Thoughts on Experience

[Nemra]

4 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

If thoughtless experience is not equal to nothing, then it must be something, so what is it, and can you describe your own thoughtless experience , and what it is, in a way that it is not equal to nothing?

When you don't think.

My worldview is intact even when I'm not thinking or having thoughts.

[James123]

7 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Again, this is about knowledge and knowing.

A tree is known to exist, as a human mental construct, but does the actual tree in and of itself know it exists, can the actual tree tell itself “ I am a tree” ? 

 

 

Spirituality is all about not engaging the thoughts, feelings , body and mind actions, and only when you do, you will get it. 

Before physical birth or deep sleep, why there is no world? 

[Mellowmarsh]

5 minutes ago, Nemra said:

When you don't think.

My worldview is intact even when I'm not thinking or having thoughts.

If that’s true it’s because there’s a you present in thoughtless experience that knows it’s having a thoughtless experience. Even though a you is only possible as a thought thing, and not a not thought thing, in this conception.

 

It’s like the concept known as nonduality. Nonduality cannot be a thing known , because nonduality is not a thing. 
 

 

 

[Mellowmarsh]

5 minutes ago, James123 said:

Before physical birth or deep sleep, why there is no world? 

Because thoughts are things. And you are not a thought thing, only that which is not a thing can be aware of things, things don’t know anything. 

 

[Nemra]

12 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Even though a you is only possible as a thought thing, and not a not thought thing, in this conception.

If I only were the thoughts, then I wouldn't exist when I didn't think. However, that's not the case.

Edited 2 hours ago by Nemra

[Mellowmarsh]

1 minute ago, Nemra said:

If I only were the thoughts, then I wouldn't exist when I didn't think. However, that's not the case.

Then we’re talking about concepts. Concepts are known in their conception but not by the I

The I is already known, so the known know nothing. And doesn’t have to know anything.

 

Knowledge belongs to the mind, which is the illusory dream of separation.

[Mellowmarsh]

6 minutes ago, Nemra said:

If I only were the thoughts, then I wouldn't exist when I didn't think. However, that's not the case.

Who or what exists when thoughts are not arising?

[Nemra]

1 minute ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Then we’re talking about concepts. Concepts are known in their conception but not by the I

You have the ability to know.

3 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

The I is already known, so the known know nothing.

If the I is already known, then you would have had to know it before not knowing it. However, you didn't know it in the beginning.

Although, we can assume that we know things.

[Nemra]

6 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Who or what exists when thoughts are not arising?

The same thing that can identify with thoughts.

[Mellowmarsh]

1 minute ago, Nemra said:

You have the ability to know.

The you is known conceptually only. That’s the illusion of knowledge, it can only point to the object of knowing.

Are you an object?

[Mellowmarsh]

1 minute ago, Nemra said:

The same thing that can identify with thoughts.

Describe the thing that’s the same as the thought it identifies with?

[Mellowmarsh]

7 minutes ago, Nemra said:

If the I is already known, then you would have had to know it before not knowing it. However, you didn't know it in the beginning.

Why wasn’t the I known in it’s beginning, in it’s conception?

[Nemra]

1 minute ago, Mellowmarsh said:

The you is known conceptually only.

No. It is direct.

[Mellowmarsh]

2 minutes ago, Nemra said:

No. It is direct.

This conception is directly known yes in the instance knowing arises, one with the knowing.

 

[Nemra]

4 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Describe the thing that’s the same as the thought it identifies with?

Why should I describe it?

It's about identification.

2 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Why wasn’t the I known in it’s beginning, in it’s conception?

Because I didn't have the ability to be conscious.

[Mellowmarsh]

1 minute ago, Nemra said:

Why should I describe it?

It's about identification.

Identify what is the same as the thought?

Edited 1 hour ago by Mellowmarsh

[James123]

31 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Because thoughts are things. And you are not a thought thing, only that which is not a thing can be aware of things, things don’t know anything. 

 

No, when you are not attach with thoughts, before birth, deep sleep,  now or after death is all identical. 

[Mellowmarsh]

2 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Because I didn't have the ability to be conscious.

So you existed as an unconsciousness you, until you had the ability to be conscious you?

[Mellowmarsh]

4 minutes ago, James123 said:

No, when you are not attach with thoughts, before birth, deep sleep,  now or after death is all identical. 

No, thing knows this.

[James123]

Just now, Mellowmarsh said:

No, thing knows this.

How do you know?