Apech

The necessity of thought.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Bhathen said:

Are thoughts generated for achieving a certain purpose?

 

Just putting out my thoughts here...

eg. Only if we have thoughts of sympathy, do we help someone , resulting in clearing of our karmic debt

 

"Mind/ego" generates thought for a reason in its myriad of purposeful roles. There exists only one "Mind/ego", adept at providing us with the experience of separation. Impressive to say the least.  

Babies don't make distinctions, they are in oneness and recognize only themselves in mother's face. Peekaboo and get a smile, since seeing oneself in form is pleasing and thoroughly amusing. It isn't until the child is exposed to enough conditioning that it begins forming this essentially false but extremely useful sense of individuality. Consciousness seems to have a spontaneous split of sorts, self-objectifying such that it may discover what it is in that mirror of "mind".

 

And so, this One and the same ego sets up an encounter for this One and the same observer looking out of both your and my eyes, to assimilate precious life experience. The universe is within, its projection is all that is without(ego). One is exploring the depths of the grand spectrum between good and evil in this sandbox of duality. The forbidden fruit. This experiment has necessarily required that some of us take one for the team, so to speak. The absolute best way to discover why it's wrong to murder someone, is to Actually experience being a murder victim... And the murderer.

 

Hence, in your example, the perceived other in need is brought to one's attention, and the choice is placed before us by ego. Sympathy? Indifference? Disgust?

But Ego is SO impressive of a tool, it's

able to convince us it's actually in charge of the decision, that he is the hero in the story, that he is really us. But really Self runs the entire show, and we are That. The observer observes.

 

And so one is made to help the other, and naturally in so doing helps oneself... the reward is the very act of sympathy, that opportunity for selflessness, our true nature. There is positive consequence, contentment, clarity ensues, peace and love and joy... ease.

 

OR one is made to look upon the other with disgust!, such that in turning away ego may set us up for some negativity! A wonderful learning tool! One fails to see the need as one's own! A denial of truth. The very act of disgust is its own reward, negative consequence. There is suffering, distress, mind darkens, hate and torment... dis-ease?

 

Since Ego so loves center of stage spotlight (vanity), he strives to "protect" himself(but really is protecting the observer) by repressing negative experience, shoving it deep down, thereby cluttering the observer's perception of wrongdoing, for Ego can do no wrong see? Because he's in charge and always needs to look good, he's always right. :) These things can be ignored to the degree that we can even forget we forgot about them!, thereby causing deep-seated unconscious trouble and extremely unharmonious lifestyles.

Ego paradoxically "punishes" the observer for the purpose of remedying the confusion. Suffering increases until these life lessons are brought to the surface, properly confronted and processed as necessary. 

 

 

14 hours ago, Bhathen said:

Is there a difference when the thought in the head/mind is spoken or written out?

What happens when it just stays inside...just dissipates if we let it go or does it transmit out into the universe?

 

Our word is our bond.

 

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. 

 

Whatever ego wants bad enough is

generally held away from it, unless of course that Cheese is meant to be taken from the trap.

Edited by neti neti
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

If a subject doesn’t experience objects, who does? (I)

 

Going back to the original thread title - The necessity of thought - will it be less subjective (and more objective) if we narrow down the myriad possible responses to it?

 

How? By focusing on it re a solution to a common problem ABC together?

 

 

Edited by Limahong
Enhancement

Share this post


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

 

Going back to the original thread title - The necessity of thought - will it be less subjective (and more objective) if we narrow down the myriad possible responses to it?

 

How? By focusing on it re a solution to a common problem ABC together?

 

 

 

Yes, you could interpret necessity as ' the unceasing nature' (of thought) or the need of thought for some purpose.  I think we are all gulled a little by early meditation instructions to 'empty the mind' and 'let thoughts come and go' without paying any heed to them.  As if thoughts are necessarily dross of some kind.  So we get the idea of the pristine mind (often called sky-like) as being different to the messy filled up mind with its stream of incessant thoughts.

 

I get @manitou 's idea of a process of simplifying (if I have understood this properly) that reducing mental over-work leads to a being here-now and a greater sense of peace and fulfilment because you are getting closer to being in the natural state.  I hope I got this right 'cos I didn't re-read your post and am just thinking from memory.

 

I also like @Bindi's ideas about the mundane yang and the yin mind - not sure I absolutely buy the terminology but what she is saying feels like actual work, if you see what I mean, as distinct to theory.

 

I think the first question which arises for me is this picture of thoughts as dross.  As if all of our thoughts, feelings, emotions are to be seen as deluded impurities to be removed.  This is a very common idea in mystical literature.  But it is notable that its many proponents have sets of very well developed conceptual terms and ideas to back up their claim.  They say for instance reality is non-conceptual and describe this in a quite long winded ways using an endless stream of portmanteau words.  I find Dzogchen (great and esteemed system though it is) particularly prone to this.

 

While I accept that there are thoughts which are dross, idle chit chat, emotionally obsessive repetition and so on - I don't think this is the nature of thought, more the product of an unexamined mind.   Thoughts are a constructive process - which begs the question what are we supposed to construct with them?

 

@steve and @dwai - is there fundamentally a Self which observes - or is it better understood as a field of self-aware mind (the self part just being the reflexive verb and not a separate self) - an age old question kicked off by the Samkhya duality of Purusha/prakriti and attempts to resolve the paradox of two absolutes co-existing.  I am quite happy with thinking that in some senses both may be true - but whichever you take to be true will inevitably have an impact on how you approach your cultivation practices.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

While I accept that there are thoughts which are dross, idle chit chat, emotionally obsessive repetition and so on - I don't think this is the nature of thought, more the product of an unexamined mind.   Thoughts are a constructive process - which begs the question what are we supposed to construct with them?

 


What if we call thoughts a communicative process instead of a constructive process? Would this change the question in any meaningful way?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, ilumairen said:


What if we call thoughts a communicative process instead of a constructive process? Would this change the question in any meaningful way?

 

Yes it would because it would change the perceived purpose of thought from some way of working on a situation in order to structure it in some way to a process of attaining a shared understanding of something.  It also begs the question of who is communicating with who - especially if you are focussing on internal processes where presumably you are communicating with yourself.

 

 

Edited by Apech
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@dwai  I think Apech’s reply was more accurate and concise than I could manage. Perhaps ‘self-aware ‘ implies a subject as a consequence of our familiar condition of duality rather than being evidence of some absolute truth

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Yes it would because it would change the perceived purpose of thought from some way of working on a situation in order to structure it in some way to a process of attaining a shared understanding of something.  It also begs the question of who is communicating with who - especially if you are focussing on internal processes where presumably you are communicating with yourself.

 

 

 

I think in some sense, we are nearly always communicating with ourselves. As Krishnamurti might put it, ‘my image of myself is in relationship with my image of you.’ Nowhere is this more obvious than in anonymous digital communication, where it is responsible for so many conflicts here and elsewhere...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, steve said:

 

@dwai  I think Apech’s reply was more accurate and concise than I could manage. Perhaps ‘self-aware ‘ implies a subject as a consequence of our familiar condition of duality rather than being evidence of some absolute truth

That’s a valid point :), but isn’t duality an everyday experience?

 

How does this self-awareness work?  Is it like the case of “how does one know if one has eyes?” question? 
 

Do thoughts have a role to play there? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dwai said:

That’s a valid point :), but isn’t duality an everyday experience?

Certainly

 

Just now, dwai said:

How does this self-awareness work?  Is it like the case of “how does one know if one has eyes?” question?

The way it works is described as having 3 components - empty essence, clear nature, and the inseparability of those two qualities is the source of infinite potential for manifestation.

 

Just now, dwai said:

 Do thoughts have a role to play there? 

Thoughts are a symptom, an energetic display 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Yes it would because it would change the perceived purpose of thought from some way of working on a situation in order to structure it in some way to a process of attaining a shared understanding of something.  It also begs the question of who is communicating with who - especially if you are focussing on internal processes where presumably you are communicating with yourself.

 


What if the shared understanding you refer to when applied to internal processes can still be understood as a way of working on a situation - not through “structuring,” but through integration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ilumairen said:


What if the shared understanding you refer to when applied to internal processes can still be understood as a way of working on a situation - not through “structuring,” but through integration?

 

How do you integrate without some kind of structure?

Share this post


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

Certainly

 

The way it works is described as having 3 components - empty essence, clear nature, and the inseparability of those two qualities is the source of infinite potential for manifestation.

 

Thoughts are a symptom, an energetic display 

 

You see, calling thoughts a symptom suggests an illness.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

 

How do you integrate without some kind of structure?


Break down the previously created structure which is leading to a sense of separation/personal internal conflict (which may be projected outwardly) - mostly through recognition, which may (honestly) be a bit slow in dawning.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

And if we are not trying to put a stop to this continuous process, then what are we trying to do?"

 

Quote

[...]

 

If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;

 

[...]

 

Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And - which is more - you’ll be a Man, my son!
 

 

☮️

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If I understand Buddhism correctly, thoughts belong to the 5 skhandas. The skhandas fuel the brain or Nirmanakaya. Some people think they can think without thoughts or "thought-forms" but even that very perception is the 5 skhandas. Meaning if you were to cultivate properly you could isolate that very background perception and immediate identification or understanding of what's in front of you - and it would feel in your experience just like a thought.

 

So thoughts are simple perception. The Nirmanakaya expands. Expands it's perception, it is trying to accelerate to infinity. Body wanting to be like mind (Sambogakaya, in this context).

 

Concentration comes from Nirmanakaya. Everything you do requires concentration. You say an infant grows when they start to concentrate on cartoons or topics and the world around them. When you fall asleep you relax the concentration to the higher skhandas or entirely. When you push for the last rep in the gym you cannot feel your body anymore or use the 6 senses and concentration is stretched to the max. The very willpower for the Nirmanakaya is a matter of serenity/clarity of mind which is none other than concentration. When you're truly  angry your senses are slightly tiny bit stronger and you are concentrated to quantitatively more than before

 

This means both bad or unskillful, as well as refined concentration comes from Nirmanakaya cultivation.

 

All you can do is make your thought process merged nicely together and the 5th skhanda dominant like a leader in the thought process.

 

The first skhanda is 'excited' through (I don't remember this one well but it's a google away if you want') the 4 elements.

The next 3 through contact. The last through NAME-FORM. So for example if you get tortured the first 4 will react because there is contact. The last 5 is untouched iron / shen like mentation/thinking/experience. It is the one to decide if to forgive or rage or whatever action it will take. Only direct identifiable concepts or NAME-FORM can affect it :)

Edited by EmeraldHead

Share this post


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

 

You see, calling thoughts a symptom suggests an illness.

it's a symptom of my profession...

:lol:

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, EmeraldHead said:

If I understand Buddhism correctly...

 

With respect, I have concerns regarding your usage of the terms Nirmanakaya, Sambhogakaya, and (in previous posts) Dharmakaya.

It's a tricky subject and definitions may vary a bit depending on school and whether the instruction is in sutra, tantra, or dzogchen. I generally view the 3 kayas as the spontaneous expression of enlightened qualities in body, speech, and mind. I freely admit my understanding is limited. It's taken me years to develop a sense of what these terms point to and it's still a work in progress. I'd be interested in how you understand or define the 3 kayas if you feel like sharing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If a subject doesn’t experience objects, who does? (II)

 

 

carl-gustav-jung-quote-the-pendulum-of-the-mind-oscillates-between.jpg

 

 

Edited by Limahong
Enhancement

Share this post


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

@neti neti seriously wtf?

 

3 hours ago, neti neti said:

@Apech comedy... Ftw?

 

th?id=OIP.piHM64uLJY_MaFUEvNuvXQHaDf&pid=Api&P=0&w=326&h=154

 

3 hours ago, neti neti said:

I love this game.

 

wtf? and Ftw?

?

 

Share this post


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


Break down the previously created structure which is leading to a sense of separation/personal internal conflict (which may be projected outwardly) - mostly through recognition, which may (honestly) be a bit slow in dawning.

 

 

structures are made to be broken?  but what about indestructible truth?

Share this post


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

structures are made to be broken?  but what about indestructible truth?

 

 

Where/how do I find the indestructible truth?

 

 

Share this post


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

If I understand Buddhism correctly ...

 

Just stop right there.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites