Guest guest Posted September 22, 2004 Report Share Posted September 22, 2004 Thought is not different from the objects that thought separates from the inexorable flow of causation. It is thought that creates the object as a distinct entity......the " object " exists only within thought. .......A river is not nearly distinct as mind would like to believe.....One is not sure exactly where to draw a line around a river......a mountain.....a hurricane. In this light....the actual existence of any thing is suspect......but when this is extrapolated into the conceptual realm of mind's secondary reality.... " love " ....God " ......or " free will " ........ things get sticky indeed........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2004 Report Share Posted September 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Thought is not different from the objects that thought separates from the inexorable flow of causation. > It is thought that creates the object as a distinct entity......the " object " exists only within thought. > > .......A river is not nearly distinct as mind would like to believe.....One is not sure exactly where to draw a line around a river......a mountain.....a hurricane. > > In this light....the actual existence of any thing is suspect......but when this is extrapolated into the conceptual realm of mind's secondary reality.... " love " ....God " ......or " free will " ........ things get sticky indeed........ Hi toombaru, How lovely what you just wrote. I stand silent in front of your words. Wow! You said: A river is not nearly distinct as mind would like to believe.....One is not sure exactly where to draw a line around a river......a mountain.....a hurricane. How beautiful! Wow! Gone for a samadhi!! See you later, aligator! :0))) Alberto, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2004 Report Share Posted September 22, 2004 Hi again Toombaru, >>>Thought is not different from the objects that thought separates from the inexorable flow of causation.>> Thoughts are different, and they are phenomenally separate. A thought is also different from an object perceived. A thought of a black cat does not equal a black cat. >>It is thought that creates the object as a distinct entity......the " object " exists only within thought.>> No, it isn't. It is possible to perceive without thought. >>.......A river is not nearly distinct as mind would like to believe.....One is not sure exactly where to draw a line around a river......a mountain.....a hurricane.>>> Yes, this is our perception. And, our perception is unique, every ME subjectifies and subjectifies the whole. >>In this light....the actual existence of any thing is suspect......but when this is extrapolated into the conceptual realm of mind's secondary reality.... " love " ....God " ......or " free will " ........ things get sticky indeed........>> Yes, words are big symbolic thick chunks of meaning, and everyone uses words differently with different meanings. The meanings which are not agreed on by everyone are then extrapolated into more concepts and beliefs and different possible meanings and before long all valid meaning is lost and the point in communicating is meaningless. What do you mean by love, what do I mean? What do you mean by God, what do I mean. A ME creates conceptions not about what is actually real or a true perception but about what is being conceptualized in order to *explain a belief* ( to itself ) It could be said that the world is being held in the hand of a purple dragon, and this would be equi-distant from the ''truth'', and equi- distantly far from the ''truth'' as *any* other conception formulated for belief explanation. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2004 Report Share Posted September 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again Toombaru, > > >>>Thought is not different from the objects that thought separates > from the > inexorable flow of causation.>> > > > Thoughts are different, and they are phenomenally separate. > A thought is also different from an object perceived. > > A thought of a black cat does not equal a black cat. > > > >>It is thought that creates the object as a distinct > entity......the " object " > exists only within thought.>> > > > No, it isn't. > It is possible to perceive without thought. > > > >>.......A river is not nearly distinct as mind would like to > believe.....One is > not sure exactly where to draw a line around a river......a > mountain.....a > hurricane.>>> > > > Yes, this is our perception. > > And, our perception is unique, every ME subjectifies and subjectifies > the whole. > > > >>In this light....the actual existence of any thing is > suspect......but when > this is extrapolated into the conceptual realm of mind's secondary > reality.... > " love " ....God " ......or " free will " ........ things get sticky > indeed........>> > > > Yes, words are big symbolic thick chunks of meaning, and everyone > uses words differently with different meanings. > > The meanings which are not agreed on by everyone are then > extrapolated into more concepts and beliefs and different possible > meanings and before long all valid meaning is lost and the point in > communicating is meaningless. > > What do you mean by love, what do I mean? > > What do you mean by God, what do I mean. > > A ME creates conceptions not about what is actually real or a true > perception but about what is being conceptualized in order to > *explain a belief* ( to itself ) > > It could be said that the world is being held in the hand of a purple > dragon, and this would be equi-distant from the ''truth'', and equi- > distantly far from the ''truth'' as *any* other conception formulated > for belief explanation. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Hi Scott! This posting is so nice. Wow! I had to tell you! Don't want to bother! :0) Alberto, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " <ilikezen2004> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > Hi again Toombaru, > > > > >>>Thought is not different from the objects that thought > separates > > from the > > inexorable flow of causation.>> > > > > > > Thoughts are different, and they are phenomenally separate. > > A thought is also different from an object perceived. > > > > A thought of a black cat does not equal a black cat. > > what is the difference between black cat and it's thought....if the reduction of consciousness be applied both are identical in the sense that both are the contents of or movements in consciousness..in fact EVERYTHING IS. empirically of course the two are different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 Hi, > > > Thoughts are different, and they are phenomenally separate. > > > A thought is also different from an object perceived. > > > > > > A thought of a black cat does not equal a black cat. >> what is the difference between black cat and it's thought....if the > reduction of consciousness be applied both are identical in the sense > that both are the contents of or movements in consciousness..in fact > EVERYTHING IS>> A black cat is a phenomenon, a thought is a phenomenon, a thought of a black cat is a phenomenon. A black cat exists over different levels of 'mind', a thought exists at a different level of 'mind'. >> empirically of course the two are different.>> Yes, they are different. And they are different as thoughts also. Your black cat does not equal my black cat. 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.