Guest guest Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Hi again > Yes, that's right. The intellect goes around in a thought-world, it > is all concepts> The intellect is a function or capacity of a ME, it is not a 'thing' that you are trying to describe, it is inherent within a ME. >When this is seen, then there can be a great > confusion and suffering, because the intellect finds out that it is > trapped alone in a cage of concepts and cannot find a way out> The intellect never finds out anything nor gets worried. The intellect is a *name* we give to a function or capacity of a ME. You have conceptualized about how you *think* the behaviour of a ME will be affected when the 'intellect goes around in a thought world' which is another concept of something which itself does not *happen*. The intellect never does this, the intellect is a name describing an aspect of a MEs functioning. So one > has to be very careful and go very slowly, because it could be very > frightening for the intellect to think about these things> It cannot be frightening to the intellect. The intellect is the capacity to think, an attribute of a ME, it cannot be 'frightened', it is just a name or badge to describe a part of what a ME is. >What the > intellect thought was having a 'me' in relation to the world is in > reality only a thought-world with a 'me' and a 'world' inside the > same 'map' and all relations the intellect can have is only with > itself inside this thought-world> The intellect cannot have a relationship with itself, see parts above. Nor can a ME, because a ME *includes* *all* concepts and formulations, even about itself > the thinking ME. That's why people feel loneliness, > because the intellect *is* always all alone in its own thought- world. The intellect is a name given to a capacity or faculty of a mind / body ME, the intellect is not something as you have *personified* with concepts. The more you extrapolate concepts the more vague and inaccurate meaning and explanation becomes. Like the giving of reasons for why people feel loneliness above or the actions of the intellect. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again > > > > Yes, that's right. The intellect goes around in a thought-world, it > > is all concepts> > > > The intellect is a function or capacity of a ME, it is not a 'thing' > that you are trying to describe, it is inherent within a ME. Of corse it's not a thing. The intellect as I have used the word is a label for the thinking going on in a person and the feeling related to that thinking. > > > > >When this is seen, then there can be a great > > confusion and suffering, because the intellect finds out that it is > > trapped alone in a cage of concepts and cannot find a way out> > > > The intellect never finds out anything nor gets worried. > The intellect is a *name* we give to a function or capacity of a ME. > > You have conceptualized about how you *think* the behaviour of a ME > will be affected when the 'intellect goes around in a thought world' > which is another concept of something which itself does not *happen*. > > The intellect never does this, the intellect is a name describing an > aspect of a MEs functioning. All thinking going on in a person *is* this thought-world. > > > > So one > > has to be very careful and go very slowly, because it could be very > > frightening for the intellect to think about these things> > > > It cannot be frightening to the intellect. > > The intellect is the capacity to think, an attribute of a ME, it > cannot be 'frightened', it is just a name or badge to describe a part > of what a ME is. As I have used the world intellect is to describe the processes of thinging and the related feelings, and foremost among these feelings is fear. > > > >What the > > intellect thought was having a 'me' in relation to the world is in > > reality only a thought-world with a 'me' and a 'world' inside the > > same 'map' and all relations the intellect can have is only with > > itself inside this thought-world> > > > The intellect cannot have a relationship with itself, see parts above. > > Nor can a ME, because a ME *includes* *all* concepts and > formulations, even about itself > the thinking ME. All relations that has to do with thinking is an *internal* process. You believe you are replying to my post, but what you are doing is replying to your own thoughts. So am I. This is not easy to see, but both 'me' and 'you' are parts of the same internal thought-map. The intellect has only relations with itself. > > > > That's why people feel loneliness, > > because the intellect *is* always all alone in its own thought- > world. > > > The intellect is a name given to a capacity or faculty of a mind / > body ME, the intellect is not something as you have *personified* > with concepts. > > The more you extrapolate concepts the more vague and inaccurate > meaning and explanation becomes. > > Like the giving of reasons for why people feel loneliness above or > the actions of the intellect. It's simple really. All thinking is an internal process. Isn't this obvious? I rearrange my internal thought-map when replying to this post. That's what is happening on the level of thought. What I write has nothing whatsoever to do with your internal thought-map. How can I know what thought-map you have, I can't. All I can see is my own internal thought-map and it is only my own internal thought-map/world that is replying to this post, so the message I deliver to you is restricted to my own thought-map. and therefore the communication I manage to perform is only another round from my interior thought world talking to itself. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Hello again, > > > Yes, that's right. The intellect goes around in a thought- world, > it > > > is all concepts> > > > > > > The intellect is a function or capacity of a ME, it is not > a 'thing' > > that you are trying to describe, it is inherent within a ME. > > Of corse it's not a thing. The intellect as I have used the word is a > label for the thinking going on in a person and the feeling related > to that thinking. It is a ME that keeps conceptualizing in trying to explain what is occurring or what it thinks it occurring yet any conceptualization is also a phenomenon just as much as the ME itself. Thinking and feeling are different and different aspects within a ME. > > >When this is seen, then there can be a great > > > confusion and suffering, because the intellect finds out that it > is > > > trapped alone in a cage of concepts and cannot find a way out> > > > > > > The intellect never finds out anything nor gets worried. > > The intellect is a *name* we give to a function or capacity of a ME. > > > > You have conceptualized about how you *think* the behaviour of a ME > > will be affected when the 'intellect goes around in a thought > world' > > which is another concept of something which itself does not > *happen*. > > > > The intellect never does this, the intellect is a name describing > an > > aspect of a MEs functioning. > > All thinking going on in a person *is* this thought-world. The intellect does not go around in this thought world, there is no thought world. A thinking ME is trying to explain or speculate. > > So one > > > has to be very careful and go very slowly, because it could be > very > > > frightening for the intellect to think about these things> > > > > > > It cannot be frightening to the intellect. > > > > The intellect is the capacity to think, an attribute of a ME, it > > cannot be 'frightened', it is just a name or badge to describe a > part > > of what a ME is. > > As I have used the world intellect is to describe the processes of > thinging and the related feelings, and foremost among these feelings > is fear. Thinking and feeling are different. What we call the intellect is different to feelings and different parts of a ME are responsible for these 2 functions or capacities. > > >What the > > > intellect thought was having a 'me' in relation to the world is > in > > > reality only a thought-world with a 'me' and a 'world' inside the > > > same 'map' and all relations the intellect can have is only with > > > itself inside this thought-world> > > > > > > The intellect cannot have a relationship with itself, see parts > above. > > > > Nor can a ME, because a ME *includes* *all* concepts and > > formulations, even about itself > the thinking ME. > > All relations that has to do with thinking is an *internal* process> The mentation is an 'internal' process in two seperate MEs and it takes *seperate* MEs to think the thoughts that comprise our communication in emails. > You believe you are replying to my post, but what you are doing is > replying to your own thoughts. So am I> No, I am replying to thoughts that a seperate ME has thought and conveyed with words. This is not easy to see, but > both 'me' and 'you' are parts of the same internal thought-map. The > intellect has only relations with itself. No, there is no internal thought map that seperate MEs are a part of, this is a conceptualization trying to explain what a ME thinks is happening. > > That's why people feel loneliness, > > > because the intellect *is* always all alone in its own thought- > > world. > > > > > > The intellect is a name given to a capacity or faculty of a mind / > > body ME, the intellect is not something as you have *personified* > > with concepts. > > > > The more you extrapolate concepts the more vague and inaccurate > > meaning and explanation becomes. > > > > Like the giving of reasons for why people feel loneliness above or > > the actions of the intellect. > It's simple really. All thinking is an internal process> The more you conceptualize the more complex and *vague* / imprecise explanation and *definition* becomes. All thinking is a ME thinking and internal in the sense that it is unique to that ME. Isn't this > obvious? I rearrange my internal thought-map when replying to this > post. That's what is happening on the level of thought> What you call 're-arranging my internal thought map' is simply a ME thinking, there is no *need* to subjectify 'a ME thinking' by naming more concepts like thought maps into the explaination. When you reply to a post it is a ME that is thinking, the thinking process is a part of what makes a ME a ME and the intellect is a function or capacity of a ME. >What I write > has nothing whatsoever to do with your internal thought-map> You ( as a ME ) are replying to thoughts and ideas that another seperate ME ( Scott ) has formulated. And these 2 MEs ( 'you' and 'me' ) are responding to each other. >How can > I know what thought-map you have, I can't> You cannot in your present stage of development as a ME read or see into my mind no. Any information about my thoughts only comes through what you are perceiving through the concepts displayed in our communication. You cannot know 'my thoughts' or how 'I think', *in your present state as a ME* >All I can see is my own > internal thought-map and it is only my own internal thought- map/world > that is replying to this post, so the message I deliver to you is > restricted to my own thought-map> Yes, you can only respond with the thoughts and ( personal bias and uniqueness ) inherent within the ME you are, and this inherentness unique to every ME is a *very* important point because this inherentness with personal bias is *still there* even in realized people. >and therefore the communication I > manage to perform is only another round from my interior thought > world talking to itself. No, your internal thought world does not talk to itself. This is a speculation about what you think is occurring *if* you could explain it. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2004 Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > > Hello again, > > > > > Yes, that's right. The intellect goes around in a thought- > world, > > it > > > > is all concepts> > > > > > > > > > The intellect is a function or capacity of a ME, it is not > > a 'thing' > > > that you are trying to describe, it is inherent within a ME. > > > > Of corse it's not a thing. The intellect as I have used the word is > a > > label for the thinking going on in a person and the feeling related > > to that thinking. > > > It is a ME that keeps conceptualizing in trying to explain what is > occurring or what it thinks it occurring yet any conceptualization is > also a phenomenon just as much as the ME itself. > > Thinking and feeling are different and different aspects within a ME. No, thinking and feeling are related, they are intertwined. But we can talk about thing as a separate process, because thinking is different in its nature from feeling. > > > > > >When this is seen, then there can be a great > > > > confusion and suffering, because the intellect finds out that > it > > is > > > > trapped alone in a cage of concepts and cannot find a way out> > > > > > > > > > The intellect never finds out anything nor gets worried. > > > The intellect is a *name* we give to a function or capacity of a > ME. > > > > > > You have conceptualized about how you *think* the behaviour of a > ME > > > will be affected when the 'intellect goes around in a thought > > world' > > > which is another concept of something which itself does not > > *happen*. > > > > > > The intellect never does this, the intellect is a name describing > > an > > > aspect of a MEs functioning. > > > > All thinking going on in a person *is* this thought-world. > > > The intellect does not go around in this thought world, there is no > thought world. > > A thinking ME is trying to explain or speculate. The intellect is trapped inside the cage of thinking. This cage is the internal thought world. Haven't you noticed? When you think " I wonder what I shall have for dinner this evening " , then this is your intellect talking to your intellect. This is the internal thought- world, or the internal dialogue as some prefer to call it. > > > > > So one > > > > has to be very careful and go very slowly, because it could be > > very > > > > frightening for the intellect to think about these things> > > > > > > > > > It cannot be frightening to the intellect. > > > > > > The intellect is the capacity to think, an attribute of a ME, it > > > cannot be 'frightened', it is just a name or badge to describe a > > part > > > of what a ME is. > > > > As I have used the world intellect is to describe the processes of > > thinging and the related feelings, and foremost among these > feelings > > is fear. > > > Thinking and feeling are different. > What we call the intellect is different to feelings and different > parts of a ME are responsible for these 2 functions or capacities. Different yes, but not unrelated. > > > > > > > >What the > > > > intellect thought was having a 'me' in relation to the world is > > in > > > > reality only a thought-world with a 'me' and a 'world' inside > the > > > > same 'map' and all relations the intellect can have is only > with > > > > itself inside this thought-world> > > > > > > > > > The intellect cannot have a relationship with itself, see parts > > above. > > > > > > Nor can a ME, because a ME *includes* *all* concepts and > > > formulations, even about itself > the thinking ME. > > > > All relations that has to do with thinking is an *internal* process> > > > The mentation is an 'internal' process in two seperate MEs and it > takes *seperate* MEs to think the thoughts that comprise our > communication in emails. > > > > You believe you are replying to my post, but what you are doing is > > replying to your own thoughts. So am I> > > > No, I am replying to thoughts that a seperate ME has thought and > conveyed with words. But you see, the words from one ME must first be processed by the other ME and put into its internal context. *Then* a reply can be formulated, but the reply is to the ME:s internal context. > > > This is not easy to see, but > > both 'me' and 'you' are parts of the same internal thought-map. The > > intellect has only relations with itself. > > > No, there is no internal thought map that seperate MEs are a part of, > this is a conceptualization trying to explain what a ME thinks is > happening. All thinking happens in a person based on personal memories, knowledge, ideas, notions, education, fears, desires, cultural and genetical background, and all internal pictures, feelings, memories and experiences with other people and situations. All this exists in a person's memory and this is what I call the internal thought-map. > > > > > That's why people feel loneliness, > > > > because the intellect *is* always all alone in its own thought- > > > world. > > > > > > > > > The intellect is a name given to a capacity or faculty of a > mind / > > > body ME, the intellect is not something as you have *personified* > > > with concepts. > > > > > > The more you extrapolate concepts the more vague and inaccurate > > > meaning and explanation becomes. > > > > > > Like the giving of reasons for why people feel loneliness above > or > > > the actions of the intellect. > > > > It's simple really. All thinking is an internal process> > > > The more you conceptualize the more complex and *vague* / imprecise > explanation and *definition* becomes. > > All thinking is a ME thinking and internal in the sense that it is > unique to that ME. Yes, the thinking is unique, but maybe not entirely internal. There may be non-local connections involved at a quantum level, so that a thought may also be a global 'thing'. > > > Isn't this > > obvious? I rearrange my internal thought-map when replying to this > > post. That's what is happening on the level of thought> > > > What you call 're-arranging my internal thought map' is simply a ME > thinking, there is no *need* to subjectify 'a ME thinking' by naming > more concepts like thought maps into the explaination. > > When you reply to a post it is a ME that is thinking, the thinking > process is a part of what makes a ME a ME and the intellect is a > function or capacity of a ME. What I try to point out is that when a person believs himself or herself having relations with the world, what happens in reality on the level of thought is that the person has only relations with his or her *ideas* about the world, and I have used the word thought-map or thought-world to describe this indirect communication going on on the level of thought/emotion. Now I use the word emotion instead of feeling, because I like to use the word feeling to describe more subtle layers of sensing/experiencing, and emotions for sensations connected to the thinking about time. So, feeling can have a timeless quality, whereas emotion is always related to the sense of time in some way. > > > > >What I write > > has nothing whatsoever to do with your internal thought-map> > > > You ( as a ME ) are replying to thoughts and ideas that another > seperate ME ( Scott ) has formulated. > > And these 2 MEs ( 'you' and 'me' ) are responding to each other. That's the ordinary way to describe it yes. > > > >How can > > I know what thought-map you have, I can't> > > You cannot in your present stage of development as a ME read or see > into my mind no. > > Any information about my thoughts only comes through what you are > perceiving through the concepts displayed in our communication. > > You cannot know 'my thoughts' or how 'I think', *in your present > state as a ME* > > > >All I can see is my own > > internal thought-map and it is only my own internal thought- > map/world > > that is replying to this post, so the message I deliver to you is > > restricted to my own thought-map> > > > Yes, you can only respond with the thoughts and ( personal bias and > uniqueness ) inherent within the ME you are, and this inherentness > unique to every ME is a *very* important point because this > inherentness with personal bias is *still there* even in realized > people. Maybe not in J. Krishnamurti if he lived with " Freedom from the Known. " :-) > > > > >and therefore the communication I > > manage to perform is only another round from my interior thought > > world talking to itself. > > > No, your internal thought world does not talk to itself. > > This is a speculation about what you think is occurring *if* you > could explain it. The intellect is always talking to only itself, because it has no one else to talk to! But I guess there is also a non-local communication going on beneath and above the level of thought. My guess is that people experiencing oneness connects into this other level of 'communicating' with the world. " The world arises out of your own hearth, and everything flows in to your heart " (or something like that Nukunu said) /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Hi again, > > Thinking and feeling are different and different aspects within a > ME. > > No, thinking and feeling are related, they are intertwined. The parts of a ME responsible for thought and emotion are different, these are the different energy bodies that people speak of, thoughts and feeling serve different purposes also. Thinking and feeling are inter-related yes > > > > A thinking ME is trying to explain or speculate. > > The intellect is trapped inside the cage of thinking> It is not the intellect that is trapped, it is a ME that is bound. The intellect is a function of a ME. >This cage is > the internal thought world. Haven't you noticed? When you think " I > wonder what I shall have for dinner this evening " , then this is your > intellect talking to your intellect> The intellect does not talk to itself, the intellect is a capacity of a ME. Saying the intellect talks to the intellect is like saying the emotions feel emotions. This is the internal thought- > world, or the internal dialogue as some prefer to call it. There is no internal dialogue, there is a thinking ME no matter what the ME thinks. > > Thinking and feeling are different. > > What we call the intellect is different to feelings and different > > parts of a ME are responsible for these 2 functions or capacities. > > Different yes, but not unrelated. Yes, thoughts and feelings are related. > > No, I am replying to thoughts that a seperate ME has thought and > > conveyed with words. > > But you see, the words from one ME must first be processed by the > other ME and put into its internal context. *Then* a reply can be > formulated, but the reply is to the ME:s internal context. Yes, this is the thinking process of a ME. > > No, there is no internal thought map that seperate MEs are a part > of, > > this is a conceptualization trying to explain what a ME thinks is > > happening. > > All thinking happens in a person based on personal memories, > knowledge, ideas, notions, education, fears, desires, cultural and > genetical background, and all internal pictures, feelings, memories > and experiences with other people and situations. Yes, every ME has this inherentness within them including enlightened persons like we were saying before, it is part of what makes a ME a ME and what makes a ME different or unique. All this exists in > a person's memory and this is what I call the internal thought-map. And what you call a thought map is not other than what a ME includes. There are not 2 seperate MEs in this thought map you are talking about. Or in other words what you are calling a thought map is part of what makes a *one* ME a ME, I call it the 'inherentness' of a reflected self or ME The 'thought map' is a part of what makes ( *one* ) ME what it is and what makes it unique. > > The more you conceptualize the more complex and *vague* / > imprecise > > explanation and *definition* becomes. > > > > All thinking is a ME thinking and internal in the sense that it is > > unique to that ME. > > Yes, the thinking is unique, but maybe not entirely internal. There > may be non-local connections involved at a quantum level, so that a > thought may also be a global 'thing'. When a ME thinks, when a thought is alive it is unique to that ME. > > When you reply to a post it is a ME that is thinking, the thinking > > process is a part of what makes a ME a ME and the intellect is a > > function or capacity of a ME. > > What I try to point out is that when a person believs himself or > herself having relations with the world, what happens in reality on > the level of thought is that the person has only relations with his > or her *ideas* about the world> The ME does not have a relationship with their ideas about the world. The MEs interaction and experience with the world is through and formulated by, takes shapes through, thoughts and ideas. Now I use the word emotion instead of > feeling, because I like to use the word feeling to describe more > subtle layers of sensing/experiencing, and emotions for sensations > connected to the thinking about time. So, feeling can have a timeless > quality, whereas emotion is always related to the sense of time in > some way. Emotions are closer to the physical than thoughts, the astral body or emotional body and the emotions are closer to the physical than the mental realm of thought. I.e Thoughts are more subtle than feelings. Mental > astral > physical or in other words; thought > emotion > matter > > Yes, you can only respond with the thoughts and ( personal bias and > > uniqueness ) inherent within the ME you are, and this inherentness > > unique to every ME is a *very* important point because this > > inherentness with personal bias is *still there* even in realized > > people. > > Maybe not in J. Krishnamurti if he lived with " Freedom from the > Known. " :-) In every*one* *whether* they are '''enlightened''' or not. > > This is a speculation about what you think is occurring *if* you > > could explain it. > > The intellect is always talking to only itself, because it has no one > else to talk to! The intellect never talks to itself. This is a conception about something you a ME are trying to explain. But I guess there is also a non-local communication > going on beneath and above the level of thought. My guess is that > people experiencing oneness connects into this other level > of 'communicating' with the world. There is no 'who' that can experience oneness. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > Thinking and feeling are different and different aspects within a > > ME. > > > > No, thinking and feeling are related, they are intertwined. > > > The parts of a ME responsible for thought and emotion are different, > these are the different energy bodies that people speak of, thoughts > and feeling serve different purposes also. > > Thinking and feeling are inter-related yes > > > > > > > > A thinking ME is trying to explain or speculate. > > > > The intellect is trapped inside the cage of thinking> > > > It is not the intellect that is trapped, it is a ME that is bound. > The intellect is a function of a ME. > > > >This cage is > > the internal thought world. Haven't you noticed? When you think " I > > wonder what I shall have for dinner this evening " , then this is > your > > intellect talking to your intellect> > > > The intellect does not talk to itself, the intellect is a capacity of > a ME. > > Saying the intellect talks to the intellect is like saying the > emotions feel emotions. It's a ME that feels emotions. It's a ME that thinks and thinks about thinking which is all an internal process. The ME talking to its own mental thought-map. > > > This is the internal thought- > > world, or the internal dialogue as some prefer to call it. > > > There is no internal dialogue, there is a thinking ME no matter what > the ME thinks. Yes, and that thinking is internal to the ME (at least on the level of thought). > > > > > Thinking and feeling are different. > > > What we call the intellect is different to feelings and different > > > parts of a ME are responsible for these 2 functions or capacities. > > > > Different yes, but not unrelated. > > > Yes, thoughts and feelings are related. > > > > > > No, I am replying to thoughts that a seperate ME has thought and > > > conveyed with words. > > > > But you see, the words from one ME must first be processed by the > > other ME and put into its internal context. *Then* a reply can be > > formulated, but the reply is to the ME:s internal context. > > > Yes, this is the thinking process of a ME. > > > > > No, there is no internal thought map that seperate MEs are a part > > of, > > > this is a conceptualization trying to explain what a ME thinks is > > > happening. > > > > All thinking happens in a person based on personal memories, > > knowledge, ideas, notions, education, fears, desires, cultural and > > genetical background, and all internal pictures, feelings, memories > > and experiences with other people and situations. > > > Yes, every ME has this inherentness within them including enlightened > persons like we were saying before, it is part of what makes a ME a > ME and what makes a ME different or unique. > > > All this exists in > > a person's memory and this is what I call the internal thought- map. > > > And what you call a thought map is not other than what a ME includes. Yes, the thought map is specific and internal for each ME, and the structure of this map depends on conditioning and genes, e t c. > > There are not 2 seperate MEs in this thought map you are talking > about. > Or in other words what you are calling a thought map is part of what > makes a *one* ME a ME, I call it the 'inherentness' of a reflected > self or ME > > The 'thought map' is a part of what makes ( *one* ) ME what it is and > what makes it unique. > > > > > The more you conceptualize the more complex and *vague* / > > imprecise > > > explanation and *definition* becomes. > > > > > > All thinking is a ME thinking and internal in the sense that it > is > > > unique to that ME. > > > > Yes, the thinking is unique, but maybe not entirely internal. There > > may be non-local connections involved at a quantum level, so that a > > thought may also be a global 'thing'. > > > When a ME thinks, when a thought is alive it is unique to that ME. Yes, but I was wondering if there could be some global nonlocal resonance going on, a sort of a common world-consciousness sometimes (or always) involved in the process of thinking. > > > > > When you reply to a post it is a ME that is thinking, the > thinking > > > process is a part of what makes a ME a ME and the intellect is a > > > function or capacity of a ME. > > > > What I try to point out is that when a person believs himself or > > herself having relations with the world, what happens in reality on > > the level of thought is that the person has only relations with his > > or her *ideas* about the world> > > > The ME does not have a relationship with their ideas about the world. > The MEs interaction and experience with the world is through and > formulated by, takes shapes through, thoughts and ideas. Yes, but the mistake we often do is to believe that this communication is with the world per se, when it is the internal *image* of the world that the ME is communicating with/throught/to. You can say to me, " I know who George W. Bush is " , and you can even write a letter to him, but all you are doing then is writing a letter to your own mental *image* of him and how the world is. This is not easy to see at first, but we always relate only to our interior mental map of ourself and of the world. It is all an internal process on the conceptual and emotional level. > > > Now I use the word emotion instead of > > feeling, because I like to use the word feeling to describe more > > subtle layers of sensing/experiencing, and emotions for sensations > > connected to the thinking about time. So, feeling can have a > timeless > > quality, whereas emotion is always related to the sense of time in > > some way. > > > Emotions are closer to the physical than thoughts, the astral body or > emotional body and the emotions are closer to the physical than the > mental realm of thought. > > I.e Thoughts are more subtle than feelings. > > Mental > astral > physical or in other words; > > thought > emotion > matter Maybe. Or maybe emotions is what set thoughts in action. > > > > > Yes, you can only respond with the thoughts and ( personal bias > and > > > uniqueness ) inherent within the ME you are, and this > inherentness > > > unique to every ME is a *very* important point because this > > > inherentness with personal bias is *still there* even in realized > > > people. > > > > Maybe not in J. Krishnamurti if he lived with " Freedom from the > > Known. " :-) > > > In every*one* *whether* they are '''enlightened''' or not. Yes, that is probably true. > > > > > This is a speculation about what you think is occurring *if* you > > > could explain it. > > > > The intellect is always talking to only itself, because it has no > one > > else to talk to! > > > The intellect never talks to itself. This is a conception about > something you a ME are trying to explain. And not very successfully I guess. ;-( > > > But I guess there is also a non-local communication > > going on beneath and above the level of thought. My guess is that > > people experiencing oneness connects into this other level > > of 'communicating' with the world. > > > There is no 'who' that can experience oneness. Oneness experiencing itself in one of its unique manifestations. That would be a sort of a 'who'. /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Hi again, > > Saying the intellect talks to the intellect is like saying the > > emotions feel emotions. > > It's a ME that feels emotions. It's a ME that thinks and thinks about > thinking which is all an internal process> A ME *is* the thoughts and emotions, thought and emotion is part of what makes a ME a ME The ME talking to its own > mental thought-map. What you call thought map is a ME thinking and how that thinking occurrs ( with inherentness bias etc that we were talking about ) Thinking does not think to itself, a ME does not talk to itself. > > This is the internal thought- > > > world, or the internal dialogue as some prefer to call it. > > > > > > There is no internal dialogue, there is a thinking ME no matter > what > > the ME thinks. > > Yes, and that thinking is internal to the ME (at least on the level > of thought). Yes, unique to that ME. > > And what you call a thought map is not other than what a ME > includes. > > Yes, the thought map is specific and internal for each ME, and the > structure of this map depends on conditioning and genes, e t c. Yes, what you call a thought map is the thinking and thinking process of a ME including it's bias / inherentness through genes and conditioning etc. > > When a ME thinks, when a thought is alive it is unique to that ME. > > Yes, but I was wondering if there could be some global nonlocal > resonance going on, a sort of a common world-consciousness sometimes > (or always) involved in the process of thinking. If you are wondering about global non-local resonance 'going on' you should also be wondering about alien interference Is it possible to know another thoughts? > yes. Is it possible to 'transfer' thought > yes. There are many levels of consciousness. > > The ME does not have a relationship with their ideas about the > world. > > The MEs interaction and experience with the world is through and > > formulated by, takes shapes through, thoughts and ideas. > > Yes, but the mistake we often do is to believe that this > communication is with the world per se, when it is the internal > *image* of the world that the ME is communicating with/throught/to. Our perception is through a personal subjective filter yes, this is part of what constitutents a ME, the ME subjectifies everything, and the ME thinking about the whole or reality subjectifies the reality. > You can say to me, " I know who George W. Bush is " , and you can even > write a letter to him, but all you are doing then is writing a letter > to your own mental *image* of him and how the world is. This is not > easy to see at first, but we always relate only to our interior > mental map of ourself and of the world. It is all an internal process > on the conceptual and emotional level. Yes, the viewpoint of every ME is unique with the inherentness of that ME. > > Emotions are closer to the physical than thoughts, the astral body > or > > emotional body and the emotions are closer to the physical than the > > mental realm of thought. > > > > I.e Thoughts are more subtle than feelings. > > > > Mental > astral > physical or in other words; > > > > thought > emotion > matter > > Maybe. Or maybe emotions is what set thoughts in action. Thought and emotion relate to each other but they are not the same. Emotion is a closer, more dense expression to the physical than thought is. > > The intellect never talks to itself. This is a conception about > > something you a ME are trying to explain. > > And not very successfully I guess. ;-( It is only a ME that tries to explain, every conception and explanation *further* binds a ME TO a ME. As soon as there is thinking about this or that a ME is bound. If thinking binds a ME, and a ME is what 'you' are then you can go on thinking and will exist as that ME, but if the ME is an illusion and a ME is not what ''you'' *are* then the ME must stop conceptualizing and thinking if it is not to be bound as that ME. > > There is no 'who' that can experience oneness. > > Oneness experiencing itself in one of its unique manifestations. How can 'oneness' experience itself, oneness IS. Who is the experiencer? >That > would be a sort of a 'who'. Any WHO is a part of the apparent phenomenon and not the experiencer. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > Saying the intellect talks to the intellect is like saying the > > > emotions feel emotions. > > > > It's a ME that feels emotions. It's a ME that thinks and thinks > about > > thinking which is all an internal process> > > > A ME *is* the thoughts and emotions, thought and emotion is part of > what makes a ME a ME > > > The ME talking to its own > > mental thought-map. > > > What you call thought map is a ME thinking and how that thinking > occurrs ( with inherentness bias etc that we were talking about ) > > Thinking does not think to itself, a ME does not talk to itself. > > > > > This is the internal thought- > > > > world, or the internal dialogue as some prefer to call it. > > > > > > > > > There is no internal dialogue, there is a thinking ME no matter > > what > > > the ME thinks. > > > > Yes, and that thinking is internal to the ME (at least on the level > > of thought). > > > Yes, unique to that ME. > > > > > And what you call a thought map is not other than what a ME > > includes. > > > > Yes, the thought map is specific and internal for each ME, and the > > structure of this map depends on conditioning and genes, e t c. > > Yes, what you call a thought map is the thinking and thinking process > of a ME including it's bias / inherentness through genes and > conditioning etc. > > > > > When a ME thinks, when a thought is alive it is unique to that ME. > > > > Yes, but I was wondering if there could be some global nonlocal > > resonance going on, a sort of a common world-consciousness > sometimes > > (or always) involved in the process of thinking. > > If you are wondering about global non-local resonance 'going on' you > should also be wondering about alien interference > > Is it possible to know another thoughts? > yes. > Is it possible to 'transfer' thought > yes. > > There are many levels of consciousness. > > > > > The ME does not have a relationship with their ideas about the > > world. > > > The MEs interaction and experience with the world is through and > > > formulated by, takes shapes through, thoughts and ideas. > > > > Yes, but the mistake we often do is to believe that this > > communication is with the world per se, when it is the internal > > *image* of the world that the ME is communicating with/throught/to. > > Our perception is through a personal subjective filter yes, this is > part of what constitutents a ME, the ME subjectifies everything, and > the ME thinking about the whole or reality subjectifies the reality. > > > > > You can say to me, " I know who George W. Bush is " , and you can even > > write a letter to him, but all you are doing then is writing a > letter > > to your own mental *image* of him and how the world is. This is not > > easy to see at first, but we always relate only to our interior > > mental map of ourself and of the world. It is all an internal > process > > on the conceptual and emotional level. > > > Yes, the viewpoint of every ME is unique with the inherentness of > that ME. > > > > > Emotions are closer to the physical than thoughts, the astral > body > > or > > > emotional body and the emotions are closer to the physical than > the > > > mental realm of thought. > > > > > > I.e Thoughts are more subtle than feelings. > > > > > > Mental > astral > physical or in other words; > > > > > > thought > emotion > matter > > > > Maybe. Or maybe emotions is what set thoughts in action. > > > Thought and emotion relate to each other but they are not the same. > > Emotion is a closer, more dense expression to the physical than > thought is. > > > > > The intellect never talks to itself. This is a conception about > > > something you a ME are trying to explain. > > > > And not very successfully I guess. ;-( > > > It is only a ME that tries to explain, every conception and > explanation *further* binds a ME TO a ME. > > As soon as there is thinking about this or that a ME is bound. > > If thinking binds a ME, and a ME is what 'you' are then you can go on > thinking and will exist as that ME, but if the ME is an illusion and > a ME is not what ''you'' *are* then the ME must stop conceptualizing > and thinking if it is not to be bound as that ME. > > > > > There is no 'who' that can experience oneness. > > > > Oneness experiencing itself in one of its unique manifestations. > > > How can 'oneness' experience itself, oneness IS. > Who is the experiencer? Oneness is the experiencer I suspect. > > > >That > > would be a sort of a 'who'. > > Any WHO is a part of the apparent phenomenon and not the experiencer. Oneness would be the experiencer and the experience. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Hi again, > > How can 'oneness' experience itself, oneness IS. > > Who is the experiencer? > > Oneness is the experiencer I suspect. Oneness cannot experience itself, it is all there IS. > > >That > > > would be a sort of a 'who'. > > > > Any WHO is a part of the apparent phenomenon and not the > experiencer. > > Oneness would be the experiencer and the experience. The experiencer and the experience are not 2 except to a thinking ME. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > How can 'oneness' experience itself, oneness IS. > > > Who is the experiencer? > > > > Oneness is the experiencer I suspect. > > > Oneness cannot experience itself, it is all there IS. And what are we? :-) We *are* oneness experiencing itself. > > > > > >That > > > > would be a sort of a 'who'. > > > > > > Any WHO is a part of the apparent phenomenon and not the > > experiencer. > > > > Oneness would be the experiencer and the experience. > > > The experiencer and the experience are not 2 except to a thinking ME. Yes, there is probably only oneness, the Self, experiencing itself as the One and the Many. " Only God can say, I am. " -- Meister Eckhart /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Hello again, > > Oneness cannot experience itself, it is all there IS. > > And what are we? :-) We *are* oneness experiencing itself. *We* are not oneness experiencing itself. Oneness cannot experience itself oneness or wholeness is all there IS. > > > > >That > > > > > would be a sort of a 'who'. > > > > > > > > Any WHO is a part of the apparent phenomenon and not the > > > experiencer. > > > > > > Oneness would be the experiencer and the experience. > > > > > > The experiencer and the experience are not 2 except to a thinking > ME. > > Yes, there is probably only oneness, the Self, experiencing itself as > the One and the Many. The whole is both One and Many and exactly the same 'time'. How can The Self experience itSelf? > " Only God can say, I am. " -- Meister Eckhart 'God' cannot say a single word. The above is a pointer. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hello again, > > > > Oneness cannot experience itself, it is all there IS. > > > > And what are we? :-) We *are* oneness experiencing itself. > > > *We* are not oneness experiencing itself. > > Oneness cannot experience itself oneness or wholeness is all there IS. And you believe there is everything there IS *plus* 'you'? > > > > > > > > >That > > > > > > would be a sort of a 'who'. > > > > > > > > > > Any WHO is a part of the apparent phenomenon and not the > > > > experiencer. > > > > > > > > Oneness would be the experiencer and the experience. > > > > > > > > > The experiencer and the experience are not 2 except to a thinking > > ME. > > > > Yes, there is probably only oneness, the Self, experiencing itself > as > > the One and the Many. > > > The whole is both One and Many and exactly the same 'time'. > > How can The Self experience itSelf? I don't know, and yet here we are, as the Self itSelf. > > > > " Only God can say, I am. " -- Meister Eckhart > > > 'God' cannot say a single word. > The above is a pointer. God is the Self is everything. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 Hi again, > > And you believe there is everything there IS *plus* 'you'? No, any ME is a part of what makes the whole what it is. Any ME is not outside and cannot be 'outside' of THAT. > > > > > " Only God can say, I am. " -- Meister Eckhart > > > > > > 'God' cannot say a single word. > > The above is a pointer. > > God is the Self is everything. Yes, there is nothing outside of 'God'. God cannot say 'who' HE is not even 'I AM' so HE says it AS a human being. Kind Regards, Scott. > /AL > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. 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.