Why Think? Thoughts are all relativistic.. they can never get us there.

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

can we say enlightenment and un-enlightenment are both just

ideas/thoughts, one of which cannot exist without the other, ie,

someone enlightened can only exists all long as someone un-

enlightened exists. So enlightened ones exists only because of un-

enlightened ones. It is like light exists only because of darkness.

 

If we examine thought carefully we only find that all of them are

highly relative, one thought supporting the other. So if at all we

are to find anything worthwhile I believe we must do away with

thought ...

 

Obviously all we have is thought or intellect, without using them how

do we move anywhere.... u can, I believe very well...using IT

 

Cheers :-)

Arvind

[Guest guest]

 

-

iinself

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, September 26, 2001 4:36 PM

Why Think? Thoughts are all relativistic.. they can never get us there.

Hi Arvind,

A few comments to your post.

Hi All,can we say enlightenment and un-enlightenment are both just ideas/thoughts, one of which cannot exist without the other, ie, someone enlightened can only exists all long as someone un-enlightened exists. So enlightened ones exists only because of un-enlightened ones. It is like light exists only because of darkness.

Everyone is already enlightened including you.

If we examine thought carefully we only find that all of them are highly relative, one thought supporting the other. So if at all we are to find anything worthwhile I believe we must do away with thought ...

 

To paraphrase: you are saying, I had a thought that said get rid of thought. Hard to do especially, since thoughts are not ours.Obviously all we have is thought or intellect, without using them how do we move anywhere.... u can, I believe very well...using IT

 

We have never moved anywhere. Cheers :-)ArvindCheers :-)

Dick

[Guest guest]

If we examine concept carefully,

we find the one examining the

concept is concept.

 

Woof! No-thought!

 

Care-full,

Dan

 

 

--- iinself wrote:

> Hi All,

> can we say enlightenment and un-enlightenment are

> both just

> ideas/thoughts, one of which cannot exist without

> the other, ie,

> someone enlightened can only exists all long as

> someone un-

> enlightened exists. So enlightened ones exists only

> because of un-

> enlightened ones. It is like light exists only

> because of darkness.

>

> If we examine thought carefully we only find that

> all of them are

> highly relative, one thought supporting the other.

> So if at all we

> are to find anything worthwhile I believe we must do

> away with

> thought ...

>

> Obviously all we have is thought or intellect,

> without using them how

> do we move anywhere.... u can, I believe very

> well...using IT

>

> Cheers :-)

> Arvind

>

>

 

 

 

 

Listen to your Mail messages from any phone.

http://phone.

[Guest guest]

Dear all

 

I feel a very long post coming up... good for you guys that I am busy

otherwise...

The problem is that we think there is a problem...

 

All these words that have been thrown about lately have all been given a

slight connotation of 'not being right'.

The mind ?... something wrong with it

Thinking ?... something wrong with it

Time and space?... the same

Talking?... the same

Enlightenment?

The list is very long

....

....

....

 

There is nothing wrong with anything... any thing... REALITY: the global

environment of the multiplicity and individuality of things within one

integrated whole.

Anybody who thinks that there is something the matter with matter, is still

under a spell of the illusionist's game of judgment. The illusion being that

the judgment looks more real than the subject judged. (Judgments always

objectify... killing the reality of the subject... Oh, lovely Ramana)

 

Gotto go... stucco job to be finished...the guys are here...

Love, Wim

d b [dan330033]

Thursday, September 27, 2001 8:05 AM

Nisargadatta

Re: Why Think? Thoughts are all relativistic.. they

can never get us there.

 

If we examine concept carefully,

we find the one examining the

concept is concept.

 

Woof! No-thought!

 

Care-full,

Dan

 

 

--- iinself wrote:

> Hi All,

> can we say enlightenment and un-enlightenment are

> both just

> ideas/thoughts, one of which cannot exist without

> the other, ie,

> someone enlightened can only exists all long as

> someone un-

> enlightened exists. So enlightened ones exists only

> because of un-

> enlightened ones. It is like light exists only

> because of darkness.

>

> If we examine thought carefully we only find that

> all of them are

> highly relative, one thought supporting the other.

> So if at all we

> are to find anything worthwhile I believe we must do

> away with

> thought ...

>

> Obviously all we have is thought or intellect,

> without using them how

> do we move anywhere.... u can, I believe very

> well...using IT

>

> Cheers :-)

> Arvind

>

>

 

 

 

 

Listen to your Mail messages from any phone.

http://phone.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Wim,

 

can you please explain - are you saying that we need not make any

effort whatsoever, just leave things as they are, because they are

perfect???

 

Believe me this is interesting stuff, even if it does not take me

anywhere in the end :-)

 

Thanks :-)

Arvind

 

Nisargadatta, " Wim Borsboom " <wim@a...> wrote:

> Dear all

>

> I feel a very long post coming up... good for you guys that I am

busy

> otherwise...

> The problem is that we think there is a problem...

>

> All these words that have been thrown about lately have all been

given a

> slight connotation of 'not being right'.

> The mind ?... something wrong with it

> Thinking ?... something wrong with it

> Time and space?... the same

> Talking?... the same

> Enlightenment?

> The list is very long

> ...

> ...

> ...

>

> There is nothing wrong with anything... any thing... REALITY: the

global

> environment of the multiplicity and individuality of things within

one

> integrated whole.

> Anybody who thinks that there is something the matter with matter,

is still

> under a spell of the illusionist's game of judgment. The illusion

being that

> the judgment looks more real than the subject judged. (Judgments

always

> objectify... killing the reality of the subject... Oh, lovely

Ramana)

>

> Gotto go... stucco job to be finished...the guys are here...

> Love, Wim

>

> d b [dan330033]

> Thursday, September 27, 2001 8:05 AM

> Nisargadatta

> Re: Why Think? Thoughts are all

relativistic.. they

> can never get us there.

>

> If we examine concept carefully,

> we find the one examining the

> concept is concept.

>

> Woof! No-thought!

>

> Care-full,

> Dan

>

>

> --- iinself wrote:

> > Hi All,

> > can we say enlightenment and un-enlightenment are

> > both just

> > ideas/thoughts, one of which cannot exist without

> > the other, ie,

> > someone enlightened can only exists all long as

> > someone un-

> > enlightened exists. So enlightened ones exists only

> > because of un-

> > enlightened ones. It is like light exists only

> > because of darkness.

> >

> > If we examine thought carefully we only find that

> > all of them are

> > highly relative, one thought supporting the other.

> > So if at all we

> > are to find anything worthwhile I believe we must do

> > away with

> > thought ...

> >

> > Obviously all we have is thought or intellect,

> > without using them how

> > do we move anywhere.... u can, I believe very

> > well...using IT

> >

> > Cheers :-)

> > Arvind

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> Listen to your Mail messages from any phone.

> http://phone.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Wim,

can you please explain - are you suggesting that we make no effort at

all, as all things are perfect as they are???

 

Just trying to understand.

 

Cheers :-)

Arvind

 

Nisargadatta, " Wim Borsboom " <wim@a...> wrote:

> Dear all

>

> I feel a very long post coming up... good for you guys that I am

busy

> otherwise...

> The problem is that we think there is a problem...

>

> All these words that have been thrown about lately have all been

given a

> slight connotation of 'not being right'.

> The mind ?... something wrong with it

> Thinking ?... something wrong with it

> Time and space?... the same

> Talking?... the same

> Enlightenment?

> The list is very long

> ...

> ...

> ...

>

> There is nothing wrong with anything... any thing... REALITY: the

global

> environment of the multiplicity and individuality of things within

one

> integrated whole.

> Anybody who thinks that there is something the matter with matter,

is still

> under a spell of the illusionist's game of judgment. The illusion

being that

> the judgment looks more real than the subject judged. (Judgments

always

> objectify... killing the reality of the subject... Oh, lovely

Ramana)

>

> Gotto go... stucco job to be finished...the guys are here...

> Love, Wim

>

> d b [dan330033]

> Thursday, September 27, 2001 8:05 AM

> Nisargadatta

> Re: Why Think? Thoughts are all

relativistic.. they

> can never get us there.

>

> If we examine concept carefully,

> we find the one examining the

> concept is concept.

>

> Woof! No-thought!

>

> Care-full,

> Dan

>

>

> --- iinself wrote:

> > Hi All,

> > can we say enlightenment and un-enlightenment are

> > both just

> > ideas/thoughts, one of which cannot exist without

> > the other, ie,

> > someone enlightened can only exists all long as

> > someone un-

> > enlightened exists. So enlightened ones exists only

> > because of un-

> > enlightened ones. It is like light exists only

> > because of darkness.

> >

> > If we examine thought carefully we only find that

> > all of them are

> > highly relative, one thought supporting the other.

> > So if at all we

> > are to find anything worthwhile I believe we must do

> > away with

> > thought ...

> >

> > Obviously all we have is thought or intellect,

> > without using them how

> > do we move anywhere.... u can, I believe very

> > well...using IT

> >

> > Cheers :-)

> > Arvind

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> Listen to your Mail messages from any phone.

> http://phone.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- Richard Fortier <richardfortier

wrote:

 

> Everyone is already enlightened including you.

 

Yes. That is why there is no " you " or " me " who is

to be enlightened -- it has no partitions,

and thus there is no " enlightenment "

to be found, known, or spoken of.

 

> To paraphrase: you are saying, I had a thought

> that said get rid of thought. Hard to do

> especially, since thoughts are not ours.

 

Quite so.

Thought, no-thought.

What is, is.

Who could ever explain *this*?

 

Thought thinks it can review thought,

and this is itself a thought.

 

The thinker is the thought.

Thought invents and requires

time, thus makes a subject

of an object, and an object

of a subject ...

 

Yet, one instant of knowing

thought as thought, is to

know/be " no-thought " ...

 

Now, where is the thinker

who would catch, control,

and/or do away with thought and

its " contents " ?

>

> We have never moved anywhere.

 

Indeed, indeed!

And thus, all is motion ...

 

Unmoved,

Moving Dan

 

 

 

 

Listen to your Mail messages from any phone.

http://phone.

[Guest guest]

Dear Wim,

 

Funny!

Contending with

" slight connotations " ?

What a humorous conception!

Thought contending with its

connotations!

 

Blessed be,

Dan

 

 

--- Wim Borsboom <wim wrote:

> Dear all

>

> I feel a very long post coming up... good for you

> guys that I am busy

> otherwise...

> The problem is that we think there is a problem...

>

> All these words that have been thrown about lately

> have all been given a

> slight connotation of 'not being right'.

> The mind ?... something wrong with it

> Thinking ?... something wrong with it

> Time and space?... the same

> Talking?... the same

> Enlightenment?

> The list is very long

> ...

> ...

> ...

>

> There is nothing wrong with anything... any thing...

> REALITY: the global

> environment of the multiplicity and individuality of

> things within one

> integrated whole.

> Anybody who thinks that there is something the

> matter with matter, is still

> under a spell of the illusionist's game of judgment.

> The illusion being that

> the judgment looks more real than the subject

> judged. (Judgments always

> objectify... killing the reality of the subject...

> Oh, lovely Ramana)

>

> Gotto go... stucco job to be finished...the guys are

> here...

> Love, Wim

 

 

 

Listen to your Mail messages from any phone.

http://phone.

[Guest guest]

Dear Arvind,

 

You asked:

>are you saying that we need not make any effort whatsoever, ...

>just leave things as they are, because they are perfect???

 

I did not say that at all... but...

Let's say, if I would have said that, I would not have meant what people

usually mean by that.

I would have meant the following:

 

Look at your sentence. " just leave things as they are... "

 

What are things actually?

 

Can we still 'figure' out what 'things' (das Ding an sich) are in a genuine,

un-confused way?

The way we were, before we got confused by sloppy language use, careless

interactivity with, judgmental manipulation and conditional treatment of

'things'?

 

Can we still come to our senses?

Can we leave our sense perceptions unquestioned, so that we may live

'direct' again, in the 'immediacy' of wonder and awe, away from the way of

adulterated living as exemplified by obsessive judgmental treatment of the

world and its constituents?

 

Can we still recognize the world in its real nature?

Not through the denatured characterizations of what we call 'human nature',

The de-natured human, so far from nature, in a world as it

WAS-ORIGINALLY-AND-STILL-IS, one integral world of truly and clearly

perceived 'things' in their unconditional and unquestioned perfection, a

perfection that we still see displayed in the joy, bliss and radiation of

children at play, humans in love?

 

Yes.

 

The thing is...

 

Thing, Latin 'res' = thing, hence 'real', hence 'reality', that wonderful,

unified global environment of relationships between 'all-things-together of

every-thing-per-se' (an sich, as such, suchness)

 

om tat sat

 

In this real world, we humans behold:

firstly, with our hands (and their techno-scientific extensions),

secondly, with our unfettered sense faculties,

thirdly, through the integrative faculty of a proper functioning mind,

all things (an sich) in ourselves (in sich).

 

tat tuam asi

 

A proper functioning mind,

being no more and no less than a processing faculty of representative

transmission codes,

a mind to integrate data (the givens)

a mind to redistribute data at the appropriate time

a mind in synchronicity with the body

a mind not to analyze, as that is part of the sense functionality,

a mind not to grope, grapple and search, as that is what our extremities do,

a mind not to think, as that is what the adulterated mind does.

 

A mind to be left alone:

not to be obsessively manipulated,

not to be made up by others through:

the instillation of doubt,

the feed through of second hand data

A mind not to doubt one's sense perceptions.

 

That is where, as you said, " we need not make any effort whatsoever "

 

" To leave 'things' alone'' means no more and no less than to take our

judgments, qualifications, characterizations, etc. off things...

 

The naked thing...

The naked truth

 

The perfection of the originality of

the thing within

the thing without

the thing as such

Suchness, from the smallest to the grandest, the subtlest to the grossest

and anything in between, Connected in love through this wonderful web of

interferential relationships.

 

When the first humans started to name things, (Adam & Eve, if I may say

so)... only that did they have in mind... still a pure perfect mind, an

unadulterated mind.

 

As you wrote: " they are perfect "

 

Too bad someone did not leave those 'firstlings' alone... that is when the

judgment came in...

 

Arvind, the post that you responded could use another read...

 

Love, Arvind... Wim

 

I feel a very long post coming up... good for you guys that I am busy

otherwise...

The problem is that we think there is a problem...

 

All these words that have been thrown about lately have all been given a

slight connotation of 'not being right'.

The mind ?... something wrong with it

Thinking ?... something wrong with it

Time and space?... the same

Talking?... the same

Enlightenment?

The list is very long

....

....

....

 

There is nothing wrong with anything... any thing... REALITY: the global

environment of the multiplicity and individuality of things within one

integrated whole.

Anybody who thinks that there is something the matter with matter, is still

under a spell of the illusionist's game of judgment. The illusion being that

the judgment looks more real than the subject judged. (Judgments always

objectify... killing the reality of the subject... Oh, lovely Ramana)

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.277 / Virus Database: 146 - Release 9/5/2001

[Guest guest]

Hi Wim,

thanks for your time on that lengthy prespective.

 

Cheers :-)

Arvind

 

Nisargadatta, " Wim Borsboom " <wim@a...> wrote:

> Dear Arvind,

>

> You asked:

> >are you saying that we need not make any effort whatsoever, ...

> >just leave things as they are, because they are perfect???

>

> I did not say that at all... but...

> Let's say, if I would have said that, I would not have meant what

people

> usually mean by that.

> I would have meant the following:

>

> Look at your sentence. " just leave things as they are... "

>

> What are things actually?

>

> Can we still 'figure' out what 'things' (das Ding an sich) are in a

genuine,

> un-confused way?

> The way we were, before we got confused by sloppy language use,

careless

> interactivity with, judgmental manipulation and conditional

treatment of

> 'things'?

>

> Can we still come to our senses?

> Can we leave our sense perceptions unquestioned, so that we may live

> 'direct' again, in the 'immediacy' of wonder and awe, away from the

way of

> adulterated living as exemplified by obsessive judgmental treatment

of the

> world and its constituents?

>

> Can we still recognize the world in its real nature?

> Not through the denatured characterizations of what we call 'human

nature',

> The de-natured human, so far from nature, in a world as it

> WAS-ORIGINALLY-AND-STILL-IS, one integral world of truly and clearly

> perceived 'things' in their unconditional and unquestioned

perfection, a

> perfection that we still see displayed in the joy, bliss and

radiation of

> children at play, humans in love?

>

> Yes.

>

> The thing is...

>

> Thing, Latin 'res' = thing, hence 'real', hence 'reality', that

wonderful,

> unified global environment of relationships between 'all-things-

together of

> every-thing-per-se' (an sich, as such, suchness)

>

> om tat sat

>

> In this real world, we humans behold:

> firstly, with our hands (and their techno-scientific extensions),

> secondly, with our unfettered sense faculties,

> thirdly, through the integrative faculty of a proper functioning

mind,

> all things (an sich) in ourselves (in sich).

>

> tat tuam asi

>

> A proper functioning mind,

> being no more and no less than a processing faculty of

representative

> transmission codes,

> a mind to integrate data (the givens)

> a mind to redistribute data at the appropriate time

> a mind in synchronicity with the body

> a mind not to analyze, as that is part of the sense functionality,

> a mind not to grope, grapple and search, as that is what our

extremities do,

> a mind not to think, as that is what the adulterated mind does.

>

> A mind to be left alone:

> not to be obsessively manipulated,

> not to be made up by others through:

> the instillation of doubt,

> the feed through of second hand data

> A mind not to doubt one's sense perceptions.

>

> That is where, as you said, " we need not make any effort whatsoever "

>

> " To leave 'things' alone'' means no more and no less than to take

our

> judgments, qualifications, characterizations, etc. off things...

>

> The naked thing...

> The naked truth

>

> The perfection of the originality of

> the thing within

> the thing without

> the thing as such

> Suchness, from the smallest to the grandest, the subtlest to the

grossest

> and anything in between, Connected in love through this wonderful

web of

> interferential relationships.

>

> When the first humans started to name things, (Adam & Eve, if I may

say

> so)... only that did they have in mind... still a pure perfect

mind, an

> unadulterated mind.

>

> As you wrote: " they are perfect "

>

> Too bad someone did not leave those 'firstlings' alone... that is

when the

> judgment came in...

>

> Arvind, the post that you responded could use another read...

>

> Love, Arvind... Wim

>

> I feel a very long post coming up... good for you guys that I am

busy

> otherwise...

> The problem is that we think there is a problem...

>

> All these words that have been thrown about lately have all been

given a

> slight connotation of 'not being right'.

> The mind ?... something wrong with it

> Thinking ?... something wrong with it

> Time and space?... the same

> Talking?... the same

> Enlightenment?

> The list is very long

> ...

> ...

> ...

>

> There is nothing wrong with anything... any thing... REALITY: the

global

> environment of the multiplicity and individuality of things within

one

> integrated whole.

> Anybody who thinks that there is something the matter with matter,

is still

> under a spell of the illusionist's game of judgment. The illusion

being that

> the judgment looks more real than the subject judged. (Judgments

always

> objectify... killing the reality of the subject... Oh, lovely

Ramana)

>

>

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.277 / Virus Database: 146 - Release 9/5/2001

[Guest guest]

>>

>--- Wim Borsboom <wim wrote:

> > >

> > Gotto go... stucco job to be finished...the guys are

> > here...

> > Love, Wim

>

 

Hiya Wim,

 

You mean to say not one lady around ?

Just dudes ? must be one heck of a job!

 

~dave - before and after humpty dumpty fell :0

 

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp