what is thought?

...do thoughts require minds more then minds require thoughts ?
...lets loosen to the extreme the meaning of thoughts as thoughts being the "world" and minds being the "I"...can you see the point ?

...thoughts are themselves organization, and as mind organizes, it also is the product of organization, that is, LAW !

Thought is something that you watch very carefully. What are you thinking? It would be prudent to keep your thoughts positive, for whatever your thinking about, your mind will go ahead of you and build that in your world. Thinking positive is no joke.

Yes, North, thought assumes both the "I" (Decartes thinker) and the more general dualism built into our grammar. But both are no more than useful fictional conventions. That's why meditation must transcend them in order to realize what's Real.

...what´s real ??? hmmm I am loosing track here...

... so what part of reality can the meditater know better than me , what part of reality , specifically

north wrote:

... so what part of reality can the meditater know better than me , what part of reality , specifically

That's like saying I know what an apple tastes like but I've never eaten an apple.

igm wrote:

north wrote:

... so what part of reality can the meditater know better than me , what part of reality , specifically

That's like saying I know what an apple tastes like but I've never eaten an apple.

so the meditator knows what the apple tastes like even though the meditator has never eaten one , is that it

north wrote:

igm wrote:

north wrote:

... so what part of reality can the meditater know better than me , what part of reality , specifically

That's like saying I know what an apple tastes like but I've never eaten an apple.

so the meditator knows what the apple tastes like even though the meditator has never eaten one , is that it

No, if you've not meditated you can't know what a meditator knows, can you?

igm wrote:

north wrote:

igm wrote:

north wrote:

... so what part of reality can the meditater know better than me , what part of reality , specifically

That's like saying I know what an apple tastes like but I've never eaten an apple.

so the meditator knows what the apple tastes like even though the meditator has never eaten one , is that it

No, if you've not meditated you can't know what a meditator knows, can you?

I can if the mditator discusses with me what he knows about reality that I don't , or do

until then , I don't know that I don't know what he knows

then

north wrote:

igm wrote:

north wrote:

igm wrote:

north wrote:

... so what part of reality can the meditater know better than me , what part of reality , specifically

That's like saying I know what an apple tastes like but I've never eaten an apple.

so the meditator knows what the apple tastes like even though the meditator has never eaten one , is that it

No, if you've not meditated you can't know what a meditator knows, can you?

I can if the mditator discusses with me what he knows about reality that I don't , or do

until then , I don't know that I don't know what he knows

then

If an apple eater discusses with you the taste of an apple and you haven't ever tasted an apple you won't understand the taste of the apple from the words you hear. He can never convey to you what he knows because it cannot be conveyed in words you must take a bite from an apple.

You'd have to meditate to know that meditation offers you nothing i.e. that there is no point in meditation because as a non-meditator you know everything a meditator knows. If you haven't meditated you can't say:" ... so what part of reality can the meditater know better than me , what part of reality , specifically" because the meditator can't tell you because you have to 'taste' it directly to know.

nothing stops the meditator from still communicating what he has found about reality that I don't know

I have imagination to help understand what he is communicating after all

that is what imagination is for

nothing stops the meditator from still communicating what he has found about reality that I don't know

I have imagination to help understand what he is communicating after all

that is what imagination is for

thats a poor example , since neither can the meditator know whats it like to taste an apple if he hasn't tasted an apple

then are you saying that a meditator finds no point in trying to communicate what part of reality he thinks he understands to me simply because I don't meditate ?

I don't buy it

until this meditator at least tries to communicate to me what greater understanding of reality he has , compared to what I know , we will never know

until this meditator at least tries to communicate to me what greater understanding of reality he has , compared to what I know , we will never know

north wrote:

until this meditator at least tries to communicate to me what greater understanding of reality he has , compared to what I know , we will never know

You may understand something that you could not communicate to others if you meditated. You would not then be able to communicate that to others. For example: if you were blind from birth and you asked me what the colour red was like, how could I explain that to you? If you were later to be able to see for the first time you would know what the colour red was and you wouldn't have to ask me. If another blind person asked you, then you would be unable to tell that blind person what the colour red was like.