Guest guest Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 My friends, I`ve been wondering..... -Can there be knowedge without memorie ? Does realisation of the Self implie memorie? Is memorie the path to realization? I ask those questions because I depend so much on memorie and knowedge. They keep opening doors for me. But I would like to forget everything I ever learned, get back to that wonderfull, chubby baby feeling Silver was describing. So, remembering, or forgetting , in order to be? Patricia _________________________ Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international. Téléchargez sur http://fr.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige> wrote: > > My friends, > I`ve been wondering..... > -Can there be knowedge without memorie ? > Does realisation of the Self implie memorie? > Is memorie the path to realization? > I ask those questions because I depend so much on > memorie and knowedge. They keep opening doors for me. > But I would like to forget everything I ever learned, > get back to that wonderfull, chubby baby feeling > Silver was describing. > So, remembering, or forgetting , in order to be? > Patricia I notice forgetting and remembering happening in my consciousness. I think the trick is to try to not notice. Just remember and forget, that's all. When I remember something, now I have to remember to try to not notice that I'm remembering anything. Yeah, right. How am I supposed to do that?!? Try to not notice, just remember. Alrighty then. I get so mad when I do this to myself. I don't even remember what we were talking about. What was the subject again? I forget. It's completely gone now. Where did the subject go? Oh yeah. Hang on. Subject and object are not two. So what are they? One? No, they're anything but two. Could be three or more, you know? You never know. But anyway. I digress. And I think I've digressed so far so as to be unreachable even by today's sophisticated standard of bugee jumping cord thickness. " Silver " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige> > wrote: > > > > My friends, > > I`ve been wondering..... > > -Can there be knowedge without memorie ? > > Does realisation of the Self implie memorie? > > Is memorie the path to realization? > > I ask those questions because I depend so much on > > memorie and knowedge. They keep opening doors for me. > > But I would like to forget everything I ever learned, > > get back to that wonderfull, chubby baby feeling > > Silver was describing. > > So, remembering, or forgetting , in order to be? > > Patricia > hello Patricia, interesting point. Remembering and forgetting go together as two faces of the same coin. if you like to go back to that wonderful baby feeling maybe you have to remember it, and forget the rest,mm? but the fact is that whrn you were living that feeling you weren't remembering anything, you were just there, alive, wondering...as you are now...wondering...wow... how beautifull this is... it is the same, no difference: remember or forget...you remain the same wonderful mystery. love to you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige> > wrote: > > > > My friends, > > I`ve been wondering..... > > -Can there be knowedge without memorie ? > > Does realisation of the Self implie memorie? > > Is memorie the path to realization? > > I ask those questions because I depend so much on > > memorie and knowedge. They keep opening doors for me. > > But I would like to forget everything I ever learned, > > get back to that wonderfull, chubby baby feeling > > Silver was describing. > > So, remembering, or forgetting , in order to be? > > Patricia > > I notice forgetting and remembering happening in my consciousness. I > think the trick is to try to not notice. Just remember and forget, > that's all. When I remember something, now I have to remember to try > to not notice that I'm remembering anything. Yeah, right. How am I > supposed to do that?!? Try to not notice, just remember. Alrighty > then. > > I get so mad when I do this to myself. I don't even remember what we > were talking about. What was the subject again? I forget. It's > completely gone now. Where did the subject go? > > Oh yeah. Hang on. Subject and object are not two. So what are > they? One? > > No, they're anything but two. Could be three or more, you know? > > You never know. > > But anyway. I digress. > > And I think I've digressed so far so as to be unreachable even by > today's sophisticated standard of bugee jumping cord thickness. > > " Silver " > hello friend, flying high? whirlwind of the mind...over an ocean of peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Hi Silver, The object IS the subject. Or: The observer is the observed. Which means: There is no observer and no witness and no subjet. There is only perception. Example: You are colour blind and are looking at a green meadow. But the meadow for you is grey. Is the colour blindess the witness or the observer ? Definitely not. But the meadow still is grey: The object is the subject. It needs a bit pondering and thinking but then it gets clear. The whole confusion and problem has its origin in that thought divides this simple process of perception into: Subject, object, observer, witness, the observed. What a nonsense, isn't it ? Werner Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige> > wrote: > > > > My friends, > > I`ve been wondering..... > > -Can there be knowedge without memorie ? > > Does realisation of the Self implie memorie? > > Is memorie the path to realization? > > I ask those questions because I depend so much on > > memorie and knowedge. They keep opening doors for me. > > But I would like to forget everything I ever learned, > > get back to that wonderfull, chubby baby feeling > > Silver was describing. > > So, remembering, or forgetting , in order to be? > > Patricia > > I notice forgetting and remembering happening in my consciousness. I > think the trick is to try to not notice. Just remember and forget, > that's all. When I remember something, now I have to remember to try > to not notice that I'm remembering anything. Yeah, right. How am I > supposed to do that?!? Try to not notice, just remember. Alrighty > then. > > I get so mad when I do this to myself. I don't even remember what we > were talking about. What was the subject again? I forget. It's > completely gone now. Where did the subject go? > > Oh yeah. Hang on. Subject and object are not two. So what are > they? One? > > No, they're anything but two. Could be three or more, you know? > > You never know. > > But anyway. I digress. > > And I think I've digressed so far so as to be unreachable even by > today's sophisticated standard of bugee jumping cord thickness. > > " Silver " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hi Silver, > > The object IS the subject. Or: The observer is the observed. Which > means: There is no observer and no witness and no subjet. > > There is only perception. > > Example: > You are colour blind and are looking at a green meadow. But the > meadow for you is grey. > > Is the colour blindess the witness or the observer ? Definitely not. > But the meadow still is grey: The object is the subject. > > It needs a bit pondering and thinking but then it gets clear. > > The whole confusion and problem has its origin in that thought > divides this simple process of perception into: Subject, object, > observer, witness, the observed. What a nonsense, isn't it ? > > Werner *****Not only a nonsense but a nuissance, as well. It gets in the way, doesn't it? " Silver " > > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- > 1069@h...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige> > > wrote: > > > > > > My friends, > > > I`ve been wondering..... > > > -Can there be knowedge without memorie ? > > > Does realisation of the Self implie memorie? > > > Is memorie the path to realization? > > > I ask those questions because I depend so much on > > > memorie and knowedge. They keep opening doors for me. > > > But I would like to forget everything I ever learned, > > > get back to that wonderfull, chubby baby feeling > > > Silver was describing. > > > So, remembering, or forgetting , in order to be? > > > Patricia > > > > I notice forgetting and remembering happening in my consciousness. > I > > think the trick is to try to not notice. Just remember and forget, > > that's all. When I remember something, now I have to remember to > try > > to not notice that I'm remembering anything. Yeah, right. How am > I > > supposed to do that?!? Try to not notice, just remember. > Alrighty > > then. > > > > I get so mad when I do this to myself. I don't even remember what > we > > were talking about. What was the subject again? I forget. It's > > completely gone now. Where did the subject go? > > > > Oh yeah. Hang on. Subject and object are not two. So what are > > they? One? > > > > No, they're anything but two. Could be three or more, you know? > > > > You never know. > > > > But anyway. I digress. > > > > And I think I've digressed so far so as to be unreachable even by > > today's sophisticated standard of bugee jumping cord thickness. > > > > " Silver " > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Yes Silver, it is a nuissance and it gets in the way. But in whose way and in which way ? There is only perception. Within prception there are sounds, smells, sensations, objects like trees, mountains, clouds, the sky and also - thoughts. The disturbing factor of precption seems to be thought, but is it ? Or is rather that lopsidedness, that to much of a weight, this overimportance of thought which got the nuissance ? What would be if there is an equilibrium in perception, when everything got its place and no sensations won't fight the other ? What happens if there is still that usual chattering of thought going on but now it got so modest, almost quiet like a light wind whispering in a tree ? Werner Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > Hi Silver, > > > > The object IS the subject. Or: The observer is the observed. Which > > means: There is no observer and no witness and no subjet. > > > > There is only perception. > > > > Example: > > You are colour blind and are looking at a green meadow. But the > > meadow for you is grey. > > > > Is the colour blindess the witness or the observer ? Definitely not. > > But the meadow still is grey: The object is the subject. > > > > It needs a bit pondering and thinking but then it gets clear. > > > > The whole confusion and problem has its origin in that thought > > divides this simple process of perception into: Subject, object, > > observer, witness, the observed. What a nonsense, isn't it ? > > > > Werner > > *****Not only a nonsense but a nuissance, as well. It gets in the > way, doesn't it? > > " Silver " > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Without memory there is no time. Without time there is no thinkingness or events experienced. Without thinkingness there is no perception. It all collapses at once when thought ceases, doesn't it? God has no memory, does not think or perceive or experience events. There is no Reality to any of those things. Knowledge is data, facts, memory content on which identification of otherness is based. God knows itself to be all things. There is nothing at all to know about. To be is the same as to know. This is not the same as knowledge. Phil In a message dated 1/21/2006 9:08:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: OConnor Patricia <gdtige remembering or forgetting My friends, I`ve been wondering..... -Can there be knowedge without memorie ? Does realisation of the Self implie memorie? Is memorie the path to realization? I ask those questions because I depend so much on memorie and knowedge. They keep opening doors for me. But I would like to forget everything I ever learned, get back to that wonderfull, chubby baby feeling Silver was describing. So, remembering, or forgetting , in order to be? Patricia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 God has no memory ? How come you know this ? And how can you write about a God which just exists in your thinking but nowhere else ? Let go God and you no longer can project yourself into God, neither compensating you helplessness through God nor your need for power. Werner Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > Without memory there is no time. Without time there is no thinkingness or > events experienced. Without thinkingness there is no perception. It all > collapses at once when thought ceases, doesn't it? > > God has no memory, does not think or perceive or experience events. There is > no Reality to any of those things. > > Knowledge is data, facts, memory content on which identification of > otherness is based. God knows itself to be all things. There is nothing at all to > know about. To be is the same as to know. This is not the same as knowledge. > > Phil > > > > In a message dated 1/21/2006 9:08:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > OConnor Patricia <gdtige> > remembering or forgetting > > My friends, > I`ve been wondering..... > -Can there be knowedge without memorie ? > Does realisation of the Self implie memorie? > Is memorie the path to realization? > I ask those questions because I depend so much on > memorie and knowedge. They keep opening doors for me. > But I would like to forget everything I ever learned, > get back to that wonderfull, chubby baby feeling > Silver was describing. > So, remembering, or forgetting , in order to be? > Patricia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > Without memory there is no time. Without time there is no thinkingness or > events experienced. Without thinkingness there is no perception. It all > collapses at once when thought ceases, doesn't it? > > God has no memory, does not think or perceive or experience events. There is > no Reality to any of those things. > > Knowledge is data, facts, memory content on which identification of > otherness is based. God knows itself to be all things. There is nothing at all to > know about. To be is the same as to know. This is not the same as knowledge. > > Phil I can scan a room without thought. The thinking starts once my eyes have settled on something that catches my attention. I can perceive without thinking. Let your eyes roam around the room without focusing attention on any object in particular. Don't label anything. Don't judge anything. Don't give meaning to anything you see. Just look. Imagine looking through the eyes of a baby with a fresh and unconditioned brain. The secret is to learn how to not give meaning to anything perceived. Or to realize, at least, that the meaning we give to everything is our own. We give the meaning to everything we perceive. I maintain that without thought, we perceive correctly. Thought gets in the way of True Perception. False perceptions are made of personal meanings superimposed by thought upon the impersonal reality. A writing pen is absolutely meaningless to a Black Bear. Black Bears, too, give meaning to what they perceive. " What's that smell? " Pooh asks. " What smell? I don't smell anything. " said Piglet. That's because Piglet's sense of smell isn't as highly developed as Winnie the Pooh's. Er...I got off track there. In fact, I think I might have lost my train of thought altogether. I don't know what we were just talking about. Lol. " Silver " > > > In a message dated 1/21/2006 9:08:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > OConnor Patricia <gdtige> > remembering or forgetting > > My friends, > I`ve been wondering..... > -Can there be knowedge without memorie ? > Does realisation of the Self implie memorie? > Is memorie the path to realization? > I ask those questions because I depend so much on > memorie and knowedge. They keep opening doors for me. > But I would like to forget everything I ever learned, > get back to that wonderfull, chubby baby feeling > Silver was describing. > So, remembering, or forgetting , in order to be? > Patricia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 In a message dated 1/21/2006 9:58:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, ADHHUB writes: > Without thinkingness there is no perception. It all > collapses at once when thought ceases, doesn't it? > L.E: The way it seems to me is, perception exists without thinking. It doesn't all collapse when thought ceases, it exists more clearly. You must be joking or just playing word games here right? Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > God has no memory ? > > How come you know this ? > > And how can you write about a God which just exists in your > thinking but nowhere else ? > > Let go God and you no longer can project yourself into God, neither > compensating you helplessness through God nor your need for power. > > Werner > UA! you are ruthless as Old Testament God! thank you as always > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > Without memory there is no time. Without time there is no > thinkingness or > > events experienced. Without thinkingness there is no perception. It > all > > collapses at once when thought ceases, doesn't it? > > > > God has no memory, does not think or perceive or experience events. > There is > > no Reality to any of those things. > > > > Knowledge is data, facts, memory content on which identification > of > > otherness is based. God knows itself to be all things. There is > nothing at all to > > know about. To be is the same as to know. This is not the same as > knowledge. > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > In a message dated 1/21/2006 9:08:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > OConnor Patricia <gdtige> > > remembering or forgetting > > > > My friends, > > I`ve been wondering..... > > -Can there be knowedge without memorie ? > > Does realisation of the Self implie memorie? > > Is memorie the path to realization? > > I ask those questions because I depend so much on > > memorie and knowedge. They keep opening doors for me. > > But I would like to forget everything I ever learned, > > get back to that wonderfull, chubby baby feeling > > Silver was describing. > > So, remembering, or forgetting , in order to be? > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 In a message dated 1/22/2006 8:59:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, wwoehr writes: > Thinking is part of perception. > > I you are thinking you perceive your thoughts, if you don't think you > don't perceive your thoughts. > > Werner > L.E: No it's not! Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Thinking is part of perception. I you are thinking you perceive your thoughts, if you don't think you don't perceive your thoughts. Werner Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/21/2006 9:58:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, ADHHUB@A... > writes: > > > Without thinkingness there is no perception. It all > > collapses at once when thought ceases, doesn't it? > > > > L.E: The way it seems to me is, perception exists without thinking. It > doesn't all collapse when thought ceases, it exists more clearly. > You must be joking or just playing word games here right? > > Larry Epston > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 In a message dated 1/22/2006 11:46:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr Re: remembering or forgetting God has no memory ? How come you know this ? And how can you write about something which just exists in your thinking but nowhere else ? Let go God and you no longer can project yourself into God, neither compensating you helpless through God nor your need for power. Werner I didn't notice it by thinking about it, but if you maintain the integrity of your own concepts, there's really no option. How can linear time perception be the illusion it is if God (awareness) can search his memory and recall the past? As far as projecting myself into God, that would consist of imagining God as a thinking being like myself, would it not? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Yes, it is ! Werner Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/22/2006 8:59:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, > wwoehr@p... writes: > > > Thinking is part of perception. > > > > I you are thinking you perceive your thoughts, if you don't think you > > don't perceive your thoughts. > > > > Werner > > > > L.E: No it's not! > > Larry > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 In a message dated 1/22/2006 11:46:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver-1069 Re: remembering or forgetting Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > Without memory there is no time. Without time there is no thinkingness or > events experienced. Without thinkingness there is no perception. It all > collapses at once when thought ceases, doesn't it? > > God has no memory, does not think or perceive or experience events. There is > no Reality to any of those things. > > Knowledge is data, facts, memory content on which identification of > otherness is based. God knows itself to be all things. There is nothing at all to > know about. To be is the same as to know. This is not the same as knowledge. > > Phil I can scan a room without thought. The thinking starts once my eyes have settled on something that catches my attention. I can perceive without thinking. Let your eyes roam around the room without focusing attention on any object in particular. Don't label anything. Don't judge anything. Don't give meaning to anything you see. Just look. Imagine looking through the eyes of a baby with a fresh and unconditioned brain. The secret is to learn how to not give meaning to anything perceived. Or to realize, at least, that the meaning we give to everything is our own. We give the meaning to everything we perceive. I maintain that without thought, we perceive correctly. Thought gets in the way of True Perception. False perceptions are made of personal meanings superimposed by thought upon the impersonal reality. A writing pen is absolutely meaningless to a Black Bear. Black Bears, too, give meaning to what they perceive. " What's that smell? " Pooh asks. " What smell? I don't smell anything. " said Piglet. That's because Piglet's sense of smell isn't as highly developed as Winnie the Pooh's. Er...I got off track there. In fact, I think I might have lost my train of thought altogether. I don't know what we were just talking about. Lol. " Silver " Yes, Pooh bear, I agree with all that you say, with one exception. I'm certain you can scan a room without conscious mentation on the objects within, but I'm doubtful that you can do so without identifying any object. The subject has come up here before about the enormous amount of mental processing that occurs without our conscious participation in the steps. When you scan the room, how do you know when you've finished scanning? When you identify the same part of the room that you identified when you began? It would be fun to walk into a strange room, scan it and leave, and then see if anything remains in memory about what was scanned. If so, hasn't identification of the contents taken place? Lemme suggest that, under hypnosis, you would be able to recall every detail within the field of your vision as you scanned. This means identification of every detail has been performed and stored in memory. This processing took place while you were watching for thoughts and were so certain none occurred. PhilBear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 In a message dated 1/22/2006 11:46:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: epston Re: remembering or forgetting In a message dated 1/21/2006 9:58:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, ADHHUB writes: > Without thinkingness there is no perception. It all > collapses at once when thought ceases, doesn't it? > L.E: The way it seems to me is, perception exists without thinking. It doesn't all collapse when thought ceases, it exists more clearly. You must be joking or just playing word games here right? Larry Epston I think it's just a matter of semantics, Larry. I agree with Werner, and if you look up perception in your Funk & Wagnals, you'll find it's intimately tied to thought. We've all had the experience, perhaps, of observing a tree and getting all the nonsense thoughts about trees out of the way, and noticed deeper qualities of the tree such as beauty. This is still perception. If you can look at a tree and notice that it vibrates with an essence that is not different from what you are, consider that you've left the realm of perception all together, since neither the senses nor the mind can perceive oneness. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/22/2006 8:59:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, > wwoehr@p... writes: > > > Thinking is part of perception. > > > > I you are thinking you perceive your thoughts, if you don't think you > > don't perceive your thoughts. > > > > Werner > > > > L.E: No it's not! > > Larry > Larry has a kind of " no " reflex...lol neti..neti...LOL > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Thinking is part of perception. > > I you are thinking you perceive your thoughts, if you don't think you > don't perceive your thoughts. > > Werner Just as I can perceive a cup sitting on the table in front of me without thinking about the particulars of that cup, so I can also perceive my thoughts without thinking. I can watch them come and go. If I let my attention fall on any one of my thoughts, then I start to think about that thought. If I aloofly let thought flow through my mind, I perceive the thought stream dispassionately just as I perceive any other object which happens to arise in consciousness. Just as the cup is IN me, so is the stream of thought. The cup, the table, the carpet and the thoughts are all objects flowing thru the mind perceiving itself. I am above all this perceiving and thinking and flowing. I am neither the perceiving, the perceived, the perceiver; the thinking, the thought or the thinker; nor am I the flowing, flowed or flower. Who am I? Who are you? Who are we? " Silver " > > > Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > > > In a message dated 1/21/2006 9:58:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, > ADHHUB@A... > > writes: > > > > > Without thinkingness there is no perception. It all > > > collapses at once when thought ceases, doesn't it? > > > > > > > L.E: The way it seems to me is, perception exists without > thinking. It > > doesn't all collapse when thought ceases, it exists more clearly. > > You must be joking or just playing word games here right? > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > Thinking is part of perception. > > > > I you are thinking you perceive your thoughts, if you don't think > you > > don't perceive your thoughts. > > > > Werner > > Just as I can perceive a cup sitting on the table in front of me > without thinking about the particulars of that cup, so I can also > perceive my thoughts without thinking. I can watch them come and > go. If I let my attention fall on any one of my thoughts, then I > start to think about that thought. If I aloofly let thought flow > through my mind, I perceive the thought stream dispassionately just > as I perceive any other object which happens to arise in > consciousness. Just as the cup is IN me, so is the stream of > thought. The cup, the table, the carpet and the thoughts are all > objects flowing thru the mind perceiving itself. I am above all this > perceiving and thinking and flowing. I am neither the perceiving, > the perceived, the perceiver; the thinking, the thought or the > thinker; nor am I the flowing, flowed or flower. Who am I? Who are > you? Who are we? > > " Silver " > Ya, you have never thought a single thought! isn't it relaxing?!? good one, silver, thank you for not having thought about it. > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 1/21/2006 9:58:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > ADHHUB@A... > > > writes: > > > > > > > Without thinkingness there is no perception. It all > > > > collapses at once when thought ceases, doesn't it? > > > > > > > > > > L.E: The way it seems to me is, perception exists without > > thinking. It > > > doesn't all collapse when thought ceases, it exists more clearly. > > > You must be joking or just playing word games here right? > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 LOL, Seems so, Bigwaaba. Werner Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > > > In a message dated 1/22/2006 8:59:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > wwoehr@p... writes: > > > > > Thinking is part of perception. > > > > > > I you are thinking you perceive your thoughts, if you don't think > you > > > don't perceive your thoughts. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > L.E: No it's not! > > > > Larry > > > Larry has a kind of " no " reflex...lol > neti..neti...LOL > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 1/22/2006 11:46:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver-1069@h...> > Re: remembering or forgetting > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > Without memory there is no time. Without time there is no > thinkingness or > > events experienced. Without thinkingness there is no perception. It > all > > collapses at once when thought ceases, doesn't it? > > > > God has no memory, does not think or perceive or experience events. > There is > > no Reality to any of those things. > > > > Knowledge is data, facts, memory content on which identification > of > > otherness is based. God knows itself to be all things. There is > nothing at all to > > know about. To be is the same as to know. This is not the same as > knowledge. > > > > Phil > > I can scan a room without thought. The thinking starts once my eyes > have settled on something that catches my attention. I can perceive > without thinking. > > Let your eyes roam around the room without focusing attention on any > object in particular. Don't label anything. Don't judge anything. > Don't give meaning to anything you see. Just look. Imagine looking > through the eyes of a baby with a fresh and unconditioned brain. > > The secret is to learn how to not give meaning to anything perceived. > > Or to realize, at least, that the meaning we give to everything is > our own. We give the meaning to everything we perceive. > > I maintain that without thought, we perceive correctly. Thought gets > in the way of True Perception. > > False perceptions are made of personal meanings superimposed by > thought upon the impersonal reality. > > A writing pen is absolutely meaningless to a Black Bear. > > Black Bears, too, give meaning to what they perceive. > > " What's that smell? " Pooh asks. > > " What smell? I don't smell anything. " said Piglet. > > That's because Piglet's sense of smell isn't as highly developed as > Winnie the Pooh's. > > Er...I got off track there. In fact, I think I might have lost my > train of thought altogether. I don't know what we were just talking > about. Lol. > > > > " Silver " > > > > Yes, Pooh bear, I agree with all that you say, with one exception. I'm > certain you can scan a room without conscious mentation on the objects within, but > I'm doubtful that you can do so without identifying any object. The subject > has come up here before about the enormous amount of mental processing that > occurs without our conscious participation in the steps. When you scan the > room, how do you know when you've finished scanning? When you identify the same > part of the room that you identified when you began? > > It would be fun to walk into a strange room, scan it and leave, and then see > if anything remains in memory about what was scanned. If so, hasn't > identification of the contents taken place? Lemme suggest that, under hypnosis, you > would be able to recall every detail within the field of your vision as you > scanned. This means identification of every detail has been performed and stored > in memory. This processing took place while you were watching for thoughts > and were so certain none occurred. > > PhilBear Let's see the first sentence: " Yes, Pooh bear, I agree with all that you say, with one exception. " Hmm. You agree? Okay. Except for one thing? What is it? Next sentence: " I'm certain you can scan a room without conscious mentation on the objects within [the room].... " So far, we still agree. :0 Continuing, " ...but I'm doubtful that you can do so without identifying any object. " I see. But I don't recall writing anything about the process of object identification. Did I? Let me go back to my previous post above (above yours, above) and see if I can find what it is you may be referring to. Ah, I see now. I was writing (more like, YAPPING, lol) something about perception and thinking, I think. I really don't remember what prompted me to yap about anything at all. Hehe. But, when I scan a room, the " I " here representing the mind, I'm afraid I can't help doing what it is I do. I'm a mind and thinking is what I do best. So, of course I'm going to identify the objects I see. It's my job to distinguish their form from other forms and to separate them out from all the other forms I see in my mind, and it's my job to give them shape and name. The mind's job is to transform something imperceptible into something it can perceive with its senses and thereby experience itself in all its vain glory. Without mind, no world. Without world, no ego. Without ego, a new world. A new perception of the world, that is. The error has been erased. The light has dispersed the darkness. The darkness disappears and the light reveals the world to you in all its glory. Perception has been corrected, finally! The New Jerusalem above has descended to Earth and one can see it with the eyes of faith in magick. Or hypnosis. Hypnosis is a legitimate form of magick. With belief, anything is possible in the realm of hypnosis. Anything. It reminds me of Witchcraft. Specifically, Vodoun and Spirit possession. Under trance, a form of hypnosis, believers are possessed by spirits who take over their minds. They actually do seem taken over by some kind of entity when you watch them dance and flail all over the place to the constant trance-inducing beat of the music. Hypnotized is what they are. They are all in a state of hypnosis. But aren't we all, to some extent? That's why it's best to just let things be the way they appear to be and not bother with them. If a leaf in the forest falls to the ground, do you bother about it? If the mind plays tricks on you, should you bother about it? It's the mind's game to play games on itself. It loves puzzles and will create the most labyrinthian elaborations as are possible in order to f**k itself up. Lol. Just take a look at the Zen Koan, for example. Hehe. Tell me one of those things don't make your mind go a little whacko after some thoughtful consideration! Hehe, trippy stuff, man! Zen Koans. I love them. Anyway, uh...*fingers tapping on keyboard; pause; reach out with right hand for beer; take swig; replace beer on computer desk* I don't know what else to say. " Silver " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: Hi Phil, it is me again. >Let your eyes roam around the room without focusing attention on any >object in particular. Don't label anything. Don't judge anything. >Don't give meaning to anything you see. Just look. Imagine looking >through the eyes of a baby with a fresh and unconditioned brain. O.k., but what is the use of it? To do what you just suggest demands again a lot of thinking and doing! The thinking and doing is already inherent in your suggestion. There is no way out of the trap as long as one believes there is a trap. All attempts to escape are made of the same stuff of which the trap itself is made. Oh, and the idea that the brain of a baby is unconcitioned and allows wonderful experiences is another romantic fairytale. >The secret is to learn how to not give meaning to anything perceived. We have learned so many things, so many useless " secrets " , now why adding another one? My open secret is: it cannot be done. Therefor I do not waste my time with such exercises. You cannot perceive without giving meanings. You have observed it yourself. So what? Call it a trap: and you are in a trap. Accept it and things may start to flow. Best wishes Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > Hi Phil, it is me again. > > >Let your eyes roam around the room without focusing attention on any > >object in particular. Don't label anything. Don't judge anything. > >Don't give meaning to anything you see. Just look. Imagine looking > >through the eyes of a baby with a fresh and unconditioned brain. > > O.k., but what is the use of it? ****None. No use whatsoever. >To do what you just suggest demands > again a lot of thinking and doing! ****Yes. I'm afraid you're right. Imagining is a form of thinking. >The thinking and doing is already > inherent in your suggestion. There is no way out of the trap as long > as one believes there is a trap. ****My suggestion was merely a thought experiment. I didn't promise it would bring anyone to liberation. One can only imagine what it would be like to see through the eyes of a newborn baby with a fresh and unconditioned brain. I imagine it would be something akin to liberation but not liberation itself. >All attempts to escape are made of > the same stuff of which the trap itself is made. ****If that's so, then there is no escaping from whatever it is we're trapped in. What exactly are we trapped in? > Oh, and the idea that the brain of a baby is unconcitioned and allows > wonderful experiences is another romantic fairytale. ****Yes, admittedly. I don't know what a baby experiences. Some babies seem to be pretty cranky, in fact. Some are quite upset all the time and appear to be having an aweful experience. > >The secret is to learn how to not give meaning to anything perceived. > > We have learned so many things, so many useless " secrets " , now why > adding another one? ****There is no one way to Truth. Anything can wake someone up. The most seemingly useless thing in the world can sometimes enlighten someone. What works for one individual may not work for another. >My open secret is: it cannot be done. Therefor I > do not waste my time with such exercises. ****Well, time can be wasted in other ways, instead. > You cannot perceive without giving meanings. You have observed it > yourself. So what? Call it a trap: and you are in a trap. Accept it > and things may start to flow. ****I don't deny the trap. I try to give it a new meaning. A more acceptable one. > > Best wishes > Stefan > 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.