Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Many people, though certainly not THAT many (actually just a few, in the grand scheme of things) have " come to " the realization that the very idea of " original thought " is a misnomer, or oxymoron. That, all thought that " occurs to you " (that you hear in your head) is in fact, NOT FROM YOU, but you merely hear it, the same way a radio " hears " some pirate radio station (the radio does not produce the radio waves being picked up by it). Therefore, no human can originate thought, only " echo " some thought which was picked up, received by some tranmitter somewhere - though they certainly have NO CLUE whatsoever what is that transmitter, and even less where it could be. This " awareness/realization " (or maybe it's just a complex logical thought) is indeed quite unique - not rare, and certainly NOT original - as very few humans believe it. Ask anybody you know where their last expressed thought/speech delivered to you came from and they will almost instantly say, " From me, from my mind of course... what are you suggesting?!? " , looking quite quizzically at you for even asking. HOWEVER, perhaps the so-called " advanced " " awareness/realization " that all human thought is tantamount to plagiarism, i.e., taking credit for something which did not originate with you personally, and that truly " original thought " is NOT POSSIBLE... is false. That, in fact, what is more true, is that no human (certainly not you, and certainly not anybody you know - personally or on these lists or from memory (having read a book somewhere by them as author)) - knows HOW TO stimulate a truly Original Thought in themselves, and not knowing that, they MUST be a simple(ton) reporter, merely re-reporting the news flowing through their brains transmitted from elsewhere. That is, not knowing HOW TO do it, they are a plagiarizer >>at best<< and a liar >>at worst<< (your mileage DOES vary, depending upon where you find yourself in this *argument* so far.) Believe this or don't believe it: original thought IS possible, but possible in only ONE WAY. And until you have that original thought bubble describing it satisfactorily to yourself alone, which you would NEVER reveal to another, let alone yourself - for fear of " squirreling the deal " - can you know HOW TO stimulate original thought in yourself. Then, and only then, do you CEASE being a mere simple(ton) re-reporter of the news flowing through you, in favor of a more complex original thinker unlike everybody else on the planet - a true, and real, and existing (and un-extinctable - being a new law unto himself) Super Hero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> wrote: > > Many people, though certainly not THAT many (actually just a few, in > the grand scheme of things) have " come to " the realization that the > very idea of " original thought " is a misnomer, or oxymoron. > > That, all thought that " occurs to you " (that you hear in your head) > is in fact, NOT FROM YOU, but you merely hear it, the same way a > radio " hears " some pirate radio station (the radio does not produce > the radio waves being picked up by it). > > Therefore, no human can originate thought, only " echo " some thought > which was picked up, received by some tranmitter somewhere - though > they certainly have NO CLUE whatsoever what is that transmitter, and > even less where it could be. > > This " awareness/realization " (or maybe it's just a complex logical > thought) is indeed quite unique - not rare, and certainly NOT > original - as very few humans believe it. Ask anybody you know where > their last expressed thought/speech delivered to you came from and > they will almost instantly say, " From me, from my mind of course... > what are you suggesting?!? " , looking quite quizzically at you for > even asking. > > HOWEVER, perhaps the so-called " advanced " " awareness/realization " > that all human thought is tantamount to plagiarism, i.e., taking > credit for something which did not originate with you personally, and > that truly " original thought " is NOT POSSIBLE... is false. > > That, in fact, what is more true, is that no human (certainly not > you, and certainly not anybody you know - personally or on these > lists or from memory (having read a book somewhere by them as > author)) - knows HOW TO stimulate a truly Original Thought in > themselves, and not knowing that, they MUST be a simple(ton) > reporter, merely re-reporting the news flowing through their brains > transmitted from elsewhere. That is, not knowing HOW TO do it, they > are a plagiarizer >>at best<< and a liar >>at worst<< (your mileage > DOES vary, depending upon where you find yourself in this *argument* > so far.) > > Believe this or don't believe it: original thought IS possible, but > possible in only ONE WAY. And until you have that original thought > bubble describing it satisfactorily to yourself alone, which you > would NEVER reveal to another, let alone yourself - for fear of > " squirreling the deal " - can you know HOW TO stimulate original > thought in yourself. Then, and only then, do you CEASE being a mere > simple(ton) re-reporter of the news flowing through you, in favor of > a more complex original thinker unlike everybody else on the planet - > a true, and real, and existing (and un-extinctable - being a new law > unto himself) Super Hero. Dream on. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> wrote: > > > > Many people, though certainly not THAT many (actually just a few, in > > the grand scheme of things) have " come to " the realization that the > > very idea of " original thought " is a misnomer, or oxymoron. > > > > That, all thought that " occurs to you " (that you hear in your head) > > is in fact, NOT FROM YOU, but you merely hear it, the same way a > > radio " hears " some pirate radio station (the radio does not produce > > the radio waves being picked up by it). > > > > Therefore, no human can originate thought, only " echo " some thought > > which was picked up, received by some tranmitter somewhere - though > > they certainly have NO CLUE whatsoever what is that transmitter, and > > even less where it could be. > > > > This " awareness/realization " (or maybe it's just a complex logical > > thought) is indeed quite unique - not rare, and certainly NOT > > original - as very few humans believe it. Ask anybody you know where > > their last expressed thought/speech delivered to you came from and > > they will almost instantly say, " From me, from my mind of course... > > what are you suggesting?!? " , looking quite quizzically at you for > > even asking. > > > > HOWEVER, perhaps the so-called " advanced " " awareness/realization " > > that all human thought is tantamount to plagiarism, i.e., taking > > credit for something which did not originate with you personally, and > > that truly " original thought " is NOT POSSIBLE... is false. > > > > That, in fact, what is more true, is that no human (certainly not > > you, and certainly not anybody you know - personally or on these > > lists or from memory (having read a book somewhere by them as > > author)) - knows HOW TO stimulate a truly Original Thought in > > themselves, and not knowing that, they MUST be a simple(ton) > > reporter, merely re-reporting the news flowing through their brains > > transmitted from elsewhere. That is, not knowing HOW TO do it, they > > are a plagiarizer >>at best<< and a liar >>at worst<< (your mileage > > DOES vary, depending upon where you find yourself in this *argument* > > so far.) > > > > Believe this or don't believe it: original thought IS possible, but > > possible in only ONE WAY. And until you have that original thought > > bubble describing it satisfactorily to yourself alone, which you > > would NEVER reveal to another, let alone yourself - for fear of > > " squirreling the deal " - can you know HOW TO stimulate original > > thought in yourself. Then, and only then, do you CEASE being a mere > > simple(ton) re-reporter of the news flowing through you, in favor of > > a more complex original thinker unlike everybody else on the planet - > > a true, and real, and existing (and un-extinctable - being a new law > > unto himself) Super Hero. > > > Dream on. > > toombaru>> Hilarious!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " garyfalk1943 " <falkgw@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> > wrote: > > > > > > Many people, though certainly not THAT many (actually just a few, > in > > > the grand scheme of things) have " come to " the realization that > the > > > very idea of " original thought " is a misnomer, or oxymoron. > > > > > > That, all thought that " occurs to you " (that you hear in your > head) > > > is in fact, NOT FROM YOU, but you merely hear it, the same way a > > > radio " hears " some pirate radio station (the radio does not > produce > > > the radio waves being picked up by it). > > > > > > Therefore, no human can originate thought, only " echo " some > thought > > > which was picked up, received by some tranmitter somewhere - > though > > > they certainly have NO CLUE whatsoever what is that transmitter, > and > > > even less where it could be. > > > > > > This " awareness/realization " (or maybe it's just a complex logical > > > thought) is indeed quite unique - not rare, and certainly NOT > > > original - as very few humans believe it. Ask anybody you know > where > > > their last expressed thought/speech delivered to you came from and > > > they will almost instantly say, " From me, from my mind of > course... > > > what are you suggesting?!? " , looking quite quizzically at you for > > > even asking. > > > > > > HOWEVER, perhaps the so-called " advanced " " awareness/realization " > > > that all human thought is tantamount to plagiarism, i.e., taking > > > credit for something which did not originate with you personally, > and > > > that truly " original thought " is NOT POSSIBLE... is false. > > > > > > That, in fact, what is more true, is that no human (certainly not > > > you, and certainly not anybody you know - personally or on these > > > lists or from memory (having read a book somewhere by them as > > > author)) - knows HOW TO stimulate a truly Original Thought in > > > themselves, and not knowing that, they MUST be a simple(ton) > > > reporter, merely re-reporting the news flowing through their > brains > > > transmitted from elsewhere. That is, not knowing HOW TO do it, > they > > > are a plagiarizer >>at best<< and a liar >>at worst<< (your > mileage > > > DOES vary, depending upon where you find yourself in this > *argument* > > > so far.) > > > > > > Believe this or don't believe it: original thought IS possible, > but > > > possible in only ONE WAY. And until you have that original thought > > > bubble describing it satisfactorily to yourself alone, which you > > > would NEVER reveal to another, let alone yourself - for fear of > > > " squirreling the deal " - can you know HOW TO stimulate original > > > thought in yourself. Then, and only then, do you CEASE being a > mere > > > simple(ton) re-reporter of the news flowing through you, in favor > of > > > a more complex original thinker unlike everybody else on the > planet - > > > a true, and real, and existing (and un-extinctable - being a new > law > > > unto himself) Super Hero. > > > > > > Dream on. > > > > toombaru>> > > Hilarious!!! ........................if the suffering part could be removed. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 - toombaru2004 Nisargadatta Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:54 PM Re: " Original thought " Nisargadatta , " garyfalk1943 " <falkgw@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> > wrote: > > > > > > Many people, though certainly not THAT many (actually just a few, > in > > > the grand scheme of things) have " come to " the realization that > the > > > very idea of " original thought " is a misnomer, or oxymoron. > > > > > > That, all thought that " occurs to you " (that you hear in your > head) > > > is in fact, NOT FROM YOU, but you merely hear it, the same way a > > > radio " hears " some pirate radio station (the radio does not > produce > > > the radio waves being picked up by it). > > > > > > Therefore, no human can originate thought, only " echo " some > thought > > > which was picked up, received by some tranmitter somewhere - > though > > > they certainly have NO CLUE whatsoever what is that transmitter, > and > > > even less where it could be. > > > > > > This " awareness/realization " (or maybe it's just a complex logical > > > thought) is indeed quite unique - not rare, and certainly NOT > > > original - as very few humans believe it. Ask anybody you know > where > > > their last expressed thought/speech delivered to you came from and > > > they will almost instantly say, " From me, from my mind of > course... > > > what are you suggesting?!? " , looking quite quizzically at you for > > > even asking. > > > > > > HOWEVER, perhaps the so-called " advanced " " awareness/realization " > > > that all human thought is tantamount to plagiarism, i.e., taking > > > credit for something which did not originate with you personally, > and > > > that truly " original thought " is NOT POSSIBLE... is false. > > > > > > That, in fact, what is more true, is that no human (certainly not > > > you, and certainly not anybody you know - personally or on these > > > lists or from memory (having read a book somewhere by them as > > > author)) - knows HOW TO stimulate a truly Original Thought in > > > themselves, and not knowing that, they MUST be a simple(ton) > > > reporter, merely re-reporting the news flowing through their > brains > > > transmitted from elsewhere. That is, not knowing HOW TO do it, > they > > > are a plagiarizer >>at best<< and a liar >>at worst<< (your > mileage > > > DOES vary, depending upon where you find yourself in this > *argument* > > > so far.) > > > > > > Believe this or don't believe it: original thought IS possible, > but > > > possible in only ONE WAY. And until you have that original thought > > > bubble describing it satisfactorily to yourself alone, which you > > > would NEVER reveal to another, let alone yourself - for fear of > > > " squirreling the deal " - can you know HOW TO stimulate original > > > thought in yourself. Then, and only then, do you CEASE being a > mere > > > simple(ton) re-reporter of the news flowing through you, in favor > of > > > a more complex original thinker unlike everybody else on the > planet - > > > a true, and real, and existing (and un-extinctable - being a new > law > > > unto himself) Super Hero. > > > > > > Dream on. > > > > toombaru>> > > Hilarious!!! .......................if the suffering part could be removed. toombaru Come on Toomey, Give it up already!!!! Like the Campbell's soup commercial: It's all in 'there' in that 'emptiness' that you guard with your 'life'. ))) sheesh:)))) ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> wrote: > > Many people, though certainly not THAT many (actually just a few, in > the grand scheme of things) have " come to " the realization that the > very idea of " original thought " is a misnomer, or oxymoron. > > That, all thought that " occurs to you " (that you hear in your head) > is in fact, NOT FROM YOU, but you merely hear it, the same way a > radio " hears " some pirate radio station (the radio does not produce > the radio waves being picked up by it). > > Therefore, no human can originate thought, only " echo " some thought > which was picked up, received by some tranmitter somewhere - though > they certainly have NO CLUE whatsoever what is that transmitter, and > even less where it could be. > > This " awareness/realization " (or maybe it's just a complex logical > thought) is indeed quite unique - not rare, and certainly NOT > original - as very few humans believe it. Ask anybody you know where > their last expressed thought/speech delivered to you came from and > they will almost instantly say, " From me, from my mind of course... > what are you suggesting?!? " , looking quite quizzically at you for > even asking. > > HOWEVER, perhaps the so-called " advanced " " awareness/realization " > that all human thought is tantamount to plagiarism, i.e., taking > credit for something which did not originate with you personally, and > that truly " original thought " is NOT POSSIBLE... is false. > > That, in fact, what is more true, is that no human (certainly not > you, and certainly not anybody you know - personally or on these > lists or from memory (having read a book somewhere by them as > author)) - knows HOW TO stimulate a truly Original Thought in > themselves, and not knowing that, they MUST be a simple(ton) > reporter, merely re-reporting the news flowing through their brains > transmitted from elsewhere. That is, not knowing HOW TO do it, they > are a plagiarizer >>at best<< and a liar >>at worst<< (your mileage > DOES vary, depending upon where you find yourself in this *argument* > so far.) > > Believe this or don't believe it: original thought IS possible, but > possible in only ONE WAY. And until you have that original thought > bubble describing it satisfactorily to yourself alone, which you > would NEVER reveal to another, let alone yourself - for fear of > " squirreling the deal " - can you know HOW TO stimulate original > thought in yourself. Then, and only then, do you CEASE being a mere > simple(ton) re-reporter of the news flowing through you, in favor of > a more complex original thinker unlike everybody else on the planet - > a true, and real, and existing (and un-extinctable - being a new law > unto himself) Super Hero. There is creativity in the world and we are not separate from the world. You tend to believe that there is a you separate from the world. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > toombaru2004 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:54 PM > Re: " Original thought " > > > > Nisargadatta , " garyfalk1943 " <falkgw@h...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Many people, though certainly not THAT many (actually just a few, > > in > > > > the grand scheme of things) have " come to " the realization that > > the > > > > very idea of " original thought " is a misnomer, or oxymoron. > > > > > > > > That, all thought that " occurs to you " (that you hear in your > > head) > > > > is in fact, NOT FROM YOU, but you merely hear it, the same way a > > > > radio " hears " some pirate radio station (the radio does not > > produce > > > > the radio waves being picked up by it). > > > > > > > > Therefore, no human can originate thought, only " echo " some > > thought > > > > which was picked up, received by some tranmitter somewhere - > > though > > > > they certainly have NO CLUE whatsoever what is that transmitter, > > and > > > > even less where it could be. > > > > > > > > This " awareness/realization " (or maybe it's just a complex logical > > > > thought) is indeed quite unique - not rare, and certainly NOT > > > > original - as very few humans believe it. Ask anybody you know > > where > > > > their last expressed thought/speech delivered to you came from and > > > > they will almost instantly say, " From me, from my mind of > > course... > > > > what are you suggesting?!? " , looking quite quizzically at you for > > > > even asking. > > > > > > > > HOWEVER, perhaps the so-called " advanced " " awareness/realization " > > > > that all human thought is tantamount to plagiarism, i.e., taking > > > > credit for something which did not originate with you personally, > > and > > > > that truly " original thought " is NOT POSSIBLE... is false. > > > > > > > > That, in fact, what is more true, is that no human (certainly not > > > > you, and certainly not anybody you know - personally or on these > > > > lists or from memory (having read a book somewhere by them as > > > > author)) - knows HOW TO stimulate a truly Original Thought in > > > > themselves, and not knowing that, they MUST be a simple(ton) > > > > reporter, merely re-reporting the news flowing through their > > brains > > > > transmitted from elsewhere. That is, not knowing HOW TO do it, > > they > > > > are a plagiarizer >>at best<< and a liar >>at worst<< (your > > mileage > > > > DOES vary, depending upon where you find yourself in this > > *argument* > > > > so far.) > > > > > > > > Believe this or don't believe it: original thought IS possible, > > but > > > > possible in only ONE WAY. And until you have that original thought > > > > bubble describing it satisfactorily to yourself alone, which you > > > > would NEVER reveal to another, let alone yourself - for fear of > > > > " squirreling the deal " - can you know HOW TO stimulate original > > > > thought in yourself. Then, and only then, do you CEASE being a > > mere > > > > simple(ton) re-reporter of the news flowing through you, in favor > > of > > > > a more complex original thinker unlike everybody else on the > > planet - > > > > a true, and real, and existing (and un-extinctable - being a new > > law > > > > unto himself) Super Hero. > > > > > > > > > Dream on. > > > > > > toombaru>> > > > > Hilarious!!! > > > .......................if the suffering part could be removed. > > > > toombaru > > Come on Toomey, > > Give it up already!!!! Like the Campbell's soup commercial: It's all in 'there' in that 'emptiness' that you guard with your 'life'. ))) > > sheesh:)))) > > > OK Anna..I'm sorry....:-(...I forgot.....Anna don't like to talk bout suffering.... toombaru > > > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 - toombaru2004 Nisargadatta Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:46 PM Re: " Original thought " Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > toombaru2004 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:54 PM > Re: " Original thought " > > > > Nisargadatta , " garyfalk1943 " <falkgw@h...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Many people, though certainly not THAT many (actually just a few, > > in > > > > the grand scheme of things) have " come to " the realization that > > the > > > > very idea of " original thought " is a misnomer, or oxymoron. > > > > > > > > That, all thought that " occurs to you " (that you hear in your > > head) > > > > is in fact, NOT FROM YOU, but you merely hear it, the same way a > > > > radio " hears " some pirate radio station (the radio does not > > produce > > > > the radio waves being picked up by it). > > > > > > > > Therefore, no human can originate thought, only " echo " some > > thought > > > > which was picked up, received by some tranmitter somewhere - > > though > > > > they certainly have NO CLUE whatsoever what is that transmitter, > > and > > > > even less where it could be. > > > > > > > > This " awareness/realization " (or maybe it's just a complex logical > > > > thought) is indeed quite unique - not rare, and certainly NOT > > > > original - as very few humans believe it. Ask anybody you know > > where > > > > their last expressed thought/speech delivered to you came from and > > > > they will almost instantly say, " From me, from my mind of > > course... > > > > what are you suggesting?!? " , looking quite quizzically at you for > > > > even asking. > > > > > > > > HOWEVER, perhaps the so-called " advanced " " awareness/realization " > > > > that all human thought is tantamount to plagiarism, i.e., taking > > > > credit for something which did not originate with you personally, > > and > > > > that truly " original thought " is NOT POSSIBLE... is false. > > > > > > > > That, in fact, what is more true, is that no human (certainly not > > > > you, and certainly not anybody you know - personally or on these > > > > lists or from memory (having read a book somewhere by them as > > > > author)) - knows HOW TO stimulate a truly Original Thought in > > > > themselves, and not knowing that, they MUST be a simple(ton) > > > > reporter, merely re-reporting the news flowing through their > > brains > > > > transmitted from elsewhere. That is, not knowing HOW TO do it, > > they > > > > are a plagiarizer >>at best<< and a liar >>at worst<< (your > > mileage > > > > DOES vary, depending upon where you find yourself in this > > *argument* > > > > so far.) > > > > > > > > Believe this or don't believe it: original thought IS possible, > > but > > > > possible in only ONE WAY. And until you have that original thought > > > > bubble describing it satisfactorily to yourself alone, which you > > > > would NEVER reveal to another, let alone yourself - for fear of > > > > " squirreling the deal " - can you know HOW TO stimulate original > > > > thought in yourself. Then, and only then, do you CEASE being a > > mere > > > > simple(ton) re-reporter of the news flowing through you, in favor > > of > > > > a more complex original thinker unlike everybody else on the > > planet - > > > > a true, and real, and existing (and un-extinctable - being a new > > law > > > > unto himself) Super Hero. > > > > > > > > > Dream on. > > > > > > toombaru>> > > > > Hilarious!!! > > > .......................if the suffering part could be removed. > > > > toombaru > > Come on Toomey, > > Give it up already!!!! Like the Campbell's soup commercial: It's all in 'there' in that 'emptiness' that you guard with your 'life'. ))) > > sheesh:)))) > > > OK Anna..I'm sorry....:-(...I forgot.....Anna don't like to talk bout suffering.... toombaru suffering..........is.........a .......deep............subject. and since i am a shallow person, i would not know a thing about it, now would i? ) > > > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > toombaru2004 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:46 PM > Re: " Original thought " > > > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > - > > toombaru2004 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:54 PM > > Re: " Original thought " > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " garyfalk1943 " <falkgw@h...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Many people, though certainly not THAT many (actually just a few, > > > in > > > > > the grand scheme of things) have " come to " the realization that > > > the > > > > > very idea of " original thought " is a misnomer, or oxymoron. > > > > > > > > > > That, all thought that " occurs to you " (that you hear in your > > > head) > > > > > is in fact, NOT FROM YOU, but you merely hear it, the same way a > > > > > radio " hears " some pirate radio station (the radio does not > > > produce > > > > > the radio waves being picked up by it). > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, no human can originate thought, only " echo " some > > > thought > > > > > which was picked up, received by some tranmitter somewhere - > > > though > > > > > they certainly have NO CLUE whatsoever what is that transmitter, > > > and > > > > > even less where it could be. > > > > > > > > > > This " awareness/realization " (or maybe it's just a complex logical > > > > > thought) is indeed quite unique - not rare, and certainly NOT > > > > > original - as very few humans believe it. Ask anybody you know > > > where > > > > > their last expressed thought/speech delivered to you came from and > > > > > they will almost instantly say, " From me, from my mind of > > > course... > > > > > what are you suggesting?!? " , looking quite quizzically at you for > > > > > even asking. > > > > > > > > > > HOWEVER, perhaps the so-called " advanced " " awareness/realization " > > > > > that all human thought is tantamount to plagiarism, i.e., taking > > > > > credit for something which did not originate with you personally, > > > and > > > > > that truly " original thought " is NOT POSSIBLE... is false. > > > > > > > > > > That, in fact, what is more true, is that no human (certainly not > > > > > you, and certainly not anybody you know - personally or on these > > > > > lists or from memory (having read a book somewhere by them as > > > > > author)) - knows HOW TO stimulate a truly Original Thought in > > > > > themselves, and not knowing that, they MUST be a simple(ton) > > > > > reporter, merely re-reporting the news flowing through their > > > brains > > > > > transmitted from elsewhere. That is, not knowing HOW TO do it, > > > they > > > > > are a plagiarizer >>at best<< and a liar >>at worst<< (your > > > mileage > > > > > DOES vary, depending upon where you find yourself in this > > > *argument* > > > > > so far.) > > > > > > > > > > Believe this or don't believe it: original thought IS possible, > > > but > > > > > possible in only ONE WAY. And until you have that original thought > > > > > bubble describing it satisfactorily to yourself alone, which you > > > > > would NEVER reveal to another, let alone yourself - for fear of > > > > > " squirreling the deal " - can you know HOW TO stimulate original > > > > > thought in yourself. Then, and only then, do you CEASE being a > > > mere > > > > > simple(ton) re-reporter of the news flowing through you, in favor > > > of > > > > > a more complex original thinker unlike everybody else on the > > > planet - > > > > > a true, and real, and existing (and un-extinctable - being a new > > > law > > > > > unto himself) Super Hero. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dream on. > > > > > > > > toombaru>> > > > > > > Hilarious!!! > > > > > > .......................if the suffering part could be removed. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Come on Toomey, > > > > Give it up already!!!! Like the Campbell's soup commercial: It's all in 'there' in that 'emptiness' that you guard with your 'life'. ))) > > > > sheesh:)))) > > > > > > > > > > OK Anna..I'm sorry....:-(...I forgot.....Anna don't like to talk bout suffering.... > > > > > toombaru > > > suffering..........is.........a .......deep............subject. > > and since i am a shallow person, i would not know a thing > about it, now would i? > > ) > The use of the word " I " would indicate otherwise. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 - toombaru2004 Nisargadatta Wednesday, April 20, 2005 9:26 PM Re: " Original thought " Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > toombaru2004 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:46 PM > Re: " Original thought " > > > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > - > > toombaru2004 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:54 PM > > Re: " Original thought " > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " garyfalk1943 " <falkgw@h...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Many people, though certainly not THAT many (actually just a few, > > > in > > > > > the grand scheme of things) have " come to " the realization that > > > the > > > > > very idea of " original thought " is a misnomer, or oxymoron. > > > > > > > > > > That, all thought that " occurs to you " (that you hear in your > > > head) > > > > > is in fact, NOT FROM YOU, but you merely hear it, the same way a > > > > > radio " hears " some pirate radio station (the radio does not > > > produce > > > > > the radio waves being picked up by it). > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, no human can originate thought, only " echo " some > > > thought > > > > > which was picked up, received by some tranmitter somewhere - > > > though > > > > > they certainly have NO CLUE whatsoever what is that transmitter, > > > and > > > > > even less where it could be. > > > > > > > > > > This " awareness/realization " (or maybe it's just a complex logical > > > > > thought) is indeed quite unique - not rare, and certainly NOT > > > > > original - as very few humans believe it. Ask anybody you know > > > where > > > > > their last expressed thought/speech delivered to you came from and > > > > > they will almost instantly say, " From me, from my mind of > > > course... > > > > > what are you suggesting?!? " , looking quite quizzically at you for > > > > > even asking. > > > > > > > > > > HOWEVER, perhaps the so-called " advanced " " awareness/realization " > > > > > that all human thought is tantamount to plagiarism, i.e., taking > > > > > credit for something which did not originate with you personally, > > > and > > > > > that truly " original thought " is NOT POSSIBLE... is false. > > > > > > > > > > That, in fact, what is more true, is that no human (certainly not > > > > > you, and certainly not anybody you know - personally or on these > > > > > lists or from memory (having read a book somewhere by them as > > > > > author)) - knows HOW TO stimulate a truly Original Thought in > > > > > themselves, and not knowing that, they MUST be a simple(ton) > > > > > reporter, merely re-reporting the news flowing through their > > > brains > > > > > transmitted from elsewhere. That is, not knowing HOW TO do it, > > > they > > > > > are a plagiarizer >>at best<< and a liar >>at worst<< (your > > > mileage > > > > > DOES vary, depending upon where you find yourself in this > > > *argument* > > > > > so far.) > > > > > > > > > > Believe this or don't believe it: original thought IS possible, > > > but > > > > > possible in only ONE WAY. And until you have that original thought > > > > > bubble describing it satisfactorily to yourself alone, which you > > > > > would NEVER reveal to another, let alone yourself - for fear of > > > > > " squirreling the deal " - can you know HOW TO stimulate original > > > > > thought in yourself. Then, and only then, do you CEASE being a > > > mere > > > > > simple(ton) re-reporter of the news flowing through you, in favor > > > of > > > > > a more complex original thinker unlike everybody else on the > > > planet - > > > > > a true, and real, and existing (and un-extinctable - being a new > > > law > > > > > unto himself) Super Hero. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dream on. > > > > > > > > toombaru>> > > > > > > Hilarious!!! > > > > > > .......................if the suffering part could be removed. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Come on Toomey, > > > > Give it up already!!!! Like the Campbell's soup commercial: It's all in 'there' in that 'emptiness' that you guard with your 'life'. ))) > > > > sheesh:)))) > > > > > > > > > > OK Anna..I'm sorry....:-(...I forgot.....Anna don't like to talk bout suffering.... > > > > > toombaru > > > suffering..........is.........a .......deep............subject. > > and since i am a shallow person, i would not know a thing > about it, now would i? > > ) > The use of the word " I " would indicate otherwise. toombaru 'I' is the suffering...Shallowness is not going 'deep' enough to know its source. fear is another name for shallow. a fearless person or one who overcomes fear, now that's a horse of a different color or and an 'origiinal'. anna ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dream on. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru>> > > > > > > > > Hilarious!!! > > > > > > > > > .......................if the suffering part could be removed. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Come on Toomey, > > > > > > Give it up already!!!! Like the Campbell's soup commercial: It's all in 'there' in that > 'emptiness' that you guard with your 'life'. ))) > > > > > > sheesh:)))) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK Anna..I'm sorry....:-(...I forgot.....Anna don't like to talk bout suffering.... > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > suffering..........is.........a .......deep............subject. > > > > and since i am a shallow person, i would not know a thing > > about it, now would i? > > > > ) > The use of the word " I " would indicate otherwise. > > > toombaru > > > 'I' is the suffering...Shallowness is not going 'deep' enough to know its source. fear is another name for shallow. a fearless person or one who overcomes fear, now that's a horse of a different color or and an 'origiinal'. > > anna > A fearless person ....is like a still wind....... A horse of a different color is still a horse. There are only two animals in the Garden that when kicked in the butt.....will run off yelping: Aie..........Aie..........Aie. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 - toombaru2004 Nisargadatta Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:04 PM Re: " Original thought " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dream on. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru>> > > > > > > > > Hilarious!!! > > > > > > > > > .......................if the suffering part could be removed. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Come on Toomey, > > > > > > Give it up already!!!! Like the Campbell's soup commercial: It's all in 'there' in that > 'emptiness' that you guard with your 'life'. ))) > > > > > > sheesh:)))) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK Anna..I'm sorry....:-(...I forgot.....Anna don't like to talk bout suffering.... > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > suffering..........is.........a .......deep............subject. > > > > and since i am a shallow person, i would not know a thing > > about it, now would i? > > > > ) > > > > > > > > The use of the word " I " would indicate otherwise. > > > toombaru > > > 'I' is the suffering...Shallowness is not going 'deep' enough to know its source. fear is another name for shallow. a fearless person or one who overcomes fear, now that's a horse of a different color or and an 'origiinal'. > > anna > A fearless person ....is like a still wind....... A horse of a different color is still a horse. There are only two animals in the Garden that when kicked in the butt.....will run off yelping: Aie..........Aie..........Aie. toombaru Only....... if the animals............. are ..................extremely sensitive in -----------the rear end. toombaru, you smart ass you, ROTFLMAO ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. 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.