Someone asks me "what is thought, looking on thought, is that a reaction too"?
Reaction simply means a repeat action, right? All thought is that, isn't it? There is the action of the experience and then all future thinking about it, is a repeated action, no?

How's this for starters, Randal: Thought is memory of the past (there can't be memory of what's happening now or of what might happen in the future). The only thing you can do with something "now" is to be aware of it--you can't think about it. So being aware gets you into the loop in the first place. Thinking is recalling an image that you maybe want to massage.

What does it mean to be aware? In spite of all the profound discussions concerning awareness, it seems to me it's just the act of sensing something--you know, the five senses and all that. Nothing more! You don't sense it, Mac, you damn well aren't going to be aware of it.

max

Yes, that would all seem very logical. But at some point in this clear true accurate perception, there is a distorting factor. Maybe we could explore that?

Yes. If there is a distorting factor, let's out it.

max

max greene wrote:

Yes. If there is a distorting factor, let's out it.

Yes, I guess first we must determine if there even is any distortion to our perceptions, right?

I'm going to say that "perception" means to sense, to be aware.

If this working definition is okay with you, then we could say that there are differences in perception, but not necessarily distortion in perception.

To illustrate: A dog looks at a beautiful day and he sees mostly gray (so I've been told.) We look at the same day and we see all sorts of colors. The perceptions are different, not distorted.

Is our perception ever distorted (guess that's what you asked in the first place) or do we just see what we see? I opt for the last.

max

max greene wrote:

I'm going to say that "perception" means to sense, to be aware.

If this working definition is okay with you, then we could say that there are differences in perception, but not necessarily distortion in perception.

To illustrate: A dog looks at a beautiful day and he sees mostly gray (so I've been told.) We look at the same day and we see all sorts of colors. The perceptions are different, not distorted.

Is our perception ever distorted (guess that's what you asked in the first place) or do we just see what we see? I opt for the last.

Ah, yes ok, you see the glass half full. You walk on the sunny side of the street. You whistle while you work, hi-ho hi-ho!
So as you walk through life, you and the people you meet on a daily basis are simply walking around perceiving in color and not gray without distortion? Sounds like a sweet place to live.
I live in a world where people are constantly in competitive conflict on a subtle and most obvious level. Wanna trade places? ;o)

Randal Shacklett wrote:
You walk on the sunny side of the street. You whistle while you work, hi-ho hi-ho!

Rand'l,

There is a buddha in everyone, and you too are one. :-)

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
You whistle while you work, hi-ho hi-ho!

You are heavily influenced by those american animation movies if I am not wrong lol. :-)

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Keshni Sahni wrote:
There is a buddha in everyone, and you too are one. :-)

Eh, first you posit a Budha? You are sure to invent one within!!

I Am Not This!

Sir, That was for Randal.

We do not know whether Jesus really existed, but Buddha was real - he really existed, the one who said material life is sorrow.

It is the same self in Buddha that is in everyone. He went through the same sorrow that you and I do.

Anyway I did not make any efforts to invent a buddha image whenone already exists!

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Keshni Sahni wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:
You whistle while you work, hi-ho hi-ho!

You are heavily influenced by those american animation movies if I am not wrong lol. :-)

Well, you know, we are all influenced by our culture. ;o)

Keshni Sahni wrote:

Sir, That was for Randal.

We do not know whether Jesus really existed, but Buddha was real - he really existed, the one who said material life is sorrow.

It is the same self in Buddha that is in everyone. He went through the same sorrow that you and I do.

Anyway I did not make any efforts to invent a buddha image whenone already exists!

Looks to me like the buddha is full of sorrow(food).

Keshni Sahni wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:
You walk on the sunny side of the street. You whistle while you work, hi-ho hi-ho!

Rand'l,

There is a buddha in everyone, and you too are one. :-)

If that is so, then there is a devil in all, also. That is the problem living in opposites, good-bad, right-wrong, us-them, etc..

Randal,

"I live in a world where people are constantly in competitive conflict on a subtle and most obvious level. Wanna trade places?"

It takes two for competition and conflict.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 22 Jun 2009.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
Well, you know, we are all influenced by our culture

That is an understatement ! :-)

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

max greene wrote:

Randal,

"I live in a world where people are constantly in competitive conflict on a subtle and most obvious level. Wanna trade places?"

It takes two for competition and conflict.

If that is your belief, then you have not understood the nature of competitive conflict. It only takes one ego to compete. That is what the ego does.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
If that is your belief, then you have not understood the nature of competitive conflict. It only takes one ego to compete. That is what the ego does.

UMMM interesting....the problem is not ANOTHER ego but just ego that we identify with as mine and yours....good job Randy.

I once was snow white and then I drifted - Mae West

Competition and comparison, are the same phenomenon.

Randal Shacklett wrote:

Competition and comparison, are the same phenomenon.

Oh great master can thee shed light on this?

I once was snow white and then I drifted - Mae West

Eve Goodmon wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:

Competition and comparison, are the same phenomenon.

Oh great master can thee shed light on this?

Not likely. Not with that chip on your shoulder.

Randal Shacklett wrote:

Competition and comparison, are the same phenomenon.

Well, they are both measurement. But then - all thought can do is measure.

Which is why thought is in place only in the technical, and a disaster in the psychological.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:

Competition and comparison, are the same phenomenon.

Well, they are both measurement. But then - all thought can do is measure.

Which is why thought is in place only in the technical, and a disaster in the psychological.

yes, thought can only compare/compete. So what will we do? Compare/compete to extinction?

That is what is happening.

But it appears that nothing will change unless there is understanding of exactly where thought is in place - (ie: in building a house where measurement is essential otherwise the walls will not meet) - and where thought feeds and perpetuates disaster, as in one 'self' measuring its 'self' against another 'self' to feel good about, and to feed its 'self'. The 'self' really just desires to put on a new coat and call that 'change'.

I do not find much of a glimmering of understanding the movement of thought in these forums. Rather, there seems to be a hopeful preference for some kind of cosmic/magical transformation, which requires no understanding of thought's movement at all. Wishful thinking.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:

That is what is happening.

But it appears that nothing will change unless there is understanding of exactly where thought is in place - (ie: in building a house where measurement is essential otherwise the walls will not meet) - and where thought feeds and perpetuates disaster, as in one 'self' measuring its 'self' against another 'self' to feel good about, and to feed its 'self'. The 'self' really just desires to put on a new coat and call that 'change'.

I do not find much of a glimmering of understanding the movement of thought in these forums. Rather, there seems to be a hopeful preference for some kind of cosmic/magical transformation, which requires no understanding of thought's movement at all. Wishful thinking.

Yes, wishful thinking, hope, faith and every other path of information logic that has not given humanity the wisdom/intelligence to use the devices/weapons it has created. Mind boggling, if you really ponder it deeply.
So, if there is nothing but hope/opinion/knowledge with which to engage our environment/each other, and we see clearly, as you stated clearly, that this is insufficient to the task, what will we do? Don't anyone run away from this question by thinking about it!

Randal Shacklett wrote:
So, if there is nothing but hope/opinion/knowledge with which to engage our environment/each other, and we see clearly, as you stated clearly, that this is insufficient to the task, what will we do? Don't anyone run away from this question by thinking about it!

Why do we believe we have to 'engage our environment/each other' at all? Isn't that just a movement away from addressing the very real issues that confront us?

In fact isn't that what the self is constantly doing? Finding something - anything! that will move it away from the true issues that demand facing, but that the self prefers to avoid?

All part of the movement of the self I would suggest. But that is seldom discussed on here as it is far more cozy to speculate what 'insight' is, or try to find (together! because that gives it credence perhaps?) a quick and cheap ticket to 'enlightenment'.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:
So, if there is nothing but hope/opinion/knowledge with which to engage our environment/each other, and we see clearly, as you stated clearly, that this is insufficient to the task, what will we do? Don't anyone run away from this question by thinking about it!

Why do we believe we have to 'engage our environment/each other' at all? Isn't that just a movement away from addressing the very real issues that confront us?

In fact isn't that what the self is constantly doing? Finding something - anything! that will move it away from the true issues that demand facing, but that the self prefers to avoid?

All part of the movement of the self I would suggest. But that is seldom discussed on here as it is far more cozy to speculate what 'insight' is, or try to find (together! because that gives it credence perhaps?) a quick and cheap ticket to 'enlightenment'.

Sorry Patricia, we don't live in a bubble. We must eat, find shelter, relate to others, this is life. Why do you say we needn't engage our environment/living? What other issue is more central than the inability to do that without conflict?

Randal Shacklett wrote:
We must eat, find shelter, relate to others, this is life. Why do you say we needn't engage our environment/living?

Eating, finding shelter, relating to others - this is all technical - physical, although it becomes part of the psychological when one believes one has MORE RIGHT to food and shelter than another person because one is a 'more important individual'.

One IS in relationship physically with environment/living - like it or not.

You are saying that the 'self' has to 'engage' - whereas the 'self', and the life it invents, is the very factor that interferes with all relationship. So where is the sense in demanding the blockage it'self' to 'engage' with the very thing that its invented 'being' blocks out? The only possible action is to end the blockage, which may well allow the fact (the physical/environment) to act.

To speak of 'engaging' and 'how to do it' is just the self setting up yet another dogma/authority of engagement.

The 'self' cannot right it's 'self' in that manner, as has been clearly demonstrated over eons. So why continue this useless, endless circus? Why not just see the physical fact of relationship, and understand that clinging to one's invented individuality is a myth, and the very blockage desired to go away?

How dumb is it to be isolated by psychological individuality, and then beg, desire, yearn for oneness?

No - physically we don't live in a bubble. And everything else is delusion - invented.

But the fact is one cannot go on promoting the concept of 'individuality', and at the same time desire 'oneness' from that state. Get it? :)

Have you been taking Eve's medication? ;o)
None of that has anything to do with anything I have said, that's for sure.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
None of that has anything to do with anything I have said, that's for sure.

So you close your mind to it? Have to keep the discussion on the straight and narrow? Don't wish to undermine the security of the 'self' now, do we? :)