Guest guest Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 how deep this twilight of being lying beyond the clutter of life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > > > how deep this twilight of being > lying beyond the clutter of life Hi Bill.....I know this is poetic and the words are not to be taken litrally and all.And actually I like how it reads. Nice poem:Concise, non-flowerey and to it's own point clear. But isn't " the clutter of life' THE integral part of 'being'? And in turn 'life' THE integral paret of 'being'? You say here that that'being' is something that lies 'beyond'. Whatever the poetic intending being rendered here regarding 'being', in twilight or any light, aren't being and life sort of synonomous and thereby at the very least within each other and never in the 'beyond' of each other? And isn't it in life's 'clutter' and not outside of it, that the real peace and tranquility of the ONE resides? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 On 5/12/06, roberibus111 <Roberibus111 wrote: > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > > > > > > > how deep this twilight of being > > lying beyond the clutter of life > > Hi Bill.....I know this is poetic and the words are not to be taken > litrally and all.And actually I like how it reads. Nice poem:Concise, > non-flowerey and to it's own point clear. But isn't " the clutter of > life' THE integral part of 'being'? And in turn 'life' THE integral > paret of 'being'? You say here that that'being' is something that > lies 'beyond'. Whatever the poetic intending being rendered here > regarding 'being', in twilight or any light, aren't being and life sort > of synonomous and thereby at the very least within each other and never > in the 'beyond' of each other? And isn't it in life's 'clutter' and not > outside of it, that the real peace and tranquility of the ONE resides? Interesting comment Bob! I was lying in the bathtub, having just awakened (at 9 PM), and " reality " was just soaking in slowly... like a slice of bread in gravy. The " clutter of life " was just a dim clutch of shadows dancing, distant, as in another room. And then those words came, flowed in as it were, so I reached for a pencil and paper near the tub and scrawled what you read. Later, drying myself off and looking at those words, I wondered myself a bit at the " separation " of the clutter from the narcotic non-ness that floated at the core of the poem, at the core of the writing of the poem. But I just shrugged my shoulders and that was the end of that wondering. Because I don't question things like that. Whatever happens happens. Whatever arises arises. Whatever is written is written. The end. " But isn't " the clutter of life' THE integral part of 'being'? And in turn 'life' THE integral paret of 'being'? You say here that that'being' is something that lies 'beyond'. " The poem is its own mystery, coming from mystery. Even though the poem uses words, there are no " ideas " in it. Hence your questions do not apply. Does that make sense to you? I don't want to beat a horse that is already dead. But here's an analogy anyway: A tornado is whirling away, with myriad objects swirling in its torrid winds. The core of the tornado, which is a kind of emptiness, is like the " narcotic non-ness floating at the core of the poem " . The tree branches, real estate signs, shirts and bras whirling in the winds are the " clutter " . Or just now, writing this, there is a pure silence at the core of the writing. There's the sound of a radio in the next room, the sound of the keyboard keys clacking, the taste of the gum being chewed in my mouth, etc. etc. See what I mean? That pattern applies over and over. Life is not an homogenous stuff, it is a dance of myriad elements " in suspension " , suspended in... what? The pure silence at the core. Or the narcotic non-ness. Or... it can be a bit different... but always like the ground, the absence within which all the clutter can live, move, and have its being. Heck, this writing is a dancing of Life on this keyboard. Kazam! Lightning just struck. It is finished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote: > > On 5/12/06, roberibus111 <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > how deep this twilight of being > > > lying beyond the clutter of life > > > > Hi Bill.....I know this is poetic and the words are not to be taken > > litrally and all.And actually I like how it reads. Nice poem:Concise, > > non-flowerey and to it's own point clear. But isn't " the clutter of > > life' THE integral part of 'being'? And in turn 'life' THE integral > > paret of 'being'? You say here that that'being' is something that > > lies 'beyond'. Whatever the poetic intending being rendered here > > regarding 'being', in twilight or any light, aren't being and life sort > > of synonomous and thereby at the very least within each other and never > > in the 'beyond' of each other? And isn't it in life's 'clutter' and not > > outside of it, that the real peace and tranquility of the ONE resides? > > Interesting comment Bob! > > I was lying in the bathtub, having just awakened (at 9 PM), > and " reality " was just soaking in slowly... like a slice of > bread in gravy. The " clutter of life " was just a dim clutch > of shadows dancing, distant, as in another room. > > And then those words came, flowed in as it were, so I > reached for a pencil and paper near the tub and scrawled > what you read. > > Later, drying myself off and looking at those words, I > wondered myself a bit at the " separation " of the clutter > from the narcotic non-ness that floated at the core of > the poem, at the core of the writing of the poem. > > But I just shrugged my shoulders and that was the end > of that wondering. > > Because I don't question things like that. Whatever happens > happens. Whatever arises arises. Whatever is written is > written. The end. > > " But isn't " the clutter of life' THE integral part of > 'being'? And in turn 'life' THE integral paret of > 'being'? You say here that that'being' is something > that lies 'beyond'. " > > The poem is its own mystery, coming from mystery. > > Even though the poem uses words, there are no > " ideas " in it. Hence your questions do not apply. > Does that make sense to you? I don't want to beat > a horse that is already dead. > > But here's an analogy anyway: > A tornado is whirling away, with myriad objects > swirling in its torrid winds. The core of the > tornado, which is a kind of emptiness, is like > the " narcotic non-ness floating at the core of the > poem " . The tree branches, real estate signs, shirts > and bras whirling in the winds are the " clutter " . > > Or just now, writing this, there is a pure silence > at the core of the writing. There's the sound of a > radio in the next room, the sound of the keyboard > keys clacking, the taste of the gum being chewed in > my mouth, etc. etc. See what I mean? > > That pattern applies over and over. > > Life is not an homogenous stuff, it is a dance of > myriad elements " in suspension " , suspended in... > what? The pure silence at the core. Or the narcotic > non-ness. Or... it can be a bit different... but always > like the ground, the absence within which all the > clutter can live, move, and have its being. > > Heck, this writing is a dancing of Life on this keyboard. > > Kazam! > > Lightning just struck. > > It is finished. good answer and I did like that poem whether I understood it or not. Something there is in it, that while maybe not ringing true for me, most certainly it sings to me. that is the funny thing with a lot(but not all) of what I don't understand. and I always hope that someday I may understand whatever it is that has thus affected this thing that I seem to be and also don't understand. ......bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 > > good answer and I did like that poem whether I understood it or not. > Something there is in it, that while maybe not ringing true for me, > most certainly it sings to me. that is the funny thing with a lot(but > not all) of what I don't understand. and I always hope that someday I > may understand whatever it is that has thus affected this thing that > I seem to be and also don't understand. > ......bob > Thought's greatest hope is that someday it will understand itself. Can you see the problem here? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > good answer and I did like that poem whether I understood it or not. > > Something there is in it, that while maybe not ringing true for me, > > most certainly it sings to me. that is the funny thing with a lot(but > > not all) of what I don't understand. and I always hope that someday I > > may understand whatever it is that has thus affected this thing that > > I seem to be and also don't understand. > > ......bob > > > > > Thought's greatest hope is that someday it will understand itself. > > Can you see the problem here? > > > toombaru How can a thought own a hope? -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 On 5/12/06, dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > good answer and I did like that poem whether I understood it or not. > > > Something there is in it, that while maybe not ringing true for me, > > > most certainly it sings to me. that is the funny thing with a lot(but > > > not all) of what I don't understand. and I always hope that someday I > > > may understand whatever it is that has thus affected this thing that > > > I seem to be and also don't understand. > > > ......bob > > > > > > > > > Thought's greatest hope is that someday it will understand itself. > > > > Can you see the problem here? > > > > > > toombaru > > > How can a thought own a hope? > > -- Dan > UhOh Toombaru... I think you have just been toombaru'd Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 On 5/12/06, roberibus111 <Roberibus111 wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn > wrote: > > > > On 5/12/06, roberibus111 <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how deep this twilight of being > > > > lying beyond the clutter of life > > > > > > Hi Bill.....I know this is poetic and the words are not to be > taken > > > litrally and all.And actually I like how it reads. Nice > poem:Concise, > > > non-flowerey and to it's own point clear. But isn't " the clutter > of > > > life' THE integral part of 'being'? And in turn 'life' THE > integral > > > paret of 'being'? You say here that that'being' is something that > > > lies 'beyond'. Whatever the poetic intending being rendered here > > > regarding 'being', in twilight or any light, aren't being and > life sort > > > of synonomous and thereby at the very least within each other and > never > > > in the 'beyond' of each other? And isn't it in life's 'clutter' > and not > > > outside of it, that the real peace and tranquility of the ONE > resides? > > > > Interesting comment Bob! > > > > I was lying in the bathtub, having just awakened (at 9 PM), > > and " reality " was just soaking in slowly... like a slice of > > bread in gravy. The " clutter of life " was just a dim clutch > > of shadows dancing, distant, as in another room. > > > > And then those words came, flowed in as it were, so I > > reached for a pencil and paper near the tub and scrawled > > what you read. > > > > Later, drying myself off and looking at those words, I > > wondered myself a bit at the " separation " of the clutter > > from the narcotic non-ness that floated at the core of > > the poem, at the core of the writing of the poem. > > > > But I just shrugged my shoulders and that was the end > > of that wondering. > > > > Because I don't question things like that. Whatever happens > > happens. Whatever arises arises. Whatever is written is > > written. The end. > > > > " But isn't " the clutter of life' THE integral part of > > 'being'? And in turn 'life' THE integral paret of > > 'being'? You say here that that'being' is something > > that lies 'beyond'. " > > > > The poem is its own mystery, coming from mystery. > > > > Even though the poem uses words, there are no > > " ideas " in it. Hence your questions do not apply. > > Does that make sense to you? I don't want to beat > > a horse that is already dead. > > > > But here's an analogy anyway: > > A tornado is whirling away, with myriad objects > > swirling in its torrid winds. The core of the > > tornado, which is a kind of emptiness, is like > > the " narcotic non-ness floating at the core of the > > poem " . The tree branches, real estate signs, shirts > > and bras whirling in the winds are the " clutter " . > > > > Or just now, writing this, there is a pure silence > > at the core of the writing. There's the sound of a > > radio in the next room, the sound of the keyboard > > keys clacking, the taste of the gum being chewed in > > my mouth, etc. etc. See what I mean? > > > > That pattern applies over and over. > > > > Life is not an homogenous stuff, it is a dance of > > myriad elements " in suspension " , suspended in... > > what? The pure silence at the core. Or the narcotic > > non-ness. Or... it can be a bit different... but always > > like the ground, the absence within which all the > > clutter can live, move, and have its being. > > > > Heck, this writing is a dancing of Life on this keyboard. > > > > Kazam! > > > > Lightning just struck. > > > > It is finished. > > good answer and I did like that poem whether I understood it or not. > Something there is in it, that while maybe not ringing true for me, > most certainly it sings to me. that is the funny thing with a lot(but > not all) of what I don't understand. and I always hope that someday I > may understand whatever it is that has thus affected this thing that > I seem to be and also don't understand. > ......bob > I believe you will find that the book *The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind* speaks to that very nicely. And with all your literary knowledge and background, you in particular will find that book especially interesting. Bill PS: Thank You! for your vulnerability here. Suddenly I feel a sense of who you are... that a mountain of fabulous words could never convey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > good answer and I did like that poem whether I understood it or not. > > > Something there is in it, that while maybe not ringing true for me, > > > most certainly it sings to me. that is the funny thing with a lot(but > > > not all) of what I don't understand. and I always hope that someday I > > > may understand whatever it is that has thus affected this thing that > > > I seem to be and also don't understand. > > > ......bob > > > > > > > > > Thought's greatest hope is that someday it will understand itself. > > > > Can you see the problem here? > > > > > > toombaru > > > How can a thought own a hope? > > -- Dan > Hope is a thought....a wish for things to be different then they are perceived to be. There is no distinction between thought and hope. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 --- toombaru2006 <lastrain a écrit : Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > good answer and I did like that poem whether I understood it or not. > > > Something there is in it, that while maybe not ringing true for me, > > > most certainly it sings to me. that is the funny thing with a lot(but > > > not all) of what I don't understand. and I always hope that someday I > > > may understand whatever it is that has thus affected this thing that > > > I seem to be and also don't understand. > > > ......bob > > > > > > > > > Thought's greatest hope is that someday it will understand itself. > > > > Can you see the problem here? > > > > > > toombaru > > > How can a thought own a hope? > > -- Dan > Hope is a thought....a wish for things to be different then they are perceived to be. There is no distinction between thought and hope. toombaru ....Bob, make sure you perceive that thought of a hope then. ** 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 May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good answer and I did like that poem whether I understood it or > not. > > > > Something there is in it, that while maybe not ringing true for me, > > > > most certainly it sings to me. that is the funny thing with a > lot(but > > > > not all) of what I don't understand. and I always hope that > someday I > > > > may understand whatever it is that has thus affected this thing > that > > > > I seem to be and also don't understand. > > > > ......bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought's greatest hope is that someday it will understand itself. > > > > > > Can you see the problem here? > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > How can a thought own a hope? > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > Hope is a thought....a wish for things to be different then they are > perceived to be. > > There is no distinction between thought and hope. > > > toombaru That's silly. A thought is just a thought. A picture image, or a group of words beheld and formulated in the brain. Hope needn't enter the picture. " a ball on the rug " is a thought. No hope involved that anything be different. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good answer and I did like that poem whether I understood it or > > not. > > > > > Something there is in it, that while maybe not ringing true > for me, > > > > > most certainly it sings to me. that is the funny thing with a > > lot(but > > > > > not all) of what I don't understand. and I always hope that > > someday I > > > > > may understand whatever it is that has thus affected this thing > > that > > > > > I seem to be and also don't understand. > > > > > ......bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought's greatest hope is that someday it will understand itself. > > > > > > > > Can you see the problem here? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > How can a thought own a hope? > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > Hope is a thought....a wish for things to be different then they are > > perceived to be. > > > > There is no distinction between thought and hope. > > > > > > toombaru > > That's silly. That is beacuse the 'me' is nothing other then a thought stream. > > A thought is just a thought. Dan, is it your belief that thought can think objectivley about thought? Do you think that thought (what ever that is) has the ability to think about itself? Can you see the problem with this thinking? Is it possible for thinking to see the problem here? > > A picture image, or a group of words beheld and formulated in the brain. A picture image of a ball on a rug is entirely different then a thought about the picture image of a ball on a rug. > > Hope needn't enter the picture. > > " a ball on the rug " is a thought. > > No hope involved that anything be different. > > -- Dan > You ask the question " How can a thought own a hope? My answer was addressed to that question. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thought's greatest hope is that someday it will understand itself. > > > > > > > > > > Can you see the problem here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > How can a thought own a hope? > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope is a thought....a wish for things to be different then they are > > > perceived to be. > > > > > > There is no distinction between thought and hope. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > That's silly. > > > > That is beacuse the 'me' is nothing other then a thought stream. Are you sure of this? Are you sure there is something that is connecting one thought and the next in the form of a stream? Thoughts appear and disappear. There isn't any stream, just the imagining that a stream of connected thoughts could exist over time. That doesn't mean there really is a stream, or that a " me " could really exist as a stream of thoughts. > > > > A thought is just a thought. > > > > Dan, is it your belief that thought can think objectivley about thought? A thought is just a thought, Toom. It appears and disappears. Just an appearance of imagery or words in the brain. It's never " about " something else - not " about " thought, not " about " something else. It just is what it is - a thought - appearing and disappearing. > Do you think that thought (what ever that is) has the ability to think > about itself? Why attribute any abilities to thought, or lack of abilities? How can something appearing/disappearing momentarily have an ability or lack an ability -- or have a hope or lack a hope? > Can you see the problem with this thinking? > > Is it possible for thinking to see the problem here? Why would you want thinking to " see a problem " ? Is there something to be gained if thinking sees a problem? > > > > > A picture image, or a group of words beheld and formulated in the brain. > > > > A picture image of a ball on a rug is entirely different then a > thought about the picture image of a ball on a rug. A thought is just a thought. It appears and disappears. It's not making a connection between something and something else. It's not about something that exists outside of itself. You can't have a thought " about " another thought - although you can have a thought that you had a thought about another thought. That doesn't mean you did, though. > > Hope needn't enter the picture. > > > > " a ball on the rug " is a thought. > > > > No hope involved that anything be different. > > > > -- Dan > > > > > You ask the question " How can a thought own a hope? > > My answer was addressed to that question. Here's a very simple answer: It can't. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought's greatest hope is that someday it will understand > itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you see the problem here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can a thought own a hope? > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope is a thought....a wish for things to be different then they are > > > > perceived to be. > > > > > > > > There is no distinction between thought and hope. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > That's silly. > > > > > > > > That is beacuse the 'me' is nothing other then a thought stream. > > Are you sure of this? > > Are you sure there is something that is connecting one thought and the > next in the form of a stream? > > Thoughts appear and disappear. There isn't any stream, just the > imagining that a stream of connected thoughts could exist over time. > > That doesn't mean there really is a stream, or that a " me " could > really exist as a stream of thoughts. > > > > > > > A thought is just a thought. > > > > > > > > Dan, is it your belief that thought can think objectivley about thought? > > A thought is just a thought, Toom. > > It appears and disappears. > > Just an appearance of imagery or words in the brain. > > It's never " about " something else - not " about " thought, not " about " > something else. > > It just is what it is - a thought - appearing and disappearing. > > > Do you think that thought (what ever that is) has the ability to think > > about itself? > > Why attribute any abilities to thought, or lack of abilities? > > How can something appearing/disappearing momentarily have an ability > or lack an ability -- or have a hope or lack a hope? > > > Can you see the problem with this thinking? > > > > Is it possible for thinking to see the problem here? > > Why would you want thinking to " see a problem " ? > > Is there something to be gained if thinking sees a problem? > > > > > > > > > A picture image, or a group of words beheld and formulated in the > brain. > > > > > > > > A picture image of a ball on a rug is entirely different then a > > thought about the picture image of a ball on a rug. > > A thought is just a thought. > > It appears and disappears. > > It's not making a connection between something and something else. > > It's not about something that exists outside of itself. > > You can't have a thought " about " another thought - although you can > have a thought that you had a thought about another thought. That > doesn't mean you did, though. > > > > Hope needn't enter the picture. > > > > > > " a ball on the rug " is a thought. > > > > > > No hope involved that anything be different. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > You ask the question " How can a thought own a hope? > > > > My answer was addressed to that question. > > Here's a very simple answer: > > It can't. > > -- Dan I thought a hope was a thought. At least I hoped so. Now I think a thought is just a hope. At least that's the hope I have. What do you guys think? I hope you have good answers. Or is there no hope? Please don't say what you think. Please don't say what you hope. SHOW me. ......bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought's greatest hope is that someday it will understand > itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you see the problem here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can a thought own a hope? > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope is a thought....a wish for things to be different then they are > > > > perceived to be. > > > > > > > > There is no distinction between thought and hope. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > That's silly. > > > > > > > > That is beacuse the 'me' is nothing other then a thought stream. > > Are you sure of this? > > Are you sure there is something that is connecting one thought and the > next in the form of a stream? One thought flows edgelessly into the next. There is no separated...isolated thought. > > Thoughts appear and disappear. There isn't any stream, just the > imagining that a stream of connected thoughts could exist over time. > > That doesn't mean there really is a stream, or that a " me " could > really exist as a stream of thoughts. You are assuming that thought is able to get a picture of what thought really is or isn't. There is no such assumption here. > > > > > > > A thought is just a thought. > > > > > > > > Dan, is it your belief that thought can think objectivley about thought? > > A thought is just a thought, Toom. > > It appears and disappears. > > Just an appearance of imagery or words in the brain. > > It's never " about " something else - not " about " thought, not " about " > something else. > > It just is what it is - a thought - appearing and disappearing. That is a thought about thought. Can thought have a thought about a thought about a thought? > > > Do you think that thought (what ever that is) has the ability to think > > about itself? > > Why attribute any abilities to thought, or lack of abilities? You are who thinks that he has an insight into the nature of thought. Thinking that thought is just a thought is just a thought. > > How can something appearing/disappearing momentarily have an ability > or lack an ability -- or have a hope or lack a hope? How can something appearing/disappearing momentarily have the ability to look up its own dress? > > > Can you see the problem with this thinking? > > > > Is it possible for thinking to see the problem here? > > Why would you want thinking to " see a problem " ? Because......that's the only door out. > > Is there something to be gained if thinking sees a problem? > > > No.....Nothing to be gained.........but everything to loose. > > > > > > A picture image, or a group of words beheld and formulated in the > brain. > > > > > > > > A picture image of a ball on a rug is entirely different then a > > thought about the picture image of a ball on a rug. > > A thought is just a thought. How do you know that? It is only your thinking that tell you that. Is your thinking infallible? Are you trusting a molester to protect the children? > > It appears and disappears. How does it know when it disappears? Are you starting to see what I am trying to say? Are you locked so tightly in the intellectual mumbo jumbo that you can't intuit that it is thought itself that is the problem? > > It's not making a connection between something and something else. > > It's not about something that exists outside of itself. > > You can't have a thought " about " another thought - although you can > have a thought that you had a thought about another thought. That > doesn't mean you did, though. If you can't have a thought about another thought....Why do you think that you know something about the nature of thought itself? > > > > Hope needn't enter the picture. > > > > > > " a ball on the rug " is a thought. > > > > > > No hope involved that anything be different. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > You ask the question " How can a thought own a hope? > > > > My answer was addressed to that question. > > Here's a very simple answer: > > It can't. > > -- Dan > How do you know what thought can and can't do? You said above that thought can't even think about thought; and yet you think that you are able to know its true nature. Is it possible that your thinking could be flawed? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought's greatest hope is that someday it will understand > > itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you see the problem here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can a thought own a hope? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope is a thought....a wish for things to be different then > they are > > > > > perceived to be. > > > > > > > > > > There is no distinction between thought and hope. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > That's silly. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is beacuse the 'me' is nothing other then a thought stream. > > > > Are you sure of this? > > > > Are you sure there is something that is connecting one thought and the > > next in the form of a stream? > > > > > One thought flows edgelessly into the next. > > There is no separated...isolated thought. > > > > > > > > > Thoughts appear and disappear. There isn't any stream, just the > > imagining that a stream of connected thoughts could exist over time. > > > > That doesn't mean there really is a stream, or that a " me " could > > really exist as a stream of thoughts. > > > > You are assuming that thought is able to get a picture of what thought > really is or isn't. > > There is no such assumption here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A thought is just a thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan, is it your belief that thought can think objectivley about > thought? > > > > A thought is just a thought, Toom. > > > > It appears and disappears. > > > > Just an appearance of imagery or words in the brain. > > > > It's never " about " something else - not " about " thought, not " about " > > something else. > > > > It just is what it is - a thought - appearing and disappearing. > > > > That is a thought about thought. > > Can thought have a thought about a thought about a thought? > > > > > > > > Do you think that thought (what ever that is) has the ability to think > > > about itself? > > > > Why attribute any abilities to thought, or lack of abilities? > > > > You are who thinks that he has an insight into the nature of thought. > Thinking that thought is just a thought is just a thought. > > > > > > > How can something appearing/disappearing momentarily have an ability > > or lack an ability -- or have a hope or lack a hope? > > > How can something appearing/disappearing momentarily have the ability > to look up its own dress? > > > > > > > > > > Can you see the problem with this thinking? > > > > > > Is it possible for thinking to see the problem here? > > > > Why would you want thinking to " see a problem " ? > > > Because......that's the only door out. > > > > > > > Is there something to be gained if thinking sees a problem? > > > > > > > > > No.....Nothing to be gained.........but everything to loose. > > > > > > > A picture image, or a group of words beheld and formulated in the > > brain. > > > > > > > > > > > > A picture image of a ball on a rug is entirely different then a > > > thought about the picture image of a ball on a rug. > > > > A thought is just a thought. > > > How do you know that? > > It is only your thinking that tell you that. > > Is your thinking infallible? > > Are you trusting a molester to protect the children? > > > > > > > > It appears and disappears. > > > How does it know when it disappears? > > Are you starting to see what I am trying to say? > > Are you locked so tightly in the intellectual mumbo jumbo that you > can't intuit that it is thought itself that is the problem? > > > > > > > It's not making a connection between something and something else. > > > > It's not about something that exists outside of itself. > > > > You can't have a thought " about " another thought - although you can > > have a thought that you had a thought about another thought. That > > doesn't mean you did, though. > > > > > If you can't have a thought about another thought....Why do you think > that you know something about the nature of thought itself? > > > > > > > > > > Hope needn't enter the picture. > > > > > > > > " a ball on the rug " is a thought. > > > > > > > > No hope involved that anything be different. > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > You ask the question " How can a thought own a hope? > > > > > > My answer was addressed to that question. > > > > Here's a very simple answer: > > > > It can't. > > > > -- Dan > > > > > How do you know what thought can and can't do? > > You said above that thought can't even think about thought; and yet > you think that you are able to know its true nature. > > Is it possible that your thinking could be flawed? > > > > toombaru There is no such thing as 'flawed'....never has been. ..........bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought's greatest hope is that someday it will understand > > itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you see the problem here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can a thought own a hope? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope is a thought....a wish for things to be different then > they are > > > > > perceived to be. > > > > > > > > > > There is no distinction between thought and hope. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > That's silly. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is beacuse the 'me' is nothing other then a thought stream. > > > > Are you sure of this? > > > > Are you sure there is something that is connecting one thought and > the > > next in the form of a stream? > > > > Thoughts appear and disappear. There isn't any stream, just the > > imagining that a stream of connected thoughts could exist over time. > > > > That doesn't mean there really is a stream, or that a " me " could > > really exist as a stream of thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > A thought is just a thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan, is it your belief that thought can think objectivley about > thought? > > > > A thought is just a thought, Toom. > > > > It appears and disappears. > > > > Just an appearance of imagery or words in the brain. > > > > It's never " about " something else - not " about " thought, not " about " > > something else. > > > > It just is what it is - a thought - appearing and disappearing. > > > > > Do you think that thought (what ever that is) has the ability to > think > > > about itself? > > > > Why attribute any abilities to thought, or lack of abilities? > > > > How can something appearing/disappearing momentarily have an ability > > or lack an ability -- or have a hope or lack a hope? > > > > > Can you see the problem with this thinking? > > > > > > Is it possible for thinking to see the problem here? > > > > Why would you want thinking to " see a problem " ? > > > > Is there something to be gained if thinking sees a problem? > > > > > > > > > > > > > A picture image, or a group of words beheld and formulated in > the > > brain. > > > > > > > > > > > > A picture image of a ball on a rug is entirely different then a > > > thought about the picture image of a ball on a rug. > > > > A thought is just a thought. > > > > It appears and disappears. > > > > It's not making a connection between something and something else. > > > > It's not about something that exists outside of itself. > > > > You can't have a thought " about " another thought - although you can > > have a thought that you had a thought about another thought. That > > doesn't mean you did, though. > > > > > > Hope needn't enter the picture. > > > > > > > > " a ball on the rug " is a thought. > > > > > > > > No hope involved that anything be different. > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > You ask the question " How can a thought own a hope? > > > > > > My answer was addressed to that question. > > > > Here's a very simple answer: > > > > It can't. > > > > -- Dan > > > I thought a hope was a thought. At least I hoped so. Now I think a > thought is just a hope. At least that's the hope I have. What do you > guys think? I hope you have good answers. Or is there no hope? Please > don't say what you think. Please don't say what you hope. SHOW me. > > ......bob > LOL... that last line (and still LOL...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 > > > > How do you know what thought can and can't do? > > > > You said above that thought can't even think about thought; and yet > > you think that you are able to know its true nature. > > > > Is it possible that your thinking could be flawed? > > > > > > > > toombaru > > There is no such thing as 'flawed'....never has been. > > ..........bob > Ask my wife to tell you about her diamond. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good answer and I did like that poem whether I understood it or > > > not. > > > > > > Something there is in it, that while maybe not ringing true > > for me, > > > > > > most certainly it sings to me. that is the funny thing with a > > > lot(but > > > > > > not all) of what I don't understand. and I always hope that > > > someday I > > > > > > may understand whatever it is that has thus affected this thing > > > that > > > > > > I seem to be and also don't understand. > > > > > > ......bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought's greatest hope is that someday it will understand itself. > > > > > > > > > > Can you see the problem here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > How can a thought own a hope? > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope is a thought....a wish for things to be different then they are > > > perceived to be. > > > > > > There is no distinction between thought and hope. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > That's silly. > > > > That is beacuse the 'me' is nothing other then a thought stream. > only a putative thought stream and no one has ever seen a thought stream it can only be inferred and not a good inference, in my view it can be obvious to someone that there is a " thinker " behind the thoughts. but there is no real evidence of that. it is the same regarding a " me " or a thought stream. it can seem very much the case. but there is no evidence, just a " seeming " that can be oH! so convincing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 > One thought flows edgelessly into the next. > > There is no separated...isolated thought. > and the same with any " thought stream " ... " thought stream " does not refer to any distinct reality it is just a reference that implies that what it refers to is " there " ... which it isn't thoughts can seem to arise and disappear in consciousness but on investigation there is no distinct thought anywhere and the same with " thought stream " both are chimeras neither really exists > > Why would you want thinking to " see a problem " ? > > > Because......that's the only door out. oh no! not at all! it is only clear, unconditional attention, which is true *intelligence*, that is freeing such unconditional attention is not thought Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > > How do you know what thought can and can't do? > > > > > > You said above that thought can't even think about thought; and yet > > > you think that you are able to know its true nature. > > > > > > Is it possible that your thinking could be flawed? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > There is no such thing as 'flawed'....never has been. > > > > ..........bob > > > > > > Ask my wife to tell you about her diamond. > > > toombaru LOL......good one! ........bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good answer and I did like that poem whether I understood > it or > > > > not. > > > > > > > Something there is in it, that while maybe not ringing true > > > for me, > > > > > > > most certainly it sings to me. that is the funny thing with a > > > > lot(but > > > > > > > not all) of what I don't understand. and I always hope that > > > > someday I > > > > > > > may understand whatever it is that has thus affected this > thing > > > > that > > > > > > > I seem to be and also don't understand. > > > > > > > ......bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought's greatest hope is that someday it will understand > itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you see the problem here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can a thought own a hope? > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope is a thought....a wish for things to be different then they are > > > > perceived to be. > > > > > > > > There is no distinction between thought and hope. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > That's silly. > > > > > > > > That is beacuse the 'me' is nothing other then a thought stream. > > > > only a putative thought stream > > and no one has ever seen a thought stream > > it can only be inferred > > and not a good inference, in my view > > it can be obvious to someone that there is > a " thinker " behind the thoughts. > but there is no real evidence of that. > > it is the same regarding a " me " or a thought stream. > > it can seem very much the case. > > but there is no evidence, just a " seeming " that > can be oH! so convincing. Convincing to whom Bill? .........bob (not me!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good answer and I did like that poem whether I > understood > > it or > > > > > not. > > > > > > > > Something there is in it, that while maybe not ringing > true > > > > for me, > > > > > > > > most certainly it sings to me. that is the funny thing > with a > > > > > lot(but > > > > > > > > not all) of what I don't understand. and I always hope > that > > > > > someday I > > > > > > > > may understand whatever it is that has thus affected > this > > thing > > > > > that > > > > > > > > I seem to be and also don't understand. > > > > > > > > ......bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought's greatest hope is that someday it will understand > > itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you see the problem here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can a thought own a hope? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope is a thought....a wish for things to be different then > they are > > > > > perceived to be. > > > > > > > > > > There is no distinction between thought and hope. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > That's silly. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is beacuse the 'me' is nothing other then a thought stream. > > > > > > > only a putative thought stream > > > > and no one has ever seen a thought stream > > > > it can only be inferred > > > > and not a good inference, in my view > > > > it can be obvious to someone that there is > > a " thinker " behind the thoughts. > > but there is no real evidence of that. > > > > it is the same regarding a " me " or a thought stream. > > > > it can seem very much the case. > > > > but there is no evidence, just a " seeming " that > > can be oH! so convincing. > > Convincing to whom Bill? > > .........bob (not me!) > And would that be the supposed me that is nothing other then the thought stream itself? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > > One thought flows edgelessly into the next. > > > > There is no separated...isolated thought. > > > > and the same with any " thought stream " ... > > " thought stream " does not refer to any distinct reality > > it is just a reference that implies that what it > refers to is " there " ... > which it isn't > > thoughts can seem to arise and disappear in consciousness > > but on investigation there is no distinct thought anywhere > > and the same with " thought stream " > > both are chimeras > > neither really exists > > > > > Why would you want thinking to " see a problem " ? > > > > > > Because......that's the only door out. > > oh no! not at all! > > it is only clear, unconditional attention, > which is true *intelligence*, > that is freeing > > such unconditional attention is not thought > > > > Bill > How does thought know that 'clear unconditional attention' exists outside of itself?.........And why does it assume that it can somehow improve itself by getting some to that stuff? toombaru toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > One thought flows edgelessly into the next. > > > > > > There is no separated...isolated thought. > > > > > > > and the same with any " thought stream " ... > > > > " thought stream " does not refer to any distinct reality > > > > it is just a reference that implies that what it > > refers to is " there " ... > > which it isn't > > > > thoughts can seem to arise and disappear in consciousness > > > > but on investigation there is no distinct thought anywhere > > > > and the same with " thought stream " > > > > both are chimeras > > > > neither really exists > > > > > > > > Why would you want thinking to " see a problem " ? > > > > > > > > > Because......that's the only door out. > > > > oh no! not at all! > > > > it is only clear, unconditional attention, > > which is true *intelligence*, > > that is freeing > > > > such unconditional attention is not thought > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > How does thought know that 'clear unconditional attention' exists > outside of itself?.........And why does it assume that it can somehow > improve itself by getting some to that stuff? > > > > toombaru > the questions posed *presume* the significance of thought but what was said (about unconditioned attention etc.) asserts that thought is *not* significant hence the questions posed are irrelevant if thought is not the real basis then " how thought knows " is not significant/relevant perhaps thought would like to know (what the questions ask)... but what is real always skirts thought thought has its own " game " in mind as to what " it is all about " etc. but what thought thinks is significant only from within thought's game. bottom line: thought is not important realizing What Is transcends/goes beyond/is outside of thought thought is an impedance, not a means 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.