Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > 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 Well that's the basic problem with thought......It can't think outside of itself......and it's the only game in town. It may think that there is something outside of its self...but that's only another thought. And there is no way around...through....or beyond that. No matter what it thinks. It and the world arise and subside concurrently. They are the same. Period. 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: > > > > 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 > > > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It can't think outside > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its self...but that's > only another thought. > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond that. > > No matter what it thinks. > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > They are the same. > > > Period. > > > toombaru > > How is that known? I do not know. First it is intuited. Then the understanding percolates down into the core and turns into a knowingness that is so clear that one wonders why what is wasn't seen before. A clarity that includes and embraces all three worlds..... gazes out into the most mysterious kingdom imaginable......that it now knows...beyond doubt........is nothing other then Itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 On 5/12/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It can't think outside > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its self...but that's > only another thought. > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond that. > > No matter what it thinks. > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > They are the same. > > > Period. > > > toombaru > You are missing something very important. Thought is not always the case. The mind can go silent. What it is " like " when the mind goes silent can't really be described. But it *can be* experienced. [which is not to say it is *an* experience, which is of memory, and so is of thought.] Silent mind is not of thought. Perhaps you have not experienced silent mind. If not then there is no way for you to know what I mean. 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 , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote: > > On 5/12/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It can't think outside > > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its self...but that's > > only another thought. > > > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond that. > > > > No matter what it thinks. > > > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > > > > They are the same. > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > You are missing something very important. > > Thought is not always the case. > The mind can go silent. > > What it is " like " when the mind goes silent > can't really be described. > But it *can be* experienced. > [which is not to say it is *an* experience, > which is of memory, and so is of thought.] > > Silent mind is not of thought. > > Perhaps you have not experienced > silent mind. If not then there is no way > for you to know what I mean. > > > Bill > The thinking-conceptual mind can never shut up. The working-narural mind leans toward quiescnce and becomes active only when appropriate. I have experiences both. One I find more pleasant then the other. 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? > > > > > One thought flows edgelessly into the next. > > There is no separated...isolated thought. With nothing separated, there is no isolated thought stream, nor a thought flowing into itself or something else. > > > > > 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. No I'm not, you are - lol. > There is no such assumption here. How can you tell? > > > > > > > > > > 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? Ponder that for a while, and get back to me with your definitive conclusion. > > > 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. Yup, you sure got me pigeon-holed. Good work, Toom. > > 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? How can you keep answering a question with a question? Some fun, eh? > > > > > > 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. Oh, I see. You're the guy who's looking for a door out. Good luck! > > Is there something to be gained if thinking sees a problem? > > > > > > > > > No.....Nothing to be gained.........but everything to loose. Nothing to gain = nothing to lose. > > > > 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? No, I don't trust you as far as I can throw you. But maybe once you find that door out ... who knows? > > It appears and disappears. > > > How does it know when it disappears? How can you miss it? Oh, you're looking for the door. > Are you starting to see what I am trying to say? You are looking for something, so you are trying to say something. > Are you locked so tightly in the intellectual mumbo jumbo that you > can't intuit that it is thought itself that is the problem? For you, thought is a problem. Thus, you look for a door out. I'm right here - not looking to escape. So, there's not a problem with thought. It's not separate from anything else. Sure, things appear and disappear. The appearance of one is the disappearance of the other. One is the other. Appearance is disappearance. If this ever is understood first-hand, it won't be mumbo-jumbo anymore. It will be all that is, and no escape possible or sought. > > > > 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? I don't need to. I'll leave that to someone who finds thought to be a problem that needs to be solved. > > > > > > 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? Maybe you can find out for yourself. > You said above that thought can't even think about thought; and yet > you think that you are able to know its true nature. That's your projection. I never said anything about knowing its true nature. You funny! > Is it possible that your thinking could be flawed? Ah yes, we must find flaws, so we know what is the problem, and how to fix it. But then, we'd be involving ourselves in making an imaginary disease, wouldn't we? Well, imagine that! -- 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 , " 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 > You're making up all this stuff about thought. Giving it motives and wants, making it a knower. Thought isn't a knower. Nothing you're attributing to thought makes any sense with firsthand clarity. You're setting up a straw man in thought to knock down - do you feel powerful, Toom? -- 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 , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > thought is an impedance, not a means Thought doesn't interfere with anything. There is no interference - because nothing has its own separable existence as an " interferer " - unless you believe that your thinking has made it so ;-) -- D. 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: >> > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It can't think outside > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its self...but that's > only another thought. > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond that. > > No matter what it thinks. > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > They are the same. > > > Period. > > > toombaru > > > > toombaru And he folded his arms across his chest ... sure that he had finally exposed the fallacy, that he had shown what the real problem is, and how to solve it. And the dream characters applauded, and he knew he had spared them much of their misery by dispensing his solution to their illness. 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 , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It can't think outside > > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its self...but that's > > only another thought. > > > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond that. > > > > No matter what it thinks. > > > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > > > > They are the same. > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > How is that known? > > > I do not know. > > > First it is intuited. > > > Then the understanding percolates down into the core and turns into a > knowingness that is so clear that one wonders why what is wasn't seen > before. > > A clarity that includes and embraces all three worlds..... gazes out > into the most mysterious kingdom imaginable......that it now > knows...beyond doubt........is nothing other then Itself. The more he expressed his thoughts about his clarity, the more reasssured he was that he must really have a core, and knowingness really was being added into it. He enjoyed describing his clarity to the dream characters. It felt good to build the images, so why not? He was sure they must enjoy it, too. And every now and then, he'd remind them that they are dream characters - just so they'd know they weren't fooling him. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Ah, but here now is this unrecognized silence, neither of thought nor mind. You can't compare it with another state you've been in - because you are not in this, and it didn't begin after something else ended. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 On 5/12/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > > On 5/12/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It can't think outside > > > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > > > > > > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its self...but that's > > > only another thought. > > > > > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond that. > > > > > > No matter what it thinks. > > > > > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > > > > > > > They are the same. > > > > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > You are missing something very important. > > > > Thought is not always the case. > > The mind can go silent. > > > > What it is " like " when the mind goes silent > > can't really be described. > > But it *can be* experienced. > > [which is not to say it is *an* experience, > > which is of memory, and so is of thought.] > > > > Silent mind is not of thought. > > > > Perhaps you have not experienced > > silent mind. If not then there is no way > > for you to know what I mean. > > > > > > Bill > > > The thinking-conceptual mind can never shut up. > > The working-narural mind leans toward quiescnce and becomes active > only when appropriate. > > I have experiences both. > > One I find more pleasant then the other. > > > > toombaru so when you say: " > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently " you are referring to the thinking-conceptual mind... quite true what you say about thinking-conceptual mind and " the world " arising and subsiding cncurrently. a friend recently wrote to me saying how at some point he did not sense " the world " anymore... and even thought, " Hey! Where has the world gone? " To some that will sound ridiculous: " What do you mean the world is gone? How did you find the keyboard to write that email? " etcetera... There is a Zen saying: " To understand such a poem you must have such a mind. " But that there is a " world out there " is due to preoccupation by thought. There is no direct experience of " the world out there " . Like the " them " of the paranoid schizophrenic, it is not actual, but a construct. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 On 5/12/06, OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > --- Bill Rishel <illusyn a écrit: > > > > On 5/12/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > <illusyn wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It > can't think outside > > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its > self...but that's > > only another thought. > > > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond > that. > > > > No matter what it thinks. > > > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > > > > They are the same. > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > You are missing something very important. > > Thought is not always the case. > The mind can go silent. > > What it is " like " when the mind goes silent > can't really be described. > But it *can be* experienced. > [which is not to say it is *an* experience, > which is of memory, and so is of thought.] > > Silent mind is not of thought. > > Perhaps you have not experienced > silent mind. If not then there is no way > for you to know what I mean. > > > Bill > > everybody has experienced a sikent mind. ... > Is experiencing a silent mind, between two thoughts, > suspended. > Or very early in life, > Or watching some beautiful eyes seeing what isn`t to > be seen ... > Are you aware of those non-moments? > Those non-happenings? > > Patricia > it is true that everyone does experience silent mind, but few experience it *consciously*, and for even fewer a sustained experience of silent mind. In fact, to someone for whom " silent mind " is considered something very important to *achieve* (a misconception) becoming conscious of silent mind is likely to kick in thoughts again (as in, " cool! I'm experiencing silent mind! " (correction, *were* ) Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 On 5/13/06, dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > Thought doesn't interfere with anything. that is true also so my statement was ambiguous... when thought is running in circles... not thought as simply arising to serve, and then dissolving again, but thought that creates a self-reinforcing loop, so that thought begets thought begets thought... (and my sense about such obsessional thought patterns is a bit vague... it is hard to remember what that is actually like), such a self-reinforcing loop ends up taking a whole lot of bandwidth, becoming a kind of fly in the ointment. Simple awareness becomes as covered over by such an agitated fly that is fiercely struggling in the web it has woven. so thought as a dynamic self-reinforcing system or mechanism impedes simple awareness. thought as simply arising in response to a challenge (such as, " Where did I put my keys? " ) doesn't interfere with anything. it arises as needed and subsides when no longer needed. > There is no interference - because nothing has its own separable > existence as an " interferer " - unless you believe that your thinking has > made it so ;-) did not postulate an " interferer " . As indicated above, a run-away self-obsessional thought process is itself an impedance. In systems terms it is its own strange attractor... and feeds on itself. Incidentally, a systems way of looking at these things is, IMO, closer to the truth than talking in terms of " thought " , awareness, consciousness and the like. What we call the " Now " is really, per a systems view, the result of a reduction in the " clutter " of spurious sub-processes that do not add, but rather get in the way. In basketball they talk about a player being in a " zone " ... and when a player is in a zone then the player has lost all self-consciousness (they will even say, " He was playing unconscious " ). All available bandwidth is allocated to being totally present and responsive to the moment-by-moment challenges presented by the game. If, on the other hand, the player is self-consciously trying to " direct himself " etc. then he is " in the way " ... and the thought processes that are part of those self-conscious self-regulations are then *impedances* to being in that optimal state of being in a " zone " . In fact that is what the notion of " getting out of the way " is really about. It means the deactivation of those self- conscious processes that are " in the way " (impede). I've seen you use the term " self-conscious " in ways that parallel my use here, so I expect you see what I mean. But in any event, I am sure you will let me know Bill Note: one advantage of a systems way of looking at these things is that it avoids the ever-lurking notion of a " subject " (that is doing whatever) which seems ever in the shadows of psychology-based models. Note2: in connection with the notion of something being its own strange attractor, the line " don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy " comes to mind. Artifacts of the process itself become input data to the process, which enables it to wrap itself into a really tight, really obsessive strange loop. And the notion of " positive feedback loop " or runaway process applies here. 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 , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > On 5/12/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain@> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It can't think outside > > > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > > > > > > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its self...but that's > > > only another thought. > > > > > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond that. > > > > > > No matter what it thinks. > > > > > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > > > > > > > They are the same. > > > > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > You are missing something very important. > > > > Thought is not always the case. > > The mind can go silent. > > > > What it is " like " when the mind goes silent > > can't really be described. > > But it *can be* experienced. > > [which is not to say it is *an* experience, > > which is of memory, and so is of thought.] > > > > Silent mind is not of thought. > > > > Perhaps you have not experienced > > silent mind. If not then there is no way > > for you to know what I mean. > > > > > > Bill > > > The thinking-conceptual mind can never shut up. > > The working-narural mind leans toward quiescnce and becomes active > only when appropriate. > > I have experiences both. > > One I find more pleasant then the other. > > > > toombaru there is no 'I'..never has been. How can it be pleased? .........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: > > Ah, but here now is this unrecognized silence, neither of thought nor > mind. > > You can't compare it with another state you've been in - because you > are not in this, and it didn't begin after something else ended. > > -- D. yes perfect nothing to add except sometimes filled with brightness as if every pixel a wheeling disc of light sometimes a deep sombre depth and maybe always really both but like when coming out of a movie theatre everything seems so bright and when going into a movie theatre everything seems so dark 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 , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > --- pliantheart <illusyn a écrit : > > > > > 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 > > > Ohh thought, go back to your nest, > Stop thinking of yourself. > And then attention can move in.. > Heart can palpitate again... Yes, naughty thoughts of Patricia, please go back to your nest, so that she finally says something which makes sense. Len 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 , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It can't think > outside > > > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > > > > > > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its self...but > that's > > > only another thought. > > > > > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond that. > > > > > > No matter what it thinks. > > > > > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > > > > > > > They are the same. > > > > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is that known? > > > > > > I do not know. > > > > > > First it is intuited. > > > > > > Then the understanding percolates down into the core and turns into > a > > knowingness that is so clear that one wonders why what is wasn't > seen > > before. > > > > A clarity that includes and embraces all three worlds..... gazes out > > into the most mysterious kingdom imaginable......that it now > > knows...beyond doubt........is nothing other then Itself. > > The more he expressed his thoughts about his clarity, the more > reasssured he was that he must really have a core, and knowingness > really was being added into it. > > He enjoyed describing his clarity to the dream characters. It felt > good to build the images, so why not? He was sure they must enjoy > it, too. And every now and then, he'd remind them that they are > dream characters - just so they'd know they weren't fooling him. > > -- Dan Self knowledge is all ;-) Len 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: > > Ah, but here now is this unrecognized silence, neither of thought nor > mind. > > You can't compare it with another state you've been in - because you > are not in this, and it didn't begin after something else ended. > > -- D. You can babble about it as much as you want, though. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote: > > On 5/12/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > On 5/12/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It can't think outside > > > > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its self...but that's > > > > only another thought. > > > > > > > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond that. > > > > > > > > No matter what it thinks. > > > > > > > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > > > > > > > > > > They are the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > You are missing something very important. > > > > > > Thought is not always the case. > > > The mind can go silent. > > > > > > What it is " like " when the mind goes silent > > > can't really be described. > > > But it *can be* experienced. > > > [which is not to say it is *an* experience, > > > which is of memory, and so is of thought.] > > > > > > Silent mind is not of thought. > > > > > > Perhaps you have not experienced > > > silent mind. If not then there is no way > > > for you to know what I mean. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The thinking-conceptual mind can never shut up. > > > > The working-narural mind leans toward quiescnce and becomes active > > only when appropriate. > > > > I have experiences both. > > > > One I find more pleasant then the other. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > so when you say: > " > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently " > you are referring to the thinking-conceptual mind... > > quite true what you say about thinking-conceptual mind > and " the world " arising and subsiding cncurrently. > > a friend recently wrote to me saying how at some point > he did not sense " the world " anymore... and even > thought, " Hey! Where has the world gone? " > > To some that will sound ridiculous: " What do you mean > the world is gone? How did you find the keyboard to > write that email? " etcetera... > > There is a Zen saying: " To understand such a poem > you must have such a mind. " > > But that there is a " world out there " is due to > preoccupation by thought. There is no direct experience > of " the world out there " . Like the " them " of the paranoid > schizophrenic, it is not actual, but a construct. > > > Bill Yes, all is construct, it´s just that some constructs talk a lot. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote: > In fact, to someone for whom " silent mind " is > considered something very important to *achieve* > (a misconception) becoming conscious of silent > mind is likely to kick in thoughts again (as in, " cool! > I'm experiencing silent mind! " (correction, *were* ) > > Bill Wow, Bill, great pointer. Why don´t you listen to it? Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote: > > On 5/12/06, OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > --- Bill Rishel <illusyn a écrit: > > > > > > > > On 5/12/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It > > can't think outside > > > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > > > > > > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its > > self...but that's > > > only another thought. > > > > > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond > > that. > > > > > > No matter what it thinks. > > > > > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > > > > > > > They are the same. > > > > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > You are missing something very important. > > > > Thought is not always the case. > > The mind can go silent. > > > > What it is " like " when the mind goes silent > > can't really be described. > > But it *can be* experienced. > > [which is not to say it is *an* experience, > > which is of memory, and so is of thought.] > > > > Silent mind is not of thought. > > > > Perhaps you have not experienced > > silent mind. If not then there is no way > > for you to know what I mean. > > > > > > Bill > > > > everybody has experienced a sikent mind. ... > > Is experiencing a silent mind, between two thoughts, > > suspended. > > Or very early in life, > > Or watching some beautiful eyes seeing what isn`t to > > be seen ... > > Are you aware of those non-moments? > > Those non-happenings? > > > > Patricia > > > > it is true that everyone does experience silent mind, > but few experience it *consciously*, and for even > fewer a sustained experience of silent mind. > > In fact, to someone for whom " silent mind " is > considered something very important to *achieve* > (a misconception) becoming conscious of silent > mind is likely to kick in thoughts again (as in, " cool! > I'm experiencing silent mind! " (correction, *were* ) > > Bill > there is nobody, where is the mind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It can't think > > outside > > > > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its self...but > > that's > > > > only another thought. > > > > > > > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond that. > > > > > > > > No matter what it thinks. > > > > > > > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > > > > > > > > > > They are the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is that known? > > > > > > > > > I do not know. > > > > > > > > > First it is intuited. > > > > > > > > > Then the understanding percolates down into the core and turns into > > a > > > knowingness that is so clear that one wonders why what is wasn't > > seen > > > before. > > > > > > A clarity that includes and embraces all three worlds..... gazes out > > > into the most mysterious kingdom imaginable......that it now > > > knows...beyond doubt........is nothing other then Itself. > > > > The more he expressed his thoughts about his clarity, the more > > reasssured he was that he must really have a core, and knowingness > > really was being added into it. > > > > He enjoyed describing his clarity to the dream characters. It felt > > good to build the images, so why not? He was sure they must enjoy > > it, too. And every now and then, he'd remind them that they are > > dream characters - just so they'd know they weren't fooling him. > > > > -- Dan > > > Self knowledge is all ;-) > > Len All is the knowledge self. ..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 , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > On 5/12/06, OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > --- Bill Rishel <illusyn@> a écrit: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/12/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It > > > can't think outside > > > > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its > > > self...but that's > > > > only another thought. > > > > > > > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond > > > that. > > > > > > > > No matter what it thinks. > > > > > > > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > > > > > > > > > > They are the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > You are missing something very important. > > > > > > Thought is not always the case. > > > The mind can go silent. > > > > > > What it is " like " when the mind goes silent > > > can't really be described. > > > But it *can be* experienced. > > > [which is not to say it is *an* experience, > > > which is of memory, and so is of thought.] > > > > > > Silent mind is not of thought. > > > > > > Perhaps you have not experienced > > > silent mind. If not then there is no way > > > for you to know what I mean. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > everybody has experienced a sikent mind. ... > > > Is experiencing a silent mind, between two thoughts, > > > suspended. > > > Or very early in life, > > > Or watching some beautiful eyes seeing what isn`t to > > > be seen ... > > > Are you aware of those non-moments? > > > Those non-happenings? > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > it is true that everyone does experience silent mind, > > but few experience it *consciously*, and for even > > fewer a sustained experience of silent mind. > > > > In fact, to someone for whom " silent mind " is > > considered something very important to *achieve* > > (a misconception) becoming conscious of silent > > mind is likely to kick in thoughts again (as in, " cool! > > I'm experiencing silent mind! " (correction, *were* ) > > > > Bill > > > > there is nobody, where is the mind? > OK, waaba, here you are getting very literal about the words. It is not the words that are used but what is being said with them. Do you know what Silence is? (I expect you do) " Silent mind " is an expression for that. One could say, " no mind " I suppose. But " silent mind " is a common expression, readily understood. Unless, that is, if one is picking at words. 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 , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > On 5/12/06, OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > --- Bill Rishel <illusyn@> a écrit: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/12/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It > > > > can't think outside > > > > > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its > > > > self...but that's > > > > > only another thought. > > > > > > > > > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > No matter what it thinks. > > > > > > > > > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They are the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are missing something very important. > > > > > > > > Thought is not always the case. > > > > The mind can go silent. > > > > > > > > What it is " like " when the mind goes silent > > > > can't really be described. > > > > But it *can be* experienced. > > > > [which is not to say it is *an* experience, > > > > which is of memory, and so is of thought.] > > > > > > > > Silent mind is not of thought. > > > > > > > > Perhaps you have not experienced > > > > silent mind. If not then there is no way > > > > for you to know what I mean. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > everybody has experienced a sikent mind. ... > > > > Is experiencing a silent mind, between two thoughts, > > > > suspended. > > > > Or very early in life, > > > > Or watching some beautiful eyes seeing what isn`t to > > > > be seen ... > > > > Are you aware of those non-moments? > > > > Those non-happenings? > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > it is true that everyone does experience silent mind, > > > but few experience it *consciously*, and for even > > > fewer a sustained experience of silent mind. > > > > > > In fact, to someone for whom " silent mind " is > > > considered something very important to *achieve* > > > (a misconception) becoming conscious of silent > > > mind is likely to kick in thoughts again (as in, " cool! > > > I'm experiencing silent mind! " (correction, *were* ) > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > there is nobody, where is the mind? > > > > OK, waaba, here you are getting very literal > about the words. > > It is not the words that are used but what > is being said with them. > > Do you know what Silence is? (I expect you do) > > " Silent mind " is an expression for that. > One could say, " no mind " I suppose. > But " silent mind " is a common expression, > readily understood. > > Unless, that is, if one is picking at words. > > Bill > Waaba is a word, for sure it is not what I am Bill a word too and neither that I am 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 , " 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 > > > > > You're making up all this stuff about thought. Giving it motives and > wants, making it a knower. > > Thought isn't a knower. > > Nothing you're attributing to thought makes any sense with firsthand > clarity. > > You're setting up a straw man in thought to knock down - do you feel > powerful, Toom? > > -- Dan > Do you honestly believe that you understand anything? 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.