Gathering Minds

The Thought-fullness of Thinking

This is being written in the format of a gentle introduction.
 

"I think, therefore I am."

A being takes on many roles, lifetimes and recording media. If one of the previous is true then they are all true. That’s a bold statement especially when it comes to the ‘media’ part. ‘Media’ is being defined here as "something which is communicated or expressed". Since experience is generally assumed to be something highly desired and regarded in this universe there must, of course, be some sort of well defined medium through which it can be ‘carried forward’. (Please note the notation of the single quote marks as the matter relates to the subject of time which will only be lightly touched upon here.)

In order to ‘carry forward’ experiential delights (and who wouldn’t want that!?) there must be a created object through which it can travel in ‘time’. WHere there is no remembrance, in it’s true form, there can be no objectification of experience carried forward. Yes, experience does become objectified in order to keep it ‘alive’. Who says that Man is not god, that Man cannot create life.

Before going further please note that ‘life’ here is being referred to that which one gives their attention to. The saying here is true, thought creates, and in that creation ‘life’ is given. This is not referencing a physical form because physicality is not ‘life’ but a byproduct of it. When beings look at a physical construct the assumption can be that the object being given attention is the same as the object with which the being creates to carry forward the aforementioned ‘experience’.

This can seem quite confusing but that comes from the thought process trying to qualify and quantify that which lies outside of it’s realm of ‘experience’ into something internally recognized. The question becomes, can a being internalize that which lies beyond it’s current scope of perception? A being of course perceives that which it wishes to perceive. If that statement does not make sense then nothing else will in this written description and explanation.

This is not just about an understanding of perception but about basic constructs, of how a being does some of the things it does. The why is another matter entirely and will not be addressed as that is something only each being individually can answer and there will be no clues given at the moment because there must be an alignment of common understanding before that can occur.

Anyway, the objectification of thought occurs as something which appears to be ‘outside’ or ‘exterior’ to one’s self. The truth of the matter is that there is no such thing as either. What happens is that the perception changes in order to accommodate the will, or intention. This is about getting down to the basics and I do mean basics and in order for that to occur there must come about an awareness of what the hell one is doing. If you do not know that then again, please bypass this entire mess because it will only drive the thought process in circles with justifications and excuses for why it all stinks to high heaven.

There is not a time that I do not address the subject of being direct. What that means is that one must desire and acquire the so-called ‘ability’ to cut through one’s own, never mind the fact of others, thinking and reasoning to see what is as it is without all the baggage one lovingly endures being carried about wherever and whenever one travels.

Discussing the pros and cons of some particular outlook does nothing in understanding the basis of such. If one wishes to not see their own movement, then so be it but it will take away from the understanding one proclaims to be a just cause. If one wishes to feel better about something then perhaps one’s time can be better spent in watching tv or some mindless corporate sports game. There are plenty of opportunities for one to turn to in order to turn away from one’s own truth and understanding. For that, there is no lack. It’s the same as giving to another your own energy in order for them to ‘take care’ of you. It’s true, sheep do need a shepherd and for those who have no wish to be fully aware of their own existence there are plenty of those who would wish to tell you all about how it should be - according to their own outlook.

But beings are not meant to be ruled, to be used and abused. It’s not the fault of anyone of why beings are, it is only the concern of the one to which it all happens to and that is you! The how and why of it can be discussed for all eternity, and it certainly is, but just because the drama is all so very ‘interesting’ one’s attention would perhaps be better placed or directed upon one’s own doings, of how on sees and perceives, of how one enlists one’s self in acquiring the experience of ‘living’ or even perhaps, being. If one is ignorant of one’s own baggage, and baggage is being referred to here as the thinking process, how can one actually interact with it instead of being subject to it?

There is no shortage of those who would wish to endlessly dissect the results of thinking and yet come up completely ignorant of the basis of such, of what the being actually does in undertaking the thinking process, of how thought is the motivation or justification for one’s perceptive outlook.

Man makes the universe in his own image.

‘Man’ is not being defined here in a gender basis which these days is all the rage in order to further someone else’s’ idea of how one should conduct themselves. The only one who should being ruling one’s conduct is one’s self. Are you not the being you created or did some-one or some-thing else do that?

Thinking is a matter of choice. The important thing here is not the subject or object that comes as a result of thinking but the object called thinking, the basis from which one’s perception originates.

Can perception come from something other than thought? You will never know unless one sees it for what it is, not think about what it might or might not be. If perception originates in thought how can one ‘see’ that which one thinks? The problem with that is how one interprets the word ‘see’ and in this case it means that one ‘looks’ into the ‘outside’ universe without thought, to notice without associating one’s self with anything but that cannot be accomplished without knowing the thought process itself.

A being is so much more than their perception, so much more than the thinking which is employed. If one can ‘gain’ the so-called ability to watch the process of thought then what becomes of the process it’s self. What becomes of all the baggage one carries through time and space in order to ‘see it through’? What becomes of one’s understanding and relationship to the universe? Can one be in the Land of the Living and yet not partake of it?

What does that really mean, anyway?

It’s funny that in the process of describing thinking a whole lot of thought goes into it. It’s the same as saying "You can’t get there from here." Do you understand that in order to be somewhere you have to be somewhere else first?

What’s even more funny is the fact that there is no such thing as location. Same is true for all the thinking crap excreted above.

Have I created enough effects through your thought process yet?

That’s what I mean.

Addendum

Please don’t take this all seriously and by that I mean to compute it’s value and create a justification for future actions. It’s got nothing to do with my view or your view but it has everything to do with the process one undergoes in creating perception.

Think what you like - I do!

I’m not here, and the above is not meant, to convince you of anything. If you would like to think that this is all a bunch of b.s. then go ahead and have that thinking, I don’t mind in the least. If you also think that there is some ‘value’ in what has been written then I would say you are wrong. There is no ‘value’ here other than what one attaches to it. Please don’t do that.

Be free, be your self. The rest is just child’s play. If that is taken seriously then there is much more at stake here than one’s own perception.

I like that last sentence because it is quite obtuse about which meaning it should be assigned so I’ll end this here with a repeat:

That’s what I mean.