|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 26, 2014 8:45:28 GMT -5
Again, mostly for gopal........ I wrote gopal about this some weeks ago. What he means by his use of the word thought is really the word cognition, basically, anything the brain does. If we don't define words in the same way, we cannot communicate. This is in evidence, now. In our use of the word thought: thought is an abstraction, a word represents a person, place or thing, etc. In our use, one can have a perception (see dog barking, hear dog bark, smell dog, feel furry dog) without attaching the word dog. I earlier gave the example of a baby who hasn't yet acquired language (baby only sees some thing, baby only hears some thing, baby only feels some thing, baby has no symbolic attachments to anything). But then gopal said the word used doesn't matter. Do you see now that it matters? To me, Outer world doesn't exist in itself. For me, everything is just an appearance in our consciousness. That's the reason I don't discriminate between outer world perception and inner world perception, I use perception as thought. Well.......not exactly Kant (he believed there was an external world, but we just couldn't know it in itself). This is Berkeley, pure Berkeley.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 26, 2014 12:02:14 GMT -5
It depends on how you want to define thought. If you include mental activity that you are not noticing, as part of thought, then yes, there's unconscious mental activity going on. If you include a focus of attention in your definition of thought, then yes, looking is thought. However, it seems your going out of your way to miss the point, (and call somebody wrong) which is that looking does not involve a conscious thinking process. When you start to look what's happening in your mind, you feel that you are watching the thought flow,isn't it? That's the reason you came to the conclusion that 'looking' break the illusion,Isn't it? But what I am saying is, when you tend to look, you are creating another sort of thoughts that's looking thought, That's the reason I said looking is another kind of illusion that is being added when we try to break illusion using looking. Realization may happen and lot's recalling might happen along with your realization, I don't have any problem with that, but from our individual level you can't initiate any action(controlling,looking) to break the illusion, illusion would be broken by the impersonal movement of universe which includes all your mistakes. More closely put, mind can't pull off itself out of illusion. Agreed. I never said otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 26, 2014 12:05:48 GMT -5
Again, mostly for gopal........ I wrote gopal about this some weeks ago. What he means by his use of the word thought is really the word cognition, basically, anything the brain does. If we don't define words in the same way, we cannot communicate. This is in evidence, now. In our use of the word thought: thought is an abstraction, a word represents a person, place or thing, etc. In our use, one can have a perception (see dog barking, hear dog bark, smell dog, feel furry dog) without attaching the word dog. I earlier gave the example of a baby who hasn't yet acquired language (baby only sees some thing, baby only hears some thing, baby only feels some thing, baby has no symbolic attachments to anything). But then gopal said the word used doesn't matter. Do you see now that it matters? To me, Outer world doesn't exist in itself. For me, everything is just an appearance in our consciousness. That's the reason I don't discriminate between outer world perception and inner world perception, I use perception as thought. I agree there is no inner/outer, but perception is more than just thought. There is sense perception and feeling.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 26, 2014 13:13:17 GMT -5
Gopal: It sounds like you have a busy mind with lots of thoughts. Are you saying that you cannot look at the world WITHOUT thoughts? Some of us can. This stuff is driving me to distraction! I guess I've always been at ease with the notion that the mind and thoughts are part n parcel of the same structure / intangible medium by which we can think about thinking - or nothing - or far-out stuff that makes us feel / sense / believe / etc. that we are literally 'out of our minds' - but at no time is this the reality of it. Only when our physical bodies die (and even then!) is there a possibility that our 'minds & thoughts' die, too. p.s. I hope this is no off-topic! Silver: Why is this dialog driving you to distraction? All E., I, and some others are saying is that thoughts are different from sense perception. What I call "ATA-MT" can also be called "direct sensory perception" or "non-conceptual awareness." Most adults have an internal dialogue--a stream of internal language--in which they almost continuously talk to themselves in their heads. Some peeps are able to develop significant mental silence by shifting attention away from the internal dialogue to non-conceptual seeing, hearing, smelling, etc. In fact, if that kind of shifting occurs fairly often, or is sustained for long periods of time, it is possible to acquire the ability to stop thinking at will. IOW, a person can learn how to look at the world in total silence, with what Tzu calls "a still mind," whenever one wishes to. There's no mystery to this; it just takes a bit of persistence. An old teaser is the statement, "Don't think of a pink elephant for the next five minutes." Ha ha. Well, some people can do that. Another teaser is, "Don't think a single thought for the next five minutes." Well, some people can do that, too.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 26, 2014 13:20:49 GMT -5
This stuff is driving me to distraction! I guess I've always been at ease with the notion that the mind and thoughts are part n parcel of the same structure / intangible medium by which we can think about thinking - or nothing - or far-out stuff that makes us feel / sense / believe / etc. that we are literally 'out of our minds' - but at no time is this the reality of it. Only when our physical bodies die (and even then!) is there a possibility that our 'minds & thoughts' die, too. p.s. I hope this is no off-topic! Silver: Why is this dialog driving you to distraction? All E., I, and some others are saying is that thoughts are different from sense perception. What I call "ATA-MT" can also be called "direct sensory perception" or "non-conceptual awareness." Most adults have an internal dialogue--a stream of internal language--in which they almost continuously talk to themselves in their heads. Some peeps are able to develop significant mental silence by shifting attention away from the internal dialogue to non-conceptual seeing, hearing, smelling, etc. In fact, if that kind of shifting occurs fairly often, or is sustained for long periods of time, it is possible to acquire the ability to stop thinking at will. IOW, a person can learn how to look at the world in total silence, with what Tzu calls "a still mind," whenever one wishes to. There's no mystery to this; it just takes a bit of persistence. An old teaser is the statement, "Don't think of a pink elephant for the next five minutes." Ha ha. Well, some people can do that. Another teaser is, "Don't think a single thought for the next five minutes." Well, some people can do that, too. Well, I exaggerated that I'm driven to distraction just a little bit. ;-) It's just that it's so easy for me to 'see' that the mind is a 'road' that doesn't just disappear on a person, and I'm not even certain that this is close to what you're describing. I mean, maybe I can use the analogy of a plane takes off from a runway (mind) and the taking off is merely high-flying thought. It makes me chuckle to try and explain what I think I mean!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2014 13:24:30 GMT -5
"Don't think a single thought for the next five minutes."
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 26, 2014 13:55:47 GMT -5
Silver: Why is this dialog driving you to distraction? All E., I, and some others are saying is that thoughts are different from sense perception. What I call "ATA-MT" can also be called "direct sensory perception" or "non-conceptual awareness." Most adults have an internal dialogue--a stream of internal language--in which they almost continuously talk to themselves in their heads. Some peeps are able to develop significant mental silence by shifting attention away from the internal dialogue to non-conceptual seeing, hearing, smelling, etc. In fact, if that kind of shifting occurs fairly often, or is sustained for long periods of time, it is possible to acquire the ability to stop thinking at will. IOW, a person can learn how to look at the world in total silence, with what Tzu calls "a still mind," whenever one wishes to. There's no mystery to this; it just takes a bit of persistence. An old teaser is the statement, "Don't think of a pink elephant for the next five minutes." Ha ha. Well, some people can do that. Another teaser is, "Don't think a single thought for the next five minutes." Well, some people can do that, too. Well, I exaggerated that I'm driven to distraction just a little bit. ;-) It's just that it's so easy for me to 'see' that the mind is a 'road' that doesn't just disappear on a person, and I'm not even certain that this is close to what you're describing. I mean, maybe I can use the analogy of a plane takes off from a runway (mind) and the taking off is merely high-flying thought. It makes me chuckle to try and explain what I think I mean! Sorry. I don't know what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 26, 2014 14:05:45 GMT -5
"Don't think a single thought for the next five minutes." Ha ha. Nice challenge, Wren! At first glance the words "pen" and "red" appeared, so I gave it a rest, and then came back to it fresh twenty minutes later. The word "red" popped up two or three times during the next several minutes, but otherwise nothing. It did require a fair amount of concentration to sustain the silence, but it is easier if the eyes move around the entire photo rather than remaining focused on the dot.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 26, 2014 14:17:06 GMT -5
Ha ha. Nice challenge, Wren! At first glance the words "pen" and "red" appeared, so I gave it a rest, and then came back to it fresh twenty minutes later. The word "red" popped up two or three times during the next several minutes, but otherwise nothing. It did require a fair amount of concentration to sustain the silence, but it is easier if the eyes move around the entire photo rather than remaining focused on the dot. I turned away, and went back to rebinding a Shakuhachi.. another 20 minutes of doing, absent thinking..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 26, 2014 14:43:10 GMT -5
Silver: Why is this dialog driving you to distraction? All E., I, and some others are saying is that thoughts are different from sense perception. What I call "ATA-MT" can also be called "direct sensory perception" or "non-conceptual awareness." Most adults have an internal dialogue--a stream of internal language--in which they almost continuously talk to themselves in their heads. Some peeps are able to develop significant mental silence by shifting attention away from the internal dialogue to non-conceptual seeing, hearing, smelling, etc. In fact, if that kind of shifting occurs fairly often, or is sustained for long periods of time, it is possible to acquire the ability to stop thinking at will. IOW, a person can learn how to look at the world in total silence, with what Tzu calls "a still mind," whenever one wishes to. There's no mystery to this; it just takes a bit of persistence. An old teaser is the statement, "Don't think of a pink elephant for the next five minutes." Ha ha. Well, some people can do that. Another teaser is, "Don't think a single thought for the next five minutes." Well, some people can do that, too. Well, I exaggerated that I'm driven to distraction just a little bit. ;-) It's just that it's so easy for me to 'see' that the mind is a 'road' that doesn't just disappear on a person, and I'm not even certain that this is close to what you're describing. I mean, maybe I can use the analogy of a plane takes off from a runway (mind) and the taking off is merely high-flying thought. It makes me chuckle to try and explain what I think I mean! You might be having trouble with the distinction between thought, which can be defined to include some very subtle, even unconscious, movements of mind, and actively thinking about something that we would all agree is thought?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 26, 2014 14:57:40 GMT -5
Well, I exaggerated that I'm driven to distraction just a little bit. ;-) It's just that it's so easy for me to 'see' that the mind is a 'road' that doesn't just disappear on a person, and I'm not even certain that this is close to what you're describing. I mean, maybe I can use the analogy of a plane takes off from a runway (mind) and the taking off is merely high-flying thought. It makes me chuckle to try and explain what I think I mean! You might be having trouble with the distinction between thought, which can be defined to include some very subtle, even unconscious, movements of mind, and actively thinking about something that we would all agree is thought? Maybe...but I guess to me, that's splitting hairs, and even if one is having a CC experience or something like that...also if one is experiencing 'no thought,' I think it's true that one can think that they're thinking no thoughts, and uh, it's getting more difficult right now to figure out what anyone is trying to say about this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 26, 2014 14:58:08 GMT -5
Ha ha. Nice challenge, Wren! At first glance the words "pen" and "red" appeared, so I gave it a rest, and then came back to it fresh twenty minutes later. The word "red" popped up two or three times during the next several minutes, but otherwise nothing. It did require a fair amount of concentration to sustain the silence, but it is easier if the eyes move around the entire photo rather than remaining focused on the dot. I turned away, and went back to rebinding a Shakuhachi.. another 20 minutes of doing, absent thinking.. Yes, one could look away and do something else, but I suspect that the intended challenge was to stay visually focused on the photo while remaining mentally silent. Wren can correct me if I'm wrong about this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2014 15:07:35 GMT -5
I turned away, and went back to rebinding a Shakuhachi.. another 20 minutes of doing, absent thinking.. Yes, one could look away and do something else, but I suspect that the intended challenge was to stay visually focused on the photo while remaining mentally silent. Wren can correct me if I'm wrong about this. It was a challenge yeah, though to myself, more than anyone else, so I was humbly surprised when you took it up as you did. *bows head*
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 26, 2014 15:37:53 GMT -5
You might be having trouble with the distinction between thought, which can be defined to include some very subtle, even unconscious, movements of mind, and actively thinking about something that we would all agree is thought? Maybe...but I guess to me, that's splitting hairs, and even if one is having a CC experience or something like that...also if one is experiencing 'no thought,' I think it's true that one can think that they're thinking no thoughts, and uh, it's getting more difficult right now to figure out what anyone is trying to say about this stuff. Okay, if you're not in a position to be able to observe your own thoughts pretty much real time, then yes, it's going to be difficult. This is usually where learning to be the witness is useful.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 26, 2014 15:54:43 GMT -5
Maybe...but I guess to me, that's splitting hairs, and even if one is having a CC experience or something like that...also if one is experiencing 'no thought,' I think it's true that one can think that they're thinking no thoughts, and uh, it's getting more difficult right now to figure out what anyone is trying to say about this stuff. Okay, if you're not in a position to be able to observe your own thoughts pretty much real time, then yes, it's going to be difficult. This is usually where learning to be the witness is useful. I didn't say I felt I'm not in a position to be able to observe my own thoughts real time.
|
|