritical discussion, give me one example of one decision/action that you believe, you have taken out of your independent volition, and if you are agreeable, Prem let's unravel that decision/action. Preferably take that decision/action which has had a significant impact on your life, as you will remember the surrounding circumstances. Describe that situation in totality and let's go for a walk. That is of course, if you are moved to. Zip-A-Dee-Dah-Doo-Phat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2003 Report Share Posted March 6, 2003 OM Sandeep "You can't experience anything except through thought." is an opinion only. Where's the proof of this statement? Is intuition thought? The above statement seems to have the corollary that thought and knowledge are based on sensory perception. This too is opinion only and seems deeply flawed, pratyahara not withstanding. "There is one thought. Everything exists in relationship to that one thought. That thought is "me". This opinion also seems flawed. If God is everywhere and one knows themself as God, there would be no 'me' because there would be no 'not me' and hence no need for 'me'. There seems to be confusion between the relative and the Absolute imbedded in the above quote. OM Namah Sivaya Omprem , Sandeep Chatterjee <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > > You can't experience anything except through thought. > > You can't experience your own body except through the help of thought. > > The sensory perceptions are there. > > Your thoughts give form and definition to the body, otherwise you have no way of experiencing it. > > The body does not exist except as a thought. > > There is one thought. > > Everything exists in relationship to that one thought. > > That thought is "me". > > Anything you experience based on thought is an illusion. > > All insights, however extraordinary they may be, are worthless, because it is thought that has created what we call insight, and through that it is maintaining its continuity and status quo. > > There is reincarnation for those who believe in it. > There is no reincarnation for those who do not believe in it. > > But you have to ask this fundamental question: "What is there now that will reincarnate? Is there any such thing as a soul, 'I', or psyche?" > > > > Whatever you see or experience is created, by the knowledge we have, of that which is being seen or experienced. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2003 Report Share Posted March 6, 2003 Hi Omprem, Thank you for your comments.... Some two cents, as below - "omprem" <omprem <> Friday, March 07, 2003 01:10 AM Re: Thought creating thought > > OM Sandeep > > "You can't experience anything except through thought." is an > opinion only. Where's the proof of this statement? The very question "where's the proof of this statement?" ..... is a thought in omprem's mind, which got actualized as an Email message through cyber space. > Is intuition > thought? The cognition of intuition, as "intuition", is a thought. In the moment, when intuition flashes, ........there is no "me" to cognize it as an intuition. Neuro-scientists have now established this time-lag, of close to 500 milli seconds. > > The above statement seems to have the corollary that thought > and knowledge are based on sensory perception. This too is > opinion only and seems deeply flawed, pratyahara not > withstanding. > > "There is one thought. Everything exists in relationship to that > one thought. That thought is "me". This opinion also seems > flawed. If God is everywhere and one knows themself as God, > there would be no 'me' because there would be no 'not me' and > hence no need for 'me'. There seems to be confusion between > the relative and the Absolute imbedded in the above quote. In the statement ........."if God is everywhere and one knows themself as God",........... when that "if" is no more, ....................the "me" is no more. And thus the "not-me" is no more either. All "ifs" .................are the play of the "me". With the cessation of the "me", .......the arising of thought does not cease, the instrument in which the "me" has ceased, so long the instrument is still "alive", functioning in it's varied forms will continue. In a body-mind complex labeled by society as "sage", thoughts arise. In the moment. And is witnessed, in that moment. And dissipates in that same moment. The arising and the cessation of thought occurs in the same moment. There is no involvement with thought, in horizontal time. Whereas ordinarily (using a mere conceptual term to differentiate), the involvement with thought, actually defines you, defines the "me", ...............whether it is the thought about the "Absolute" or the "Relative" (both being once again thoughts) It is this involvement which "births" horizontal time. Now this "me", actually has no independent existential reality. It is an inference, a notion. There is only the Absolute, God, Source, Jesus's Old man, Shakti, Consciousness, Bozo the Clown, Brahman, Awareness-not-aware-of-itself, Allah, Noumenon, "That", "IT", ..........or whatever term suits your conditioning. Which ..........brings about, ........through what can be called as the Divine Hypnosis, .......a sense of identification, ........a sense of entitification, .......the "me", ...............the billion and billions of "me". This "creationing", is not the creating as exampled by a painter, creating a painting, separate from himself or herself. The Divine Hypnosis is of itself, by itself, for itself. Aka, the "wave" in the Ocean, is an illusion, it has no independent existential reality to it. Pick up a "wave' in your hand and all that you will have in the cup of your palm is the Ocean. The Ocean and the "wave" are not two. I - (Awareness-not-aware of Itself)------> I AM (God, Consciousness-in-movement, Impersonalness, Shakti)-------> I am "Omprem", "X", "Y", "Z", etc Noumenon and phenomenon are not two. You mentioned about the need of the "me". The sense of the "me", the sense of personal entification is absolutely needed for Life to be what it is. With the "birth" of the me, which is Impersonality identifying itself, as a particular "self", as a particular personality, ..........with the birth of the "me", ...........the "you" is born. With "me", mine is born, .............with "you", your's is born. And now relating is possible between the "me" and the "you", through the mine/your's continuum. Billions and billions of relatings, .......either in love, or in hate or in indifference (and the infinite shades in between)....... an infinite mosaic of relatings termed Life "exists", ..........moment to moment to moment, ............dynamically changing, .........to form a brilliant array of jewels, each a reflection of each other...... Life comes to exist. An appropriate question which may arise, is if the "me" is a mere notion, why all this hoopla with the "me"? Why all the hoopla with the issues of the "me", it's spiritual issues, or it's material issues? (All issues are only of the "me") The "me" may be a notion, but an extermely powerful notion. World Wars are fought because of this power notion. If the notionality of the "me" is apperceived (not perceived), thus the notionality of "not-me" also being apperceived, .................there is no further issue. There is no longer any "if", present. There is no longer any doubt present. AND AND AND There is no certainity present either. The relevance of BOTH doubt AND certainity, both are absent. For it is nothing but the "me" which can be certain or doubtful. Dooooooobeeeeee Dooooooooobeeeee Dooooooooooo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2003 Report Share Posted March 7, 2003 OM Sandeep That was certainly more than two cents worth. Probably about $9.98 CDN. You made the comment, "You can't experience anything except through thought." And presumably this statement was intended to carry some meaning. Yet, asked to provide proof of the assertion, in other words amplify the meaning, you choose to avoid doing that by dismissing the question in the following manner, "The very question "where's the proof of this statement?" ..... is a thought in omprem's mind, which got actualized as an Email message through cyber space. My question to you again is You can't experience anything except through thought." is a thought in Sandeep's mind: what is the basis for that thought?" Please actualize your response as message on this board. Similarly, with the question "Is intuition thought?", you choose to equivocate by changing the question slightly. You responded, "The cognition of intuition, as "intuition", is a thought." My question remains, "Is intuition thought?" The scriptures tell us that Pure Consciousness has no content. Therefore, (1) thought and experience seem to be separate, (2) thought depends upon 'me-ness' or a sense of separation, (3) Pure Consciousness is being or (4) place your comments here: ______________________ Dobe dobe do. If Pure Consciousness is being and everything else is doing, then Shakti is not Pure Consciousness and we have to use Shakti in the form of spiritual practices to overcome Shakti. Your comments will be appreciated. Remember. You cannot introduce your comments while being the wave and then avoid critique by pleading that you are now the ocean. Again, a confusion between the relative and the Absolute. If you frame your comments as the wave, please respond as the wave. If you frame your comments as the ocean, then the comments will be much different and we will agree totally. I am aware of the half-second time-lag between between when an unconscious decision has been made at the cellular level and the making of that same decision at the conscious level (Libet 1979). But we cannot make the assumption that there is no 'me' to cognitize the decision. Rather there is a diffuse 'me' spread through each cell and because of karma perhaps spread over different times. This diffusion is a different 'me' from the one that we are used to dealing with and the time-lag is perhaps the time needed to marshall the means of implementing the decision. One way to view this marshalling process is as a narrowing or dumbing down of focus. OM Namah Sivaya Omprem , Sandeep Chatterjee <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > Hi Omprem, > > Thank you for your comments.... > > Some two cents, as below > > > > - > "omprem" <omprem> > <> > Friday, March 07, 2003 01:10 AM > Re: Thought creating thought > > > > > > OM Sandeep > > > > "You can't experience anything except through thought." is an > > opinion only. Where's the proof of this statement? > > > The very question "where's the proof of this statement?" ..... is a thought > in omprem's mind, which got actualized as an Email message through cyber > space. > > > > > Is intuition > > thought? > > > The cognition of intuition, as "intuition", is a thought. > > In the moment, when intuition flashes, ........there is no "me" to cognize > it as an intuition. > > Neuro-scientists have now established this time-lag, of close to 500 milli > seconds. > > > > > > The above statement seems to have the corollary that thought > > and knowledge are based on sensory perception. This too is > > opinion only and seems deeply flawed, pratyahara not > > withstanding. > > > > "There is one thought. Everything exists in relationship to that > > one thought. That thought is "me". This opinion also seems > > flawed. If God is everywhere and one knows themself as God, > > there would be no 'me' because there would be no 'not me' and > > hence no need for 'me'. There seems to be confusion between > > the relative and the Absolute imbedded in the above quote. > > > > In the statement ........."if God is everywhere and one knows themself as > God",........... when that "if" is no more, ....................the "me" is > no more. > > And thus the "not-me" is no more either. > > All "ifs" .................are the play of the "me". > > With the cessation of the "me", .......the arising of thought does not > cease, the instrument in which the "me" has ceased, so long the instrument > is still "alive", functioning in it's varied forms will continue. > > In a body-mind complex labeled by society as "sage", thoughts arise. > In the moment. > And is witnessed, in that moment. > And dissipates in that same moment. > > The arising and the cessation of thought occurs in the same moment. > > There is no involvement with thought, in horizontal time. > > Whereas ordinarily (using a mere conceptual term to differentiate), the > involvement with thought, actually defines you, defines the "me", > ..............whether it is the thought about the "Absolute" or the > "Relative" (both being once again thoughts) > > It is this involvement which "births" horizontal time. > > > Now this "me", actually has no independent existential reality. > > It is an inference, a notion. > > There is only the Absolute, God, Source, Jesus's Old man, Shakti, > Consciousness, Bozo the Clown, Brahman, Awareness-not-aware-of-itself, > Allah, Noumenon, "That", "IT", ..........or whatever term suits your > conditioning. > > Which ..........brings about, ........through what can be called as the > Divine Hypnosis, .......a sense of identification, ........a sense of > entitification, .......the "me", ...............the billion and billions of > "me". > > This "creationing", is not the creating as exampled by a painter, creating a > painting, separate from himself or herself. > > The Divine Hypnosis is of itself, by itself, for itself. > > Aka, the "wave" in the Ocean, is an illusion, it has no independent > existential reality to it. > > Pick up a "wave' in your hand and all that you will have in the cup of your > palm is the Ocean. > > The Ocean and the "wave" are not two. > > I - (Awareness-not-aware of Itself)------> I AM (God, > Consciousness-in-movement, Impersonalness, Shakti)-------> I am "Omprem", > "X", "Y", "Z", etc > > Noumenon and phenomenon are not two. > > > You mentioned about the need of the "me". > > The sense of the "me", the sense of personal entification is absolutely > needed for Life to be what it is. > > With the "birth" of the me, which is Impersonality identifying itself, as a > particular "self", as a particular personality, ..........with the birth of > the "me", ...........the "you" is born. > > With "me", mine is born, .............with "you", your's is born. > > And now relating is possible between the "me" and the "you", through the > mine/your's continuum. > > Billions and billions of relatings, .......either in love, or in hate or in > indifference (and the infinite shades in between)....... an infinite mosaic > of relatings termed Life "exists", ..........moment to moment to moment, > ...........dynamically changing, .........to form a brilliant array of > jewels, each a reflection of each other...... Life comes to exist. > > > An appropriate question which may arise, is if the "me" is a mere notion, > why all this hoopla with the "me"? > > Why all the hoopla with the issues of the "me", it's spiritual issues, or > it's material issues? > (All issues are only of the "me") > > The "me" may be a notion, but an extermely powerful notion. > > World Wars are fought because of this power notion. > > If the notionality of the "me" is apperceived (not perceived), thus the > notionality of "not-me" also being apperceived, .................there is no > further issue. > > There is no longer any "if", present. > > There is no longer any doubt present. > > AND > > AND > > AND > > There is no certainity present either. > > The relevance of BOTH doubt AND certainity, both are absent. > > For it is nothing but the "me" which can be certain or doubtful. > > > > Dooooooobeeeeee Dooooooooobeeeee Dooooooooooo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2003 Report Share Posted March 7, 2003 Hiya Sandeep, You write "The truth is that 'Prem" does not live." "Prem" is lived. Moment to moment to moment. I will take 'prem' to the next level. You are 'prem' this very moment onwards when you realize 'Prem is lived ' Phat swaha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2003 Report Share Posted March 7, 2003 Of course. It's all I, .......having some fun, through this dialoguing, which needs two, apparently separate objects. - "boozume" <boozume <> Saturday, March 08, 2003 04:31 AM Re: Thought creating thought > Hiya Sandeep, > > You write > > "The truth is that 'Prem" does not live." > > "Prem" is lived. > > Moment to moment to moment. > > I will take 'prem' to the next level. > > You are 'prem' > > this very moment onwards when you realize 'Prem is lived ' > > Phat swaha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2003 Report Share Posted March 8, 2003 Hiya Prem. Thank you for your comments. - "omprem" <omprem <> Sunday, March 09, 2003 01:37 AM Re: Thought creating thought > OM Blessed Self, Sandeep > > You seem to have an idea that you keep going back to. > It is an idea with which I do not disagree. Fine. Have fun. Seriousness of anything, for anything is a dis-ease, the mother all diseases. Now was that a serious statement? LOL <SNIP> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2003 Report Share Posted March 8, 2003 OM Blessed Self, Sandeep You seem to have an idea that you keep going back to. It is an idea with which I do not disagree. You phrase it variously: 1. "Rather than a theoretical discussion, give me Prem, an example of an experience which for you, is not a thought or a series of thought." 2. "As soon as you have cognized intution as intuition, the cognition is a thought. What is not a thought, nothing can be said about it, including the statement "nothing can be said about it"" 3. "A feeling, whether for the divine or for the devil, is a thought, with maybe an associated sensation in the body-mind complex." You claim rightly that a thought requires a thinker. But, buried in that idea is your assumption, incorrect I think, that the thought of an intuition is the same as the intuition itself. Perhaps both can exist simultaneously on different levels or dimensions or parts of the 5-fold self. And you also claim rightly, (1)"In experiencing, there is none to cognize the experiencing as "experiencing".The absence of an entity to take ownership, is the dissipation in the moment." and (2)"Pure Consciousness is ............. neither beingness ........... nor ........... non-beingness." Through various means one can change their energy levels to approach a zero point and so step outside of time and space,i.e. dissipate, into Pure Consciousness. But one cannot assume that Pure Consciousness is the same as a feeling for the divine. It is not. You also seem to possessed of the Buddhist hang up regarding scripture, Guru, sage leading you eschew help from those who have experienced Pure Consciousness. You tend to overgeneralize the idea of `none to cognize the experiencing' and thus to propose, incorrectly in my view, "That Pure Consciosuness has no content is pure spuctum tauri. For who is observing that pure Consciousness has no content?" Someone who has been in a state of Pure Consciousness (without content) can recall that they were in such a state after they had dropped out of that state. That fact can also be inferred through noticing the presence of content in the current state of consciousness. Pure Consciousness may be as difficult to describe as a point in space but it nevertheless is. Whether one can describe 'no content' has nothing to do with whether one can experience the state of 'no content ' or subsequently assert that there is such a state as Pure Consciousness A sleeper cannot be aware that he/she is asleep or be aware of deep, dreamless sleep and yet can experience those states just the same, be influenced by them, and know that they did experience them. Beingness" and "doing-ness" are not two. Yes "doings" occur in the moment, .........moment to moment to moment, ..........through a manifested conditioned instrument, which society has labeled "Prem"."" Perhaps `beingness' and `doing-ness' are two sides of the same coin, two states of energy level and pattern - one without separation and one with or one without time and one in time. "So, from that statement, may I assume that you believe,......... you as the entity me-Prem, have the independent volition to think, decide among options (which are thoughts) and take action on the decision taken and thus achieve either success or failure against an intended goal, objective, whether that goal is spiritual stuff or mundane icons? Would this be your position, your belief structure?" That is not my belief structure, I have more of a cause-effect belief structure. Although, I wonder about the idea of `volition' as being a recognition of pattern and the consequent introduction of behaviours or energy changes to change the pattern. OM Namah Sivaya Your humble, manifested and conditioned instrument Omprem , "Sandeep Chatterjee" <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > Hiya Prem, > > > > - > "omprem" <omprem> > <> > Friday, March 07, 2003 09:30 PM > Re: Thought creating thought > > > > OM Sandeep > > > > That was certainly more than two cents worth. Probably about > > $9.98 CDN. > > > > You made the comment, "You can't experience anything except > > through thought." And presumably this statement was intended > > to carry some meaning. Yet, asked to provide proof of the > > assertion, in other words amplify the meaning, you choose to > > avoid doing that by dismissing the question in the following > > manner, "The very question "where's the proof of this > > statement?" ..... is a thought in omprem's mind, which got > > actualized as an Email message through cyber space. > > > :-) > > If you re-read (that is if you are moved to at all), you will see I have actually answered you in what appeared to you as dismissive. > > > Neverthless, let's look again. > > Rather than a theoritical discussion, give me Prem, an example of an experience which for you, is not a thought or a series of thought. > And lets' unravel that. > > > > > My question to you again is You can't experience anything > > except through thought." is a thought in Sandeep's mind: what is > > the basis for that thought?" > > > The basis is simple. > > Any experience, whether profound or profane is cognized as an "experience" (the content is immaterial) and this cognition is a thought or a series of thought. > > The experience of licking an ice-cream cone or visioning Maa Shakti, is a thought. > > A feeling, whether for the divine or for the devil, is a thought, with maybe an associated sensation in the body-mind complex. > > Do you disgaree? > > If yes, that is perfectly fine, .............your experience of "disagreeing" with the prattling, is it not a thought? <LOL> > > > > > Please actualize your response as message on this board. > > > > Similarly, with the question "Is intuition thought?", you choose to > > equivocate by changing the question slightly. You responded, > > "The cognition of intuition, as "intuition", is a thought." My > > question remains, "Is intuition thought?" > > > I repeat my earlier response. > > As soon as you have cognized intution as intuition, the cognition is a thought. > > What is not a thought, nothing can be said about it, including the statement "nothing can be said about it" > > > > > > The scriptures tell us that Pure Consciousness has no content. > > Therefore, (1) thought and experience seem to be separate, (2) > > thought depends upon 'me-ness' or a sense of separation, (3) > > Pure Consciousness is being or (4) place your comments here: > > > > > 1)Forget the scriptures. > > 2)That Pure Consciosuness has no content is pure spuctum tauri. > > For who is observing that pure Consciousness has no content? > > > 3)All experience is nothing but the cognition of the "experiencing" which has occurred. > > In experiencing, there is none to cognize the experiencing as "experiencing". > > 4)Involvement with thought, as "I thought such and such", "I decided such and such among these options", that involvement needs a "me" to take ownership. > > As stated thoughts occur even in a body-mind complex, which has labeled as a sage. > > The absence of an entity to take ownership, is the dissipation in the moment. > > 5) Anything said about Pure Consciousness is a concept. > > And thus offer you another concept which is the closest approximation.. > > > Pure Consciousness is ...............neither beingness ...........nor ...........non-beingness. > > > > > ______________________ > > > > Dobe dobe do. > > > > If Pure Consciousness is being and everything else is doing, > > then Shakti is not Pure Consciousness and we have to use > > Shakti in the form of spiritual practices to overcome Shakti. > > > That assumption if prevailing in the moment, then drives "Prem", in that moment. > > And so long it is happening, it is thus appropriate. > > For it takes all the infinite varieties of acts to make a Grand circus, the Leela. > > "Beingness" and "doing-ness" are not two. > > Some conceptual terms have been used to try and point to this... > > There is only Consciousness (for the time being take this premise and then later on we will explode even this premise) > > Consciousness- in- repose, ..........is the Noumenon, Source, Awareness-not-aware-of-itself, Void of Nothingness, Plenum of all potentialities. > > In this awareness-not-aware-of-itself, ...........arises a sense of awareness of Impersonal Presence,.......... for no reason, except that it is it's nature to do so. > > Potentiality to be potential, must actualize it's potential at some time. > > With this arising of the sense of Impersonal Presence............... > > .........Consciousness-in-repose .........."becomes" ................Consciousness -in-movement. > > I ..........."becomes" .......... I AM > > Shiva......... "becomes" .........Shakti > > The becoming has been put in ""........ "", because the becoming is ...............AS-IF. > > The "becoming" then proceeds to entitification, the arising of the personal self, the "me". > > As I prattled earlier > > I--------------> I AM--------------> I am "Prem" > > And thus seeking, (no matter in what form, what path, what hoopla taking place) is..... > > I am "Prem"---------------------> I AM------------------>................ > > > There is no "we" or "you" who is using anything, let alone Shakti, to do anything. > > It is all Shakti doing, ..............which is personal entitification attempting to recover back it's impersonality, through a particular, appropriately conditioned manifested object. > > Shakti recovering back itself as Shiva, through a particular so programmed instrument. > > "Prem" can do nothing. > > "Prem" has no independent existential reality to do or not to do something, anything. > > Yes "doings" occur in the moment, .........moment to moment to moment, .........through a manifested conditioned instrument, which society has labeled "Prem". > > Whether these doings are labeled spiritual or mundane, depends on the intrinsic prevailing conditioning-in-the-moment, in "Prem" and in the society around "Prem". > > > The truth is that 'Prem" does not live. > > "Prem" is lived. > > Moment to moment to moment. > > > > Now let's go back to that famous bromide, which any so called Guru worth his or her salt, keeps bandying about. > > "There is only Consciousness." > > Let's take the analogy of the "wave" and the Ocean. > > An observer, walking on the sea-shore, can observe, cognize, and thus validate, that the wave has no independent existential reality. > > That there is only the Ocean. > > This observation is possible, because the observer walking on the sea-shore, is separate from the wave-Ocean continuum. > > All observation, all experience, needs this separation and thus all observations, all experiences, all realizations, can only occur within the gestalt of duality. > > And are thus of no import. > > > > Now imagine, there is no observer on the sea-shore. > > That there is no sea-shore at all. > > There is only the Oceanic beingness. > > If there is only Oceanic beingness, who or what is not this Oceanic beingness, to cognize "it" as Oceanic beingness? > > If there is only Consciousness, who or what is not this Consciousness, in order to note ............."there is only Consciousness". > > Thus, ..........."There is only Consciousness", ..............is only a concept. > > Mind you, concepts are useful. > > Just like thorns. > > You use one thorn to dig out another deeply embedded thorn. > > And then lay both the thorns aside. > > Not replace one with the other. > > > > > > Your comments will be appreciated. > > > > Remember. You cannot introduce your comments while being the wave and then avoid critique by pleading that you are now the > > ocean. > > > Prattling, commeting, dear Prem, happens through a "wave", never by the "wave", no matter what the label of that "wave". > > As far as avoiding, I do not seek anything from you Prem, even your agreement or acceptance, thus the question of avoiding is moot. > > > > > > Again, a confusion between the relative and the Absolute. > > > Whatever you say.:-) > > How about dropping both, as both are concepts anyway. > > > > > > If you frame your comments as the wave, please respond as the wave. If you frame your comments as the ocean, then the > > comments will be much different and we will agree totally. > > > :-) > > > > > > > I am aware of the half-second time-lag between between when an unconscious decision has been made at the cellular level > > and the making of that same decision at the conscious level (Libet 1979). > > > > That is not what LIbet's study established, but let it be. > > > > > But we cannot make the assumption that there is no 'me' to cognitize the decision. Rather there is a diffuse 'me' spread through >each cell and because of karma perhaps spread over different times. This diffusion is a different 'me' from the one that we are >used to dealing with and the time-lag is perhaps the time needed to marshall the means of implementing the decision. One way >to view this marshalling process is as a narrowing or dumbing down of focus. > > > So, from that statement, may I assume that you believe,......... you as the entity me-Prem, have the independent volition to think, decide among options (which are thoughts) and take action on the decision taken and thus achieve either success or failure against an intended goal, objective, whether that goal is spiritual stuff or mundane icons? > > Would this be your position, your belief structure? > > If yes, once again rather than a theoritical discussion, give me one example of one decision/action that you believe, you have taken out of your independent volition, and if you are agreeable, Prem let's unravel that decision/action. > > > > Preferably take that decision/action which has had a significant impact on your life, as you will remember the surrounding circumstances. > > Describe that situation in totality and let's go for a walk. > > That is of course, if you are moved to. > > > > > > Zip-A-Dee-Dah-Doo-Phat > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2003 Report Share Posted March 9, 2003 Hiya Prem, - "omprem" <omprem <> Monday, March 10, 2003 09:21 PM Re: Thought creating thought > OM Sandeep > > Interesting how your comments on various issues of life and > your responses to messages on this board are intended to be > informative, instructive, and meaningful, That the prattlings are meant to be informative, instructive and meanignful ,..........is a meaning you attach my friend. Moi, there is only sharing, ....................for there is a helplessness not to share. Pick whatever sits well on you, .............for the rest hit the del key. > yet you characterize the > responses of others to you as dis-ease. :-) Invite you to re-read those informative, instructive and meaningful stuff. What was mentioned, was that,........ seriousness of anything for anything is a dis-ease. > The beat goes on regardless. > > Remember [God]. You cannot remember, what you have no clue about. > Forget [the rest]. What is <the rest> which is not God? And who is to forget? Don't rush to answer, Prem. Either let the pointers rest on you, or hit the del key. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2003 Report Share Posted March 10, 2003 OM Sandeep Interesting how your comments on various issues of life and your responses to messages on this board are intended to be informative, instructive, and meaningful, yet you characterize the responses of others to you as dis-ease. The beat goes on regardless. Remember [God]. Forget [the rest]. Om Namah Sivaya Omprem , "Sandeep Chatterjee" <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > Hiya Prem. > > Thank you for your comments. > > > - > "omprem" <omprem> > <> > Sunday, March 09, 2003 01:37 AM > Re: Thought creating thought > > > > OM Blessed Self, Sandeep > > > > You seem to have an idea that you keep going back to. > > > It is an idea with which I do not disagree. > > > Fine. > > Have fun. > > Seriousness of anything, for anything is a dis-ease, the mother all > diseases. > Now was that a serious statement? > > LOL > > <SNIP> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.