What Insights Have You Experienced?

[Cahoot]

I disagree that there is only "I Am" without thought, because the two are inherently connected. Without thought, there is only indiscernible, undelineated nature. Being exists only where it is discerned to be.

Does discerning require thought?

A month ago I had to be on a crowded beach. Wall-to-wall flesh baking in the sun. I noticed that the individuals in the great mass never came into contact with one another. Individuals within close proximity to one another somehow managed to mill about, to move, to dig in the sand, to splash and boogie-board, without touching one another, and they didn’t even have to think about it.

In such a situation, any touching was likely preceded by thought.

I doubt if birds think about not touching one another while in flight.

[Russell Parr]

I disagree that there is only "I Am" without thought, because the two are inherently connected. Without thought, there is only indiscernible, undelineated nature. Being exists only where it is discerned to be.

Does discerning require thought?

A month ago I had to be on a crowded beach. Wall-to-wall flesh baking in the sun. I noticed that the individuals in the great mass never came into contact with one another. Individuals within close proximity to one another somehow managed to mill about, to move, to dig in the sand, to splash and boogie-board, without touching one another, and they didn’t even have to think about it.

In such a situation, any touching was likely preceded by thought.

I doubt if birds think about not touching one another while in flight.

What you are describing is the ability to carry out selfish functions in conjunction with sensations of environment. This I would describe as a mundane level of thinking that can be observed in plants, animals, robots, and humans operating at a subconscious level. This isn't quite the thinking involved in discerning abstract things like 'being' or 'self.'

It all comes down to definitions, essentially. What constitutes "thinking" differs upon the subject at hand and objects involved. For example, magnets repel north pole to north and attract north to south perfectly without any thinking involved. The truth is, at the causal level, all things function this way, even thinking itself.

The main point I'm getting at in my quote above is that all things, abstract and physical, are carved out of reality by discernment, no matter how mundane the act of discernment is. (Discernment isn't quite the right word here by its definition; demarcation is a better fit.)

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Moreover, what is the physical world other than what our senses inform us? I think this is what you were hinting at in reference to Mind. The more you investigate into the source of what we gather to be 'physical reality,' the further inward you have to look (physical reality can only be what we gather it to be). In a sense, 'Mind' is the only thing that creates reality via experience, with physical reality being a subcategory of experience.

Awareness expanding without end in every direction at once, sort of like the universe, describes the inner becoming the outer, and within that awareness is direct observation of mind creating a vision of the world as it unfolds. Because it unfolds new every moment, it holds captive total attention, and this leaves no opening for reflective thought, or thought of reflective thought. The ordinary becomes extraordinary only in retrospect. Within the unfolding world the experience is of creating the witnessed vision, of creating all that is unfolding simultaneously and also prior, of being one with one’s creation, of witnessing one’s creation.

However, at the altitude of the physical, to think through what I was hinting at in a way so that others may understand, as encouraged to do by Diebert, based on reception of transmissions:

Based on limited knowledge of physicality, there is a point within sitting meditation practice, that can be repeated, where the first movement of mind is in the visual cortex rather than conceptual thought. When the senses have detached from awareness, the first drop of stimulation in response to the experience of emptiness, unfiltered by thought or judgement, can be stimulation of the visual cortex.

When movement of mind begins as a stimulation of the visual cortex, with all senses detached from awareness … with total amnesia of identity, place, time, without any thought to determine these things and without any other thought, when thus disconnected from conceptual thought the world can appear visually in a way that I have not ever heard others describe, and details of this world do not change.

This experience of the world, which in ways is like the world observed with eyes, remains more fixed than what is observed with physical eyes that are unaffected by drugs, or affected by drugs. A comparison of the steadiness of vision is one of those magic-eye paintings. At first you can’t see the hidden image at all, and then when you breakthrough and see it, it is as steady as an unthinking rock, even though your eyes move to examine details.

We could call this knowing a world without inference.

When you consider that I Am is true, and all else is inference, then inferences of the world without inference can be made.

After the experience, amnesia vanishes, thoughts appear, illusions appear, inference appears, soon one is walkin and talkin and doin the dance in a colorful world that is both arbitrary and inevitable.

I don’t know if this can be repeated with the drugs, as Diebert references. One of the conditions required to delineate movements in consciousness is subtlety of mind, and ingesting concentrates of plants distilled by man can weave a self-contained Faraday cage of experience around awareness, a cage that comes and goes until it no longer goes, which I think is the escapism that Diebert mentions.

Is this an experience you are familiar with? I think what you're describing is something each of us have experienced to one degree or another. A dropping off of 'distraction' so to speak which allows a very different perspective which is more or less detached from pre-conceived ideas.

The most important thing that I've taken from every single insight, idea, meditation and discussion I've ever had is a deeper recognition and awareness of our tendency to grasp onto whatever we believe holds substance at the time. From the hyper-complexity of the academic mind as described by David Quinn, to the certainty of the belief in god, to the authority of a scientific leader, to a deeper experience of the mind, to a belief in ones eternal nature.

There is truly only one thing I know outside of the mundane observation/prediction sort of knowledge (which is a category I would fit the above paragraph into).

That our beliefs, ideas, and concepts reveal absolutely nothing about truth itself, that such truth is what remains and is revealed as certainty when we are no longer grasping. Akin to the "I Am" experience, or the insight of eternal nature.

This knowledge leaves me as a sort of hard out skeptic toward the expression of universal knowledge. All too often I see the overlooked implication of such grand universal knowledge through the assumption of the validity of seemingly simple statements, such as

the first drop of stimulation in response to the experience of emptiness, unfiltered by thought or judgement, can be stimulation of the visual cortex.

I see this sentence as having implied a number of philosophical assumptions, in the same way that one might state with unwavering belief that when the body dies their existence will end, having completely overlooked the fundamental philosophical reasoning (that should be) needed for such a statement.

Even to hear a simple reference such as " 'mind' " in a sentence now appears this way to me. As if the speaker truly believes they know what it is they are referring to when they utter the word.

Perhaps this is the fundamental disagreement Diebert had with Dennis regarding the repetition of statements such as " It's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless" and his general refusal to admit the need for any kind of more extensive exploration regarding the topic, or almost any topic, for that matter.

One might even say that it's useless, pointless or 'reveals nothing',and perhaps even see it as a stagnant state in which one gives up on intelligence. Whereas I regard the understanding of the meaninglessness of language and expression, (when used as a so-called clear expression of deeper understanding in relation to 'the infinite', [whatever that means]) as a true lack of resistance to the ultimate conclusion of ones intelligence. As an awareness of, and lack of engagement in, "grasping".

[Cahoot]

The main point I'm getting at in my quote above is that all things, abstract and physical, are carved out of reality by discernment, no matter how mundane the act of discernment is. (Discernment isn't quite the right word here by its definition; demarcation is a better fit.)

I think this relates to ardy’s point about the unnecessity of logic.

Logically, logic is a particular method of discerning what logic itself has carved from the source of the carving.

Logic’s relationship to the source of the carving is limited to inferences based on the carved, and the carving.

The seeker of truth examines the carved made by logic, under the lamp of logic, and infers according to the carving and the carved.

I think ardy’s main point is that whatever logic carves is not that from which it is carved, it is merely a derivation of reality, subject to the human limitations of carving.

Now you got your chain-saw carvers, you got your whittlers, you got your chiselers, you got your … never mind. :D

[Cahoot]

Cahoot wrote:the first drop of stimulation in response to the experience of emptiness, unfiltered by thought or judgement, can be stimulation of the visual cortex.

I see this sentence as having implied a number of philosophical assumptions, in the same way that one might state with unwavering belief that when the body dies their existence will end, having completely overlooked the fundamental philosophical reasoning (that should be) needed for such a statement.

Ah, it’s not a philosophical speculation, or interpretation of belief, but rather a description of caused phenomena, based on limited knowledge, which can be seen in the original sentence from which your carving is derived.

Uncarved quote: "Based on limited knowledge of physicality, there is a point within sitting meditation practice, that can be repeated, where the first movement of mind is in the visual cortex rather than conceptual thought. When the senses have detached from awareness, the first drop of stimulation in response to the experience of emptiness, unfiltered by thought or judgement, can be stimulation of the visual cortex."

An important point of that uncarved description, that makes a scientific demarcation, is that the phenomena is repeatable. An implication of that point is knowledge of conditions, which must exist for predictable repeatability of the phenomena to occur ... but is not a necessary condition for the phenomena to occur.

I'll be back when time exists for more carving. :D

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You mistake me, I was specifically referring to

stimulation of the visual cortex

.

[Russell Parr]

The main point I'm getting at in my quote above is that all things, abstract and physical, are carved out of reality by discernment, no matter how mundane the act of discernment is. (Discernment isn't quite the right word here by its definition; demarcation is a better fit.)

I think this relates to ardy’s point about the unnecessity of logic.

Logically, logic is a particular method of discerning what logic itself has carved from the source of the carving.

Logic’s relationship to the source of the carving is limited to inferences based on the carved, and the carving.

The seeker of truth examines the carved made by logic, under the lamp of logic, and infers according to the carving and the carved.

I think ardy’s main point is that whatever logic carves is not that from which it is carved, it is merely a derivation of reality, subject to the human limitations of carving.

Now you got your chain-saw carvers, you got your whittlers, you got your chiselers, you got your … never mind. :D

It's not a question of logic, it's a question of what is. Logic plays only part of the process of carving things into existence. The uncarved (the source) is the infinitude of reality that has not entered our fields of senses and thoughts.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

. The uncarved (the source) is the infinitude of reality that has not entered our fields of senses and thoughts.

Another good example.

[Cahoot]

Howdy.

Question: Is this an experience you are familiar with?

Answer: Are there people here describing experiences they have not experienced?
The experience of emptiness is not an experience, since experience requires two. The experience of emptiness does not require two. Call it a Happening then. Contemplation on emptiness requires awareness and thought.

The uncarved (the source) is the infinitude of reality that has not entered our fields of senses and thoughts.

Another good example.

Really? Russell’s comment is an assertion.

Assertions are dandy, but I see no basis for meaning within the assertion, other than belief. Is the example based on what is? One may as well say: It is what it is. Which is akin to: It’s empty and meaningless that it’s empty and meaningless.:D

Jumping to the absolute is a tempting, quick way to respond.

We don’t need no Stinking Basis! It is what it is! :)
(Though even saying we don’t need no stinking basis, is a basis in either totalitarianism, or a basis in belief.)

For instance, you can say any of the following:
- Based on limited knowledge of the Sky God, first there is nothing, and then the SkyGod creates something.
- Based on clinging belief in the Sky God, first there is nothing, and then the SkyGod creates something.
- Based on because I say so, first there is nothing, and then the SkyGod creates something.
or
- Based on limited knowledge of Mind, first there is nothing, and then Mind creates something.
- Based on clinging belief in knowledge of Mind, first there is nothing, and then Mind creates something.
Or you can say:
- Based on limited knowledge of physicality …

The relationship of each of the above sentences beginning with "-Based" to What Is, is a matter of probability, but not for the Jumper.

Cue the Jumper, who invokes the Absolute and responds, “You have a good cat? It’s all good. You say that’s good? It is what it is.

Tip to Jumper: include the basis, of the evaluation of the basis.


*

Dennis said “it’s empty and meaningless that it’s empty and meaningless.”

Based on logic, which is dualistic thought:

This does not say:
Based on a clinging belief in the Absolute, it’s empty and meaningless that it’s empty and meaningless.

This does not say:
Based on the Absolute, it’s empty and meaningless that it’s empty and meaningless.

What does it say?
To me, the meaning leans towards … “Because I say so.”

However, proof that repeating the premise as if it’s the conclusion was necessary for Dennis to do at the time it was done, based on the fact that the repetition is present (presence of phenomena being a logical basis for the necessity of phenomena, a basis that can be stated logically, and thus is useful for communication).

The cause of the repetition is a matter of speculation, and the probability of accuracy in the speculation can be assessed using logic … though belief in logic is not required for a logical assessment, and use of logic does not indicate a clinging belief in logic, and a limited facility in the use of logic, or poor understanding of logic, does not indicate a logical understanding, or complete understanding.

For instance, I could speculate that Dennis’ repetition could mean that he is an agent of Wu-Wei following a logic not apparent to all due to limited knowledge by all. The meaning of why he uses the repetition could be a Terma currently existing within future consciousness, to be discovered.
Or for instance: Dennis may repeating the format of A=A with other arbitrary symbols that happen to have associated concepts, to illustrate the meaning of A=A, the same meaning that someone might find in dog=dog.

A=A
Empty and meaningless = Empty and meaningless

*
I think that clinging to logic is something that ardy initially said he perceives in Diebert and Russell’s written dualistic thinking. I don’t perceive that, though I don’t cling to what I don’t see.

Clinging to unseen ≠ Clinging to seen

And so on.

[Cahoot]

To simplify the experience:

Slowing thought (defining thought as a movement of mind), no sensory stimulation (defining sensory stimulation as movement of mind), no thought.

Subsequent to this, no movement of mind caused by thought or sensory stimulation, no experience, no relationship, no self, nobody, no time, no existence.
Only awareness.

Defies logic, doesn’t it. It’s gonna happen to everyone, sooner or later. For some, sooner.

Then, with those parameters in place, comes first movement of mind. With no thoughts, and with no external sensory data, comes first movement of mind.

Logic (thought) indicates that a movement of mind must be caused.

In the absence of "Happening of One" (in lieu of "experience"), here is method to try and understand what logic says cannot be, yet is. Accept all of it as True. Every bit of it, without adding any qualifiers. Then, look within. If you find contradictions, and you will, accept all the contradictions as False. Go from there. If your premises don’t fit what is True, then look deeper.

But who the hell wants to do that? Better to learn yourself.

“If you learn nothing from backwards then forwards can be difficult.” – ardy
“I’m taking a break.” - Cahoot

[SeekerOfWisdom]

no movement of mind caused by thought or sensory stimulation,

Well, what happened to the wording? "stimulation of the visual cortex"? Presto, it's now sensory stimulation! and you've completely avoided that the sentence implied a number of philosophical assumptions, in the same way that one might state with unwavering belief that when the body dies their existence will end. You completely overlooked the fundamental philosophical reasoning that should be needed for such a statement.

We don’t need no Stinking Basis! It is what it is! :)

In fact, that's exactly how I regard 'beliebers' when you say things like the previously discussed quote.

What I expressed was the inability of any person to use language or expression to clearly express any deeper understanding of the 'workings' of the 'infinite'. That essentially this 'universal knowledge' is nothing more than a fantasy. In the same way that one might grasp on the string theory and start talking a bunch of mumbo jumbo about the nature of reality, this same 'belieber' affliction is seen in the quote you avoided: "stimulation of the visual cortex"

[Cahoot]

That’s funny. You create a world and then accuse when others don’t step into it.

What I expressed was the inability of any person to use language or expression to clearly express any deeper understanding of the 'workings' of the 'infinite'.

Really? What you wrote was two words. Visual cortex. Then you left me to add the rest of whatever it is you wanted to hear, and became accusatory when what was added, wasn’t what you wanted to hear. I think what you wanted to hear was probably some discussion about “the infinite,” or “the working of the infinite,” as you say.

You also mentioned some hypothetical situation in which hypothetical people are talking about the “infinite”, and you rendered your judgement about that, based on your limited knowledge, but you gave no reasoning other than your opinion.

Apparently, your world is the one in which you want clear talk about the “workings of the infinite,” and you simultaneously assert that this can’t be done.

You are incorrect. Here’s an example of the “workings of the infinite.”

Eternity exists in an instant.

There you go. That’s pretty clear, and it makes perfect sense.

If it’s not clear to you, work on your reception, because that transmission is perfectly clear.

Since in your world, discussion is futile, here’s another Truth about the working of the infinite.

Everything on this board is the workings of the infinite.

Clear again. No reasoned explanation required.

I’m on a roll. :D

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Really? What you wrote was two words. Visual cortex. Then you left me to add the rest of whatever it is you wanted to hear, and became accusatory when what was added, wasn’t what you wanted to hear. I think what you wanted to hear was probably some discussion about “the infinite,” or “the working of the infinite,” as you say.

What? You wrote the words visual cortex and I quoted you...? Have you actually forgotten that it was you that wrote that?

You also mentioned some hypothetical situation in which hypothetical people are talking about the “infinite”, and you rendered your judgement about that, based on your limited knowledge, but you gave no reasoning other than your opinion.

Again, you're either trolling or have a very limited ability to remember previous posts and quotes, I quoted the very real situation in which Russel was talking about the infinite, right here:

The uncarved (the source) is the infinitude of reality that has not entered our fields of senses and thoughts

Apparently, your world is the one in which you want clear talk about the “workings of the infinite,” and you simultaneously assert that this can’t be done.

A prime example of you trolling. Sounds like your speaking for another, perhaps try using quotes to show what I said, instead of putting it in your own convoluted words.

Since in your world, discussion is futile

"Discussion is futile"

Again, try using quotes to show what someone else said, instead of making up what someone else said in your own words. Which I clearly do not agree with.

I’m on a roll. :D

It doesn't at all concern you that, while apparently trying to be logical, you are at the same time trolling?

In your next post try making changes, avoid completely overlooking things you've written by pretending it was another person, and use quotes when speaking on behalf of another.

Is there a reason that, instead of logically discussing each point made, as it was written, you took it upon yourself to turn a discussion in to a school room argument by speaking for me? Get back on track and consider the points I've made in regards to your speaking for me and lack of interest in logical discussion ( which usually requires patience, elaboration on your part as well as the intention to allow/seek elaboration where needed, the sincere attempt to accurately communicate logical failings as you see them, as well as clear borders between what is a quotation and what is an inference you've made) . If these are qualities you don't uphold as useful then I see no reason to continue speaking to you.


Now, assuming you do want to be logical and elaborate. Should we not start from the beginning? I quoted your words
Cahoot: "the first drop of stimulation in response to the experience of emptiness, unfiltered by thought or judgement, can be stimulation of the visual cortex."
and I followed with:

Seeker:
"I see this sentence as having implied a number of philosophical assumptions, in the same way that one might state with unwavering belief that when the body dies their existence will end, having completely overlooked the fundamental philosophical reasoning (that should be) needed for such a statement."

You replied in regards to the whole quote. I realized my mistake and went on to elaborate that I was specifically referring to the part "stimulation of the visual cortex".

I didn't receive a reply in regards to this. Do you care to continue from here before moving on?

[Cahoot]

Seeker:
"I see this sentence as having implied a number of philosophical assumptions, in the same way that one might state with unwavering belief that when the body dies their existence will end, having completely overlooked the fundamental philosophical reasoning (that should be) needed for such a statement."

Sure. I'll respond to that. You're wrong.
No further discussion necessary.
You figure out why.
I'm not wasting another word on you.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Well I'm glad the culmination of your reasoning/tolerance has surfaced. It seems only to evidence the widespread disregard for the aforementioned qualities crucial to a logical discussion. But of course, that's just this time. Enjoy picking and choosing where it suits you.

[Russell Parr]

To simplify the experience:

Slowing thought (defining thought as a movement of mind), no sensory stimulation (defining sensory stimulation as movement of mind), no thought.

Subsequent to this, no movement of mind caused by thought or sensory stimulation, no experience, no relationship, no self, nobody, no time, no existence.
Only awareness.

Defies logic, doesn’t it.

Very much so. You basically listed all the causes that constitute awareness. It doesn't matter that you experience a suppression of these things in meditation, they are still there.

[Cahoot]

To simplify the experience:

Slowing thought (defining thought as a movement of mind), no sensory stimulation (defining sensory stimulation as movement of mind), no thought.

Subsequent to this, no movement of mind caused by thought or sensory stimulation, no experience, no relationship, no self, nobody, no time, no existence.
Only awareness.

Defies logic, doesn’t it.

Very much so. You basically listed all the causes that constitute awareness. It doesn't matter that you experience a suppression of these things in meditation, they are still there.

As you offer no reasoning, I will do likewise.

No Russell. Your characterization of meditation as a suppression of thoughts, and your assertion, is in error.

[Cahoot]

Well I'm glad the culmination of your reasoning/tolerance has surfaced. It seems only to evidence the widespread disregard for the aforementioned qualities crucial to a logical discussion. But of course, that's just this time. Enjoy picking and choosing where it suits you.

Oh, I've already addressed all that. All your concerns, with the essential points. You must read more carefully.

I simply don't have time to spoon feed you.

[Russell Parr]

Sorry for the short and delayed responses. Still been a little busier lately.

No Russell. Your characterization of meditation as a suppression of thoughts, and your assertion, is in error.

If you'd rather call it a release of thoughts, or whatever you like, I'm ok with that. It doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact there is no basis for your assumption that awareness can happen or occur with "no movement of mind caused by thought or sensory stimulation, no experience, no relationship, no self, nobody, no time, no existence."

As far as my assertion goes, based on what you wrote, it appears that you thoroughly misunderstood it, claimed that it's based on limited knowledge, clinging, belief or some other, all the while attempting to discredit logic as a legitimate tool for getting to absolute, meaningful truth, using Dennis (who obviously oversimplified things) as an example.

Yes, I claim that my assertion is based on absolute truth, and that it is logical. If you think that truth isn't logical, or that logical truth can't tell us anything absolute about reality, then I doubt that I can help.

We're all making assertions, by the way. There's nothing wrong with assertions as long as they're true.

[Cahoot]

Sorry for the short and delayed responses. Still been a little busier lately.

No Russell. Your characterization of meditation as a suppression of thoughts, and your assertion, is in error.

If you'd rather call it a release of thoughts, or whatever you like, I'm ok with that. It doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact there is no basis for your assumption that awareness can happen or occur with "no movement of mind caused by thought or sensory stimulation, no experience, no relationship, no self, nobody, no time, no existence."

As far as my assertion goes, based on what you wrote, it appears that you thoroughly misunderstood it, claimed that it's based on limited knowledge, clinging, belief or some other, all the while attempting to discredit logic as a legitimate tool for getting to absolute, meaningful truth, using Dennis (who obviously oversimplified things) as an example.

Yes, I claim that my assertion is based on absolute truth, and that it is logical. If you think that truth isn't logical, or that logical truth can't tell us anything absolute about reality, then I doubt that I can help.

We're all making assertions, by the way. There's nothing wrong with assertions as long as they're true.

Hey Russell. Quite a last sentence.

You can also say that everything is based on absolute truth.

Assertions can be logical, that doesn’t make them true. To be true, they must have a basis in reality, not words (thoughts). Thoughts are are about reality, and thoughts are real. Though, since thoughts are relative and dualistic, Jumpers have the opening to make a rebuttal ... that consists of thoughts.

The example of no thoughts, which is the object of meditation, which as I recall was introduced into the discussion within the context of knowing the nature of thoughts, is simply to let you know that thoughts are not necessary for awareness. This is empirical knowledge.

But you have to know it for yourself to accept it.

Truth is found with thought (I think), and examples of that reasoning can be found in life. But you won’t find reasoning in the absence of thought or senses, only in the life that follows.

The absence of thought and senses is not the objective for a Seeker, but it does provide a basis in reality for reasoning about the nature of thought, rather than a basis in ego.

The way to help anyone, is to help yourself. Example: by dropping self-cherishing, and arrogance, which are thoughts (I see no evidence of either in you, btw, just to qualify the previous sentence). These thoughts, which are complex but usually have a pretty simple basis in personality and can be found, can be dropped without meditation. I don't know if they can only be dropped as a result of meditation, since my experiences are not limited to meditation. I do know that awareness and intent will drop them, and at the proper altitude, will cut the root of ignorance.

But based on the absolute, when arrogance and self-cherishing are present, they are necessary. Ignorance too. That realization requires thought.

:)

[Russell Parr]

Assertions can be logical, that doesn’t make them true. To be true, they must have a basis in reality, not words (thoughts). Thoughts are are about reality, and thoughts are real. Though, since thoughts are relative and dualistic, Jumpers have the opening to make a rebuttal ... that consists of thoughts.

Assertions and thoughts do have basis in reality if they accurately describe it. It doesn't matter that they are dualistic.

The example of no thoughts, which is the object of meditation, which as I recall was introduced into the discussion within the context of knowing the nature of thoughts, is simply to let you know that thoughts are not necessary for awareness. This is empirical knowledge.

I can agree with this. Even so, awareness and thought are two functions of mind, both of which are dualistic, because they are experienced. No one can escape this, even in meditation.

Truth is found with thought (I think), and examples of that reasoning can be found in life. But you won’t find reasoning in the absence of thought or senses, only in the life that follows.

The absence of thought and senses is not the objective for a Seeker, but it does provide a basis in reality for reasoning about the nature of thought, rather than a basis in ego.

Truth is indeed arrived at with thought, as you said. Awareness alone cannot amount to knowledge without applied thought.

The way to help anyone, is to help yourself. Example: by dropping self-cherishing, and arrogance, which are thoughts (I see no evidence of either in you, btw, just to qualify the previous sentence). These thoughts, which are complex but usually have a pretty simple basis in personality and can be found, can be dropped without meditation. I don't know if they can only be dropped as a result of meditation, since my experiences are not limited to meditation. I do know that awareness and intent will drop them, and at the proper altitude, will cut the root of ignorance.

I think you are confusing the act of thinking with egotism, which is characterized by clinging due to delusional beliefs. The wise learn how to think without clinging.

Clinging isn't cleared with meditation alone, only suspended, because the meditator eventually resumes normal thought, and therefore clinging (if his thoughts are based in ignorance). To sufficiently clear clinging, one must reform one's thinking into wise thought.

[Cahoot]

"I think you are confusing the act of thinking with egotism, which is characterized by clinging due to delusional beliefs. The wise learn how to think without clinging."

Apologies for my limitations in transmission. And I agree with your assertion about thinking without clinging to thought.

[Pam Seeback]

Cahoot, is this statement

Assertions can be logical, that doesn’t make them true.

not in contradiction with this statement

Truth is found with thought (I think), and examples of that reasoning can be found in life.

Something to consider:

But you won’t find reasoning in the absence of thought or senses, only in the life that follows.

Logically, is not the life of reasoning that follows absence of thought or senses not evidence that there is a principle or cause (logos) at work that allows for the life of reasoning to appear? And that those who are at one with or have access to the logos will be perfectly and completely understood by any who are also at one with or have access to the logos? I can't think of no better definition of truth than this.

Another feature of being one with the logos of "it is so" is that self-other-ego-consciousness is not present. Which means that for those dedicated to being obedient to the logos, the process you outline below is unnecessary.

The way to help anyone, is to help yourself. Example: by dropping self-cherishing, and arrogance, which are thoughts (I see no evidence of either in you, btw, just to qualify the previous sentence). These thoughts, which are complex but usually have a pretty simple basis in personality and can be found, can be dropped without meditation. I don't know if they can only be dropped as a result of meditation, since my experiences are not limited to meditation. I do know that awareness and intent will drop them, and at the proper altitude, will cut the root of ignorance.

Let's look at my assertion about the logos producing absolute thoughts from the perspective you present in the quote below. I've numbered your assertions for the sake of clarity:

1. To be true, they must have a basis in reality, not words (thoughts). 2. Thoughts are about reality, and thoughts are real.

1. It seems as if here you are referring to the idea of a principle of reasoning within reality itself.

2. If you concur with my conclusion about #1, then the thoughts that come of the logos principle would be absolute (absolutely true), would they not? Which means that while they appear as contrasted to one another/distinct from one another, they are not the dualistic appearance of an insertion of a self, and while they appear in relation to each other within the sentence, they are not examples of ego in relation to ego. Some examples of logos thinking:

1. A tree is not a dog.
2. 1 + 1 = 2
3. The presence of male genitals does not always produce male gender identification just as the presence of female genitals does not always produce female gender identification.
4. Colour of skin has no effect on the biological need to eat and drink.

[Cahoot]

Logically, is not the life of reasoning that follows absence of thought or senses not evidence that there is a principle or cause (logos) at work that allows for the life of reasoning to appear?

Yes. It could be called The Supreme Ordering Principle in the Universe.

I apologize again. This forum is sucking up a lot of time, which is necessary for me, apparently. But I also have a lot going on, so I’ll let your post stew. I don’t have time now to give it the time and attention it deserves.

Maybe ardy will wade into his own thread again, and others.

Later gator.

[Cahoot]

If you concur with my conclusion about #1, then the thoughts that come of the logos principle would be absolute (absolutely true), would they not?

Thoughts are subject to conditions. This makes more sense when you realize that thoughts and thinking are the same thing. By definition the absolute is not subject to conditions. You are not a thought, neither your own nor someone else’s. Thoughts come and go, the absolute always is.

That you are, is all that you know for sure.

#3. A blood test might clear up the uncertainty. ;)

*

Also,

Regarding seeing yourself with your own eyes, as Naturalist recently references:

When someone tells you to shut the fuck up, and you get a little hot under the collar, then do as Buddha advises and consider the advice, which is essentially worthless ... until you consciously and deliberately apply it the next time similar conditions begin to appear, such as disproportionate posting.

Then in this way of similar situations, you can see yourself with your own eyes.

In other words, if your reasoning and other powers of discernment agree, tell yourself to shut the fuck up, and the collar stays cool.

Life, thought, truth all interweaving.
So the truth can be applied to life.

A question though. On this board there's a lot of comparing what one thinks is going on, with what one thinks others think is going on. Lotta thinkin. Does this frequent comparing have a basis in logos truth, or do I not understand this logos truth-concept? (This is meant to be a little humorous, along with some truth I've observed, and not to detract from the points you were making.)

If I have misunderstood, how and why, if you have the time and inclination, and if you don't, I surely understand.

And, you know what happens next.