" I think therefore I am not "

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by luntrusreality

I agree.
Thinking is not required for being.
The sense of "being" is accessable when there are no thoughts at all.

luntrusreality,

This begs for explanation, just as the assertions of celest beg for explanation. Without explanation it is difficult to understand any under-lying rationale for either assertion. They must fall into the category of unsubstantiated 'opinions'. i.e. clarify for us how the sense of being can be accessible without thoughts.

IMO, the statement of Descartes refers not to the fact that his being is not proven by the simple fact that one can think but rather by the fact that his 'thinking' can independently observe the thoughts that he has.

Originally Posted by Molearner

This begs for explanation, just as the assertions of celest beg for explanation. Without explanation it is difficult to understand any under-lying rationale for either assertion. They must fall into the category of unsubstantiated 'opinions'. i.e. clarify for us how the sense of being can be accessible without thoughts.

It is impossible to prove that except in your own experience.
But isn't there also experience, consciousness when there is no thought?
Or is your life a continous stream of thinking?
If there is something that is present even while thoughts are not - > consciousness
why do we rely on thought to assert ourselves of our own existence and not of consciousness itself directly.

Thoughts are , like the body, just another perception if you will. There is no difference between a visual image and a thought in their "unreal" quality.

Originally Posted by Molearner

luntrusreality,

This begs for explanation, just as the assertions of celest beg for explanation. Without explanation it is difficult to understand any under-lying rationale for either assertion. They must fall into the category of unsubstantiated 'opinions'. i.e. clarify for us how the sense of being can be accessible without thoughts.

IMO, the statement of Descartes refers not to the fact that his being is not proven by the simple fact that one can think but rather by the fact that his 'thinking' can independently observe the thoughts that he has.

What Descartes really meant we will never know, I can only disagree on the way I have interpreted this quote. Being doesn't depend on thoughts, and you are not your thoughts, during meditation you can stop all thoughts but that doesn't stop you being. Thats just my opinion and it's interesting to read others opinions.

[lemex]

Originally Posted by luntrusreality

It is impossible to prove that except in your own experience.

But isn't there also experience, consciousness when there is no thought?

Or is your life a continous stream of thinking?

What about the subconscious (thought). There is only thought we are aware of, thought that is hidden from itself. There is no time you are without it.

[BlueSky]

There is a relationship between the mind and being as I see it. The mind reflects being.

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by luntrusreality

It is impossible to prove that except in your own experience.
But isn't there also experience, consciousness when there is no thought?
Or is your life a continous stream of thinking?
If there is something that is present even while thoughts are not - > consciousness
why do we rely on thought to assert ourselves of our own existence and not of consciousness itself directly.

Thoughts are , like the body, just another perception if you will. There is no difference between a visual image and a thought in their "unreal" quality.

luntrusreality,

Meditation allows for no 'pervasive' thoughts. But somehow it seems only possible that one can have a consciousness of 'no thoughts'. That consciousness of 'no thoughts' can only be classified as a thought. No thoughts is possible during sleep or while under anesthesia...this is a state in which there are no thoughts.....I would invite anyone to relate their experiences or consciousness while in these states. Life continues in the no-consciousness state and this necessary state is for the purpose of the restoration of our body and minds which otherwise would be exhausted of their life forces due to overload.

Originally Posted by Molearner

luntrusreality,

Meditation allows for no 'pervasive' thoughts. But somehow it seems only possible that one can have a consciousness of 'no thoughts'. That consciousness of 'no thoughts' can only be classified as a thought. No thoughts is possible during sleep or while under anesthesia...this is a state in which there are no thoughts.....I would invite anyone to relate their experiences or consciousness while in these states. Life continues in the no-consciousness state and this necessary state is for the purpose of the restoration of our body and minds which otherwise would be exhausted of their life forces due to overload.

Of course there is consciousness in sleep, even deep sleep.
The experience of "no thought" is not itself a thought.

I believe there is a inner consciousness on a higher level than our minds and it's without thoughts.

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by luntrusreality

Of course there is consciousness in sleep, even deep sleep.
The experience of "no thought" is not itself a thought.

Maybe it would help me understand if you could give an example of being able to experience no thought. In my mind an experience of 'nothing' is the thought that there was no experience.

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by celest

I believe there is a inner consciousness on a higher level than our minds and it's without thoughts.

I would suggest that 'consciousness' necessarily implies perception. This consciousness. Are you suggesting that this inner consciousness on a higher level is incapable of perception? And if so, what would be the purpose of an inner consciousness that could transmit nothing?