To borrow from Advaita: ‘I’ is like the space in which pretty much everything arises for us.
Is there anything that does NOT arise in the I-space?
Advaita and Buddhism both say: No, all ‘arising’ is illusion.
If true, there is a clue here: Anything we perceive as arising is illusory.
(Ultimately illusory. I wouldn’t advise treating an oncoming train as illusion!)
1 Like
Thought has a place in life. It’s inaccurate or rather incomplete to say thought is the cause of our troubles. We need to think. So then we need to ask what right thinking is. And for most of us it’s about understanding wrong thinking and in its resolution coming to a place of right thinking.
J take about time, thought, the self all occurring together. But thought can also occur without these additions.
This is unclear. But the question I had was why does psychological thinking “dull” the mind and create “inaction”? That was the K statement and I wondered if anyone felt that they understood what he meant.
Incoherent thought isn’t “sharp”, and is reluctant to act.
I would make a comparison with a computer programme.
If the programme cannot distinguish between justified and unjustified information, either the programme will crash or the outcome will be unreliable.
It lacks intelligence !
Sounds legit 
Are all thoughts and experiences self centered? Am I the purpose of thought, is experience for and by me?
Constant fear/self-preoccupation dulls the mind - the brain that constantly cycles the same thought is a form of non-action, a dead end.
1 Like
So check me on this: Rather than directly observing one’s environment in the present moment, the brain has become habituated to a ‘psychological’ form of thinking. This form of thought brings the outer ‘practical’ time into the mind in the form of images of past experiences and future possibilities. Pleasant rememberances of the ‘past’ as well as painful or fearful possibilities in a ‘future’. It favors the ‘pleasant’ and does not see that the ‘painful’ is inevitable as long as psychological thought continues.
If self is the space in which everything arises, then: yes! But maybe the self=space analogy is off?
Am I the purpose of thought, is experience for and by me?
I don’t know. Some believe experience serves God, we are Its organs of experience. A lovely story!
How is the mysterious unknowable incomprehensible magnificent Flubberdub served by all this self-centered confusion?
Are you saying that as long as we feel that we are ahead on points, we might as well keep on being the excellent winners that we are?
We’ve become accepting of psychological suffering and fear as long as it doesn’t exceed a certain level. Psychological thought has created our personal reality: What happened in the past, what’s happening in the present and things that ‘might’ happen in the future. We can go back and forward in time with this form of thinking but there are consequences. It occurred to me that Nature has no memory! No memory, no reflection… just ‘movement’ forward. No going ‘back’…psychological thought puts us out of sync with the world?
Perhaps MUIMAFlubb enjoys all forms of experience equally, a qualia omnivore?
Sort of an X-dimensional voyeur, a couch potato with a multitude of TV channels? The original VR geek from the future?
Anyway, good for Him/Her/It.
I guess that IT likes to watch?
Another way to say this is that experience is wholly dependent on recognition.
Experience is based on a conclusive process. We rely exclusively on thought’s faculty of recognition to compose reality. There is rarely, if ever, a moment where the product of thought is felt to be inadequate - actually, not conclusively - as is evidenced by its un-interrupted processing of data in our minds. We thus live in a closed world, a knowable world where everything is either explained or explainable. Even if something is concluded to be unexplainable it is labeled and filed away as such. Explained as unexplainable.
Looked upon from above (figuratively speaking), a mind in a constant state of re-cognition can be said to be self-contained, non-curious, non-creative, dull, not in discovery mode. As for inaction, a classic example of that is when we conjure up ideals, postponing any real action - into a future that never manifests - by assuring ourselves that we know where we need to get to.
3 Likes