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 > That might be true........ if there were a self. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 > > > > > > 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... Yes. The conceptual overlay in which the thinking mind spends its time is a pseudo world inhabited by a pseudo creature in the center. This is the fearful dream of separation.....the zombie jamboree......the CNN news.....the night train to Chernobyl. It is the imaginary prison from which escape is sought by an imaginary entity. > > 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? " Yes.............Like that. > > To some that will sound ridiculous: " What do you mean > the world is gone? The known world is a celluloid overlay......beneath which the Unknowable Seemlessness pulsates. This is the Garden.....The Naturalness of which Nisargadatta speaks. How did you find the keyboard to > write that email? " etcetera... The mind of man blends the worlds into a confusing amalgam....that in a few ....begins to separate into distinct experiential realms. One experienced........one beyond conceptual grasp..... > > There is a Zen saying: " To understand such a poem > you must have such a mind. " You must be such a mind...:-) > > But that there is a " world out there " is due to > preoccupation by thought. Yes. There is world 'out there'....and a world 'in there'.......separated only by a thin layer of human skin. 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 > Nothing can experience its own nature. 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 , " 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 > > > > > > That might be true........ if there were a self. > > > > > toombaru And if there was an 'ALL'. And if 'Truth' was a 'thing'. And if god didn't make little green apples and it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime............ ...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 , " 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 > " Here I am.........wasn't I'. 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: > > > > > > > > > > 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... > > > > Yes. > > The conceptual overlay in which the thinking mind spends its time is a > pseudo world inhabited by a pseudo creature in the center. > > This is the fearful dream of separation.....the zombie > jamboree......the CNN news.....the night train to Chernobyl. > > It is the imaginary prison from which escape is sought by an imaginary > entity. > > > > > > 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? " > > Yes.............Like that. > > > To some that will sound ridiculous: " What do you mean > > the world is gone? > > > The known world is a celluloid overlay......beneath which the > Unknowable Seemlessness pulsates. > > This is the Garden.....The Naturalness of which Nisargadatta speaks. How did you find the keyboard to > > write that email? " etcetera... > > > The mind of man blends the worlds into a confusing amalgam....that in > a few ....begins to separate into distinct experiential realms. > > One experienced........one beyond conceptual grasp..... > > > > > > > > There is a Zen saying: " To understand such a poem > > you must have such a mind. " > > > You must be such a mind...:-) > > > > > > > But that there is a " world out there " is due to > > preoccupation by thought. > > > Yes. > > There is world 'out there'....and a world 'in there'.......separated > only by a thin layer of human skin. > > > > > 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 > > > > > > Nothing can experience its own nature. > > > > > > toombaru and when nothing doesn't experiences it's own Nature.....that's something. Like the beatniks in the village used to say..Gone Man! Really Gone! .........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 , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote: > > 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. > Nice....thoughtful post. (meant in a positive way....LOL) 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 , " 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 > > > > > > " Here I am.........wasn't I'. Never............... 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 , " 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 > Well that's the trouble with words. All I have is red......and am trying to paint a garden scene. :-0 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: > > 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 > When voices harmonize..... angels smile. 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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > My feeling is, after reviewing this entire thread: everyone > is 'thinking too much. And it's just not 'happening', it's not an > all's well type of thing. it's ill-us-ion of the you-niverse.. But > that's just a feeling. I hope you don't 'think' I said I thought > so. > > ........bob > When tarbabies struggle to help each other out of the tar pit........things get a bit sticky. 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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > Well that's the trouble with words. > > All I have is red......and am trying to paint a garden scene. > > > > :-0 > > > > toombaru 8-O......... ..........+O:-)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 , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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... > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > The conceptual overlay in which the thinking mind spends its time > is a > > pseudo world inhabited by a pseudo creature in the center. > > > > This is the fearful dream of separation.....the zombie > > jamboree......the CNN news.....the night train to Chernobyl. > > > > It is the imaginary prison from which escape is sought by an > imaginary > > entity. > > > > > > > > > > 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? " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes.............Like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To some that will sound ridiculous: " What do you mean > > > the world is gone? > > > > > > The known world is a celluloid overlay......beneath which the > > Unknowable Seemlessness pulsates. > > > > This is the Garden.....The Naturalness of which Nisargadatta speaks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How did you find the keyboard to > > > write that email? " etcetera... > > > > > > The mind of man blends the worlds into a confusing amalgam....that > in > > a few ....begins to separate into distinct experiential realms. > > > > One experienced........one beyond conceptual grasp..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a Zen saying: " To understand such a poem > > > you must have such a mind. " > > > > > > You must be such a mind...:-) > > > > > > > > > > > > But that there is a " world out there " is due to > > > preoccupation by thought. > > > > > > Yes. > > > > There is world 'out there'....and a world 'in there'.......separated > > only by a thin layer of human skin. > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing can experience its own nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > and when nothing doesn't experiences it's own Nature.....that's > something. Like the beatniks in the village used to say..Gone Man! > Really Gone! > > .........bob > Nothin's changed..........but man.......I ain't the aame. " 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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > My feeling is, after reviewing this entire thread: everyone > > is 'thinking too much. And it's just not 'happening', it's not an > > all's well type of thing. it's ill-us-ion of the you-niverse.. But > > that's just a feeling. I hope you don't 'think' I said I thought > > so. > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > When tarbabies struggle to help each other out of the tar > pit........things get a bit sticky. > > > > > toombaru so thought I. ....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 , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > That might be true........ if there were a self. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > And if there was an 'ALL'. And if 'Truth' was a 'thing'. And if god > didn't make little green apples and it don't rain in Indianapolis in > the summertime............ > > ...bob > There is a world if no ifs.........ands.......or buts. Its name is Noifandbut. I think that it is somewhere south of the moon. 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: > > 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 ** Truly, nothing was added (or subtracted). Attempted descriptions notwithstanding.... Ken 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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That might be true........ if there were a self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > And if there was an 'ALL'. And if 'Truth' was a 'thing'. And if god > > didn't make little green apples and it don't rain in Indianapolis in > > the summertime............ > > > > ...bob > There is a world if no ifs.........ands.......or buts. > > > > > Its name is Noifandbut. > > > > > I think that it is somewhere south of the moon. > > > > toombaru Sounds like a great vacation spot. Can you point it out to me. Oops, better not...I might mistake your finger for....... .........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 , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That might be true........ if there were a self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > And if there was an 'ALL'. And if 'Truth' was a 'thing'. And if > god > > > didn't make little green apples and it don't rain in Indianapolis > in > > > the summertime............ > > > > > > ...bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a world if no ifs.........ands.......or buts. > > > > > > > > > > Its name is Noifandbut. > > > > > > > > > > I think that it is somewhere south of the moon. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Sounds like a great vacation spot. Can you point it out to me. Oops, > better not...I might mistake your finger for....... > > .........bob > No...impossible...........My finger is the small thing pointing. 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 > ** An amusing image popping up: Stephen Hawkins performing with Cirque du Soleil... ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 > > > > Sounds like a great vacation spot. Can you point it out to me. Oops, > > better not...I might mistake your finger for....... > > > > .........bob > > > > > > > No...impossible...........My finger is the small thing pointing. > > err.............little pointy thing. > > 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: > > > > > > > > Sounds like a great vacation spot. Can you point it out to me. Oops, > > > better not...I might mistake your finger for....... > > > > > > .........bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > No...impossible...........My finger is the small thing pointing. > > > > > > err.............little pointy thing. > > > > > > > > toombaru ahhhhhh.........I see your point...... no if ands buts about it. ....bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 --- dan330033 <dan330033 a écrit : 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. .................................................................... I call that Faith, not in the ordinary religious sense, but a deep re-cognizing, a pre-memory that cannot be avoided, and the end of doubt. PAtricia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > 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 ** 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 --- dan330033 <dan330033 a écrit : 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. Maybe not an interference, but a phenomenon with a big appetite, sucking and transforming what could be otherwise. ** 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 Hi Bill - What is in the way, is only the belief that something could be in the way. What is impeding, is only the belief that there could be impedence. In day to day life, there are resistances, obstacles. If a tree branch is in the road, you move it and then drive through the road. Yet, the *is-ing* which is what is -- never is impeded ... can't be. -- Dan (nothing new below) Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote: > > 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 , " 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 Where's Larry? -- 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 , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > --- dan330033 <dan330033 a écrit : > > > > 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. > > Maybe not an interference, but a phenomenon with a big > appetite, sucking and transforming what could be > otherwise. Nothing could be otherwise. Nor is it. -- D. 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.