Apech

The necessity of thought.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 8/22/2020 at 2:21 PM, Apech said:

 

 

What do we do with, or use our thoughts for?

.

 

 

 

Edited by Bhathen
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

 

What do we do with, or use our thoughts for?

 

Crossword puzzles!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, steve said:

 

I thought it was answered, though maybe not to your satisfaction.

 

What we are trying to do is loosen our habitual tendency to identify with a subject of experience in order to collapse the subject-object duality. At least that’s what is described in the dzogchen teachings.

 

I find this interesting and worthy of exploration. If a subject doesn’t experience objects, who does? :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bindi said:


If the three types of cognition can be named mundane, creative, and wisdom, only one level needs to be not identified with, the mundane, because it is the essence of duality, it is innately yang, and is already paired with it’s complement being the emotions/yin. But the mundane mind needs to be operating clearly before it is disidentified from.  So I personally have spent my time bringing my mundane mind into its right operation, so that it can be the unhobbled half of its own equation, leaving me free to either pursue/identify with the creative or wisdom mind. 
 

 


 

 

 

Thank you - not sure I fully understand tho'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Thank you - not sure I fully understand tho'.


What on earth is not understandable about what I wrote 😜

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bindi said:


What on earth is not understandable about what I wrote 😜

 

'the unhobbled half of its own equation?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Apech said:

Going back to my OP - can I restate my original question which hasn't been answered yet:

 

"We have at least three types of cognition and therefore thought going on in our minds simultaneously, and with varying levels of energy. And if we are not trying to put a stop to this continuous process, then what are we trying to do?"

 

 

 

Huh ?

 

I thought I did answer it .  We are (or should be ) trying to refine,  develop and control them .

 

... to use them to our advantage, rather than 'them use us' .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, trying to use intention to empty the mind is not going to empty the mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dwai said:

I find this interesting and worthy of exploration. If a subject doesn’t experience objects, who does? :) 

I wonder if this is the place for such a detour?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

'the unhobbled half of its own equation?

 


The mundane mental yang side of the yin yang equation, the mental aspect is hobbled, it can’t be a functional part of the yin yang equation until it is itself in good order. When the mental and the emotional parts are both in good order they naturally fall into right relation with each other, the yin yang equation operates smoothly and any further identification with it amounts to interference.
 

Something like a metronome, if the the moving arm gets stuck on one side or the other it can’t operate smoothly, if it is unstuck it operates smoothly and everything that the mundane mind is required for operates seamlessly in association with the information brought in by the emotional side. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, zerostao said:

Obviously, trying to use intention to empty the mind is not going to empty the mind.

 

Who says you need to empty your mind?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Huh ?

 

I thought I did answer it .  We are (or should be ) trying to refine,  develop and control them .

 

... to use them to our advantage, rather than 'them use us' .

 

You thought you did eh? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, steve said:

I wonder if this is the place for such a detour?

 

Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Why not?

Your thread... just asking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dwai said:

I find this interesting and worthy of exploration. If a subject doesn’t experience objects, who does? :) 

 

According to the dzogchen teachings, no one does. Subject-object duality is the consequence of fundamental ignorance, called ma rigpa - literally not knowing. The Natural State has the quality of being self-aware, also referred to as clarity. This self-aware quality is also called rigpa, or knowing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

You thought you did eh? :)

 

  I  believe so  .

 

:)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, zerostao said:

Obviously, trying to use intention to empty the mind is not going to empty the mind.


Because the intention (to empty) only reinforces the constructed sense it (mind) and anything arising within it (visions - i.e. thoughts) are not already empty?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dwai said:

(X) I find this interesting and worthy of exploration. If a subject doesn’t experience objects, who does?

 

... followed by...

 

50 minutes ago, steve said:

I wonder if this is the place for such a detour?

 

... followed by...

 

40 minutes ago, Apech said:

(Y) Why not?

 

Good morning Apech,

 

How are (X) and (Y) ringing to these...?

 

Going back to my OP - can I restate my original question which hasn't been answered yet:

 

"We have at least three types of cognition and therefore thought going on in our minds simultaneously, and with varying levels of energy. And if we are not trying to put a stop to this continuous process, then what are we trying to do?"

 

- Anand

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Necessity of thought...  necessity.

 

The necessary stuff for me, seems to lie in what occurs below the threshold of conscious waking awareness.

 

As I've pursued 'meditation' I came to realize that my innate sense of things doesn't demonize thinking.

 

I'm not much concerned by everyday thoughts arising.  I've always appreciated the value of a quiet mind, but have no innate interest in demoting the value of conscious thinking, or in seeking to stop it completely, or railing against it as some kind of enemy.  It's natural, a part of awareness... but a small part, it's just the thin surface.   "Like butter scraped over too much bread."  ~Bilbo Baggins

 

I have found abiding benefit in no longer feeding many of the thoughts that arise naturally.  But I don't perceive conscious thinking as a negative, or a positive.  It is part of awareness; a small part.  And often, not necessary.

 

Awareness is what is... my samadhi experience obliterated all notions of objects around me being somehow separate 'things'.  Objects, like thoughts, exist occur in the mind, which seems to me, a tiny field within awareness.

 

Edited by silent thunder
changed a word in last sentence
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 minutes ago, silent thunder said:

Objects, like thoughts, exist occur in the mind, which seems to me, a tiny field within awareness.

 

Yes ~ tiny... and they may not (oc)recur.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Nungali said:

believe

 

 

 

O All Holy Spirits ~ is such a belief... a necessity re a thought?

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

What do we do with, or use our thoughts for?

 

 

To create our own reality through our conditioning?  As a means for experiencing everything this existence has to offer?  And that this earthly existence of ours isn't being judged by any external entity?  To learn to live without fear of judgment?  To examine our own conditioning and realize we are the way we are, so that we can realize that which we are not?

 

There's lots of stuff. 

 

And when we do turn our minds off, hopefully our parasympathetic systems ignore the signals.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, silent thunder said:

Awareness is what is... my samadhi experience obliterated all notions of objects around me being somehow separate 'things'. 

 

 

I don't know that I've ever heard it put just like that here before.  That's nice.  Sometimes I sit in realization of the intersection of Time Avenue and Space St.  I sit in realization that the only reason I perceive depth is because my mind automatically does a calculus of the relativity between objects and a quick conclusion as to how far away it is.  This IS truly the intersection, as I see it - and how that also explains the gazillions of Buddha-lands of the Avatamsaka and Lotus Sutras.  This is only one tiny little intersection.  Imagine how many other intersections there are. 

 

And sometimes I will try to see things two-dimensionally, as though everything I perceive is painted onto a flat canvas.  That's kind of trippy in a hippy dippy sort of way.

 

 

1 hour ago, silent thunder said:

 

 

 

Objects, like thoughts, exist occur in the mind, which seems to me, a tiny field within awareness.

 

 

 

I think about this one a lot.  The matter out of which both objects and humans is the same matter, the same atomic structure.  Then, certainly all matter must have enough consciousness to hold its shape, just as our subconscious and parasympathetic systems continue to function even though we may be asleep.  I can see no better demonstration of intelligent Awareness.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, steve said:

 

According to the dzogchen teachings, no one does. Subject-object duality is the consequence of fundamental ignorance, called ma rigpa - literally not knowing. The Natural State has the quality of being self-aware, also referred to as clarity. This self-aware quality is also called rigpa, or knowing.

Self-aware quality implies a subject, does it not? But objects also rise and dissipate in itself. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Limahong said:

 

 

 

O All Holy Spirits ~ is such a belief... a necessity re a thought?

 

 

 

 

Thorts are tricky enough by themselves .    Belief  ?    Now there is a bag of snakes ! 

 

and now, I shall pre-empt you ;

 

 

 

1475926226-snakes.gif?fill=320:174&resiz

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Nungali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites