|
Post by laughter on Apr 10, 2015 9:53:52 GMT -5
We have different understandings of the same experience.. when you choose your thoughts to write posts, are those choices random?.. is there a puppeteer pulling your strings? I am not saying these thoughts are random, I would say this 'I' is choosing, but it's choosing for everyone simultaneously, you and I can't operate separately. If I choose to write, then at the same time it chooses to do something different in the expression of you. Well, yes and no. Whatever we each do is interconnected in some way but the effects can be so negligible that we can consider the actions to be unrelated. This interconnection is not what "not two" refers to but is a sort of shawdowy reflection of it. What's happening is that there is a movement, that we can call consciousness, expressing and experiencing through multiple unique perspectives. Quite obviously, the choices that you are presented with as an individual are different from the choices that I'm presented with as a different individual. "Not two" doesn't mean "no differences", it is a pointer to the absence of separation, often expressed with the secondary idea that what is looking out of my eyes, your eyes, and dumb-lookin' dooooood's eyes, is all the same consciousness. Peeps that don't like oneness are all like "uh-huh ... heh heh, right doooood, so if we're all the same consciousness then what am I thinkin', huh? ... ha! ha! gotchya'"
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 10, 2015 10:13:36 GMT -5
Those are too spontaneous. It's an interesting point. Attention constricts on a task like solving an equation, giving someone directions, counting out cash to pay for something, or calling home to let everyone know you got somewhere safe. In the constriction, one thought follows the other in a conditioned sequence until some goal is reached, but the context of the cause of the inception and completion of the constriction is arbitrary. Did the counting of the cash become a foregone conclusion when you picked the item off the shelf? when you walked into the store? when you had the idea to go there? Well, what led up to that? Assigning intent to the sequence of thought is, as you suggest with the idea of spontaneity, just the idea of ownership in a different form. The TMT here starts with coming up for an excuse for the "I" thought. Yeah, it's really hard to take credit for a 'first thought' in which there was no prior thought that lead to it that one is aware of. But when there's a chain of thoughts connected by association and logic, it's much easier to imagine 'I' orchestrated the connections and thought my way to the conclusion. As Gopal meant to say, those are also spontaneous.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 10, 2015 10:17:39 GMT -5
BTW, which words did you think weren't in English? Blick fleebleknot ork ivitsnorp if the pollinafs don't judopeamorph the ibicsills. Ivitsnorp? Don't you think that's a bit harsh given the circumstances??
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 10, 2015 10:33:19 GMT -5
Obviously, I understood it completely or I wouldn't have parodied it. What was it you didn't understand about that? Looks to me that you did not understand what i was referring to. I'll do it again... **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** 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. So you figgr if I had understood your desire to not be preached to, then obviously I wouldn't have preached. That seems a little naive. What's obvious is that I did the opposite, and as an added bonus, I used your own words (from your sig) to do it. Most folks are here to explore their own boundaries. I'm just here to help.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 10, 2015 10:42:03 GMT -5
Folks around here don't cotton much to absolute truths, and I'd say that includes L. Seems to me we moistly talk about what isn't true, so I would think you would feel right at home. Since 2009 i feel at ease no matter where i am.Seems quite evident to me that laughter, via the OP challenge, desires yet again to prove someone's beliefs false and his non duality one, true. That's good. It sure sounds to me like you have some discomfort with 'preachers'. Everybody here offers their understandings and beliefs within their preferred paradigm, including you. You can call that preaching if you like, but notice that you're standing in line to step up to the pulpit too. If you're at ease with that, then there is no problem.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Apr 10, 2015 10:43:41 GMT -5
It's an interesting point. Attention constricts on a task like solving an equation, giving someone directions, counting out cash to pay for something, or calling home to let everyone know you got somewhere safe. In the constriction, one thought follows the other in a conditioned sequence until some goal is reached, but the context of the cause of the inception and completion of the constriction is arbitrary. Did the counting of the cash become a foregone conclusion when you picked the item off the shelf? when you walked into the store? when you had the idea to go there? Well, what led up to that? Assigning intent to the sequence of thought is, as you suggest with the idea of spontaneity, just the idea of ownership in a different form. The TMT here starts with coming up for an excuse for the "I" thought. Yeah, it's really hard to take credit for a 'first thought' in which there was no prior thought that lead to it that one is aware of. But when there's a chain of thoughts connected by association and logic, it's much easier to imagine 'I' orchestrated the connections and thought my way to the conclusion. As Gopal meant to say, those are also spontaneous. I'm curious E to hear what you make of this (in particular,' thought as thinker'): "Thought that is projected, now thinks. So it's not possible to separate the thinker from the thought, because the thinker thinks a thought, and then the thought thinks and becomes a thinker, and then the thought, that was a thought that is now a thinker, thinks another thought, which becomes a thinker, also. And so, there is a constant summoning of Life Force. Now, a thought that is thought longer becomes Thought Form. A thought that is thought upon by many, becomes Thought Form. A thought that is thought upon by many, in a very clear undiluted fashion, as from Nonphysical Perspective where there is no resistance, becomes physical matter. That's why the physical universe is a by-product of the Nonphysical attention or focus. So, the Nonphysical Energy that created this physical mass from the Energy of the Universe, the mass itself, now becomes a thought that is thinking, that is attracting the Energy. " ---Abraham Excerpted from the workshop: Los Angeles, CA, on August 02, 1998
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 10, 2015 10:46:05 GMT -5
Okay, you look back and see that the mind was silent for a few seconds. That's great. (I was just saying that, during that silence, you weren't there, because 'you' are in those thoughts.) No, 'you' are the thinker of thoughts.. That's what you think.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 10, 2015 10:47:18 GMT -5
Those are too spontaneous. Do you understand the words? when you replied, you chose words that expressed you understanding related to my post, you didn't just babble incoherently (giving you the benefit of the doubt).. you intentionally crafted a reply.. That intention was too spontaneous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 11:10:19 GMT -5
No, 'you' are the thinker of thoughts.. That's what you think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 11:10:54 GMT -5
No, 'you' are the thinker of thoughts.. That's what you think. Correct
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 10, 2015 11:35:50 GMT -5
It's an interesting point. Attention constricts on a task like solving an equation, giving someone directions, counting out cash to pay for something, or calling home to let everyone know you got somewhere safe. In the constriction, one thought follows the other in a conditioned sequence until some goal is reached, but the context of the cause of the inception and completion of the constriction is arbitrary. Did the counting of the cash become a foregone conclusion when you picked the item off the shelf? when you walked into the store? when you had the idea to go there? Well, what led up to that? Assigning intent to the sequence of thought is, as you suggest with the idea of spontaneity, just the idea of ownership in a different form. The TMT here starts with coming up for an excuse for the "I" thought. Yeah, it's really hard to take credit for a 'first thought' in which there was no prior thought that lead to it that one is aware of. But when there's a chain of thoughts connected by association and logic, it's much easier to imagine 'I' orchestrated the connections and thought my way to the conclusion. As Gopal meant to say, those are also spontaneous. And actively investigating the process of thought inception is the most direct way to find out about that and the only way to answer the questions in the OP. From the outside looking in, philosophers and scientists have created interesting analysis over the centuries about how any given state of body/mind is dependent on a prior state of body/mind and this is a chain that goes all the way back to birth, and the initial conditions prior to that are all defined by a similar process going on in the body/minds that led up to the birth: the parents, the hospital staff, the community that sustains them all, etc... That's the interconnected shadow-oneness of not-two. The inception of any given thought is spontaneous, and yet, even creative expression is relatable to and partially determined by the sequence of events that preceded it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 10, 2015 11:39:15 GMT -5
Blick fleebleknot ork ivitsnorp if the pollinafs don't judopeamorph the ibicsills. Ivitsnorp? Don't you think that's a bit harsh given the circumstances?? plurb plef ploop perp pond! Ivitsnorp lomdimnitshells in the opperatizackly. Ok?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 10, 2015 11:43:50 GMT -5
Looks to me that you did not understand what i was referring to. I'll do it again... So you figgr if I had understood your desire to not be preached to, then obviously I wouldn't have preached. That seems a little naive. What's obvious is that I did the opposite, and as an added bonus, I used your own words (from your sig) to do it. Most folks are here to explore their own boundaries. I'm just here to help.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 10, 2015 18:26:56 GMT -5
Yeah, it's really hard to take credit for a 'first thought' in which there was no prior thought that lead to it that one is aware of. But when there's a chain of thoughts connected by association and logic, it's much easier to imagine 'I' orchestrated the connections and thought my way to the conclusion. As Gopal meant to say, those are also spontaneous. I'm curious E to hear what you make of this (in particular,' thought as thinker'): "Thought that is projected, now thinks. So it's not possible to separate the thinker from the thought, because the thinker thinks a thought, and then the thought thinks and becomes a thinker, and then the thought, that was a thought that is now a thinker, thinks another thought, which becomes a thinker, also. And so, there is a constant summoning of Life Force. Now, a thought that is thought longer becomes Thought Form. A thought that is thought upon by many, becomes Thought Form. A thought that is thought upon by many, in a very clear undiluted fashion, as from Nonphysical Perspective where there is no resistance, becomes physical matter. That's why the physical universe is a by-product of the Nonphysical attention or focus. So, the Nonphysical Energy that created this physical mass from the Energy of the Universe, the mass itself, now becomes a thought that is thinking, that is attracting the Energy. " ---Abraham Excerpted from the workshop: Los Angeles, CA, on August 02, 1998 I think it's pretty convoluted. I don't really see how we can say a thought thinks. What's more interesting is the underlined. For Pilgrim, that's what I mean when I say everything is imagined into apparent existence.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 10, 2015 18:38:52 GMT -5
Yeah, it's really hard to take credit for a 'first thought' in which there was no prior thought that lead to it that one is aware of. But when there's a chain of thoughts connected by association and logic, it's much easier to imagine 'I' orchestrated the connections and thought my way to the conclusion. As Gopal meant to say, those are also spontaneous. And actively investigating the process of thought inception is the most direct way to find out about that and the only way to answer the questions in the OP. From the outside looking in, philosophers and scientists have created interesting analysis over the centuries about how any given state of body/mind is dependent on a prior state of body/mind and this is a chain that goes all the way back to birth, and the initial conditions prior to that are all defined by a similar process going on in the body/minds that led up to the birth: the parents, the hospital staff, the community that sustains them all, etc... That's the interconnected shadow-oneness of not-two. The inception of any given thought is spontaneous, and yet, even creative expression is relatable to and partially determined by the sequence of events that preceded it. Yup, and it has nothing to do with being able to see a picture in some other dood's house. We all carry around a laboratory that we can use to investigate the ownership of thoughts, and really there's no excuse for not being clear about it.
|
|