Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 In a message dated 3/6/2006 1:22:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, silver-1069 writes: > >>>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 L.E: Within the realm of the ego, the perceiver exists when there is no thought, and the perceiver exists when there is thought or words that carry thoughts. So, yes, separate from his own thought and the word/thoughts of others coming in. That's why he writes, " feel your breath. " To indicate there is perception with no thought. **** Come on Len, who understands you better?***** Larry Epston 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 3/6/2006 1:22:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, > silver-1069 writes: > > > >>>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 > > L.E: Within the realm of the ego, the perceiver exists when there is no > thought, > and the perceiver exists when there is thought or words that carry thoughts. > So, yes, separate from his own thought and the word/thoughts of others coming > in. > That's why he writes, " feel your breath. " To indicate there is perception > with no thought. > **** Come on Len, who understands you better?***** > > Larry Epston Yes, there is perception of the breath and there is a thought saying: I must watch my breath. Both are perceivable but obviously not identical. 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, 6 Mar 2006 07:30:45 EST epston Re: Len-Thinking and Perception In a message dated 3/6/2006 1:22:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, silver-1069 writes: > >>>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 L.E: Within the realm of the ego, the perceiver exists when there is no thought, and the perceiver exists when there is thought or words that carry thoughts. So, yes, separate from his own thought and the word/thoughts of others coming in. That's why he writes, " feel your breath. " To indicate there is perception with no thought. **** Come on Len, who understands you better?***** Larry Epston Okay, well at least I understand why there's so little agreement here. You and Len believe that perception can occur apart from thought. This is the belief that objects/events can be passively perceived by the senses without any mental processing, or perhaps that all the processing and identification has nothing to do with thought. There certainly are different kinds of thought. The thoughts required to identify oneself as apart from the object and to spatially place the object and to identify it's characteristics by analyzing memory are different, in a sense, from what we think about the object once all this other thinking has occurred, but all of that processing that occurs in order to identify is not really separate from what we think about it. It's all the same process of perception. If you perceive a rope to be snake, you're not seeing what is objectively present because of an error in thinking. This is an error in perception. Such errors cannot be avoided by simply choosing not to think anything about what is observed because the horse has already left the barn. There is no objective reality 'out there'. There is not even an 'out there'. This is why looking 'within' is very useful. Phil 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.