Guest guest Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 so here the question: have you ever perceived something without thinking? if yes, what? it sounds simple,mm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 > so here the question: > > have you ever perceived something without thinking? > if yes, what? > > it sounds simple,mm > ~~~~~~~~~~ A decent question, actually. My answer to this is: First off, there can be *perception* without thinking. This is pretty obvious if there has been any experience of silent mind. For example there can be walking along a path etc. with silent mind. But perception does not necessarily mean " perceiving something " . The other way around is true, i.e. " perceiving something " does entail perception, but perception does not necessarily entail " perceiving something " . That there is *something* entails identification of some " thing " , which is inherently a thought process. Actually, to be precise this topic can get a bit complicated, and I am not sure how deep you are interested in going. So I will leave it with that for now. But just to give a hint of how complicated the discussion can get [note I said the " discussion " can get complicated; the subject itself is inherently simple.], even *thinking* can occur with silent mind, though a careful definition of " thinking " would be required to state that precisely. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 In a message dated 3/7/2006 12:35:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:38:08 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: perception and thinking > so here the question: > > have you ever perceived something without thinking? > if yes, what? > > it sounds simple,mm > ~~~~~~~~~~ A decent question, actually. My answer to this is: First off, there can be *perception* without thinking. This is pretty obvious if there has been any experience of silent mind. For example there can be walking along a path etc. with silent mind. But perception does not necessarily mean " perceiving something " . The other way around is true, i.e. " perceiving something " does entail perception, but perception does not necessarily entail " perceiving something " . That there is *something* entails identification of some " thing " , which is inherently a thought process. Actually, to be precise this topic can get a bit complicated, and I am not sure how deep you are interested in going. So I will leave it with that for now. But just to give a hint of how complicated the discussion can get [note I said the " discussion " can get complicated; the subject itself is inherently simple.], even *thinking* can occur with silent mind, though a careful definition of " thinking " would be required to state that precisely. Bill I'm glad this question was asked again in the way it was. I've been contemplating exactly how 'seeing' beyond the mind works and I just 'saw' Bill do it half way through his post. This was possible because the question was non-threatening and so it could be looked at without need for defenses. Very useful, thanks. We can divide thinkingness into as many categories as we want to, which is what mind likes to do, but the bottom line is that it is incessant. The deeper you look, the more mental processing you find. Walking along a path involves a staggering amount of thought. Look deeply, and you'll find a frightening amount of thought in the silence of your deepest meditation. If this processing stops all together even for a moment, the mind, and the world, will disappear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/7/2006 12:35:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:38:08 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: perception and thinking > > > so here the question: > > > > have you ever perceived something without thinking? > > if yes, what? > > > > it sounds simple,mm > > > ~~~~~~~~~~ > > A decent question, actually. > > My answer to this is: > > First off, there can be *perception* without thinking. > This is pretty obvious if there has been any experience > of silent mind. For example there can be walking along > a path etc. with silent mind. > > But perception does not necessarily mean " perceiving > something " . The other way around is true, i.e. > " perceiving something " does entail perception, > but perception does not necessarily entail " perceiving > something " . > > That there is *something* entails identification of > some " thing " , which is inherently a thought process. > > Actually, to be precise this topic can get a bit > complicated, and I am not sure how deep you are interested > in going. So I will leave it with that for now. > > But just to give a hint of how complicated the discussion > can get [note I said the " discussion " can get complicated; > the subject itself is inherently simple.], even *thinking* > can occur with silent mind, though a careful definition of > " thinking " would be required to state that precisely. > > > Bill > > > > I'm glad this question was asked again in the way it was. I've been > contemplating exactly how 'seeing' beyond the mind works and I just 'saw' Bill do it > half way through his post. This was possible because the question was > non-threatening and so it could be looked at without need for defenses. Very useful, > thanks. > > We can divide thinkingness into as many categories as we want to, which is > what mind likes to do, but the bottom line is that it is incessant. The deeper > you look, the more mental processing you find. Walking along a path involves > a staggering amount of thought. Look deeply, and you'll find a frightening > amount of thought in the silence of your deepest meditation. If this processing > stops all together even for a moment, the mind, and the world, will > disappear. > In a message dated 3/7/2006 12:35:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:38:08 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: perception and thinking > so here the question: > > have you ever perceived something without thinking? > if yes, what? > > it sounds simple,mm > ~~~~~~~~~~ A decent question, actually. My answer to this is: First off, there can be *perception* without thinking. This is pretty obvious if there has been any experience of silent mind. For example there can be walking along a path etc. with silent mind. But perception does not necessarily mean " perceiving something " . The other way around is true, i.e. " perceiving something " does entail perception, but perception does not necessarily entail " perceiving something " . That there is *something* entails identification of some " thing " , which is inherently a thought process. Actually, to be precise this topic can get a bit complicated, and I am not sure how deep you are interested in going. So I will leave it with that for now. But just to give a hint of how complicated the discussion can get [note I said the " discussion " can get complicated; the subject itself is inherently simple.], even *thinking* can occur with silent mind, though a careful definition of " thinking " would be required to state that precisely. Bill Phil: I'm glad this question was asked again in the way it was. I've been contemplating exactly how 'seeing' beyond the mind works and I just 'saw' Bill do it half way through his post. This was possible because the question was non-threatening and so it could be looked at without need for defenses. Very useful, thanks. We can divide thinkingness into as many categories as we want to, which is what mind likes to do, but the bottom line is that it is incessant. The deeper you look, the more mental processing you find. Walking along a path involves a staggering amount of thought. Look deeply, and you'll find a frightening amount of thought in the silence of your deepest meditation. If this processing stops all together even for a moment, the mind, and the world, will disappear. ~~~~~~~~~~ What you have done here is clarify (for me anyway) what you mean by thought. And I find it a perfectly acceptable definition. Note that thought as you have described it here is quite different from the " stale " kind of thought of someone trying to rationalize their behavior or such. The kind of thought you have described is open, boundless, edgeless. There is nothing " isolated " in such thought. And the key characteristic of such thought is that it is *alive*. The kind of thought that occurs with " rationalization of behavior " , on the other hand, is stale, like a cartoon, or cut-out figures. It is dead. Talking about silent mind is really an over-simplication. What really matters is the quality of *life*. Being-in- the-Now is brimming with *life*. Rationalistic thought processes are steeped in formaldehyde. A final note: I have tended to use the term " thinking " for what you have called above " thought " . As I see it " *a* thought " is inherently stale, but thinking needn't be, as we have discussed. Bill PS: I notice a bit of " sizzle " in this last message of yours. That is because you were writing from *insight*, a point that David Bohm brings out nicely in *Thought as a System*. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > so here the question: > > > > have you ever perceived something without thinking? > > if yes, what? > > > > it sounds simple,mm > > > ~~~~~~~~~~ > > A decent question, actually. > > My answer to this is: > > First off, there can be *perception* without thinking. > This is pretty obvious if there has been any experience > of silent mind. For example there can be walking along > a path etc. with silent mind. > > But perception does not necessarily mean " perceiving > something " . The other way around is true, i.e. > " perceiving something " does entail perception, > but perception does not necessarily entail " perceiving > something " . > > That there is *something* entails identification of > some " thing " , which is inherently a thought process. > > Actually, to be precise this topic can get a bit > complicated, and I am not sure how deep you are interested > in going. So I will leave it with that for now. > > But just to give a hint of how complicated the discussion > can get [note I said the " discussion " can get complicated; > the subject itself is inherently simple.], even *thinking* > can occur with silent mind, though a careful definition of > " thinking " would be required to state that precisely. > > > Bill > hi Bill, to keep it simple i'd say that communication needs thoughts, and everything you can communicate is thought. this is the case also when you are chatting with yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 In a message dated 3/7/2006 11:35:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 04:04:40 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: perception and thinking Phil: I'm glad this question was asked again in the way it was. I've been contemplating exactly how 'seeing' beyond the mind works and I just 'saw' Bill do it half way through his post. This was possible because the question was non-threatening and so it could be looked at without need for defenses. Very useful, thanks. We can divide thinkingness into as many categories as we want to, which is what mind likes to do, but the bottom line is that it is incessant. The deeper you look, the more mental processing you find. Walking along a path involves a staggering amount of thought. Look deeply, and you'll find a frightening amount of thought in the silence of your deepest meditation. If this processing stops all together even for a moment, the mind, and the world, will disappear. ~~~~~~~~~~ B: What you have done here is clarify (for me anyway) what you mean by thought. And I find it a perfectly acceptable definition. Note that thought as you have described it here is quite different from the " stale " kind of thought of someone trying to rationalize their behavior or such. The kind of thought you have described is open, boundless, edgeless. There is nothing " isolated " in such thought. And the key characteristic of such thought is that it is *alive*. The kind of thought that occurs with " rationalization of behavior " , on the other hand, is stale, like a cartoon, or cut-out figures. It is dead. Talking about silent mind is really an over-simplication. What really matters is the quality of *life*. Being-in- the-Now is brimming with *life*. Rationalistic thought processes are steeped in formaldehyde. A final note: I have tended to use the term " thinking " for what you have called above " thought " . As I see it " *a* thought " is inherently stale, but thinking needn't be, as we have discussed. Bill PS: I notice a bit of " sizzle " in this last message of yours. That is because you were writing from *insight*, a point that David Bohm brings out nicely in *Thought as a System*. Yes, that was clarifying for both of us. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 plants communicate quite well. they must be thinking - bigwaaba Nisargadatta Wednesday, March 08, 2006 4:54 AM Re: perception and thinking Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > so here the question: > > > > have you ever perceived something without thinking? > > if yes, what? > > > > it sounds simple,mm > > > ~~~~~~~~~~ > > A decent question, actually. > > My answer to this is: > > First off, there can be *perception* without thinking. > This is pretty obvious if there has been any experience > of silent mind. For example there can be walking along > a path etc. with silent mind. > > But perception does not necessarily mean " perceiving > something " . The other way around is true, i.e. > " perceiving something " does entail perception, > but perception does not necessarily entail " perceiving > something " . > > That there is *something* entails identification of > some " thing " , which is inherently a thought process. > > Actually, to be precise this topic can get a bit > complicated, and I am not sure how deep you are interested > in going. So I will leave it with that for now. > > But just to give a hint of how complicated the discussion > can get [note I said the " discussion " can get complicated; > the subject itself is inherently simple.], even *thinking* > can occur with silent mind, though a careful definition of > " thinking " would be required to state that precisely. > > > Bill > hi Bill, to keep it simple i'd say that communication needs thoughts, and everything you can communicate is thought. this is the case also when you are chatting with yourself. ** 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 March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/7/2006 11:35:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 08 Mar 2006 04:04:40 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: perception and thinking > > > > Phil: > > I'm glad this question was asked again in the way it was. > I've been contemplating exactly how 'seeing' beyond the mind > works and I just 'saw' Bill do it half way through his post. > This was possible because the question was non-threatening > and so it could be looked at without need for defenses. Very > useful, thanks. > > We can divide thinkingness into as many categories as we > want to, which is what mind likes to do, but the bottom line > is that it is incessant. The deeper you look, the more > mental processing you find. Walking along a path involves a > staggering amount of thought. Look deeply, and you'll find a > frightening amount of thought in the silence of your > deepest meditation. If this processing stops all together > even for a moment, the mind, and the world, will disappear. > > ~~~~~~~~~~ > > B: What you have done here is clarify (for me anyway) > what you mean by thought. And I find it a perfectly > acceptable definition. Note that thought as you have > described it here is quite different from the " stale " > kind of thought of someone trying to rationalize their > behavior or such. > > The kind of thought you have described is open, boundless, > edgeless. There is nothing " isolated " in such thought. > And the key characteristic of such thought is that it > is *alive*. The kind of thought that occurs with > " rationalization of behavior " , on the other hand, is > stale, like a cartoon, or cut-out figures. It is dead. > > Talking about silent mind is really an over-simplication. > What really matters is the quality of *life*. Being-in- > the-Now is brimming with *life*. Rationalistic thought > processes are steeped in formaldehyde. > > A final note: I have tended to use the term " thinking " > for what you have called above " thought " . As I see it > " *a* thought " is inherently stale, but thinking needn't > be, as we have discussed. > > > Bill > > PS: I notice a bit of " sizzle " in this last message > of yours. That is because you were writing from > *insight*, a point that David Bohm brings out nicely > in *Thought as a System*. > > > > > Yes, that was clarifying for both of us. > Phil > > Ah... now we can go for a walk along a path! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/7/2006 11:35:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Wed, 08 Mar 2006 04:04:40 -0000 > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > Re: perception and thinking > > > > > > > > Phil: > > > > I'm glad this question was asked again in the way it was. > > I've been contemplating exactly how 'seeing' beyond the mind > > works and I just 'saw' Bill do it half way through his post. > > This was possible because the question was non-threatening > > and so it could be looked at without need for defenses. Very > > useful, thanks. > > > > We can divide thinkingness into as many categories as we > > want to, which is what mind likes to do, but the bottom line > > is that it is incessant. The deeper you look, the more > > mental processing you find. Walking along a path involves a > > staggering amount of thought. Look deeply, and you'll find a > > frightening amount of thought in the silence of your > > deepest meditation. If this processing stops all together > > even for a moment, the mind, and the world, will disappear. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > B: What you have done here is clarify (for me anyway) > > what you mean by thought. And I find it a perfectly > > acceptable definition. Note that thought as you have > > described it here is quite different from the " stale " > > kind of thought of someone trying to rationalize their > > behavior or such. > > > > The kind of thought you have described is open, boundless, > > edgeless. There is nothing " isolated " in such thought. > > And the key characteristic of such thought is that it > > is *alive*. The kind of thought that occurs with > > " rationalization of behavior " , on the other hand, is > > stale, like a cartoon, or cut-out figures. It is dead. > > > > Talking about silent mind is really an over-simplication. > > What really matters is the quality of *life*. Being-in- > > the-Now is brimming with *life*. Rationalistic thought > > processes are steeped in formaldehyde. > > > > A final note: I have tended to use the term " thinking " > > for what you have called above " thought " . As I see it > > " *a* thought " is inherently stale, but thinking needn't > > be, as we have discussed. > > > > > > Bill > > > > PS: I notice a bit of " sizzle " in this last message > > of yours. That is because you were writing from > > *insight*, a point that David Bohm brings out nicely > > in *Thought as a System*. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that was clarifying for both of us. > > Phil > > > > If there are still two of you..........nothing was clarified. > > > Ah... > now we can go for a walk along a path! > > > " You' will be walked......if all-that-is says so. toombaru 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.