Is there a thinker?

[WokeBloke]

14 minutes ago, Fearless_Bum said:

@WokeBloke how do you know you have thoughts? (Not a trick question)

1. I experience having what I call thoughts.

2. I see all of my thoughts including this one.

[WokeBloke]

14 minutes ago, Nos7algiK said:

There "is" therefore there "is" not as well.

You'll have to elaborate.

[WokeBloke]

17 minutes ago, Tim R said:

@WokeBloke You're just confused by language, that's all it is. No need to make this so complicated. 

You didn't answer the question though. 

[WokeBloke]

16 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

Don't mind me, I'm talking to myself again. (Not solipsism, literally.) 

bias (n.)

1520s, "oblique or diagonal line," from French biais "a slant, a slope, an oblique," also figuratively, "an expedient, means" (13c., originally in Old French a past-participle adjective, "sideways, askance, against the grain"), a word of unknown origin. Probably it came to French from Old Provençal biais, which has cognates in Old Catalan and Sardinian, and is possibly via Vulgar Latin *(e)bigassius from Greek epikarsios "athwart, crosswise, at an angle," from epi "upon" (see epi-) + karsios "oblique" (from PIE *krs-yo-, suffixed form of root *sker- (1) "to cut"). https://www.etymonline.com/word/bias

So Self bias, is literally cutting yourself in half, drawing a line through yourself. Which only thought can do. A thought separates or combines what it has unconsciously already separated. 

I think myself. "I cannot live with myself anymore." Well who is the self I cannot live with anymore? 

So asking thought if there's a thinker would always be the ultimate self bias. 

 

I don't quite understand what you are getting at?

Thought doesn't think. The question is what thinks. So when I ask you if there is a thinker I am not asking a thought if there is a thinker I am asking the thinker if there is a thinker.

[Fearless_Bum]

19 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

1. I experience having what I call thoughts.

2. I see all of my thoughts including this one.

@WokeBloke when the character thinks he's in the sentence, then he'll fall for every trick in the book ?.

You (thought) create experiences by saying you have experiences. 

You don't see anything actually, you only say you do by creating the experience of seeing. 

This is very simple, not trying to call you dumb, just pointing out that it really isn't as complicated as it seems. 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Fearless_Bum

[WokeBloke]

Just now, Fearless_Bum said:

@WokeBloke when the character thinks he's in the sentence, then he'll fall for every trick in the book ?.

You (thought) create experiences by saying you have experiences. 

You don't see anything actually, you only say you don't by cresting the experience of seeing. 

This is very simple, not trying to call you dumb, just pointing out that it really isn't as complicated as it seems. 

I'm still experiencing when there is no thought though. I don't need to think in order for there to be an experience.

Not really sure what you're getting at. Don't think you know either.

[Vincent S]

@WokeBloke Imagine for yourself. Mmh don’t even imagine, go take a white paper and draw a character on this piece of paper.

And draw a dialogue bubble on top of the characters head. In the bubble, write: Is there a thinker of thoughts?

And sit there, staring at this character until “you” get it.

Try seeing it with meta perspective.

?

[Nos7algiK]

40 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

You'll have to elaborate.

Is'ness is all there is. So, all things are is'ness appearing as something, which can be anything or lack there of that thing. Within this is'ness thought has to exist, for it if did not the is'ness of it could not be. But, at the same time in order to be it must be able to not be.

A thinker exists if the is'ness or the "now" choses to think. But, thinking it not a requirement for the is'ness to operate. The idea exists in paradox. You can take the non-dual approach and say there is no thinker or thoughts to be thought of. But, this is only part of the picture and in itself is just duality manifesting itself in a clever way. It fails to take the contextualization of what is appearing. In the moment, the now, the is'ness what is...well is lol. It's real, the most real thing you can experience. But, this moment is both eternal yet impermeant. Meaning, once thought is analyzed within the moment, it is no longer in the moment. It has already dissipated therefore it looks like there is nothing to be pointed at. In this moment though thought "is" expressing itself. It is prior to it's own awareness of thoughts though.

Another way to say it is the thought is part of the whole and requires the whole to be itself. The moment you acknowledge it you separate yourself, taking away from the whole. So it's no longer what it once was or should I say the language we use to obverse thoughts is too limited to actualize them post  to having a thought. Teeth can not bite themselves.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Nos7algiK

[Tim R]

32 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

You didn't answer the question though. 

@WokeBloke Yeah, because you already answered it yourself:

2 hours ago, WokeBloke said:

obviously a thinker is a thought

Yes, "thinker" is a thought and all conceptions that try to answer your question are just more thoughts. There is no thinker of thoughts.

"thinking thoughts" is redundant speech, so is "thinker of thoughts". As I said, you're confused by language, that's all. 

[WokeBloke]

8 minutes ago, Tim R said:

@WokeBloke Yeah, because you already answered it yourself:

Yes, "thinker" is a thought and all conceptions that try to answer your question are just more thoughts. There is no thinker of thoughts.

"thinking thoughts" is redundant speech, so is "thinker of thoughts". As I said, you're confused by language, that's all. 

What wrote your post?

[Flyboy]

@WokeBloke You just keep trying to back out the "self", but it's not there.  It's like a sneaky assumption you're making that because something arose, something else had to have caused it.  Your experience will not reveal that.

Even intention is a thought, as is agency.  You think you moved your hand to grab your cup?  No, the thought "I" took credit for the intention/movement AFTER it was created.  This is a key insight from close mindfulness.  ALL thoughts and sensations arise from and return to "nothing", in no time, for no one, no where.  No perception can perceive another perception; taking credit is just another thought.  Time, space, distance, and self are all illusory constructs and reflections. 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Flyboy

[Chris365]

Is there a difference between 'thoughts' and 'thinking'? Are there thoughts, without thinking? Is there thinking, without thoughts?

It's obvious ' thoughts' and 'thinking' refer to the same thing, thinking.

Just like colours and seeing are 2 words for the same thing, seeing.

'A thinker thinking thoughts' is just language for 'thinking'. Thinking happens, but there's nobody thinking.

To see where thoughts come from, do this exercise: relax and let go of all thoughts. Then, wait  like a cat ready to pounce on a bird, and wonder what thought is going to appear next. After some time, when that first thought appears, where is it appearing from? How come that thought appeared and not another? Did you have any control over that thought appearing and not another?

[Inception]

 

[WokeBloke]

14 minutes ago, Chris365 said:

Is there a difference between 'thoughts' and 'thinking'? Are there thoughts, without thinking? Is there thinking, without thoughts?

It's obvious ' thoughts' and 'thinking' refer to the same thing, thinking.

Just like colours and seeing are 2 words for the same thing, seeing.

'A thinker thinking thoughts' is just language for 'thinking'. Thinking happens, but there's nobody thinking.

To see where thoughts come from, do this exercise: relax and let go of all thoughts. Then, wait  like a cat ready to pounce on a bird, and wonder what thought is going to appear next. After some time, when that first thought appears, where is it appearing from? How come that thought appeared and not another? Did you have any control over that thought appearing and not another?

The idea is that every thought that appears is my creation. No I don't know what I will think next but when I do I will be the one who thinks it.

[Fearless_Bum]

@WokeBloke there is no next thought.

[Chris365]

1 minute ago, WokeBloke said:

The idea is that every thought that appears is my creation. No I don't know what I will think next but when I do I will be the one who thinks it.

How can it be 'your' creation if you have no control over it? Same as you're beating your heart, maintaining your body temperature?

And....

The same as you're shining the Sun, and rotating the galaxy. You are doing all of that, it's just not the 'you' you're mistaking yourself to be. Is it even a 'you'? 

YOU decide ?

[WokeBloke]

2 minutes ago, Fearless_Bum said:

@WokeBloke there is no next thought.

I will now produce a next thought after this thought.

here it is

[WokeBloke]

2 minutes ago, Chris365 said:

How can it be 'your' creation if you have no control over it? Same as you're beating your heart, maintaining your body temperature?

And....

The same as you're shining the Sun, and rotating the galaxy. You are doing all of that, it's just not the 'you' you're mistaking yourself to be. Is it even a 'you'? 

YOU decide ?

Spontaneous creation. I create them spontaneously. I don't have to premeditate which thought I will make next.

[Fearless_Bum]

@WokeBloke that's like saying "tomorrow it will be tomorrow, here it is" 

Nope when it's tomorrow it's today.

[WokeBloke]

1 minute ago, Fearless_Bum said:

@WokeBloke that's like saying "tomorrow it will be tomorrow, here it is" 

Nope when it's tomorrow it's today.

doesn't mean there isn't tomorrow lol.

You really making the claim you will never have a thought again? 

Sounds a little goofy.