Re: Some interesting information about thoughts and fish ....

[Guest guest]

Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum --

" I think that I think, therefore I think that I am. "

-- Ambrose Bierce, " The Devil's Dictionary "

>

>

>

>

> Why is it so hard to recognize the key importance of thought?

>

> According to researchers the human brain processes over 4,000

> thoughts per second. Thought is like air for the body. It is

> everywhere, but it is never " seen " because it is so close. Thought is

> often so blindingly fast that we are only aware that something

> is " off " with our thinking, because of the stressful feelings (also

> thoughts) which it causes. The whole thought - feeling - behaviour

> cycle is often so rapid, that we become totally unaware of the prime

> causal factor of thought. This gives rise to the common misperception

> that I can feel something without first having a causal thought. This

> causal connection is even more difficult to see with the

> more " subtle " feelings (thoughts) like joy, peace and love.

>

> A profound realization of the nature of thought is like a fish

> finally seeing that he is swimming in water! Of course all the other

> fish have no idea what he is talking about, because they have yet

> to " see " the water.

>

>

> " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

> ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

And the turnaround is :

Education is learning that you did not even know what you did not even

know

you did not even know.

On Mar 14, 2005, at 5:54 PM, buzz halflightyear, comicnaut. wrote:

>

>

>

>

> Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum --

> " I think that I think, therefore I think that I am. "

> -- Ambrose Bierce, " The Devil's Dictionary "

>

>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Why is it so hard to recognize the key importance of thought?

>>

>> According to researchers the human brain processes over 4,000

>> thoughts per second. Thought is like air for the body. It is

>> everywhere, but it is never " seen " because it is so close. Thought is

>> often so blindingly fast that we are only aware that something

>> is " off " with our thinking, because of the stressful feelings (also

>> thoughts) which it causes. The whole thought - feeling - behaviour

>> cycle is often so rapid, that we become totally unaware of the prime

>> causal factor of thought. This gives rise to the common misperception

>> that I can feel something without first having a causal thought. This

>> causal connection is even more difficult to see with the

>> more " subtle " feelings (thoughts) like joy, peace and love.

>>

>> A profound realization of the nature of thought is like a fish

>> finally seeing that he is swimming in water! Of course all the other

>> fish have no idea what he is talking about, because they have yet

>> to " see " the water.

>>

>>

>> " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

>> ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

irrational thoughts are like static on the radio , you ' d be crazy

to listen to the static .

On Mar 14, 2005, at 6:21 PM, buzz halflightyear, comicnaut. wrote:

>

> And the turnaround is :

>

> Education is learning that you did not even know what you did not even

> know

> you did not even know.

> On Mar 14, 2005, at 5:54 PM, buzz halflightyear, comicnaut. wrote:

>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum --

>> " I think that I think, therefore I think that I am. "

>> -- Ambrose Bierce, " The Devil's Dictionary "

>>

>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Why is it so hard to recognize the key importance of thought?

>>>

>>> According to researchers the human brain processes over 4,000

>>> thoughts per second. Thought is like air for the body. It is

>>> everywhere, but it is never " seen " because it is so close. Thought is

>>> often so blindingly fast that we are only aware that something

>>> is " off " with our thinking, because of the stressful feelings (also

>>> thoughts) which it causes. The whole thought - feeling - behaviour

>>> cycle is often so rapid, that we become totally unaware of the prime

>>> causal factor of thought. This gives rise to the common misperception

>>> that I can feel something without first having a causal thought. This

>>> causal connection is even more difficult to see with the

>>> more " subtle " feelings (thoughts) like joy, peace and love.

>>>

>>> A profound realization of the nature of thought is like a fish

>>> finally seeing that he is swimming in water! Of course all the other

>>> fish have no idea what he is talking about, because they have yet

>>> to " see " the water.

>>>

>>>

>>> " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

>>> ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

[Guest guest]

Thought is natural and what is tough medicine , life ' s hardship ,

was said better and earlier by :

Nature is not human-hearted.

Lao Tzu

How d'ya mental heart ask with this question . lemme try reply :

No question is stupid, as long as you do not know the answer.

You answered it !

On Mar 14, 2005, at 6:31 PM, buzz halflightyear, comicnaut. wrote:

>

> irrational thoughts are like static on the radio , you ' d be crazy

> to listen to the static .

> On Mar 14, 2005, at 6:21 PM, buzz halflightyear, comicnaut. wrote:

>

>>

>> And the turnaround is :

>>

>> Education is learning that you did not even know what you did not even

>> know

>> you did not even know.

>> On Mar 14, 2005, at 5:54 PM, buzz halflightyear, comicnaut. wrote:

>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum --

>>> " I think that I think, therefore I think that I am. "

>>> -- Ambrose Bierce, " The Devil's Dictionary "

>>>

>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Why is it so hard to recognize the key importance of thought?

>>>>

>>>> According to researchers the human brain processes over 4,000

>>>> thoughts per second. Thought is like air for the body. It is

>>>> everywhere, but it is never " seen " because it is so close. Thought

>>>> is

>>>> often so blindingly fast that we are only aware that something

>>>> is " off " with our thinking, because of the stressful feelings (also

>>>> thoughts) which it causes. The whole thought - feeling - behaviour

>>>> cycle is often so rapid, that we become totally unaware of the prime

>>>> causal factor of thought. This gives rise to the common

>>>> misperception

>>>> that I can feel something without first having a causal thought.

>>>> This

>>>> causal connection is even more difficult to see with the

>>>> more " subtle " feelings (thoughts) like joy, peace and love.

>>>>

>>>> A profound realization of the nature of thought is like a fish

>>>> finally seeing that he is swimming in water! Of course all the other

>>>> fish have no idea what he is talking about, because they have yet

>>>> to " see " the water.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

>>>> ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

[Guest guest]

I can answer as well : thought isin ' t personal , it is natural .

On Mar 14, 2005, at 7:18 PM, buzz halflightyear, comicnaut. wrote:

>

> Thought is natural and what is tough medicine , life ' s hardship ,

> was said better and earlier by :

> Nature is not human-hearted.

> Lao Tzu

>

> How d'ya mental heart ask with this question . lemme try reply :

>

>

> No question is stupid, as long as you do not know the answer.

>

> You answered it !

> On Mar 14, 2005, at 6:31 PM, buzz halflightyear, comicnaut. wrote:

>

>>

>> irrational thoughts are like static on the radio , you ' d be crazy

>> to listen to the static .

>> On Mar 14, 2005, at 6:21 PM, buzz halflightyear, comicnaut. wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> And the turnaround is :

>>>

>>> Education is learning that you did not even know what you did not

>>> even

>>> know

>>> you did not even know.

>>> On Mar 14, 2005, at 5:54 PM, buzz halflightyear, comicnaut. wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum --

>>>> " I think that I think, therefore I think that I am. "

>>>> -- Ambrose Bierce, " The Devil's Dictionary "

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Why is it so hard to recognize the key importance of thought?

>>>>>

>>>>> According to researchers the human brain processes over 4,000

>>>>> thoughts per second. Thought is like air for the body. It is

>>>>> everywhere, but it is never " seen " because it is so close. Thought

>>>>> is

>>>>> often so blindingly fast that we are only aware that something

>>>>> is " off " with our thinking, because of the stressful feelings (also

>>>>> thoughts) which it causes. The whole thought - feeling - behaviour

>>>>> cycle is often so rapid, that we become totally unaware of the

>>>>> prime

>>>>> causal factor of thought. This gives rise to the common

>>>>> misperception

>>>>> that I can feel something without first having a causal thought.

>>>>> This

>>>>> causal connection is even more difficult to see with the

>>>>> more " subtle " feelings (thoughts) like joy, peace and love.

>>>>>

>>>>> A profound realization of the nature of thought is like a fish

>>>>> finally seeing that he is swimming in water! Of course all the

>>>>> other

>>>>> fish have no idea what he is talking about, because they have yet

>>>>> to " see " the water.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

>>>>> ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

[Guest guest]

And , architecture is personal . When I want to locate that

building " The Work " why would I ask falsehood for directions ?

On Mar 14, 2005, at 7:42 PM, buzz halflightyear, comicnaut. wrote:

>

> I can answer as well : thought isin ' t personal , it is natural .

> On Mar 14, 2005, at 7:18 PM, buzz halflightyear, comicnaut. wrote:

>

>>

>> Thought is natural and what is tough medicine , life ' s hardship ,

>> was said better and earlier by :

>> Nature is not human-hearted.

>> Lao Tzu

>>

>> How d'ya mental heart ask with this question . lemme try reply :

>>

>>

>> No question is stupid, as long as you do not know the answer.

>>

>> You answered it !

>> On Mar 14, 2005, at 6:31 PM, buzz halflightyear, comicnaut. wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> irrational thoughts are like static on the radio , you ' d be crazy

>>> to listen to the static .

>>> On Mar 14, 2005, at 6:21 PM, buzz halflightyear, comicnaut. wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>> And the turnaround is :

>>>>

>>>> Education is learning that you did not even know what you did not

>>>> even

>>>> know

>>>> you did not even know.

>>>> On Mar 14, 2005, at 5:54 PM, buzz halflightyear, comicnaut. wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum --

>>>>> " I think that I think, therefore I think that I am. "

>>>>> -- Ambrose Bierce, " The Devil's Dictionary "

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Why is it so hard to recognize the key importance of thought?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> According to researchers the human brain processes over 4,000

>>>>>> thoughts per second. Thought is like air for the body. It is

>>>>>> everywhere, but it is never " seen " because it is so close. Thought

>>>>>> is

>>>>>> often so blindingly fast that we are only aware that something

>>>>>> is " off " with our thinking, because of the stressful feelings

>>>>>> (also

>>>>>> thoughts) which it causes. The whole thought - feeling - behaviour

>>>>>> cycle is often so rapid, that we become totally unaware of the

>>>>>> prime

>>>>>> causal factor of thought. This gives rise to the common

>>>>>> misperception

>>>>>> that I can feel something without first having a causal thought.

>>>>>> This

>>>>>> causal connection is even more difficult to see with the

>>>>>> more " subtle " feelings (thoughts) like joy, peace and love.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> A profound realization of the nature of thought is like a fish

>>>>>> finally seeing that he is swimming in water! Of course all the

>>>>>> other

>>>>>> fish have no idea what he is talking about, because they have yet

>>>>>> to " see " the water.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

>>>>>> ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

[Guest guest]

>>>>>> " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

>>>>>> ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

Who suffers from a bad dream , which will vanish with inner awakening

?

I decline to agree with the virtues you credit yourself with an

admonishment that was surely intended freely to my free right of free

spiritual speech , her style not anyone else ' s . This spiritual

speech returns a rich inner reward . That another would step in

between the dialogue of this spiritual speech would definitely be

explained if the returning rich inner rewards were coveted .

Regardless of what you choose , I choose inner light . I don ' t know

what you want , but I want my life to make sense .

On Mar 14, 2005, at 7:59 PM, buzz halflightyear, comicnaut. wrote:

[Guest guest]

> Regardless of what you choose , I choose inner light . I don ' t

> know what you want , but I want my life to make sense .

>

Hi Stephan,

I want you to be happy, and have a beautiful day

" Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

[Guest guest]

Happiness is a state of which you are unconscious, of which you are not

aware. The moment you are aware that you are happy, you cease to be

happy...You want to be consciously happy; the moment you are

consciously happy, happiness is gone.

Jiddu Krishnamurti 1895-1986: Penguin Krishnamurti Reader (1970)

The reason we dance . Are you saying you will dance for my next

wedding ? Or will you dance to my next wedding ? or will you dance

with my next wedding ? This is the part were I " pinch " myself and

ask for trueness . Because a man can talk about a beautiful cake

(happiness) , it does not follow he is a sweet man .

>

>

>

>

>> Regardless of what you choose , I choose inner light . I don ' t

>> know what you want , but I want my life to make sense .

>>

>

>

> Hi Stephan,

>

> I want you to be happy, and have a beautiful day

>

>

> " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

> ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Per this shared observation my attitude is : " I would rather act my

way into a good way of thinking than to think my self into a good way

of acting . "

>

>

>

>

> Why is it so hard to recognize the key importance of thought?

>

> According to researchers the human brain processes over 4,000

> thoughts per second. Thought is like air for the body. It is

> everywhere, but it is never " seen " because it is so close. Thought is

> often so blindingly fast that we are only aware that something

> is " off " with our thinking, because of the stressful feelings (also

> thoughts) which it causes. The whole thought - feeling - behaviour

> cycle is often so rapid, that we become totally unaware of the prime

> causal factor of thought. This gives rise to the common misperception

> that I can feel something without first having a causal thought. This

> causal connection is even more difficult to see with the

> more " subtle " feelings (thoughts) like joy, peace and love.

>

> A profound realization of the nature of thought is like a fish

> finally seeing that he is swimming in water! Of course all the other

> fish have no idea what he is talking about, because they have yet

> to " see " the water.

>

>

> " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

> ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

[Guest guest]

You have the wrong man .

>

>

>

>

>> Regardless of what you choose , I choose inner light . I don ' t

>> know what you want , but I want my life to make sense .

>>

>

>

> Hi Stephan,

>

> I want you to be happy, and have a beautiful day

>

>

> " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

> ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

If you don't enjoy what you have, how can you be happy with more? Does

the speaking , more fishy top - fish , " on " to what the other fish

are dumb about , enjoy bragging about its discovery , ( when obviously

the dumbed -down other piscatorial beings are too simple living a

creatures to comprehend , maybe like give them useless shiny objects

for their services ) , to an empty play - house ? Sounds much more

like a fish tale to me . I am not the village idiot . You must have

the wrong man .

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

--Macbeth V.v.24-28

You can't hold a man down without staying down with him.

-- Booker T. Washington

On Mar 14, 2005, at 9:44 PM, buzz halflightyear, comicnaut. wrote:

>

> Per this shared observation my attitude is : " I would rather act my

> way into a good way of thinking than to think my self into a good way

> of acting . "

>

>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Why is it so hard to recognize the key importance of thought?

>>

>> According to researchers the human brain processes over 4,000

>> thoughts per second. Thought is like air for the body. It is

>> everywhere, but it is never " seen " because it is so close. Thought is

>> often so blindingly fast that we are only aware that something

>> is " off " with our thinking, because of the stressful feelings (also

>> thoughts) which it causes. The whole thought - feeling - behaviour

>> cycle is often so rapid, that we become totally unaware of the prime

>> causal factor of thought. This gives rise to the common misperception

>> that I can feel something without first having a causal thought. This

>> causal connection is even more difficult to see with the

>> more " subtle " feelings (thoughts) like joy, peace and love.

>>

>> A profound realization of the nature of thought is like a fish

>> finally seeing that he is swimming in water! Of course all the other

>> fish have no idea what he is talking about, because they have yet

>> to " see " the water.

>>

>>

>> " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

>> ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ltwobk

> Why is it so hard to recognize the key importance of thought?

>

> According to researchers the human brain processes over 4,000

> thoughts per second.

I happen to know that researchers are arguing about the nature of

thought for at least decades. I would not believe any researcher who

states a thing like that for a fact.

> A profound realization of the nature of thought is like a fish

> finally seeing that he is swimming in water! Of course all the

other

> fish have no idea what he is talking about, because they have yet

> to " see " the water.

My experience is that " we are not our thoughts " .

I realized that what we are belongs to a realm outside space and

time. Thoughts and feelings belong to the dream state we experience

during daily life, thoughts and feelings create this dream state:

the world we live in and our daily-life identity, the separation,

the past and the future. But it's not what we really are.

So, is it true we cannot experience anything that is not thought, as

you are saying?

I'd say we will never be able to proof it within this world of

thoughts and feelings, but experiencing the whole ocean and all the

the fishes in it will make this question irrelevant.

Eva

>

>

> " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

> ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Hi ltwobk

>

>> Why is it so hard to recognize the key importance of thought?

>>

>> According to researchers the human brain processes over 4,000

>> thoughts per second.

>

> I happen to know that researchers are arguing about the nature of

> thought for at least decades. I would not believe any researcher who

> states a thing like that for a fact.

>

>> A profound realization of the nature of thought is like a fish

>> finally seeing that he is swimming in water! Of course all the

> other

>> fish have no idea what he is talking about, because they have yet

>> to " see " the water.

>

> My experience is that " we are not our thoughts " .

> I realized that what we are belongs to a realm outside space and

> time. Thoughts and feelings belong to the dream state we experience

> during daily life, thoughts and feelings create this dream state:

> the world we live in and our daily-life identity, the separation,

> the past and the future. But it's not what we really are.

>

> So, is it true we cannot experience anything that is not thought, as

> you are saying?

> I'd say we will never be able to proof it within this world of

> thoughts and feelings, but experiencing the whole ocean and all the

> the fishes in it will make this question irrelevant. Eva

That last opinion could be paraphrased as " see what life is really

all about , not what you assume it is all about . " Where everything

is bad , it must be good to know the worst = " we will never be able

to proof it within this world of thoughts and feelings , but

experiencing ... "

>

>

>

>

>>

>>

>> " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

>> ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> My experience is that " we are not our thoughts " .

> I realized that what we are belongs to a realm outside space and

> time. Thoughts and feelings belong to the dream state we experience

> during daily life, thoughts and feelings create this dream state:

> the world we live in and our daily-life identity, the separation,

> the past and the future. But it's not what we really are.

>

> So, is it true we cannot experience anything that is not thought,

> as you are saying?

> I'd say we will never be able to proof it within this world of

> thoughts and feelings, but experiencing the whole ocean and all the

> the fishes in it will make this question irrelevant.

>

Hi Eva,

I quite like the thoughts of the theosophist, Sydney Banks who

reflected that there are only three principles i.e. Mind (God),

Consciousness and Thought. The principle of Mind is known in the

world via the principles of Consciousness and Thought. I refer to

Consciousness and Thought as principles, because they extend far

beyond what we normally understand by those concepts.

Can the principle of Mind have a direct perception of itself without

the principles of Consciousness and Thought? Hmmm ... an interesting

question. Such a knowing would mean nothing to me here until it was

translated via the principles of Consciousness and Thought.

So your experience is that you are not your thoughts, but how could

you know that except via the principles of Conciousness and Thought?

Just a few thoughts for your amusement

" Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

[Guest guest]

Hi ltwobk,

> I quite like the thoughts of the theosophist, Sydney Banks who

> reflected that there are only three principles i.e. Mind (God),

> Consciousness and Thought.

Sounds like Trinity to me. Mind would be the Father, because it

generates Thought, so Thought would be the Son, and Consciousness

would then be the Holy Ghost.

> The principle of Mind is known in the

> world via the principles of Consciousness and Thought.

Does that mean that Consciousness and Thought are instrumental in

letting Mind know itself?

To me it would make more sense to say that God was Consciousness and

that Consciousness can know itself by means of Mind and Thought. Are

you sure you've got the relationships right? :-))

In any case, they're both stories.

Do stories (= thoughts) create reality? Do thoughts shape reality

(but not create it)?

> Can the principle of Mind have a direct perception of itself

without

> the principles of Consciousness and Thought? Hmmm ... an

interesting

> question. Such a knowing would mean nothing to me here until it was

> translated via the principles of Consciousness and Thought.

Well, in this yahoo group we can't communicate unless we express

ourselves in more or less coherent thoughts. That doesn't mean per se

that a particular knowing requires thought.

> So your experience is that you are not your thoughts, but how could

> you know that except via the principles of Conciousness and Thought?

I wouldn't know it without Consciousness, but I must have been

outside Thought, else I could not have 'seen' it like that.

For me, it is obvious that there is something that observes my

thoughts, because it is possible to talk about them.

So here's a question for you:

What is it that observes my thoughts? Could my thoughts observe my

thoughts?

> Just a few thoughts for your amusement

Likewise,

Eva

[Guest guest]

Dear LTWofBK,

You said to Eva, " Such a knowing would mean nothing to me here until

it was translated via the principles of Consciousness and Thought. "

I know I am " preaching to the choir " ; however, here goes.

Can we really know that that statement is true?

Can we really know that a knowing needs to have meaning?

Who is the " me " that " such a knowing " needs to mean something to?

It occurs to me that as long as I believe that something needs

meaning, my mind will attempt to give meaning to experience.

In addition, for me, what Eva described as " we are not our thoughts "

would be more correct if stated as " I am not my thoughts " .

The statement " I am not my thoughts " is like unto " I am not my

body " . This type of awareness may be the Truth and yet, it is

actually without meaning in a relative world.

What the " Bleep " do I know?

Blessings, Steve D.

>

> >

> > My experience is that " we are not our thoughts " .

> > I realized that what we are belongs to a realm outside space and

> > time. Thoughts and feelings belong to the dream state we

experience

> > during daily life, thoughts and feelings create this dream state:

> > the world we live in and our daily-life identity, the separation,

> > the past and the future. But it's not what we really are.

> >

> > So, is it true we cannot experience anything that is not thought,

> > as you are saying?

> > I'd say we will never be able to proof it within this world of

> > thoughts and feelings, but experiencing the whole ocean and all

the

> > the fishes in it will make this question irrelevant.

> >

>

>

> Hi Eva,

>

> I quite like the thoughts of the theosophist, Sydney Banks who

> reflected that there are only three principles i.e. Mind (God),

> Consciousness and Thought. The principle of Mind is known in the

> world via the principles of Consciousness and Thought. I refer to

> Consciousness and Thought as principles, because they extend far

> beyond what we normally understand by those concepts.

>

> Can the principle of Mind have a direct perception of itself

without

> the principles of Consciousness and Thought? Hmmm ... an

interesting

> question. Such a knowing would mean nothing to me here until it was

> translated via the principles of Consciousness and Thought.

>

> So your experience is that you are not your thoughts, but how could

> you know that except via the principles of Conciousness and Thought?

>

> Just a few thoughts for your amusement

>

>

> " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

> ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

[Guest guest]

dear Eva,

You said: " Do stories (= thoughts) create reality? Do thoughts shape

reality (but not create it)? "

I found these to be very interesting questions and what comes to me

after reading them is " Neither " . For me, there is Reality and then

there is my story (e.g: believed thoughts) and they are not related.

For me, Reality is what is and my story is my perception of What Is

and they are two different things. I can only experience Reality

when I am without a story and when I have a story, I can not

experience Reality.

Blessings, Steve D.

>

> Hi ltwobk,

>

> > I quite like the thoughts of the theosophist, Sydney Banks who

> > reflected that there are only three principles i.e. Mind (God),

> > Consciousness and Thought.

>

> Sounds like Trinity to me. Mind would be the Father, because it

> generates Thought, so Thought would be the Son, and Consciousness

> would then be the Holy Ghost.

>

> > The principle of Mind is known in the

> > world via the principles of Consciousness and Thought.

>

> Does that mean that Consciousness and Thought are instrumental in

> letting Mind know itself?

>

> To me it would make more sense to say that God was Consciousness

and

> that Consciousness can know itself by means of Mind and Thought.

Are

> you sure you've got the relationships right? :-))

> In any case, they're both stories.

> Do stories (= thoughts) create reality? Do thoughts shape reality

> (but not create it)?

>

> > Can the principle of Mind have a direct perception of itself

> without

> > the principles of Consciousness and Thought? Hmmm ... an

> interesting

> > question. Such a knowing would mean nothing to me here until it

was

> > translated via the principles of Consciousness and Thought.

>

> Well, in this yahoo group we can't communicate unless we express

> ourselves in more or less coherent thoughts. That doesn't mean per

se

> that a particular knowing requires thought.

>

> > So your experience is that you are not your thoughts, but how

could

> > you know that except via the principles of Conciousness and

Thought?

>

> I wouldn't know it without Consciousness, but I must have been

> outside Thought, else I could not have 'seen' it like that.

>

> For me, it is obvious that there is something that observes my

> thoughts, because it is possible to talk about them.

> So here's a question for you:

>

> What is it that observes my thoughts? Could my thoughts observe my

> thoughts?

>

> > Just a few thoughts for your amusement

>

> Likewise,

> Eva

[Guest guest]

>

>

> I wouldn't know it without Consciousness, but I must have been

> outside Thought, else I could not have 'seen' it like that.

>

> For me, it is obvious that there is something that observes my

> thoughts, because it is possible to talk about them.

> So here's a question for you:

>

> What is it that observes my thoughts? Could my thoughts observe my

> thoughts?

>

Thanks for the reply Eva

You raise some fascinating questions. " What is it that observes my

thoughts? " Perhaps nothing observes thoughts, they are simply brought

to life by the principle of Consciousness. Thought cannot exist

without the principal of Consciousness and Consciousness is

unrecognized without the principle of Thought, and neither principal

could exist without the principal of Mind (God). In fact there is

ONLY the principle of Mind and two manifestations of that principle

are desribed as the principles of Consciousness and Thought. To speak

of an observer of anything is to create a duality of subject and

object.

When speaks about listening to our heart, I interpret that as

accessing the principle of Mind (God) which manifests as realizations

or thoughts from that Mind. Once again it is a play of the three

principals. Of course I do not expect anyone to believe what I have

been discussing here! To know whether it is true, you have to access

the principal of Mind in your heart and find your own realizations.

This is so much better than reading a book or listening to some guru

who tells you that there is an observer of thoughts

Have a beautiful day

" Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

[Guest guest]

>

> The statement " I am not my thoughts " is like unto " I am not my

> body " . This type of awareness may be the Truth and yet, it is

> actually without meaning in a relative world.

>

Hey Steve,

Thanks for the reply

Yes, I would say there is one truth i.e. the principal of Mind (God)

and in that there are no " I's " or bodies. The (my) current awareness

of the principal of Mind is via the play of the principals of

Consciousness and Thought. Statements or even realizations like " I am

not my thoughts " or " I am not my body " are nothing more than thoughts

brought to life via the principal of Consciousness. Got to love the

three principals in action

Just some more thoughts

" Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

[Guest guest]

>

> I found these to be very interesting questions and what comes to me

> after reading them is " Neither " . For me, there is Reality and then

> there is my story (e.g: believed thoughts) and they are not

> related.

> For me, Reality is what is and my story is my perception of What Is

> and they are two different things. I can only experience Reality

> when I am without a story and when I have a story, I can not

> experience Reality.

>

Steve, I have some questions

This Reality that you speak of, how do you know it? (Books?/Teachers?)

If it is something you have experienced, then what do you think gave

you that experience? Could it possibly have something to do with

thoughts and consciousness?

" Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

[Guest guest]

Hi ltwobk,

thanks for your thoughts....

> This is so much better than reading a book or listening to some

guru

> who tells you that there is an observer of thoughts

I understood that you got the trinity of Mind, Consciousness and

Thought from a book somewhere?

Without being aware of principles of mind, consciousness and

thought, I experienced myself as some kind of observer, disconnected

from thoughts. Although I suppose I must have read about this before

it happened.

Maybe personal experience and books have a similar kind of

relationship to each other as 'observer' and thoughts, namely that

personal experience is inarticulate without the concepts we find in

books (or elsewhere). Which seems to be illustrated by what you

write about your experiencing of the principles of Mind,

Consciousness and Thought, after reading about them.

No story, no world, right?

One of the things that I read and see confirmed is that we are all

very very gullible, and we see what we think we should see, read

what we think we should read, and hear what we think we should hear.

I suppose that doesn't sound like news to you, but apparently I

needed to hear it, as it is the custom to say here.....

And isn't it intriguing that we can talk about these apparent

processes, without mixing up our levels of thought? We have

our 'meta-thoughts' about what's happening inside of us, and then we

also have the plain content of our thoughts. And these things get

discussed here, at the boundaries of what's humanly possible to

conceive, or so it seems to me.

Feels like if I push a little bit harder, there's no choice but to

drop it all, be empty handed.

What would be left?

Eva

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve,

thanks for your reply.

> You said: " Do stories (= thoughts) create reality? Do thoughts

shape

> reality (but not create it)? "

>

> I found these to be very interesting questions and what comes to

me

> after reading them is " Neither " . For me, there is Reality and

then

> there is my story (e.g: believed thoughts) and they are not

related.

> For me, Reality is what is and my story is my perception of What

Is

> and they are two different things. I can only experience Reality

> when I am without a story and when I have a story, I can not

> experience Reality.

I don't know.... :-)

Right now I have the idea reality and story are maybe something like

figure and ground, or like warp and woof.

And who's admiring it all?

Eva

[Guest guest]

Dear LTWOBK,

You asked:

" Steve, I have some questions

This Reality that you speak of, how do you know it? (Books?/Teachers?)

If it is something you have experienced, then what do you think gave

you that experience? Could it possibly have something to do with

thoughts and consciousness? "

SD: I know it from the experience of it. These experiences are

beyond description, words, thoughts, etc. As far as I can tell, what

gives me the experience is to be without thought.

For me, " consciousness " is just another word. It is a good word, but

merely another word that mind plays with.

If I think I know, I seem to grow smaller. When I am without

knowing, I don't need anything and that seems fine with me.

Love, Steve D.

-- In Loving-what-is , " lovetheworkofbk "

<lovetheworkofbk@y...> wrote:

>

>

> >

> > I found these to be very interesting questions and what comes to

me

> > after reading them is " Neither " . For me, there is Reality and

then

> > there is my story (e.g: believed thoughts) and they are not

> > related.

> > For me, Reality is what is and my story is my perception of What

Is

> > and they are two different things. I can only experience Reality

> > when I am without a story and when I have a story, I can not

> > experience Reality.

> >

>

>

> Steve, I have some questions

>

> This Reality that you speak of, how do you know it?

(Books?/Teachers?)

>

> If it is something you have experienced, then what do you think

gave

> you that experience? Could it possibly have something to do with

> thoughts and consciousness?

>

>

> " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

> ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

[Guest guest]

>

>

> SD: I know it from the experience of it. These experiences are

> beyond description, words, thoughts, etc. As far as I can tell,

> what gives me the experience is to be without thought.

>

Thanks for your thoughts Steve, always appreciated

Let me play the Devils advocate and ask if your experience was indeed

beyond description or any words or thoughts, how did you know you had

it? You may well have blissed out and become God, but that is a

referenceless state impossible to " experience " simply because there

are no thoughts or consciousness.

To say that you had an experience (any experience) however

transcendental it may have been, implies the existence of

consciousness and thought.

I also suspect that there may be a misunderstanding about how we are

both using the concept of " thoughts " . For me thoughts range from the

the subtle and transcendental thought from Mind (God) to the very

course and heavy thought of ego. When you speak of being without

thought I would interpret that as being without the course and heavy

thoughts of the ego. Without the ego thinking I am open to the

subtle, vast and transcendental thought arising from Mind. Many

people report transcendental experiences where they cease to exist

and they are one with everything, yet what they miss is that all that

is still nothing more than a most subtle thought brought to life

through consciousness.

Just some more thoughts from the Devils advocate .... LOL ...

" Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't suffer,

ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron