Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 There appears a thought. There is no experiencer of it. But this thought says: I am the experiencer. And it goes on, endlessly: I like, I disike, I think, I see, I hear, I come, I go, I am hungry, I was sleeping, blah blah blah - all just thoughts, but no doer and no experiencer and no thinker. Werner Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 10:28:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sun, 5 Mar 2006 21:28:46 EST > > epston@ > > Re: Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 6:03:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > In Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > >In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:32:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > >lissbon2002@ writes: > > > > > > > >>I haven´t give up noticing anything. It really doesn´t take a > > > >>thought to perceive a thought. Thought itself cannot > perceive, it´s > > > >>an image producing process, which you can see very well when > you > > > >>observe it. > > > >> > > > >>Len > > > >> > > > >>I agree with Len. > > > >> > > > >>Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope..........'You' are not separate from the 'thought'. > > > > > > Go to the corner with Stephen. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > L.E: He didn't say he was separate from the 'thought. " > > He said: " It really doesn´t take a thought to perceive a thought. > Thought > > itself cannot perceive,. " Reading skills problem? > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > What he's implying is that there is a thought and then there is a > perceiver > > of a thought, which is to say something separate from the thought. > > Comprehension skills problem? > > > > Phil > ******* > Aww, shucks. That's what I wanted to write. Ya' beat me to it. > Lol. > > > > " Silver " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 7:20:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Sun, 05 Mar 2006 00:14:41 -0000 > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Facts " exist only in thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > Feel your breath. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's something else for 'you' to 'think' about: Feeling arises > > from > > > thought. If you're feeling, the thought (which is 'you' perceiving > > the breath) > > > already snuck by without you noticing it. It can do this because, > > while you > > > haven't given up thinking, you have given up noticing the thinking. > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > I haven´t give up noticing anything. It really doesn´t take a > > thought to perceive a thought. Thought itself cannot perceive, it´s > > an image producing process, which you can see very well when you > > observe it. > > > > Len > > > > > Nope.....thought just thinks it can. > > > toombaru What? Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:06:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, > lissbon2002 writes: > > > I look at everything which is in some way perceivable, including > > thoughts. > > > > Len > > L.E: I agree with Len. > > Larry And, the interesting thing is, we can perceive a thought although we cannot say HOW we perceive it. We just see it. In the same way we don´t know HOW we see, hear, taste in a so called physical world. The eye, the ear are instruments, like a camera, but they cannot SEE. Seeing is what we are. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:32:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > lissbon2002@ writes: > > > > > I haven´t give up noticing anything. It really doesn´t take a > > > thought to perceive a thought. Thought itself cannot perceive, it´s > > > an image producing process, which you can see very well when you > > > observe it. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > I agree with Len. > > > > > > Larry > > > > > > Nope..........'You' are not separate from the 'thought'. > > Go to the corner with Stephen. > > toombaru The " you " which is not separate from the thought, IS a thought, just among many other. This " you " thought can be seen, and it also can fall apart. You can see this thought falling apart, but the perception remains. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:06:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > lissbon2002@ writes: > > > > > I look at everything which is in some way perceivable, including > > > thoughts. > > > > > > Len > > > > L.E: I agree with Len. > > > > Larry > > > > > > Nope. > > A swing.....and a miss. > > Thinking that you are 'looking at thought' is merely another separate thought. > > (Now think about this) > > > toombaru Every arising thought can be seen. Only if you are so brainwashed that you take the content of thoughts for the reality, you are identyfied with thought contents. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:06:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > lissbon2002@ writes: > > > > > I look at everything which is in some way perceivable, including > > > thoughts. > > > > > > Len > > > > L.E: I agree with Len. > > > > Larry > > > And, the interesting thing is, we can perceive a thought although we > cannot say HOW we perceive it. We just see it. In the same way we > don´t know HOW we see, hear, taste in a so called physical world. > The eye, the ear are instruments, like a camera, but they cannot > SEE. Seeing is what we are. > > Len > yes,there is no how because there is no you doing anything. there is not a seer, otherwise there would be a how to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 9:24:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 5 Mar 2006 09:57:32 EST > epston > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 4:08:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, > annaruiz writes: > > > Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought? > > >> > > >> > > >> toombaru > > > > > > > > >Feel your breath. > > > > > >Len > > > > > > L.E: A sneeze, a yawn, a reflex. > > Larry > > > > You mean to say there's no thought associated with these events? How is it > that you know they occur? > > Phil In the same way as you feel a kick in your ass even before you realize it is one ;-) Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:47:40 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 1:30:31 PM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > > > > lissbon2002@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Facts " exist only in thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: Depends how you look at it, and who is looking, if > > > anybody. > > > > > > > > > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You see, I don´t think about it, I just look. > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No..........you are the looking. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > I don´t care :-) > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > You still think that there is an I to care? > > > > > > toombaru > > > I don´t think ;-) > > Len > > > > That's what you think. Hehe. > > Phil That´s what you think :-) Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:01:09 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:44:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:20:55 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:35:42 PM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:39:10 -0000 > > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > > > > > ...................................... > > > > > Pooh`s honey represents its love of beingness, > > > > >> > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta tells us that our love of being (the illusion > of > > I am) is the > > > > crux of our problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, indeedy, which brings up the question, is there really > > a 'problem'? > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > Only in mind. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Thought is the only problem. > > That´s why it´s so important to discern it from facts. > > > > len > > > > > > > > > > Okay, so you see a factual world, and you see thinking about that > factual > > world as different and problematic. > > > > > Yes, only thinking makes it problematic. Thinking is responsible for > al problematic emotions. > > > > > > Fine, whatever. So, does not thinking yield > > the same facts to everyone? You figure we can perceive and > experience and > > make 'choices' and come up with facts without thought? > > > > > Thoughts which are creating problems, like thinking that something > or someone should be different, can be recognized as absurd and > vanish. The rest of thoughts will stay and do their job. > > Len > Okay, now maybe we're getting somewhere. Now there are absurd thoughts and > there are okay thoughts that do their job. I agree, but a thinking process is > required in order to distinguish between the two, No, it´s direct perception who must do that. It must be obvious what is real and what exists exclusively as an image. > and every ego will come to > their own conclusion as to where to draw the line. One ego will notice that a > misspelled word is not of any significance and another ego will think it > reasonable or helpful to call the person an idiot. > > So, isn't the idea of selecting what to think and what not to think part of > the process of perception itself, and therefore subjective, not definable or > controllable or fundamentally meaningful? > > Phil If it is selecting, it´s an ego activity and meaningless. Direct perception leaves no doubt - no space for personal conditioning to play. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:04:51 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > I look at everything which is in some way perceivable, including > thoughts. > > Len > Yes, and it all requires thoughts, No, it doesn´t. That´s the basic misunderstanding. Perception is primary, the thought follows, and can be perceived. > and so as Larry suggested, you do things > pretty much the same way everybody else does. My suspicion is that you spend > a lot of time observing your thoughts, which is not a new technique to anyone > here, I would guess. I have no technique, I just see whatever is there, it´s not an activity or effort. > Notice that, in order for you to perceive your > thoughts, you first need to have the thought that you are going to do that, then you > have to lose track of that thought, then allow another thought to arise, then > remember that you wanted to monitor your thoughts, and then notice the > thought that just occurred, which requires searching your memory from a fraction > of a second ago, because you can't think one thought and watch it at the same > time. You can, which often would make the thought dissolve, when its uselessness is sufficiently realized. > The point is that there's a tremendous amount of mental processing going on > all the time and only a small fraction of it ever becomes conscious. > > Phil Doesn´t matter, the observation of a small fraction teaches you everything about the process of image making. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:08:06 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 7:20:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sun, 05 Mar 2006 00:14:41 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Facts " exist only in thought. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > nonsense. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought? > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Feel your breath. > > > > Len > > > > > > > > Here's something else for 'you' to 'think' about: Feeling arises > from > > thought. If you're feeling, the thought (which is 'you' perceiving > the breath) > > already snuck by without you noticing it. It can do this because, > while you > > haven't given up thinking, you have given up noticing the thinking. > > > > Phil > > > > I haven´t give up noticing anything. It really doesn´t take a > thought to perceive a thought. Thought itself cannot perceive, it´s > an image producing process, which you can see very well when you > observe it. > > Len > > > > It does take a thought to perceive a thought. It doesn´t, that´s the thing. Len > Look very closely and see. > Yes, thought works with images. Thought creates the images. Where else would > they come from? > > Phil > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 10:28:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 5 Mar 2006 21:28:46 EST > epston > Re: Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 6:03:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, > lastrain writes: > > > In Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > >In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:32:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > >lissbon2002@ writes: > > > > > >>I haven´t give up noticing anything. It really doesn´t take a > > >>thought to perceive a thought. Thought itself cannot perceive, it´s > > >>an image producing process, which you can see very well when you > > >>observe it. > > >> > > >>Len > > >> > > >>I agree with Len. > > >> > > >>Larry > > > > > > > > > > Nope..........'You' are not separate from the 'thought'. > > > > Go to the corner with Stephen. > > > > toombaru > > > > > > L.E: He didn't say he was separate from the 'thought. " > He said: " It really doesn´t take a thought to perceive a thought. Thought > itself cannot perceive,. " Reading skills problem? > > Larry Epston > > > > > What he's implying is that there is a thought and then there is a perceiver > of a thought, which is to say something separate from the thought. > Comprehension skills problem? > > Phil No, I didn´t say that. Thought is seen, while appearing, that´s all. Any perceiver separate from this thought is just another thought appearing. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 there's only one power in Ultimate Reality and it's YES! (hope they don't pack much for the trip to the void) - ADHHUB Nisargadatta Monday, March 06, 2006 1:24 AM Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) Yes indeedy. And nothing wrong with a rest stop now and then, unless one falls asleep in the parking lot and forgets where he was going. Phil In a message dated 3/5/2006 9:24:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 10:25:21 -0500 " Fred " <thejman Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) bliss is sometimes a stopping space in the continuum of Truth. - annaruiz Nisargadatta Sunday, March 05, 2006 7:07 AM Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 7:20:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 05 Mar 2006 00:14:41 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > wrote: >> >> >> > > >> > > " Facts " exist only in thought. >> > > >> > > toombaru >> > >> > >> > nonsense. >> > >> > Len >> > >> >> >> Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought? >> >> >> toombaru > > > Feel your breath. > > Len > > > > Here's something else for 'you' to 'think' about: Feeling arises from > thought. If you're feeling, the thought (which is 'you' perceiving the > breath) > already snuck by without you noticing it. It can do this because, while > you > haven't given up thinking, you have given up noticing the thinking. > > Phil ..and then the long night ends and awakening happens as who is awakened in/as/of bliss, pure noticing ....This...Is. a reoccuring dream, lost in a stream of consciousness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 " Does a brain dead person experience? " (answering that might get one in trouble) - ADHHUB Nisargadatta Monday, March 06, 2006 3:14 AM Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:55:59 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:44:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:12:32 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:35:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:39:10 -0000 > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > ...................................... > > > Pooh`s honey represents its love of beingness, > > >> > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta tells us that our love of being (the illusion of I am) is > the > > crux of our problem. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > Yes, indeedy, which brings up the question, is there really a 'problem'? > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > Only in mind. > > > toombaru > > > > > Yeah, it's only a problem in the mind, but that includes our entire > experience Not if the problem is in thought. Then it doesn´t include our entire experience: when the thought is gone the problem is gone, but life goes on. Len Is it possible that " thought " covers a lot more territory than you presently allow? I would agree that thinking is the problem, but thought itself is part of the process of perception. Without thought, there is no sensory analysis or stored memories of the event. As such, there can be no experience. Does a brain dead person experience? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 In a message dated 3/6/2006 4:10:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 10:25:50 -0000 " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) There appears a thought. There is no experiencer of it. But this thought says: I am the experiencer. And it goes on, endlessly: I like, I disike, I think, I see, I hear, I come, I go, I am hungry, I was sleeping, blah blah blah - all just thoughts, but no doer and no experiencer and no thinker. Werner It's a groovy idea, but of course the purpose of such concepts is to expand beyond the limitations of the concept it replaces, so there's always a greater truth than whatever we can conceptualize. What gives us a hint as to how we might find that greater truth is the paradoxes that that show up in the currently embraced concept. There is no human person with any individual volition that is doing anything. That's what the concept reveals to egos that imagine they are in charge of they're own enlightenment. But experiencing is still occurring, so the paradox is, how could experience be occurring without an experiencer? Can't be. 'You' are still experiencing. Nothing says you have to be an individual human in order for this to occur. Experience is occurring. Everything is consciousness. 'You' are consciousness (Not human consciousness.) 'You' are experiencing. God is still being put in a box, but maybe the box is a little bigger this way. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 > - > ADHHUB > Nisargadatta > Monday, March 06, 2006 3:14 AM > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > Is it possible that " thought " covers a lot more territory than you presently > allow? I would agree that thinking is the problem, but thought itself is > part of the process of perception. Without thought, there is no sensory analysis > or stored memories of the event. As such, there can be no experience. Does a > brain dead person experience? > > Phil You would have to ask it to a brain dead person ;-) Thought is indeed analyzing and labelling, which seems a necessary activity for the body to function in the world. But a thought is entirely responsible for creating problems. This is helpful when it comes to finding practical solutions but very disturbing when it leads to emotional conflicts. They exist because of thought interpreting a situation as not desirable. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 In a message dated 3/6/2006 6:14:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 13:53:12 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:06:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, > lissbon2002 writes: > > > I look at everything which is in some way perceivable, including > > thoughts. > > > > Len > > L.E: I agree with Len. > > Larry And, the interesting thing is, we can perceive a thought although we cannot say HOW we perceive it. We just see it. In the same way we don´t know HOW we see, hear, taste in a so called physical world. The eye, the ear are instruments, like a camera, but they cannot SEE. Seeing is what we are. Len The reeeeally interesting thing is that you can't perceive a thought as it occurs, because this perception is, itself, a thought. If you observe very closely, you'll notice that the only way you know that a thought has occurred is by recalling that thought from memory, where it was stored a split second ago. As long as you're thinking the thought, you cannot be also be the observer of that thought (In an ego context). The reverse is also true, which is why observing our thoughts tends to stop them. As long as you are positioned as the watcher of the thoughts, you cannot be the 'thinker' of the thoughts. Thoughts won't arise until you 'forget' to watch. In order for you to be able to say how you perceive a thought, you first have to notice the process above occurring, then you have to notice that you are noticing that process. Yes, it can be noticed how you perceive a thought. It's just yet another thought. There isn't, however, any significance to noticing this beyond a thought game. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 In a message dated 3/6/2006 8:01:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:09:20 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 9:24:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 5 Mar 2006 09:57:32 EST > epston > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 4:08:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, > annaruiz writes: > > > Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought? > > >> > > >> > > >> toombaru > > > > > > > > >Feel your breath. > > > > > >Len > > > > > > L.E: A sneeze, a yawn, a reflex. > > Larry > > > > You mean to say there's no thought associated with these events? How is it > that you know they occur? > > Phil In the same way as you feel a kick in your ass even before you realize it is one ;-) Len Now, Len, that's not so. Just because you fail to notice all those thoughts that interpret sensory input, doesn't mean they don't occur. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 In a message dated 3/6/2006 8:01:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:17:28 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:01:09 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:44:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:20:55 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:35:42 PM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:39:10 -0000 > > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > > > > > ...................................... > > > > > Pooh`s honey represents its love of beingness, > > > > >> > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta tells us that our love of being (the illusion > of > > I am) is the > > > > crux of our problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, indeedy, which brings up the question, is there really > > a 'problem'? > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > Only in mind. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Thought is the only problem. > > That´s why it´s so important to discern it from facts. > > > > len > > > > > > > > > > Okay, so you see a factual world, and you see thinking about that > factual > > world as different and problematic. > > > > > Yes, only thinking makes it problematic. Thinking is responsible for > al problematic emotions. > > > > > > Fine, whatever. So, does not thinking yield > > the same facts to everyone? You figure we can perceive and > experience and > > make 'choices' and come up with facts without thought? > > > > > Thoughts which are creating problems, like thinking that something > or someone should be different, can be recognized as absurd and > vanish. The rest of thoughts will stay and do their job. > > Len > Okay, now maybe we're getting somewhere. Now there are absurd thoughts and > there are okay thoughts that do their job. I agree, but a thinking process is > required in order to distinguish between the two, No, it´s direct perception who must do that. It must be obvious what is real and what exists exclusively as an image. > and every ego will come to > their own conclusion as to where to draw the line. One ego will notice that a > misspelled word is not of any significance and another ego will think it > reasonable or helpful to call the person an idiot. > > So, isn't the idea of selecting what to think and what not to think part of > the process of perception itself, and therefore subjective, not definable or > controllable or fundamentally meaningful? > > Phil If it is selecting, it´s an ego activity and meaningless. Direct perception leaves no doubt - no space for personal conditioning to play. Len This is ego fantasy, Len. All activity is ego activity and personal conditioning. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 In a message dated 3/6/2006 8:01:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:25:56 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:04:51 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > I look at everything which is in some way perceivable, including > thoughts. > > Len > Yes, and it all requires thoughts, No, it doesn´t. That´s the basic misunderstanding. Perception is primary, the thought follows, and can be perceived. > and so as Larry suggested, you do things > pretty much the same way everybody else does. My suspicion is that you spend > a lot of time observing your thoughts, which is not a new technique to anyone > here, I would guess. I have no technique, I just see whatever is there, it´s not an activity or effort. > Notice that, in order for you to perceive your > thoughts, you first need to have the thought that you are going to do that, then you > have to lose track of that thought, then allow another thought to arise, then > remember that you wanted to monitor your thoughts, and then notice the > thought that just occurred, which requires searching your memory from a fraction > of a second ago, because you can't think one thought and watch it at the same > time. You can, which often would make the thought dissolve, when its uselessness is sufficiently realized. > The point is that there's a tremendous amount of mental processing going on > all the time and only a small fraction of it ever becomes conscious. > > Phil Doesn´t matter, the observation of a small fraction teaches you everything about the process of image making. Len Sorry, Len. We've circled this wagon a couple of times already and there's nothing useful to me here any more. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Take away the 'no' and one guru forum falls deadly silent, eh? Hmmm....... In a message dated 3/6/2006 8:01:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:49:30 -0500 " Fred " <thejman Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) there's only one power in Ultimate Reality and it's YES! (hope they don't pack much for the trip to the void) ----- Original Message ----- ADHHUB Nisargadatta Monday, March 06, 2006 1:24 AM Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) Yes indeedy. And nothing wrong with a rest stop now and then, unless one falls asleep in the parking lot and forgets where he was going. Phil In a message dated 3/5/2006 9:24:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 10:25:21 -0500 " Fred " <thejman Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) bliss is sometimes a stopping space in the continuum of Truth. ----- Original Message ----- annaruiz Nisargadatta Sunday, March 05, 2006 7:07 AM Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 7:20:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 05 Mar 2006 00:14:41 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > wrote: >> >> >> > > >> > > " Facts " exist only in thought. >> > > >> > > toombaru >> > >> > >> > nonsense. >> > >> > Len >> > >> >> >> Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought? >> >> >> toombaru > > > Feel your breath. > > Len > > > > Here's something else for 'you' to 'think' about: Feeling arises from > thought. If you're feeling, the thought (which is 'you' perceiving the > breath) > already snuck by without you noticing it. It can do this because, while > you > haven't given up thinking, you have given up noticing the thinking. > > Phil ...and then the long night ends and awakening happens as who is awakened in/as/of bliss, pure noticing .....This...Is. a reoccuring dream, lost in a stream of consciousness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Well, a 'correct' answer ruins my argument, so lets not go there. ~ Phil In a message dated 3/6/2006 8:01:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:57:13 -0500 " Fred " <thejman Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) " Does a brain dead person experience? " (answering that might get one in trouble) - ADHHUB Nisargadatta Monday, March 06, 2006 3:14 AM Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:55:59 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:44:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:12:32 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:35:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:39:10 -0000 > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > ...................................... > > > Pooh`s honey represents its love of beingness, > > >> > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta tells us that our love of being (the illusion of I am) is > the > > crux of our problem. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > Yes, indeedy, which brings up the question, is there really a 'problem'? > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > Only in mind. > > > toombaru > > > > > Yeah, it's only a problem in the mind, but that includes our entire > experience Not if the problem is in thought. Then it doesn´t include our entire experience: when the thought is gone the problem is gone, but life goes on. Len Is it possible that " thought " covers a lot more territory than you presently allow? I would agree that thinking is the problem, but thought itself is part of the process of perception. Without thought, there is no sensory analysis or stored memories of the event. As such, there can be no experience. Does a brain dead person experience? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 In a message dated 3/6/2006 5:54:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, lissbon2002 writes: > And, the interesting thing is, we can perceive a thought although we > cannot say HOW we perceive it. We just see it. In the same way we > don´t know HOW we see, hear, taste in a so called physical world. > The eye, the ear are instruments, like a camera, but they cannot > SEE. Seeing is what we are. > > Len L.E: It seems that Being is what we are. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 In a message dated 3/6/2006 5:59:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, lissbon2002 writes: > The " you " which is not separate from the thought, IS a thought, just > among many other. This " you " thought can be seen, and it also can > fall apart. You can see this thought falling apart, but the > perception remains. > > Len L.E: Yes, but the you which is not a thought is not a thought. The perception that remains is that you. Although to name it you cannot be done. Because it is not the you that can be named. Larry Epston www.epston.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 In a message dated 3/6/2006 6:00:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, lissbon2002 writes: > Every arising thought can be seen. Only if you are so brainwashed > that you take the content of thoughts for the reality, you are > identyfied with thought contents. > > Len L.E; I agree with that. Larry E. 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.