Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 22:41:22 GMT -5
These are very interesting questions. I could say I am not the owner of thoughts or perception. But there are some confusion arises here, If I am not the owner of the thoughts,then who is creating those thoughts? I would say consciousness, but Am I not consciousness?Yes I am. If so,Am I not the author my own thoughts? To resolve the problem here, we could split into inner level and surface level. inner level creates and surface level perceives, but still the problem is, how does this inner level creates without perceiving the thoughts? So the conclusion is, there can't be two levels, there is only one level which creates and perceives. So am i having the absolute control over the situation which is being created by 'I'? Yes I have absolute control over the unfolding, If so, why can't I create situation in the way I want them to be unfolded? Actually I am the creator of my situation and also I am creating them in the way that has to be unfolded, When i think 'ah why this is happening to me'? infact there is no missing control is happening here, infact I am creating the thoughts of 'ah why this is happening to me'. I am the owner of my own thoughts but not only I am not the owner of thoughts which is happening in the expression of 'Raj' but also 'Bill'. So can't I choose something? Yes I can choose, If so, how would I differ from the normal level person who conceives the idea that he could choose by himself? There is the difference, he believes he could choose separately from rest of the individuals but I do not. I could choose but when I choose I would choose for all the expression simultaneously. So am i having freewill? Actually this expression 'raj' doesn't have freewill, but the 'I' whole has the freewill to move anywhere it wish, so to speak this word 'anywhere' must be wrong, because somewhere would be created by this 'I'. So it is free to create anything it wish. Interesting musings, and I can tell from reading it that you've considered these questions before, and not entirely with intellect. Now, I know that we disagree on this point, but in my opinion the answers to the questions in the OP are much simpler than your analysis, and to find them the intellect has to get out of the way. All the way out of the way. Logic and reasoning might be useful in expressing the results of the inquiry after the fact, but that depends on both who's writing and who's reading. Any conceptual structure, any theory we have about the impersonal Raj (the "I whole" with the freewill) that is the source of the thoughts will fail.I don't understand this line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 22:42:56 GMT -5
These are very interesting questions. I could say I am not the owner of thoughts or perception. But there are some confusion arises here, If I am not the owner of the thoughts,then who is creating those thoughts? I would say consciousness, but Am I not consciousness?Yes I am. If so,Am I not the author my own thoughts? To resolve the problem here, we could split into inner level and surface level. inner level creates and surface level perceives, but still the problem is, how does this inner level creates without perceiving the thoughts? So the conclusion is, there can't be two levels, there is only one level which creates and perceives. So am i having the absolute control over the situation which is being created by 'I'? Yes I have absolute control over the unfolding, If so, why can't I create situation in the way I want them to be unfolded? Actually I am the creator of my situation and also I am creating them in the way that has to be unfolded, When i think 'ah why this is happening to me'? infact there is no missing control is happening here, infact I am creating the thoughts of 'ah why this is happening to me'. I am the owner of my own thoughts but not only I am not the owner of thoughts which is happening in the expression of 'Raj' but also 'Bill'. So can't I choose something? Yes I can choose, If so, how would I differ from the normal level person who conceives the idea that he could choose by himself? There is the difference, he believes he could choose separately from rest of the individuals but I do not. I could choose but when I choose I would choose for all the expression simultaneously. So am i having freewill? Actually this expression 'raj' doesn't have freewill, but the 'I' whole has the freewill to move anywhere it wish, so to speak this word 'anywhere' must be wrong, because somewhere would be created by this 'I'. So it is free to create anything it wish. We could say that. It's the consequence of wholeness always being whole. Yeah!!!!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 9, 2015 0:03:21 GMT -5
Interesting musings, and I can tell from reading it that you've considered these questions before, and not entirely with intellect. Now, I know that we disagree on this point, but in my opinion the answers to the questions in the OP are much simpler than your analysis, and to find them the intellect has to get out of the way. All the way out of the way. Logic and reasoning might be useful in expressing the results of the inquiry after the fact, but that depends on both who's writing and who's reading. Any conceptual structure, any theory we have about the impersonal Raj (the "I whole" with the freewill) that is the source of the thoughts will fail.I don't understand this line.
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Apr 9, 2015 0:40:11 GMT -5
Do you not own the contents of your mind? Do you have clear title that you don't ? Perhaps you have an invoice from the thought warehouse that you do not own your thoughts? Can you prove you are not the proprietor of your thoughts? Can you prove you're not the owner? I have no doubt you and others who hold that the philosophy of Self Realization\Non Duality is truth and can speak for eons about it expressing all manner of confident statements it's truth. But factual testable, verifiable evidence...none so far that i have ever seen from such devotees...hence my effortless decision to not engage in lengthy discussions with such people. I do not have any inclining to be preached to. I've already done the 'dogmatic religion' part of my journey, i see no need to take another one. How many threads do you and others like you need to produce to express your profound devotion to just of one of thousands of theories about existence, till you are satisfied, till you are at peace and there is no more disturbance within yourself that you no longer feel the urge to speak. hostile much? Perceive it's hostility much. If you think i am being hostile, then you think i am being hostile. What has that got to do with me. That is your doing, not mine, and it does not adversely affect my journey, thus i have no desire or need to do anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 9, 2015 4:57:01 GMT -5
hostile much? Perceive it's hostility much. If you think i am being hostile, then you think i am being hostile. What has that got to do with me. That is your doing, not mine, and it does not adversely affect my journey, thus i have no desire or need to do anything about it. Responded to here.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 9, 2015 10:13:21 GMT -5
Yeah, thoughts are weird. What we're consciously aware of is the fully formed thought after it has occurred. We're not conscious of most of what's involved in the formation of that thought, so we're in the position of standing at the doorway waiting for a thought to pop out, and we generally declare it as our own thought even though we had no conscious knowledge of how or why it was formed. Thoughts are formed from our conditioning, and so they are not random, and part of becoming conscious is becoming more aware of that thought/feeling process; bringing more of it into conscious awareness by paying attention. I know "why" questions can be a trap,.. but i find that when attention is at the doorway, a lot less thoughts will come through. Why do you think that might be? You wait for yourself. If you're standing at the doorway, you're not going to catch yourself walking through it. There is only one of you. Attention is either on watching for the next thought, or it is on thinking the next thought. Ultimately, they are both thoughts, and you can only think one thought at a time. When you lose your focus on the watching thought, you attach to a thinking thought and ride it in through the doorway. On the issue of 'why' questions, it can be very beneficial to ask yourself such question in the context of mind, especially if one is earnest.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 9, 2015 10:16:48 GMT -5
Yeah, thoughts are weird. What we're consciously aware of is the fully formed thought after it has occurred. We're not conscious of most of what's involved in the formation of that thought, so we're in the position of standing at the doorway waiting for a thought to pop out, and we generally declare it as our own thought even though we had no conscious knowledge of how or why it was formed. Thoughts are formed from our conditioning, and so they are not random, and part of becoming conscious is becoming more aware of that thought/feeling process; bringing more of it into conscious awareness by paying attention. I know "why" questions can be a trap,.. but i find that when attention is at the doorway, a lot less thoughts will come through. Why do you think that might be? In short, attention is on attention itself. The doorway is the threshold where attention meets interest.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 9, 2015 10:19:10 GMT -5
Do you create every thought that forms in your mind? Did you create the thoughts that arose from reading this sentence? Muttley didn't. (** straight face **)Do you own the contents of your mind? Do you have clear title? Perhaps you have an invoice from the thought warehouse? Can you prove your proprietary interest? Can you prove your ownership? Do you not own the contents of your mind? Do you have clear title that you don't ? Perhaps you have an invoice from the thought warehouse that you do not own your thoughts? Can you prove you are not the proprietor of your thoughts? Can you prove you're not the owner? I have no doubt you and others who hold that the philosophy of Self Realization\Non Duality is truth and can speak for eons about it expressing all manner of confident statements it's truth. But factual testable, verifiable evidence...none so far that i have ever seen from such devotees...hence my effortless decision to not engage in lengthy discussions with such people. I do not have any inclining to be preached to. I've already done the 'dogmatic religion' part of my journey, i see no need to take another one. How many threads do you and others like you need to produce to express your profound devotion to just of one of thousands of theories about existence, till you are satisfied, till you are at peace and there is no more disturbance within yourself that you no longer feel the urge to speak. **Steps up to the preacher's pulpit** There is evidence, but you must learn how to see. **Walks briskly, but self righteously, toward the door**
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 9, 2015 10:21:06 GMT -5
Do you create every thought that forms in your mind? Did you create the thoughts that arose from reading this sentence? Muttley didn't. (** straight face **)Do you own the contents of your mind? Do you have clear title? Perhaps you have an invoice from the thought warehouse? Can you prove your proprietary interest? Can you prove your ownership? laughter, are you asking because you don't know or wondering if we know we are masters of our own mind? He might be asking because he knows that we're not.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 9, 2015 10:35:18 GMT -5
Do you not own the contents of your mind? Do you have clear title that you don't ? Perhaps you have an invoice from the thought warehouse that you do not own your thoughts? Can you prove you are not the proprietor of your thoughts? Can you prove you're not the owner? I have no doubt you and others who hold that the philosophy of Self Realization\Non Duality is truth and can speak for eons about it expressing all manner of confident statements it's truth. But factual testable, verifiable evidence...none so far that i have ever seen from such devotees...hence my effortless decision to not engage in lengthy discussions with such people. I do not have any inclining to be preached to. I've already done the 'dogmatic religion' part of my journey, i see no need to take another one. How many threads do you and others like you need to produce to express your profound devotion to just of one of thousands of theories about existence, till you are satisfied, till you are at peace and there is no more disturbance within yourself that you no longer feel the urge to speak. hostile much? There are all sorts of good reasons for peeps to get hostile here. That wasn't one of em...so much...really. I say Jay is having a bad hair day.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 9, 2015 10:38:14 GMT -5
hostile much? There are all sorts of good reasons for peeps to get hostile here. That wasn't one of em...so much...really. I say Jay is having a bad hair day.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 9, 2015 10:41:46 GMT -5
There are all sorts of good reasons for peeps to get hostile here. That wasn't one of em...so much...really. I say Jay is having a bad hair day. Yeah, just like that. Can't do a thing with it. hehe
|
|
|
Post by silver on Apr 9, 2015 11:38:48 GMT -5
Do you not own the contents of your mind? Do you have clear title that you don't ? Perhaps you have an invoice from the thought warehouse that you do not own your thoughts? Can you prove you are not the proprietor of your thoughts? Can you prove you're not the owner? I have no doubt you and others who hold that the philosophy of Self Realization\Non Duality is truth and can speak for eons about it expressing all manner of confident statements it's truth. But factual testable, verifiable evidence...none so far that i have ever seen from such devotees...hence my effortless decision to not engage in lengthy discussions with such people. I do not have any inclining to be preached to. I've already done the 'dogmatic religion' part of my journey, i see no need to take another one. How many threads do you and others like you need to produce to express your profound devotion to just of one of thousands of theories about existence, till you are satisfied, till you are at peace and there is no more disturbance within yourself that you no longer feel the urge to speak. **Steps up to the preacher's pulpit** There is evidence, but you must learn how to see. **Walks briskly, but self righteously, toward the door** The way I'm seeing it, James isn't hostile in the least. You and L are taking it that way because you're stuck -- too accustomed to seeing things one way only. That is your problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2015 11:52:33 GMT -5
laughter, are you asking because you don't know or wondering if we know we are masters of our own mind? He might be asking because he knows that we're not. Nah, he's just tired of beating a dead horse in the What To Do (aka practice) thread.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 9, 2015 12:11:21 GMT -5
**Steps up to the preacher's pulpit** There is evidence, but you must learn how to see. **Walks briskly, but self righteously, toward the door** The way I'm seeing it, James isn't hostile in the least. You and L are taking it that way because you're stuck -- too accustomed to seeing things one way only. That is your problem. Responded to here.
|
|