...We are not "near to reality", we are not even into reality, but we ARE reality;

But is there no peculiarity and dignity for the mind then?

Even the philosopher experiences the mind as an instrument ("organon"), as being an inevitable complement for action.

There is no real boundary between thought and action,

there is no thought that is without action and no action that is without thought.

Just keep not anwering so I can discover that by myself

Just a few vague thoughts here, the dialogue with myself has just begun

Many thanks to you, Nameless, the Pupil from California (I hope you'll appreciate it if I call you Pupil, Master or Swami being mean and condescending).

I dream you a Californian.

Isn't California the most spiritual of all places in the States, apart from New England where the "minds" walk around without a body, whereas in sunny California they still are tightly connected?

Let me withold myself of talking about women now, and have a little digression on the choice of your nick. A librarian mostly defends the inherent value and dignity of words, as collected and organised in books, stitched together into a wonderful "Gestalt".

But we have to realize now and then that words are also boundaries

and delusions,

If you live by words you easily become their victim,

they tend to lull you into the feeling that everything is understood and under control,

while reality hits us each day in the face with its vastness and its tragical incomprehensibility.

Will we ever respect and understand reality as long as we keep honouring those holy cows that are words and names?

I often wondered how an animal experiences the world without having the use of human language (seems that this is a very philosophical attitude ;-) ). It would be a nice meditation trying to "see" a rabbit without seeing a "rabbit" (and yet chasing it), trying to see the whole world without the added complication of words and names (this is an old project called "Wesenschau", but there is of course Kant's epistemology).

Ok I'm imagining that guy in California now and I see more than a clever reasoner, I seem to perceive some wisdom, or at least some socratic variation of it

("he who knows he can never reach wisdom is wise").

And there's another Big Connection here: he likes a beer now and then! Everyone who has been a student in my magic town in Flanders knows the many blessings of that wonderful quintessence, that costly fluid, that precious nectar, hiding so humbly under the name of "beer" (*).

Quote:

A complete definition of the omniverse, at the moment, is a sum total of all Perspectives.

Always seeking, always wandering, boldly going where no one has gone before.

Completeness at any level is for the gods,

we are just broken pots (crackpots?), and philosophy is a pathetic try to find a better glue.

There's some breakthroughs now and then: Friendship, Love, Reason... Do they justify some Hope?

Quote:

What appears as 'action' occurs whether you think or not. Life continues quite elegantly and efficiently and fully and beautifully without 'thought' number one. I find that the meditative state, the thoughtlessness, uninturbulated by ego/thought to be more reflective of existence as it is

Dunno really. I once found a man unconscious on the pavement. Everybody was just passing by, it was horrible! It needed some thoughtful, fast, efficient, practical action, and I think I may have saved the man's life. Could be the best thing I ever did (never saw him back after the ambulance came). Were all the others in a meditative state? And that even in Belgium... :-(

Quote:

So, so, so untrue. I see obviously 'thoughtless actions' all the time. At least I perceived no evidence of thought. Perhaps it was not 'thoughtlessness' where the fellow drove his car right smack into the tree, perhaps he was so busy 'thinking' that he was simply now unaware of the 'present' other than the his 'present' in his 'thoughts'

Methinks there is always some thought in action and some action in thought, and this may exactly proove the falseness of this distinction.

All depends on how you see and define thought, as good old meditative reflexion (horribly alienating: the thinking that thinking thinks), or as just some practical algorithm.

That's why I may not drive anymore, I always fell into Satori (actually Parkinson. All illness stinks, brother).

"Our true nature is beyond thought, and can only be discerned when one abides in the present and serenely reflects the wonder of existence."
(childlike innocence (regained), enlightenment, liberation...)
"The function of our mind is asa a perceiver, but thoughts find their origin in the memories of the mind's perception."
"The true nature of mind is to perceive in receptive awareness."

Why do children want to be adults

and adults want to be children?

Now that's a subject for a dissertation.

No ideas for the moment here, unless something about man never accepting himself, never satisfied, always wanting to be another than himself.

I guess we cannot compare in an absolute sense the "two ways of thinking", that would create quite a bias for the adults from the beginning. Maybe there is not much difference at all between both.

I was clever so I had a difficult time as a child, and I don't know if I want to get back to that kind of Satori. Is there a best of both worlds here? Can one be a child without being childish (I am often childish without being a child). Must be continued... (worth of definitions, books again...)

The first gives you a headache, the second a pain in the back. And are many people not a pain in the ass? Conclusion: everything is related and being human means pain.

Back to the classics! Seeya around, Nameless (thinking, thinking... Nameless is not Nobody, too many Nobodies with a Name... Odysseus the Wanderer.... letters.... there is so much more...)

Sorry, go on please.

(*) Personally I call it "Aurum Potabile" or "Aqua Divina", sometimes even "Semen Veritatis" or "Illuminatio liquefacta". But most often I just say "ad fundum!". Zum Wohl!

(Quintus Horatius Flaccus; it's him in my pic). "Nonum Prematur in Annum" (Hor. Ars Poet. 388), "Keep whatever you're writing nine years in the closet". Meaning that you have to give it some time to grow, to evolve, to mature like wine in its cask or some noble fowl (nine days will be quite sufficient here, I'm not Horace). So there will be a reply when there will be a reply, and not a second earlier. Seeya.