Tony/thought

[Guest guest]

>Tony: [snip] Thought will not destroy itself,

>ultimately it shrinks

>from destruction. So something other than

>intellectualising is obviously necessary.

 

Dan - Thanks, Tony for sharing your thoughts about

the ending of thought. While worthwhile

to look into this topic, if we rely

on thought to look at thought, the games

of thought will be perpetuated. So we

open to something else - and that something

else has no name.

 

Tony, thought isn't merely intellectualizing,

that's only one of myriad manifestations.

Thought is involved in the very structuring

of the cells of the human body.

To talk about thought being destroyed is

itself a thought process, hence a

contradiction in terms that can't do more

than lead to further thought, including

attempts to stop thinking, which are also

based in thought.

The ending of thought can't be discussed,

imparted, conveyed, or symbolized.

I agree that it's an important topic.

In addressing this topic, we repeatedly

recognize our limitations - some of

which you've rightfully pointed out.

It seems worthwhile to notice the limitations

and contradictions of thought.

The topic of the ending of thought is literally

beyond the scope of language.

If we say something like, "Love is beyond thought,"

clearly that statement doesn't take us beyond

thought. If thought invents practices, gurus,

religions, texts, arts, sciences, all of these

will reflect the thought that gave them structure.

None of these can end thought, because all of them

have involvement with thought.

For me, "practice" is to constantly be with awareness

as it recognizes the limitation of thought, and notices

thought-based identifications that affect day to day

livingness. Such awareness isn't at all against thought

or trying to bring an end to thought - it's simply noticing

thought with as much clarity as possible.

Love,

Dan