Can the knot be untied?

[Phil]

11 hours ago, A Tim said:

I don't at all disagree this is just thinking - but without that thinking there would be totally nada. I'm down with that. Why not? Give it a rip. 

This is not just thinking, there is actually no experience of thinking. Only of the thought, “thinking”, and not even. 

The slope is so slippery, the thought “that” appears and it seems like there really is this and that and an “I” which is not this but is down with a “that”.

Thought is so sneaky… thought can imply there is no disagreement with what isn’t being said. 

[A Tim]

@Phil So when you say it can be stopped - did you not continue the sentence with "when there's no consciousness" as the caveat?

[Phil]

@A Tim

No, not that I recall. 

 

The thought that thought can be stopped subtly implies thought is an object(s) in motion which started, and that there is a separate entity (a subject) which did, could, might or would - stop thought(s). (“The Stopper”).

A subject-object thought.

 

All thoughts about stopping thoughts, in the doing or action sense, are illusory. The implication is that there is a second or separate self, which not only exists but “does” and “takes action”. (“The Doer” or “The Taker”). 

A self referential thought.

 

Subject-object & self referential thoughts point to abstraction, or, what actually isn’t. Like the thought unicorn, there’s an experience of the thought, but there is no unicorn. 

 

There is, nonetheless, cessation of thought / thinking / suffering. 

 

The thought, “when there’s no consciousness” subtly implies there is time & a future and a potential event which might occur in a future, in which there is no consciousness, and a separate self, “the knower”, which knows about consciousness. 

 

Consciousness is infinite, nondual & present (only).  

 

If the thought “consciousness” is subjectified or objectified, believed to point to anything whatsoever, that is abstraction as well. 

 

If the thought “consciousness” is apparent, and a mere pointing to that which is conscious / aware of the thought, that is not abstraction. 

 

 

There truly is no subconscious, unconscious, unconsciousness or not-consciousness. These terms are a lot like brain. Thought is very sneaky. There could be an experience of the thought brain, and perception (of a brain as it were) such as in a hospital or whatnot, and yet the thought “I (subject) have a brain (object)” would be a subject object, illusory thought. 

[A Tim]

Nevermind. The links brought me to this one, which answers the question I was looking at. Stop feeding the stray seems to be the answer. I'll stop feeding the stray and it'll wander off.