Paul - can one understand the movement of thought without going there?
Yes Thomas-Paine - that is what occurs.
Is one’s understanding of that technical thinking? Or it may be insight - or perception.
What is it that understands the movement of thought? Not the self - too much to lose!
No…not technical thinking. Understanding comes from perception…awareness…observation…insight. Of course the self cannot understand. The self already knows and therefore can’t see/observe.
Does the question come from ‘there?’ Or does the question come from ‘here?’
You will have to answer that one Paul.
If one really does not know, can there be pre-conceived rules about where one goes or does not go, or what one looks at?
You pose the question Patricia. I simply ask where it comes from. I do not pose the question.
Of course there can be. Thought is very apt to create every kind of rule for every occasion.
Technical thought involves designing and executing, among other practical intentions, and this means that results are the object, making hope of accomplishment necessary.
1 Like
Good point. Where the self is active, all practical thought is, as you say, infused with it. Until the illusion of self is seen for what it is, its influence persists, and practical thought is not immune from that influence.
I am doing it! By now, I am sure there is no doubt that we know that the self is an illusion and the only real needs are those of the body. All my days are filled only with thoughts that have to do with tending to the body - feeding it, cleaning it, clothing it, exercising it, making sure it has enough sleep, etc… There are only two things I use thought to do that are questionable because they have nothing to do with the welfare of the body: 1. Coming here for discussion, and 2 watching movies.
Thinking - including daydreaming - is a volitional act. How can you not be aware of what you are doing? I don’t believe in the subconscious. What I cannot perceive does not exist.
What do you mean by “when the self is active”? There is only the act of thinking. There is no thinker (the one who does the thinking). When the leaf shrivels in the fall, is there a shriveler?
Psychological thought.
Yes exactly Inquiry - the results are the object.
Objective thinking. Technical thinking where the self is not involved at all. Where the psychological (self) does not intervene. It requires attention and energy to be aware of thought in its place.
Sneaky move to delete your post Paul! The logic of the encounter is now no longer here.
I did not delete any post Patricia. I made a technical mistake with a post and duplicated it by mistake, then tried to delete the first post but could not find how to do it. That is why I asked how to delete a post. Had I been able to delete the post I would not have asked how to delete it. And I think it is ill-advised to call another poster “sneaky.”
So long as the outcome of an action is uncertain then hope is part and parcel of the action. This is quite different from what I am calling ‘magical hope’ where hope IS the action or hope substitutes for the action. When hope substitutes for action, to any degree, you have tricked yourself.
Then you have my apology Paul.
1 Like
Why the apology? Was Paul psychologically hurt?
Cannot know about Paul’s psychological state Sree. No doubt he is responsible for that.
I made a wrong assumption about Paul and apologised, as a human being solely responsible for my actions.
1 Like