Guest guest Posted September 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 Hi again Stefan, > > Thoughts do not utilize thoughts and thoughts are not responsible > for > > how and why thoughts arise or their own production. > > ...etc... > > again, this is, what you THINK... No, this is my *perception*. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: >Thoughts do not utilize thoughts and thoughts are not responsible >for how and why thoughts arise or their own production. I wrote: >again, this is, what you THINK... You wrote: >No, this is my *perception*. it is what you THINK you perceive (we could continue this forever...) Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 Hi again Stefan, > >Thoughts do not utilize thoughts and thoughts are not responsible > >for how and why thoughts arise or their own production. > > I wrote: > > >again, this is, what you THINK... > > You wrote: > >No, this is my *perception*. > it is what you THINK you perceive > (we could continue this forever...)>> No, it is what I *perceive*, it is my perception. Perception is not thinking. Thoughts are perceived, they are not perceived by other thoughts or thought about when they are perceived arising. I agree that this could go on forever , but why should it?; I am not trying to convince you of *my perception*, if you are so willing to put in the time yourself you can discover what I have written previously *for yourself*, as I also mentioned. Or if you dispute my perception or contend differently then no offence taken either. As I also said in a previous post I am not questioning your perception either, we just disagree and that is okay too and to be expected. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2004 Report Share Posted September 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: I wrote: >>it is what you THINK you perceive >>(we could continue this forever...)>> > >No, it is what I *perceive*, it is my perception. .... >Thoughts are perceived, they are not perceived by other thoughts or >thought about when they are perceived arising. I completely agree, but at the very next moment when you are saying " I perceive a thought " you are already back in the process of thinking. Moreover using words (like in your postings) requires thinking. So I repeat: what you are writing about your perception is reflecting what you THINK you perceive. By this statement I am not disputing your ability to perceive. For me this is just a decisive detail which I wanted to point out. So I repeat my original statement: thoughts cannot be created, used or deliberately changed. Every thought is dependent on a cause. I said: " we could continue this forever... " to illustrate, that once we start thinking about thoughts we are cought in a vicious circle. Try to find out " who " or " what " is perceiving. Find the root from where thoughts are arising. By this I dont mean giving it names. I really mean: find it out for yourself. Greetings Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2004 Report Share Posted September 16, 2004 Hi again Stefan, > >>it is what you THINK you perceive > >>(we could continue this forever...)>> > > > >No, it is what I *perceive*, it is my perception. > ... > >Thoughts are perceived, they are not perceived by other thoughts or > >thought about when they are perceived arising. >>> I completely agree, but at the very next moment when you are saying " I > perceive a thought " you are already back in the process of thinking.>>>> Yes. Does this change my perception by telling you about it using words? There is no way to show you my perception of either what I am trying to describe or of an object even which I have perceived and I am trying to convey to you no matter how many words or symbols I use to convey what I *mean*. This is why I suggested that you could also *prove* this to yourself if you are willing to put in the time. I mentioned some books that I thought would be helpful in this regard and whilst you can simply dispute my perception you have also been given the opportunity to confirm or deny it through your own personal investigation. It is not something that I can show you, it also should not be something that you should expect that I would be able to show you. You can either dispute my perception, which you can only do as a belief that you hold, or prove it or disprove it to yourself by investigating these things in the same or similar manner to myself. Isn't it more prudent in any case to investigate the possibility given through the opportunity above before dismissing someone elses perception based on a personal belief? > Moreover using words (like in your postings) requires thinking.> Yes, I am communicating ideas to you and words are necessary. Does this change my perception? >So I > repeat: what you are writing about your perception is reflecting what > you THINK you perceive> And again, my perception is not dependent upon thoughts nor having to do with thoughts, the perception that I was speaking of is the perception of thoughts themselves arising. This when I then speak to *you* about it becomes placed in the symbols of words. >By this statement I am not disputing your > ability to perceive. For me this is just a decisive detail which I > wanted to point out.> Ok. > So I repeat my original statement: thoughts cannot be created, used or > deliberately changed. Every thought is dependent on a cause> Yes, thoughts cannot be created. Thoughts can and are used and they are and can be changed not from or *into* another as in transformed but changed from one to another. >I said: > " we could continue this forever... " to illustrate, that once we start > thinking about thoughts we are cought in a vicious circle> The perception I was speaking about was not thinking about thoughts. But yes if we are going to talk about thinking and thoughts, or any subject for that matter we could keep going forever theoretically! It is also wrong to assume ( if you are ) that the thinking process is a vicious circle, it can be or it may not be. > Try to find out " who " or " what " is perceiving. Find the root from > where thoughts are arising. By this I dont mean giving it names. I > really mean: find it out for yourself.> Ok. 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.