Thoughts on Experience

[Mellowmarsh]

4 minutes ago, James123 said:

How do you know?

I don’t know. I is known, but not by I

[Nemra]

18 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Identify what is the same as the thought?

I mean that the thing that identifies must be the same for anything that is being identified with.

18 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

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

From my birth until I was some years old.

I don't know what I was doing before my unconsciousness. I could have been some alien, I don't know.

[James123]

1 hour ago, Mellowmarsh said:

I don’t know. I is known, but not by I

By what? Who, what knows known?

[Mellowmarsh]

14 minutes ago, James123 said:

By what? Who, what knows known?

I am the knowing that cannot be known.

[Mellowmarsh]

55 minutes ago, Nemra said:

I mean that the thing that identifies must be the same for anything that is being identified with.

From my birth until I was some years old.

I don't know what I was doing before my unconsciousness. I could have been some alien, I don't know.

Okay. 👍 

[Ziran]

9 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Describe your own “thoughtless experience” 

1. In general it comes in two forms:  impulse and reflex.
2. Metaphorically it's referred to in English in the pejorative as a "knee-jerk-reaction", with no valence as a "snap-judgement", in the superlative as an "epiphany".
3. It feels like lightning striking.
4. It can only be referred to in restrospect.

[Mellowmarsh]

8 hours ago, Ziran said:

It can only be referred to in restrospect.

So does that mean there’s an apparent demand to make what is past and dead to appear as the direct immediacy of the present moment?

[Mellowmarsh]

14 hours ago, Nemra said:

 

14 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Identify what is the same as the thought?

I mean that the thing that identifies must be the same for anything that is being identified with.

 

I just wanted to come back to the above point for more clarity.

When you say the thing that identifies must be the same thing as the thing identified. Can you identify what that thing is exactly, and is this identified “thing” conscious? It’s just that I’m not really sure what you’re showing me here.

Thanks.

 

[Ziran]

2 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

So does that mean there’s an apparent demand to make what is past and dead to appear as the direct immediacy of the present moment?

There is no demand without thought.  There's inquiry from the absence of thought.

[Mellowmarsh]

30 minutes ago, Ziran said:

There is no demand without thought.  There's inquiry from the absence of thought.

So it seems thoughts arise from a thoughtless state. Is what I interpret from your answer.

There’s the experience of thoughts arising from a thoughtless state. But I’m not sure the thoughtless state is an actual experience, because there wouldn’t be anyone there in a thoughtless state to tell itself “I am not thinking”

 

 

 

 

[Ziran]

12 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

So it seems thoughts arise from a thoughtless state. Is what I interpret from your answer.

inquiry ( a type of thought ) arises from the contrast.

[Nemra]

3 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

I just wanted to come back to the above point for more clarity.

When you say the thing that identifies must be the same thing as the thing identified. Can you identify what that thing is exactly, and is this identified “thing” conscious? It’s just that I’m not really sure what you’re showing me here.

Thanks.

It seems that I made it confusing and perhaps my phrasing was bad.

What I wanted to say is that the thing that identifies with thoughts is the same thing that identifies with anything. If you can identify with thoughts, then there's nothing stopping you from identifying with everything.

[Mellowmarsh]

3 minutes ago, Ziran said:

inquiry ( a type of thought ) arises from the contrast.

Yes I understand that. But the experience always has to be about the experiencer which must be present for experience to be known. But to talk about a thoughtless experience doesn’t make sense to me because there would be nobody there in the thoughtless experience to tell itself it’s having the thought free experience. 
 

But if it makes sense to you, then I’ve no problem with your view, it’s just something I’m not feeling. 

[Mellowmarsh]

9 minutes ago, Nemra said:

It seems that I made it confusing and perhaps my phrasing was bad.

What I wanted to say is that the thing that identifies with thoughts is the same thing that identifies with anything. If you can identify with thoughts, then there's nothing stopping you from identifying with everything.

Okay thanks for making that clear. I understand that the awareness of thought is the same awareness that is aware of things.

Buddhism states that thoughts are things. And that there’s no thing actually there independent of the thought thing.

So even the identifier of thought is also a thought thing. 

 

[Nemra]

9 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Buddhism states that thoughts are things. And that there’s no thing actually there independent of the thought thing.

Thinking being a thing doesn't invalidate its functionality. If you don't think, things don't suddenly not exist. Also, we have to differentiate between things as construction and the thing itself.

For example, thoughts themselves aren't constructs. Their existence doesn't depend on construction. Yet you can construct, deconstruct, reference stuff just by thinking.

[Mellowmarsh]

9 minutes ago, Nemra said:

If you don't think, things don't suddenly not exist.

What I mean is things are not known even as they exist unknowingly.

For example: A tree exists, it can be observed to exist. The tree is functioning as a living organism that exists without doubt, but the tree itself doesn’t know it exists. That’s what I mean by not being there in a self knowing sense. The tree doesn’t know it exists even though it’s observed to exist because there’s some thing that is aware of the tree. 
 

So my question is if a tree is unaware of it’s existence, then what is aware of the tree?

 

Im sorry if this line of thinking is just a rambling mess, apologies in advance. But I genuinely like to be able to understand how other people interpret their reality, it has always fascinated me how differently each of us seek to understand ourselves and the reality that we’ve been born into. 
 

 

I just feel like this is the first time I’ve been alive, and here I am trying to figure out how the heck I got to be alive just to die.

I really don’t know what’s going on, except to imagine everything, and even that is unknowable to me, it’s just a word with meaning attached, but ultimately means nothing if I’m just going to die anyway.

 

[Nemra]

4 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

So my question is if a tree is unaware of it’s existence, then what is aware of the tree?

That's the question. I am as mesmerized as you.

However, it's been getting obvious that I don't know lots of stuff. I'm not just telling myself I don't know; it shocks me to the core.

I think that I'm slowly integrating my psychedelic trip.

6 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

I just feel like this is the first time I’ve been alive, and here I am trying to figure out how the heck I got to be alive just to die.

I have been feeling the same way.