But that’s the same thing. You are only seeing your half of the picture.
As are you, but you act like you’re seeing all of it.
You might only be seeing half if they both mean the same thing. You recognize pauldimmock as real, but what is real besides how you define to yourself who he is?
1 Like
I think he’s saying take a look at what you are doing, not what you think he’s doing.
No, there is no picture. Where you see a picture, that’s the work of thought. Thought is saying, ‘Don’t use me’ - that’s not a picture.
Anyone acquainted with the teaching could say this.
I recognize the real words published in this forum, and who/what the words purports to represent.
That’s another picture, the Teachings. Thought is saying this, not the Teachings. Thought is saying to itself, ‘Don’t use me. Don’t use any picture.’
Does thought have to tell itself not to “use” itself, or does it simply do nothing where it is unnecessary or inappropriate?
What do you think? Tell us.
I defer to you, since telling us is your job.
That’s not fair. You can’t have it both ways. In the whole course of your life has thought ever just stopped because it is unnecessary or inappropriate?
1 Like
Do you really, already understand every word, every meaning? That would imply that there is no more inquiry, if there is no skepticism towards anything except others words/not your own.
1 Like
L who is your post referencing Inquiry, Paul…?
After reading again it’s Inquiry?
Reply was for inquiry
Then I wasn’t clear. As I said, K’s teaching is a map of territory unknown to the one reading the map. Once one knows the meaning of every symbol the map uses, one has an accurate idea of the terrain and other aspects of the territory it represents. But the territory is not an idea - it’s an actuality that is unknown until/if “there” is here, now. Does this make sense to you?
I don’t know if thought has ever stopped since I’m only aware of it when awake or dreaming lucidly, so I don’t know what you’re asking.
You posed the question:
Apparently, thought is never in the position where it simply does nothing. From thought’s perspective, it is never unnecessary or inappropriate. So can thought change its entire perspective? Can it see the truth about itself? Therefore, it is now very important for us to understand exactly what it means for thought to ‘see’. The notion of thought seeing into itself or being aware of itself - we have to tread carefully here.
Surely it can at least conclude that some habitual thought process is useless, or detrimental?
Thought often concludes erroneously, especially in human affairs. Besides, the forming of a conclusion takes time to gather up all the necessary evidence and then to arrange a watertight argument. Thought is involved in the whole process, from the gathering through to the arranging and up to the concluding.
Does attention involve thought? Or thought destroys attention. So the essence of thought is destructive. In any human relationship, thought can only ever act destructively. It can only ever assimilate or understand that which is living by taking it apart, which is a destructive process. The taking apart takes time. Attention is instant.
1 Like