What is thought?

[Sandeep-Kuber Technologies]

What is thought?

In the absence of language (aka in a new born infant) can thought arise?

So, is word from the memory bank.......thought?

So, is thought the response of memory?

Response connotes the presence of an impacting stimuli.

If there is no impacting stimuli, is there no arising of thought?

If yes, what is then intuition?

Is intuition also a response of memory?

Is memory only the memory in a particular sentient organism or is there something like a Universal memory constantly getting added and
getting carried through genetic legacy?

In the absence of memory, can there be thought?

Or is memory itself the thought about memory?

If memory is the thought of memory and thought is a response of memory.......then is thought ....

....the thought of something called as thought?

[Rodger]

'In the absence of language (aka in a new born infant) can thought
arise?'

In the absence of thought can language arise?


PS: new born infant???





On Dec 4, 12:36 pm, Sandeep-Kuber Technologies

[Rodger]

'Response connotes the presence of an impacting stimuli'.

Life awakened to itself and ever since has been wondering who the fuck
woke it up.

"There was a movement in consciousness"(Balsekar),and Bozo said,'who
dat?'.
And,who dat said,'who dat who said who dat?'.

Ever eat jalapenos?

On Dec 4, 12:36 pm, Sandeep-Kuber Technologies
<kubertechnolog...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Bob1357]

Seven questions in one post.
I'll toss my two cents in on one of them.

"So, is thought the response of memory?"

Thought can only come from bits and pieces of memory.
The brain comes up with concepts by taking bits and pieces of
information from stored conscious or unconscious memory and rearranges
these bits and pieces to form a concept.
Take a young innocent child's new concept of almost anything the
little one is conjuring up.
It is a young child's innocent concept you get, because there is not
enough memory stored to create anything more.
Some may argue that this is due to maturity.

[Rodger]

'What is thought?'...is thought.

Whoa!who dat?
Who dat aksing?

> > > ....the thought of something called as thought?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Richard]

I don't know what thought is. Could it be a brain hiccup?

Whatever it is it is limited and comes and goes. Therefore "it ain't
me babe", not in MY unlimited totality.

[empty2]

How's this: thought arises simultaneously and indivisibly with the
idea that there is someone to think. The first thought may well think
'Shall I think?'..... which of course is already too late - or is
there in fact a moment of choice - to abort the whole process - a
thought to end all thought? Who knows? God knows..... or probably not.

On the other hand, this process, thoughts and memory and all the rest
of it are nothing but sky appearing as sky, so where does the idea of
'appearance' come from? That's a silly question because it doesn't
come from anywhere. And that's all there is to it.

In reference to another thread talking about a sense of humor -
there's nothing going on here at all - and that's the biggest laugh of
all!

On Dec 5, 2:36 am, Sandeep-Kuber Technologies

[empty2]

Hi Richard,

>"Whatever it is it is limited and comes and goes. Therefore "it ain't
me babe", not in MY unlimited totality."

- just interested to know just what IS in your unlimited totality...
anything that doesn't come and go?

PS If it's YOUR unlimited totality.... can I buy it off you? Wanna buy
MINE? Hey, maybe we could merge and double its size!

>"it ain't me babe",

"...it ain't ME you're looking for, babe". :)

[Rodger]

'Thought arises simultaneously and indivisibly with
the idea'.

:)

How's this? Thought is.

The biggest laugh of all is the the thought that there is nothing
going on.

[Richard]

Ah. Another Dylanophile (unless you heard it on Johnny Cash's cover).

Reminds me: Cash and Dylan were friends. Dylan was having a meal at
Cash's house with several of Cash's relatives. They passed a pork dish
to Dylan, who refused it. "How come you don't eat pork?", one of the
relatives asked. "Well", said Dylan, "pork is half dog, half cat, and
half rat". They all had a good laugh at this.

Anything that can't been perceived or conceived, somewhere over the
rainbow, that's where you'll find ME.

But sure MT, take all you want. It can't diminish.

[Rodger]

'I don't know what thought is'...is thought.

[empty2]

...interesting thought, Rodger!

Or should that be, 'Rodger - interesting thought'?

> > me babe", not in MY unlimited totality.- Hide quoted text -

[empty2]

Yup.... bringin it all back home.....right now,

When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.....

[Rodger]

Interesting thought,Rodger,or Rodger - interesting thought,is
thought.Thought is thought.
My wife says the question,what is thought,is a stupid thought.
I said,stupid is a thought.
She said,let's watch a movie.
I said,let's fuck.
She said...stupid!!!

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Ram]

Nice... Time to dance? I only know how to one-step.


What is thought?

- movement in consciousness, of consciousness, as consciousness. Also,
Vayu only.

In the absence of language (aka in a new born infant) can thought
arise?

- As a new born infant is nothing other than consciousness, movement
in consciousness can appear as the thought of a baby, or the dementia
of an elder. Just a thought...

So, is word from the memory bank.......thought?

- Aum comes before thought, afterwards word and thought arise
spontaneously as siamese twins from nothing. Perhaps a more pertinent
question is "What is memory, and is there any such thing as a memory
bank?" I can see that the habit energy of the mind's assertions can
seem to create what appears to be memory, but isn't another word for
memory simply imagination?

Classic vedandata proposes that there are four main bodies or
coverings on the Self. The physical body which everyone is familiar
with, The subtle body, which is a collective of the assertive
qualityof mind (manas), thoughts or mental chatter (chitta), the
intellect which is capable of higher and lower reasoning (buddhi), the
sense organs and the objects of the senses, the pranas, and lastly,
the pride in oneself or one's actions or possessions (aham, commonly
called ego in this context),. All of these make up the subtle body.
THe third body classically referred to is the causal body (karana-
deha). It is called the causal body because it is the cause of the
world and the previous two bodies. The analogy that I like to point to
this is that of the curtain on the stage of a theatrical production.
All of the motion and activity and drama all comes out from that place
that is behind the curtain, and it all disappears back into that same
place. This causal body is really ignorance and is often compared to
deep-sleep. This causal body is the two-sided coin knowledge (vidya)
and ignorance (avidya). The whole world (all thoughts) emerge from the
place of forgetfulness. It is forgetfulness of the Self, ingorance of
the Self. It is also knowledge of the world and of objects. This it is
said that knowledge is the greatest ignorance, because all take it bo
be true.

So, is thought the response of memory?

- No. Thought is only the stirring of consciousness. Playing with
itself as Rodger says.

Response connotes the presence of an impacting stimuli.

- Dream response connotes the presence of the dream concept of an

impacting stimuli.


If there is no impacting stimuli, is there no arising of thought?

- No. In the Space, the wind stirs. The Space does nothing. It takes
no touch of any appearance in itself. Is the motion of the wind the
volition of the Space? "I Am" is the original wind that stirs in the
still silence. It would seem that the stirring itself is the stimuli
of the thought. Without motion, where is there any thought?

If yes, what is then intuition?

- A concept? If no, a concept.

Is intuition also a response of memory?

- The word intuition has various meanings. It can be sometimes used in
the way that you often use apperception, or it can be used to connote
a sense of having a particular feeling about something even in you
don't know it is actually the case. It can also be used in a manner to
convey other than ordinary sense that something may happen or may have
happened. I don't see that intuition is a response to memory in the
first to cases, but may well be in the latter case.

Is memory only the memory in a particular sentient organism or is
there
something like a Universal memory constantly getting added and
getting carried through genetic legacy?

- Probably both. Nuances of a longer or shorter dream.

In the absence of memory, can there be thought?

- Is the original thought "I Am" a product of memory, or is memory a
product of "I Am"?

Prior to the notion of beingness or "I Am," or after the disappearance
of the notion of "I Am," there is an absence of any notion or
statement of beingness, so what can be said about memory from that
perspective? In the absence of thought, can there be any memory?

Or is memory itself the thought about memory?

Thought is memory, memory is thought. This is your experience, no? I
think that it is not so important the content of thought, be it
memory, emotions, analysis, whatever, that to recognize, understand,
and become attuned (for lack of a better word) with the origination
and dissolution of thought, while not becoming fascinated with the
objective and instead knowing the knower of the knower and the known.

If memory is the thought of memory and thought is a response of
memory.......then is thought ....


....the thought of something called as thought?

It's whatever it's called by whomever is saying that it is the way
that a thing would be if a thing were to be.

[Sandeep-Kuber Technologies]

Bob1357 wrote:

Seven questions in one post.
I'll toss my two cents in on one of them.
"So, is thought the response of memory?"

Thought can only come from bits and pieces of memory.
  

So in the absence of memory........there is no thought?

And is memory the thought of something as memory?

[Sandeep-Kuber Technologies]

empty2 wrote:

How's this: thought arises simultaneously and indivisibly with the
idea that there is someone to think.

Sure.

But what is it that arises?

 The first thought may well think
'Shall I think?'..... which of course is already too late - or is
there in fact a moment of choice - to abort the whole process - a
thought to end all thought? Who knows? God knows..... or probably not.

On the other hand, this process, thoughts and memory and all the rest
of it are nothing but sky appearing as sky, so where does the idea of
'appearance' come from? That's a silly question because it doesn't
come from anywhere. And that's all there is to it.

In reference to another thread talking about a sense of humor -
there's nothing going on here at all - and that's the biggest laugh of
all!
  

:-)

[Sandeep-Kuber Technologies]

Hey Ram

Ram wrote:

Nice... Time to dance? I only know how to one-step.


What is thought?

- movement in consciousness, of consciousness, as consciousness. Also,
Vayu only.
  

Yes.

But this movement in C, of C, as C.......what exactly is the nature of the movement?

Firing of billions of neurons and gilial cells..........produces what?

Information?

Without words, what is information?

The term Vayu (air currents ) is interesting.

When water is boiled .....at a certain level of chaos(at the molecular level)created by impacting and inputting of energy.....convection currents carry and dissipate the heat energy.

At the molecular or sub-atomic level it's all random chaos........but the billions of energized molecules synchronize to form smooth convection currents.

Energized neurons and gilial cells which while remaining in total chaos ..

does a intrinsic synchronousness....create  thought currents?

To dissipate information?
 
And the invested energy either perpetuates a single thought, or abruptly ceases it?



At the macros level, since there is nothing, no object which is nothing but thought of it...

.... whether it is Rodger wanting to fuck while seeking a movie or one the biggest super-nova which just recently burst with a glare of 500 Suns....

...is it a play of chaos and synchronization?

In the absence of language (aka in a new born infant) can thought
arise?

- As a new born infant is nothing other than consciousness, movement
in consciousness can appear as the thought of a baby, or the dementia
of an elder.

Sure.

Which is why, whatever perceived whether physical, mental or emotional....
....are mere thought-forms, depending on you for their continuing existence.

Right from the beloved wifey, to the most profound Advaitic premise.

But the question was......can thought arise in the new born infant as it perceives its world.

Or does the new born infant have no "its' world" before thought appears?

In which case is thought dependent on the learning of vocabulary, through which an experience is definable
and thus recordable?

 Just a thought...


So, is word from the memory bank.......thought?

- Aum comes before thought, afterwards word and thought arise
spontaneously as siamese twins from nothing. Perhaps a more pertinent
question is "What is memory, and is there any such thing as a memory
bank?" I can see that the habit energy of the mind's assertions can
seem to create what appears to be memory, but isn't another word for
memory simply imagination?
  

Imagination needs words.

Otherwise........ how will it be cognized as imagination?

Aum coming before thought......is that not thought constructing the premise as so?

Classic vedandata proposes that there are four main bodies or
coverings on the Self. The physical body which everyone is familiar
with, The subtle body, which is a collective of the assertive
qualityof mind (manas), thoughts or mental chatter (chitta), the
intellect which is capable of higher and lower reasoning (buddhi), the
sense organs and the objects of the senses, the pranas, and lastly,
the pride in oneself or one's actions or possessions (aham, commonly
called ego in this context),. All of these make up the subtle body.
THe third body classically referred to is the causal body (karana-
deha). It is called the causal body because it is the cause of the
world and the previous two bodies. The analogy that I like to point to
this is that of the curtain on the stage of a theatrical production.
All of the motion and activity and drama all comes out from that place
that is behind the curtain, and it all disappears back into that same
place. This causal body is really ignorance and is often compared to
deep-sleep. This causal body is the two-sided coin knowledge (vidya)
and ignorance (avidya). The whole world (all thoughts) emerge from the
place of forgetfulness. It is forgetfulness of the Self, ingorance of
the Self. It is also knowledge of the world and of objects. This it is
said that knowledge is the greatest ignorance, because all take it bo
be true.
  

The entirety of classical Vedanta.......including the allegories given above....

....can there be an independent existence of it all........without the thought of it?


Seeing that the formulating of the very question is thought-at-play.....

......what is  that which is not of thought?
 


.

So, is thought the response of memory?

- No. Thought is only the stirring of consciousness. Playing with
itself as Rodger says.
  

Thought can never play with itself.

Response connotes the presence of an impacting stimuli.

- Dream response connotes the presence of the dream concept of an
impacting stimuli.
  

Sure.

Awake or dream........there is no difference.

The point was ......a response connotes the presence of an impacting stimuli....
....something which impacts and creates a chaos.

Out of that chaos is the response.

Whether in the sleep dream drama or awake dream drama.

Whether the response is a sneeze or the birth of a galaxy.

If there is no impacting stimuli, is there no arising of thought?

- No. In the Space, the wind stirs.

The stirring of the wind  in Space is an impacted phenomenon.

Just like the boiling of water

 The Space does nothing. It takes
no touch of any appearance in itself. Is the motion of the wind the
volition of the Space? "I Am" is the original wind that stirs in the
still silence. It would seem that the stirring itself is the stimuli
of the thought. Without motion, where is there any thought?
  

What is motion(absence of it or presence of it), what is the stirred wind, what is the sense of the "I AM".....

....if not mere thoughts?

If yes, what is then intuition?

- A concept? If no, a concept.


Is intuition also a response of memory?

- The word intuition has various meanings. It can be sometimes used in
the way that you often use apperception, or it can be used to connote
a sense of having a particular feeling about something even in you
don't know it is actually the case. It can also be used in a manner to
convey other than ordinary sense that something may happen or may have
happened. I don't see that intuition is a response to memory in the
first to cases, but may well be in the latter case.
  

The question was whether intuition was a response of memory....... not a response to memory.

If intuition is taken to be the sudden knowing of what was erstwhile not in the memory bank....

..then what is it?

Can there be a cognition of such a knowing?

This knowing, can it be in the field of the known?

Is memory only the memory in a particular sentient organism or is
there
something like a Universal memory constantly getting added and
getting carried through genetic legacy?

- Probably both. Nuances of a longer or shorter dream.

In the absence of memory, can there be thought?

- Is the original thought "I Am" a product of memory, or is memory a
product of "I Am"?
  

Is originality anything more than the thought of originality?
(Which hardly makes it original)

Is not the sense of "I Am" ........a learned sense of presence?

Prior to the notion of beingness or "I Am," or after the disappearance
of the notion of "I Am," there is an absence of any notion or
statement of beingness, so what can be said about memory from that
perspective? In the absence of thought, can there be any memory?
  

OK

So what is happening in that gurgling new born infant?

Or is memory itself the thought about memory?

Thought is memory, memory is thought. This is your experience, no? I
think that it is not so important the content of thought, be it
memory, emotions, analysis, whatever, that to recognize, understand,
and become attuned (for lack of a better word) with the origination
and dissolution of thought, while not becoming fascinated with the
objective and instead knowing the knower of the knower and the known.
  

All these Vedantic bromides .............are they not  mere thoughtings?
(Not that Islamic or Buddhist or Advaitic ones...are any different)



That there is a relative pecking order between the content of thought......

.....and to know the knower of the knower and the known.....


....this very differentiation and the disparate contents creating the differentiations.....

....is thought.


So seeing that the very positing of the question is thought.........what is not of thought.

If memory is the thought of memory and thought is a response of
memory.......then is thought ....


....the thought of something called as thought?


It's whatever it's called by whomever is saying that it is the way
that a thing would be if a thing were to be.
  

LOL

[empty2]

>"But what is it that arises?"

Are you asking for a name, Sandeep?

Yours sounds pretty good to me........ 'light' - that which is seen
only in the objects it illumines,

in this case, the simultaneous thought/idea of an arising and an
unarisen.

...in other words, the Tango, but dancing in the middle of nowhere.

Or maybe we can think of a name together that's never been thought of
before.... that should solve it!




On Dec 5, 2:23 pm, Sandeep-Kuber Technologies

[Sandeep-Kuber Technologies]

:-)




empty2 wrote:

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AdvaitaNow" group.
To post to this group, send email to advai...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to advaitanow+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/advaitanow?hl=en.



  

[Richard]

On Dec 5, 7:39 am, empty2 <pldre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"But what is it that arises?"
>
> Are you asking for a name, Sandeep?
>
> Yours sounds pretty good to me........ 'light' - that which is seen
> only in the objects it illumines,
>
> in this case, the simultaneous thought/idea of an arising and an
> unarisen.
>
> ...in other words, the Tango, but dancing in the middle of nowhere.
>
> Or maybe we can think of a name together that's never been thought of
> before.... that should solve it!

Smerdlump?

[Bob1357]

<So in the absence of memory........there is no thought?
And is memory the thought of something as memory?>

Yes, I believe both to be true.

On Dec 5, 12:21 am, Sandeep-Kuber Technologies

[Ram]

More word stuff... I tried to answer every question with a question,
but didn't quite succeed.

Tried to keep it short, so probably not too good for those short on
time or attention span.
I don't really like reading the answer/response format much myself so
I tried to snip out a lot of the redundancy.

> But this movement in C, of C, as C.......what exactly is the nature of
> the movement?

Depends upon perspective, no? From the perspective of the individual,
it is mundane life or at most and experiencing of "cosmic
consciousness" or even Shiva consciousness.

Nothing else can be found but the splendor of this Life-energy,
Chaitanya. Even hung over.

> Firing of billions of neurons and gilial cells..........produces what?
>
> Information?

Thoughts? Ignorance? Knowledge? The imagination of "Firing of billions
of neurons and gilial cells" (thank goodness for cut and paste) as
something that is?

> Without words, what is information?

Nothing.

> The term Vayu (air currents ) is interesting.

> When water is boiled .....at a certain level of chaos(at the molecular
> level)created by impacting and inputting of energy.....convection
> currents carry and dissipate the heat energy.

> At the molecular or sub-atomic level it's all random chaos........but
> the billions of energized molecules synchronize to form smooth
> convection currents.

Yes, good examples of the co-intermingling of the five elements.

>
> Energized neurons and gilial cells which while remaining in total chaos ..

Chaos or perfect harmony, perhaps syncronicity?

> does a intrinsic synchronousness....create thought currents?

What else? From the sky the typhoon comes and creates dream chaos and
then returns to the sky. Same way with thought. If AN intrinsic
synchronousness(did you invent that? if we use it 5 times we can
propose that it officially be include in the English dictionary.) were
presumed to exist.


> To dissipate information?

Some things will probably always remain a mystery, but from my
investigation, I can only say that the product of the movement seems
to be a two sided coin, yin/yang, purusha/prakruti, pleasure/pain,
good/bad, ignorance and Knowledge(jnana). For information to
dissipate, it must dissipate to someone/something, no? Thus, the term
"a movement in C, of C, as C," for lack of a better term.

> And the invested energy either perpetuates a single thought, or abruptly
> ceases it?

Only if imagined to be so. no? Otherwise, what exactly is perpetuated
or ceased, anytime? We can speak of energy in tainted or untainted
forms, but these are only pointers. When the Life-energy is one, where
does the life-energy come or go?

> At the macros level, since there is nothing, no object which is nothing
> but thought of it...

Yes, thought only. Also at the micro level, no?

> snip...

> ...is it a play of chaos and synchronization?

THese are only more empty labels placed upon nothing, no? If one says
no, then that is not seeing with the eye of oneness.

> > In the absence of language (aka in a new born infant) can thought
> > arise?
>
> > - As a new born infant is nothing other than consciousness, movement
> > in consciousness can appear as the thought of a baby, or the dementia
> > of an elder.
>
> Sure.
>
> Which is why, whatever perceived whether physical, mental or emotional....
> ....are mere thought-forms, depending on you for their continuing existence.

Yes, thought only. Depending upon nothing, and which can never have
any real continuing existence.

> Right from the beloved wifey, to the most profound Advaitic premise.
>
> But the question was......can thought arise in the new born infant as it
> perceives its world.

Oh yeah, there was question in there somewhere.

Can thought be kept from arising with an infant's perception of the
world? The two are co-dependent.

> Or does the new born infant have no "its' world" before thought appears?

It's a matter of perspective and what one is calling the individual.
This starts to get into a subtle topic about the momentum of habitual
thought patterns and desires. From one perspective, nothing is ever
born (or ever dies). Full stop!

Ok, for those that ignore the full stop, Without this understanding,
there is mis-identification with the ephemeral.

> In which case is thought dependent on the learning of vocabulary,
> through which an experience is definable
> and thus recordable?

snip

> Imagination needs words.
>
> Otherwise........ how will it be cognized as imagination?
>
> Aum coming before thought......is that not thought constructing the
> premise as so?

Om is thought, but prior to vocabulary. This is obvious, no? Can
thought be separated from imagination? What is key is what is able to
cognize imagination. All the cognizing and cognizer is just knowledge
of one degree or another.


> > Classic vedandata proposes....it is

> > said that knowledge is the greatest ignorance, because all take it bo
> > be true.
>
> The entirety of classical Vedanta.......including the allegories given
> above....
>
> ....can there be an independent existence of it all........without the
> thought of it?

Nope. Just another category of thoughts, or school of thought, if you
like. Just thoughts. However, thoughts are of different caliber. I
think even the simpleton can see that the quality of all thought and
even the vibratory energy of all thoughts are not the same. For
example the vibratory quality of the thought of OM is quite different
in quality than the thought of belly-shots down at the local strip
club.

> Seeing that the formulating of the very question is thought-at-play.....
>
> ......what is that which is not of thought?

Aha! I think I was asking this question when I was asking "How to know
the non-conceptual?"

It cannot be spoken in words. Only pointed to. However, thankfully
there has been knowledge that has been passed down which is of a
timeless nature. What to say about thoughts (or schools of thought)
that can reveal the "experience" (for lack of a better term) of
"thoughtless existence." This goes beyond mere belief, and really
speaks to experiential understanding. So, from one perspective it is
thought making up Reality, and from another perspective it is thought
as an expression or reflection of Reality.

> > So, is thought the response of memory?
>
> > - No. Thought is only the stirring of consciousness. Playing with
> > itself as Rodger says.
>
> Thought can never play with itself.

Agreed, that is just a thought. I meant that consciousness is playing
with itself in the form of thought. But you know that already.

Huh? What happened? Nothing.

> The point was ......a response connotes the presence of an impacting
> stimuli....
> ....something which impacts and creates a chaos.
>
> Out of that chaos is the response.
>
> Whether in the sleep dream drama or awake dream drama.
>
> Whether the response is a sneeze or the birth of a galaxy.

Or the flapping of a butterfries wings in Brazil causing a hurricane
for Florida. What a minute, are they even on the same ocean?

> The stirring of the wind in Space is an impacted phenomenon.
>
> Just like the boiling of water

No, how it the same? Water intermingling with air and fire is the
boiling of water. The stirring of the wind happens spontaneously,
before any other element has influence. This can be seen with minute
observation.

The stirring of wind in space is a very different analogy. IMO, this
is one of the best analogies for the arising of thought. First there
was no movement, then there was, then there wasn't. Wind or Vayu is
dependent upon the space, but the space is not dependent or affected
by the wind. Same with Self (Atman) and thought.

> What is motion(absence of it or presence of it), what is the stirred
> wind, what is the sense of the "I AM".....
>
> ....if not mere thoughts?

Yes, thought of the Self, or a movement of c in c as c.

> > If yes, what is then intuition?
>
> > - A concept? If no, a concept.
>
> > Is intuition also a response of memory?

snip

> The question was whether intuition was a response of memory....... not a
> response to memory.
>
> If intuition is taken to be the sudden knowing of what was erstwhile not
> in the memory bank....
>
> ..then what is it?

Again, it depends upon one's perspective. And, what is it that was not
previously known?

Nothing, or samadhi will not ever be in the memory bank except for as
a memory, but is that to say that this cannot be understood,
experienced, or realized? Of course it can't, but it can.

> Can there be a cognition of such a knowing?
>
> This knowing, can it be in the field of the known?

This is where sometimes the English language fails me. I dare say,
yes, there is a knowing that is not int he field of the known, and not
in the realm of "knowing.'

> > In the absence of memory, can there be thought?

Co-dependent. Memory of what? "I exist" without the words.

> > - Is the original thought "I Am" a product of memory, or is memory a
> > product of "I Am"?
>
> Is originality anything more than the thought of originality?
> (Which hardly makes it original)

Isn't it the nature of thought that it has a beginning and ending? If
there is something called a thought, it originates from somewhere
right? Only thought can say, but what it says isn't reliable.

> Is not the sense of "I Am" ........a learned sense of presence?

Did you really say that? ;~)

From where did you learn, "I exist"? From thoughts? From where did
thoughts learn it?
Which came first? Whichever is being called first, no doubt.

> > Prior to the notion of beingness or "I Am," or after the disappearance
> > of the notion of "I Am," there is an absence of any notion or
> > statement of beingness, so what can be said about memory from that
> > perspective? In the absence of thought, can there be any memory?
>
> OK
>
> So what is happening in that gurgling new born infant?

From whose perspective? What was born? Really, what exactly was born?

> > Or is memory itself the thought about memory?

Depends upon what is being remembered, no? Remembering the Self can be
expressed in thoughts and thoughts can be used as a springboard into
thoughtlessness, so to speak. Perhaps Self-remembrance is a different
type of memory than what yuo are speaking of.

> > Thought is memory, memory is thought. This is your experience, no?...

>
> All these Vedantic bromides .............are they not mere thoughtings?
> (Not that Islamic or Buddhist or Advaitic ones...are any different)

Yes, all thoughts, but again, not all of the same caliber.

> That there is a relative pecking order between the content of thought......

This can easily be discerned for oneself. Who would not prefer a tasty
meal over some foul dish? There are countless examples of a relative
pecking order. Intellect is naturaly functioning without much need for
a driver when it comes to selecting what is of a greater or lesser
quality on a relative level.

> .....and to know the knower of the knower and the known.....
>
> ....this very differentiation and the disparate contents creating the
> differentiations.....
>
> ....is thought.

Yes, it is a thought. An expression. What I say is not true. Yet, what
we are speaking of is not limited to the words or thoughts that are
being exchanged. Or squiggly lines appearing and disappearing on the
screen between openings and closings of the laptop.

> So seeing that the very positing of the question is thought.........what
> is not of thought.

Nothing.

> > If memory is the thought of memory and thought is a response of
> > memory.......then is thought ....
>
> > ....the thought of something called as thought?

What else?

Dancing the word dance.

Proof that it only takes one to tango.

Sorry, but I lost track between the questions and answers.

If you made it this far MT, I've enjoyed reading your posts. Good
stuff.

[empty2]

Well, hi Ram,

I'm not sure if I'm being addressed here or not. I understood this
conversation was between you and Sandeep although there may indeed not
be so much difference between us except when he's had one or two many
tequilas.... :)

I did manage to get to the end of your post.... just... and I'm glad
you've enjoyed reading my posts... or were they Sandeep's? Personally,
I would hesitate to get caught up in so much detail as for me it would
inevitably involve a considerable dose of speculation in a realm where
even the slightest utterance negates its own validity.

Nevertheless, I would be reluctant to suggest that there is a
'knowing' that is not in the field of the known, and not in the realm
of "knowing".......where the I to know or be interested to know has
faded away, so to speak. 'Who' indeed would not prefer a tasty meal
over some foul dish? Any guesses?

Whatever. In the final analysis, thought is thought, no matter the
'quality' - quality being only of interest to the thinker
thereof...... itself a thought, and round and round we go again.

>"If there is something called a thought, it originates from somewhere right?"

Really? Where might that be, I wonder?

It only takes one to tango? - You'd have to be a master of illusion
for that to be any fun..... playing both parts at the same time.....
being and non-being..... but neither nor different, just imagine!

[Rodger]

I thought,thought I...

well,if E2 can butt in,so can I.

Ram said,if there is such a thing as thought,it originates from
somewhere.And,E2 wonders...really,from where?

Am I being just plain stupid to suggest that thought originates from
you,as you?
E2,do you have reason for the thought that thought originates from
elsewhere than you?

Ram,did writing that post give you a hangover?

> > > > - A- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[Rodger]

It's said Man is created in the image of God.
What is 'image'?
And,if the word Consciousness was used instead of the word "God',what
wonderings would that produce for you?

It's also said that in the beginning was the word and the word was
'God'.

What is 'word'? Is it an outloud thought...an attachment or add on to
thought?

Is thought an add on to 'image'?

> > > No, how it the same? Water intermingling with air and fire is the- Hide quoted text -

[empty2]

Hi Rodger,

I didn't really butt in..... Ram addresses me at the end of 'read
more>>' at the end of his post.

Now then..... ok, thought originates from you, as you....... so in
this case, you are thought and thought originates from thought..... in
other words what is - is, and there's no cause or origination to be
found....... kinda like I said.

... or is there some other 'you' that 'you' as thought, appearing as
separate, originates from?

... in which case, please define that 'you' - if you can - other than
by saying it's 'you' that does the defining while itself remaining
undefined, - in which case thought either is or originates from the
'undefined'..... which is, again, kinda what I was alluding to.

By insisting on the use of the name 'you' for everything........
nothing at all is, in fact, indicated or pointed at, because whatever
anything appears as, it is only 'you', which, in having the capacity
to be every form, has no specific identity of its own.

So, by way of giving you a big hug, and saving you the trouble......
let me say - yes, everything is you and you are everything.

:)

> > > No, how it the same? Water intermingling with air and fire is the- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

Just being my usual cute little self,E2.It's a public forum.

Thought originates from,as consciousness...which you are.
The point of origin is awakening.

> > > > there has been knowledge that has been- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

Upon awakening,it is natural to wonder who/what has awakened you.
But,in reality you have actually only rolled over in your
sleep.And,that rolling over is what woke you up.

The invention of something else waking you up is the rising of the
dream.

> > > > > even the vibratory energy of all thoughts are not the- Hide quoted text -

[empty2]

Wouldn't wish it otherwise, Rodger.

>Thought originates from,as consciousness...which you are.

....names for the nameless...

>The point of origin is awakening.

I like this, and indeed perhaps names originate from, as the
nameless.... then why have names at all, and what has truly been
originated?

Re. your other post, the making of 'images' by/of god or consciousness
(I like that) always sounds like 'imagination' or indeed, 'wonderings'
to me.

Truly speaking, an image can only be just that - an image..... never
the reality it's supposed to represent.

A word, of course, is a name...... just another 'image' - (not the
thing itself).... a bit like 'you' or 'consciousness' really.

> > > > > even the vibratory energy of all thoughts are not the- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

Ok...names for the nameless.
But,names from the nameless,too.
The nameless naming itself.
Who else to do that?

And as it is imaged,so it is named...and so it is.

All is appearance...images...imagining...imagination.

Yes,the image can only be just that...just 'That'.Just that which
images.Without any division or separation...except as imagined.In
other words,the image is the thing itself.
The thing itself may imagine some other thing imagining,but that is
just the imagination of the thing itself,from the thing itself,as the
thing itself.

Standing in front of a mirror,you may say that the image you see is
not really you,but try reflecting an image that is not you.

> > > > > > > Otherwise........ how will it be cognized as- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

Oh,I forgot...why have names at all?

With so many images running around,seems better to give each a
name.Seems better than 'hey you' for all images.

> > read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Ram]

"If there is something called a thought,"...

Co-interdendent simultaneous spontaneous arising and dissolution. Of
Nothing.

Nope, no hangover, I drank two tall glasses of water afterwards before
going to bed. Works almost every time. It doesn't matter to me who
butts in, or cuts in, since we're dancing.

I thought it was a good topic and it was more enjoyable than watching
tv, so fingers were moving across keyboard. Blah, blah, blah....

MT wrote:

"It only takes one to tango? - You'd have to be a master of illusion
for that to be any fun..... playing both parts at the same time.....
being and non-being..... but neither nor different, just imagine!"

Ironic that it can't even be imagined, yet also only imagination.

"in a realm where even the slightest utterance negates its own
validity."

LOL. In the realm of thought no doubt?

"Nevertheless, I would be reluctant to suggest that there is a
'knowing' that is not in the field of the known, and not in the realm
of "knowing".......where the I to know or be interested to know has
faded away, so to speak."

Yes, perhaps a topic for another thread. Perhanps knowing is not
really a good word to be used when trying to speak about the
unknowable. Yet, considering that thought and its subject co-arise,
which means they also dissolve, something which isn't any thing,
remains. This can be realized by no one.