for you are these the same or different: thought, imagination, intention

[BigSkyDiamond]

This came up on another thread  (see separate thread just started on "Does the Absolute have agency")

 

For this thread the topic for discussion is please answer the following:

 

For you in your own framework, are these the same or different.

Please discuss how you distinguish between them, how they are different (or not).

 

• thoughts, thinking
• imagination
• intent, setting and using intention

 

Thank you.

[Cobie]

4 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

… thoughts … imagination … intent …

The pivotal thing for me is that all three are mental processes and therefore not real.

 

 

Edited August 17 by Cobie

[Tommy]

Not sure but they seem to come from the same place.

[Lairg]

On 8/18/2025 at 2:13 AM, BigSkyDiamond said:

• thoughts, thinking
• imagination
• intent, setting and using intention

 

Humans generally are more emotional than mental, but the terminology for internal processes is often based on the view that men are mental

 

So emotional humans will tend to astral imagery (imagination) rather than mental

 

Intent can exist on physical, emotional and mental planes - and transpersonal intent, from a human perspective, is primarily on the atmic plane

 

Not all thoughts, images and intents originate within a human.  Thus a suitable human can be managed by external thoughts, imagery and intent

 

 

Edited August 30 by Lairg

[Nungali]

On 8/18/2025 at 2:13 AM, BigSkyDiamond said:

This came up on another thread  (see separate thread just started on "Does the Absolute have agency")

 

For this thread the topic for discussion is please answer the following:

 

For you in your own framework, are these the same or different.

Please discuss how you distinguish between them, how they are different (or not).

 

• thoughts, thinking
• imagination
• intent, setting and using intention

 

Thank you.

 

 

They are all different .

 

A thought is a mental cognitive string .  Thinking is thoughts strung together .

 

Imagination is that refined process , when coupled with  material output ( eg  tool making )  that is the definitive difference between humans and the other animals . In that regard it is a postulation of perceived events and / or objects , followed mentally and observing process that  may or may not unfold from them   for either future uses or reviewing the past possibilities . 

 

But like thought imagination can be sub optimal or unbalanced .

 

Intent  is a mental desire to cause effect . Setting intention is  the mental action involved  in this . Using intention  is the process of this .  

[Mark Foote]

On 8/17/2025 at 9:13 AM, BigSkyDiamond said:

This came up on another thread  (see separate thread just started on "Does the Absolute have agency")

 

For this thread the topic for discussion is please answer the following:

 

For you in your own framework, are these the same or different.

Please discuss how you distinguish between them, how they are different (or not).

 

• thoughts, thinking
• imagination
• intent, setting and using intention

 

Thank you.
 

 

 

BigSkyD, how would you respond to the question? Maybe you didn't want to prejudice the responses, but the questions feel a little impersonal without your response.

 

I like Nungali's response, on thoughts:  "A thought is a mental cognitive string .  Thinking is thoughts strung together ."

 

Thoughts and thinking generally concern things seen, heard, cognized just as they are in the physical world. Imagination extends thought and thinking into things not yet seen, heard, or cognized in the physical world, or that may never be seen, heard, or cognized in the physical world.

 

Intent is tricky.  I'm with Gautama the Buddha:

 

Now I… say that right purpose is twofold. There is… the right purpose that has cankers, is on the side of merit, and ripens unto cleaving (to new birth). There is… the right purpose which is [noble], cankerless, supermundane, a factor of the Way. And what… is the purpose which is on the side of merit, and ripens unto cleaving? Purpose for renunciation, purpose for non-ill-will, purpose for non-harming. This… is right purpose that… ripens unto cleaving. And what… is the right purpose that is [noble], cankerless, supermundane, a component of the Way? Whatever… is reasoning, initial thought, purpose, an activity of speech through the complete focussing and application of the mind in one who, by developing the [noble] Way, is of [noble] thought, of cankerless thought, and is conversant with the [noble] Way–this… is right purpose that is [noble], cankerless, supermundane, a component of the Way.

(MN 117, tr. Pali Text Society vol. III pp 115-116)

 

Moreover, we have:

 

That which we will…, and that which we intend to do and that wherewithal we are occupied:–this becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being there, there comes to be a station of consciousness. Consciousness being stationed and growing, rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the future, and here from birth, decay, and death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow, and despair come to pass. Such is the uprising of this mass of ill.

 

Even if we do not will, or intend to do, and yet are occupied with something, this too becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness… whence birth… takes place.

 

But if we neither will, nor intend to do, nor are occupied about something, there is no becoming of an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being absent, there comes to be no station of consciousness. Consciousness not being stationed and growing, no rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the future, and herefrom birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow and despair cease. Such is the ceasing of this entire mass of ill.

(SN 12.38; tr. PTS SN vol. II p 45)

 

 

So what's a mother to do! 

 

Shunryu Suzuki said:

 

… usually in counting breathing or following breathing, you feel as if you are doing something, you know– you are following breathing, and you are counting breathing. This is, you know, why counting breathing or following breathing practice is, you know, for us it is some preparation– preparatory practice for shikantaza because for most people it is rather difficult to sit, you know, just to sit.
 

(The Background of Shikantaza, Shunryu Suzuki; San Francisco, February 22, 1970)

 

He is recommending "just to sit", to sit without "doing something" with regard to the body.  My experience is that activity of the body purely by virtue of the location of consciousness is possible, and that the relinquishment of will, intent, and whatever I might be occupied with in favor of the free location of consciousness in the body is a necessary part of staying healthy.

We pause now for station identification, as it were.

 

 

[steve]

Both - all are mental processes, and could be reasonably labeled as thought, and yet each is a specialized subset. In my paradigm they are real, that is they are an integral part of reality for me.

[liminal_luke]

I think about scrambled eggs.

I imagine eating scrambled eggs.

I decide to eat scrambled eggs for breakfast.

 

All different.  What the three processes have in common is that none of them actually are scrambled eggs, unfortunately.

[old3bob]

10 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

I think about scrambled eggs.

I imagine eating scrambled eggs.

I decide to eat scrambled eggs for breakfast.

 

All different.  What the three processes have in common is that none of them actually are scrambled eggs, unfortunately.

 

and that one will go hungry if they don't get busy and scramble the eggs and then eat them.

[Cobie]

 

20 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

…  scrambled eggs ….

 

9 minutes ago, old3bob said:

… scramble the eggs and then eat them …

 

 

I’m getting out of here.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 05:49 PM by Cobie

[silent thunder]

Awareness is.  Awareness is shift.  Awareness is our (local) interaction with sensation/reality.

 

All (of experienced reality aka what we are aware of) arises and diminishes within the center of the field of awareness. (personality)

 

There is Awareness, here.  This seems to be one of the few truths.

The rest is... subject to interpretation, accomodation, rejection, worship, etc. of awareness based on social and familial conditioning.

Edited yesterday at 05:53 PM by silent thunder

[Cobie]

I have 5 senses with which I observe the external world. 

 

I also have reflections of all the 5 senses inside my internal world, inside my mind.

 

My mind’s eye 'sees’ the eggs clearly. 

I ‘hear’ the eggshells cracking,  

I ‘smell’ them cooking, 

I ‘touch’ them, eating with my fingers.

I ‘taste’ them, yummy. 

 

In my mind I am eating scrambled eggs now. 

 

But none of this is real. 

 

Real by definition refers to the physical world that’s observed through the 5 senses.

 

 

[Cobie]

[steve]

 By that definition, space is not real and yet it is what allows all things to have their place. Similarly, consciousness is not real so how do all these wonderful senses manifest? What about feelings, are they real? Or solutions to mathematical problems before they’re written down ? I don’t feel limited to a materialistic definition of reality. It misses so much of my life experience.

Edited yesterday at 06:48 PM by steve

[Cobie]

 

1 hour ago, steve said:

 ... so how do all these wonderful senses manifest? 

 

I ‘see’ etc. as clear as in reality. I have always had them. It was difficult for me to learn what’s inside and what’s outside. Had problems. I was told I was hallucinating. I learned hallucinating means to walk in the mind. Problem solved. Enjoying my internal senses now.

 

Quote

What about feelings are they real? Or solutions to mathematical problems before they’re written down ? 

 

I also have  feelings and thoughts.  They too are inside, in my internal world. So not real. Real by definition refers to the physical world that’s observed through the 5 senses.

 

 

Edited 23 hours ago by Cobie

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, steve said:

 By that definition, space is not real and yet it is what allows all things to have their place. Similarly, consciousness is not real so how do all these wonderful senses manifest? What about feelings, are they real? Or solutions to mathematical problems before they’re written down ? I don’t feel limited to a materialistic definition of reality. It misses so much of my life experience.

 

One dual of reality  classification is  'real' as Coby outlined  and  'ideal'  which you just out lined. 

 

Ideal things are  realities that are not 'material' .    The rest is 'misfunction' .... according to the dualism that developed out of the world of scientific observation .  Before that it was a three fold  '  reality '.  Something happened along the way ......   science . 

 

Its all in here , a great read and rather essential ; 

 

 

https://archive.org/details/originsofmoderns007291mbp/page/n9/mode/2up?view=theater

[Cobie]

 

5 minutes ago, Nungali said:

… rather essential ; 

https://archive.org/details/originsofmoderns007291mbp/page/n9/mode/2up?view=theater

It’s 239 pages, you better give me a digest then if it’s so essential according to you. 
 

 

Edited 21 hours ago by Cobie

[Nungali]

20 minutes ago, Cobie said:

 

It’s 239 pages, you better give me a digest then if it’s so essential according to you. 
 

 

 

 

Ha!  Caught you before you deleted it .   

 

Try the first 5 chapters ..... its worth it .      I would not do it justice . 

 

Or dont .... and miss out on essential understanding  . 

[Cobie]

 

Quote

I would not do it justice . 

 

You brought it up, you are an expert in the field anyway. So get your lazy bones to make me a digest.

 

Spoiler

Better make that short too.  

 

 

Edited 21 hours ago by Cobie

[Nungali]

10 minutes ago, Cobie said:

 

 

You brought it up, you are an expert in the field anyway. So get your lazy bones to make me a digest.

 

  Hide contents

Better make that short too.  

 

 

 

[steve]

3 hours ago, Cobie said:

 

 

I ‘see’ etc. as clear as in reality. I have always had them. It was difficult for me to learn what’s inside and what’s outside. Had problems. I was told I was hallucinating. I learned hallucinating means to walk in the mind. Problem solved. Enjoying my internal senses now.

 

 

I also have  feelings and thoughts.  They too are inside, in my internal world. So not real. Real by definition refers to the physical world that’s observed through the 5 senses.

 

 

 

And yet that reality ignores such a large part of our lived experience. Reality testing is an important part of mental health. So is acknowledging the reality of our internal life and its impact on the external, for us and those around us.

[Cobie]

I’m not excluding anything. It’s about knowing what’s on the inside and what’s on the outside. 
 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Cobie

[steve]

Just now, Cobie said:

 

 

 

It really does not exclude anything. It’s about knowing what’s on the inside and what’s on the outside. 
 

 

As you describe it, it excludes everything on the inside, and that which can’t be apprehended by the 5 senses on the outside, or am I misinterpreting your words?

[Cobie]

I have said all I can say. 
 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Cobie

[steve]

48 minutes ago, Cobie said:

I have said all I can say. 
 

 

 

Thank you