Guest guest Posted November 25, 2009 Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 That is a good number of posts. Have we found the answer yet? PS just posting to get the number! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2009 Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum wrote: > > That is a good number of posts. Have we found the answer yet? > > PS just posting to get the number! > I forgot, what was the question? ~A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2009 Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> wrote: > > > > That is a good number of posts. Have we found the answer yet? > > > > PS just posting to get the number! > > > > > I forgot, what was the question? > > ~A > Surely not! " Who am I? " You should be made to write it out a hundred times on the blackboard. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum wrote: > That is a good number of posts. Have we found the answer yet? No. > PS just posting to get the number! LOL - I sometimes post five messages on a row just to be all over the cover etc etc. No, not on this list. I usually just eavesdrop¨ here. Oh - I forgot to check what number this post will be The awful truth is that there is no way to know this. Like I can also never know whether or not I shall get the luck to be all over the front page with my five messages regardless how fast on de trigger I am. Last: Reading a book (Peat) on quantum-reality. To this day noone knows what reality is - except a word/thought - I find it amuzing that we even bother arguing about it. But we do and yes, we can + and all of it is un-likely, unreal, a fiction, a drama, a show, a dream, a fairy tale with all the necessary ingredients to make it good entertainment. And we? What are we? We are thoughts. The fairy tale is a thought made spin, a thought made fiction. A thought pops out of nowhere, from nothing, and it disappears into nowhere, nothing, after having left a print. Reality is thus a thought-print of the non-existing. And the end? There is no end to the show, it never began. Really -Lene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> wrote: > > > That is a good number of posts. Have we found the answer yet? > > No. > > > PS just posting to get the number! > > LOL - I sometimes post five messages on a row just to be all over > the cover etc etc. No, not on this list. I usually just eavesdrop¨ > here. > > Oh - I forgot to check what number this post will be The awful > truth is that there is no way to know this. Like I can also never > know whether or not I shall get the luck to be all over the front > page with my five messages regardless how fast on de trigger I am. > > Last: Reading a book (Peat) on quantum-reality. To this day noone > knows what reality is - except a word/thought - I find it amuzing > that we even bother arguing about it. But we do and yes, we can + > and all of it is un-likely, unreal, a fiction, a drama, a show, a > dream, a fairy tale with all the necessary ingredients to make it > good entertainment. And we? What are we? We are thoughts. > > The fairy tale is a thought made spin, a thought made fiction. A > thought pops out of nowhere, from nothing, and it disappears into > nowhere, nothing, after having left a print. > > Reality is thus a thought-print of the non-existing. > > And the end? There is no end to the show, it never began. Really > > > -Lene > Let's image I sit here thinking " I am a thought. " If I look at that thought I see that it is not me. So I elaborate and think " I must be a big thought thinking that I am a smaller encapsulated thought. " In the fashion of a Russian nested doll. Yet that doesn't seem to be proper either. The big thought doesn't have any of the characteristics of the smaller one. It's unintelligible for a start, has no location or time. So I must be a special thought - a thought of a different species from the others. A thought that can hold other thoughts but cannot itself be held, a thought that can perceive the movement of time as if from a point outside the train carriage of time. But in what other area do we call something a name when it shares no characteristics with others of the same name. Now a thought cannot be the author of its own creation. It requires a thinking to be done before it can exist. So maybe I am a " thinking " that results in these thoughts. But it seems natural that an action (thinking) requires an object (an " I " ) to do it, which we have just equated to thinking. So we get an infinite regress. What I am is " thinking " . Who/what is thinking? I am? So what am I? The best we can say is that there appears to be thinking and resulting thoughts but they just happen. They shouldn't be confused with the self. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Let's image I sit here thinking " I am a thought. " If I look at that thought I see that it is not me. So I elaborate and think " I must be a big thought thinking that I am a smaller encapsulated thought. " In the fashion of a Russian nested doll. Yet that doesn't seem to be proper either. The big thought doesn't have any of the characteristics of the smaller one. It's unintelligible for a start, has no location or time. So I must be a special thought - a thought of a different species from the others. A thought that can hold other thoughts but cannot itself be held, a thought that can perceive the movement of time as if from a point outside the train carriage of time. But in what other area do we call something a name when it shares no characteristics with others of the same name. Now a thought cannot be the author of its own creation. It requires a thinking to be done before it can exist. So maybe I am a " thinking " that results in these thoughts. But it seems natural that an action (thinking) requires an object (an " I " ) to do it, which we have just equated to thinking. So we get an infinite regress. What I am is " thinking " . Who/what is thinking? I am? So what am I? The best we can say is that there appears to be thinking and resulting thoughts but they just happen. They shouldn't be confused with the self. look like " you " are lost in space kind of Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum wrote: > Let's image I sit here thinking " I am a thought. " If I look at that thought I see that it is not me. So I elaborate and think " I must be a big thought thinking that I am a smaller encapsulated thought. " In the fashion of a Russian nested doll. Yet that doesn't seem to be proper either. The big thought doesn't have any of the characteristics of the smaller one. It's unintelligible for a start, has no location or time. So I must be a special thought - a thought of a different species from the others. A thought that can hold other thoughts but cannot itself be held, a thought that can perceive the movement of time as if from a point outside the train carriage of time. But in what other area do we call something a name when it shares no characteristics with others of the same name. > > Now a thought cannot be the author of its own creation. It requires a thinking to be done before it can exist. So maybe I am a " thinking " that results in these thoughts. But it seems natural that an action (thinking) requires an object (an " I " ) to do it, which we have just equated to thinking. So we get an infinite regress. What I am is " thinking " . Who/what is thinking? I am? So what am I? > > The best we can say is that there appears to be thinking and resulting thoughts but they just happen. They shouldn't be confused with the self. What do you mean by self? Please consider what follows as a theory. I do not know what I AM, what IS. When the mind is quiet - thought-less, thought-free - I am the other - that is to say there is only the other and no need and no urgency to explain and describe and measure it. It is whole. It is one. When thought comes into the play it describes and measures and so on, and qua that - houses and roads and cars and everything is made. The whole has been divided into billions of fragments - by thought. Iow stuff, or reality as " we know it " is thought-made, is made by the means of thought, of thought-material. I said, that when the mind is still - the inner chattering has ceased - there is only the other. Houses, roads, cars, people, streets, animals, trees, you name it - people's voices, words, thoughts not to forget Is the other - is me - is the world. Unworded - as yet. It is dream-stuff because it is NOT the actual - we only know the actual by measuring it - and that is thought's deed. So all is extremely intertwined -- and there is only peace in the thought-free zone of reality. So - pray tell - what do you mean by self? Love Lene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> wrote: > > > > Let's image I sit here thinking " I am a thought. " If I look at that thought I see that it is not me. So I elaborate and think " I must be a big thought thinking that I am a smaller encapsulated thought. " In the fashion of a Russian nested doll. Yet that doesn't seem to be proper either. The big thought doesn't have any of the characteristics of the smaller one. It's unintelligible for a start, has no location or time. So I must be a special thought - a thought of a different species from the others. A thought that can hold other thoughts but cannot itself be held, a thought that can perceive the movement of time as if from a point outside the train carriage of time. But in what other area do we call something a name when it shares no characteristics with others of the same name. > > > > Now a thought cannot be the author of its own creation. It requires a thinking to be done before it can exist. So maybe I am a " thinking " that results in these thoughts. But it seems natural that an action (thinking) requires an object (an " I " ) to do it, which we have just equated to thinking. So we get an infinite regress. What I am is " thinking " . Who/what is thinking? I am? So what am I? > > > > The best we can say is that there appears to be thinking and resulting thoughts but they just happen. They shouldn't be confused with the self. > > > > What do you mean by self? > > Please consider what follows as a theory. > > I do not know what I AM, what IS. > > When the mind is quiet - thought-less, thought-free - I am the > other - that is to say there is only the other and no need and > no urgency to explain and describe and measure it. It is whole. > It is one. > > When thought comes into the play it describes and measures and > so on, and qua that - houses and roads and cars and everything > is made. The whole has been divided into billions of fragments > - by thought. > > Iow stuff, or reality as " we know it " is thought-made, is made > by the means of thought, of thought-material. > > I said, that when the mind is still - the inner chattering has > ceased - there is only the other. > > Houses, roads, cars, people, streets, animals, trees, you name > it - people's voices, words, thoughts not to forget > > Is the other - is me - is the world. Unworded - as yet. > > It is dream-stuff because it is NOT the actual - we only know > the actual by measuring it - and that is thought's deed. > > So all is extremely intertwined -- and there is only peace in > the thought-free zone of reality. > > So - pray tell - what do you mean by self? > > Love > Lene who do " you " think wrote the words.. and furthermore... thought that " he/she " felt the implied emotional element indicated.. and identified himself/herself by a proper name.. in the ending salutation.. thusly: " Love..Lene " ? and don't bother to pray..just tell. who are " you " trying to kid? anyway.. right there.. right before your nose and eyes.. that's the idea behind the surreptitious notion of " who " the self is. it hides even from it's most intimate designate.. namely " you " . both are unreal..and phony. ..b b.b. p.s. i'm not trying to offend anybody: there is no one to offend.. there is no one who could possibly " try to offend " . if this upsets " you " at all remember.. that feeling of offense is not real either. just bathe in (and as) the beauty of the mysterious and inexplicable: " Hustle and Flow " . it's a beautiful thing..that's not a thing at all. kinda neat in an unexplainable way. [.bx3] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> wrote: > > > > Let's image I sit here thinking " I am a thought. " If I look at that thought I see that it is not me. So I elaborate and think " I must be a big thought thinking that I am a smaller encapsulated thought. " In the fashion of a Russian nested doll. Yet that doesn't seem to be proper either. The big thought doesn't have any of the characteristics of the smaller one. It's unintelligible for a start, has no location or time. So I must be a special thought - a thought of a different species from the others. A thought that can hold other thoughts but cannot itself be held, a thought that can perceive the movement of time as if from a point outside the train carriage of time. But in what other area do we call something a name when it shares no characteristics with others of the same name. > > > > Now a thought cannot be the author of its own creation. It requires a thinking to be done before it can exist. So maybe I am a " thinking " that results in these thoughts. But it seems natural that an action (thinking) requires an object (an " I " ) to do it, which we have just equated to thinking. So we get an infinite regress. What I am is " thinking " . Who/what is thinking? I am? So what am I? > > > > The best we can say is that there appears to be thinking and resulting thoughts but they just happen. They shouldn't be confused with the self. > > > > What do you mean by self? > > Please consider what follows as a theory. > > I do not know what I AM, what IS. > > When the mind is quiet - thought-less, thought-free - I am the > other - that is to say there is only the other and no need and > no urgency to explain and describe and measure it. It is whole. > It is one. > > When thought comes into the play it describes and measures and > so on, and qua that - houses and roads and cars and everything > is made. The whole has been divided into billions of fragments > - by thought. > > Iow stuff, or reality as " we know it " is thought-made, is made > by the means of thought, of thought-material. > > I said, that when the mind is still - the inner chattering has > ceased - there is only the other. > > Houses, roads, cars, people, streets, animals, trees, you name > it - people's voices, words, thoughts not to forget > > Is the other - is me - is the world. Unworded - as yet. > > It is dream-stuff because it is NOT the actual - we only know > the actual by measuring it - and that is thought's deed. > > So all is extremely intertwined -- and there is only peace in > the thought-free zone of reality. > > So - pray tell - what do you mean by self? > > Love > Lene > I agree - as you appear to be referring to the outer self. Allow me a discretion to attempt to corral what cannot. The outer self is that part of a being that they are not aware of. Clearly you are aware of it all and have overthrown that illusion. But what of the inner self. Would you say there is no awareness of these things which you call other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> wrote: > > > > > > > Let's image I sit here thinking " I am a thought. " If I look at that thought I see that it is not me. So I elaborate and think " I must be a big thought thinking that I am a smaller encapsulated thought. " In the fashion of a Russian nested doll. Yet that doesn't seem to be proper either. The big thought doesn't have any of the characteristics of the smaller one. It's unintelligible for a start, has no location or time. So I must be a special thought - a thought of a different species from the others. A thought that can hold other thoughts but cannot itself be held, a thought that can perceive the movement of time as if from a point outside the train carriage of time. But in what other area do we call something a name when it shares no characteristics with others of the same name. > > > > > > Now a thought cannot be the author of its own creation. It requires a thinking to be done before it can exist. So maybe I am a " thinking " that results in these thoughts. But it seems natural that an action (thinking) requires an object (an " I " ) to do it, which we have just equated to thinking. So we get an infinite regress. What I am is " thinking " . Who/what is thinking? I am? So what am I? > > > > > > The best we can say is that there appears to be thinking and resulting thoughts but they just happen. They shouldn't be confused with the self. > > > > > > > > What do you mean by self? > > > > Please consider what follows as a theory. > > > > I do not know what I AM, what IS. > > > > When the mind is quiet - thought-less, thought-free - I am the > > other - that is to say there is only the other and no need and > > no urgency to explain and describe and measure it. It is whole. > > It is one. > > > > When thought comes into the play it describes and measures and > > so on, and qua that - houses and roads and cars and everything > > is made. The whole has been divided into billions of fragments > > - by thought. > > > > Iow stuff, or reality as " we know it " is thought-made, is made > > by the means of thought, of thought-material. > > > > I said, that when the mind is still - the inner chattering has > > ceased - there is only the other. > > > > Houses, roads, cars, people, streets, animals, trees, you name > > it - people's voices, words, thoughts not to forget > > > > Is the other - is me - is the world. Unworded - as yet. > > > > It is dream-stuff because it is NOT the actual - we only know > > the actual by measuring it - and that is thought's deed. > > > > So all is extremely intertwined -- and there is only peace in > > the thought-free zone of reality. > > > > So - pray tell - what do you mean by self? > > > > Love > > Lene > > > > I agree - as you appear to be referring to the outer self. Allow me a discretion to attempt to corral what cannot. The outer self is that part of a being that they are not aware of. Clearly you are aware of it all and have overthrown that illusion. > > But what of the inner self. Would you say there is no awareness of these things which you call other? If by awareness we mean listening to *that said*, yes, there is such awareness, such listening, observing. But the listening is not outside or inside for that matter, *that said*. It is the same one. One is the action and the watching the action which itself is an action. So the only self I would accept the talking of is one. It is not outside or inside of one and one is not inside or outside of it - one is it. There are also not many selves - although thought has managed to make believe there is. The drama seems to be thought-created, a thought-construct. This fragment of one, thought, creates the drama by asking what am I? The drama begins with thought. And the drama ends with thought. Except from the thought-created drama where one is divided in to billions of apparently separated objects, there is nothing - and the *nothing* is the silence, when the apparently from the other minds separated mind lets go of itself, drops its imagined " own " being - the thought-created existance. Whenever the fragmented mind is not - there is only the noise of one, the music of the spheres , whatever the here and now, the present, that constant movement, change, unfolding of ... ? The dread-ful and the wonder-ful aspect of the drama (comedy and tragedy) is that its based on separation which leads to conflict - one feeling lost, longing to become one and looking around for itself. This hide-and-seek game is only funny (comedy), when the seeker is able to make fun of her/himself. It is tragic when the seeker is not able to do that. Ciao Lene 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.