Untrustworthy Internal Monologues

[nac]

The Non-Buddhist in me says "One Truth; Many Perspectives!" The Buddhist in me says "'Truth' refers to views regarding which there can be no non-delusional disagreements. 'Perspective' refers to views regarding which there can be non-delusional disagreements. Both terms may be skillful in conveying correct understanding and thus bringing about true awakening. Either may be used to obscure valid perception."

 

My concern is that I've unfairly mislabeled these voices for a while. For starters, the world isn't divided into "Buddhists" and "Non-Buddhists", but I've always known that. Genuine progress means carefully discriminating among the multiplicity of views on offer and accurately discerning their strengths and weaknesses in domains of representation, utility, and the like.

Edited August 14, 2012 by nac

[joeblast]

if you pay attention to the source of the I-thought (say I to oneself) then after a while your hear those thought resonances not emanating from the same source as I

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy

[nac]

if you pay attention to the source of the I-thought (say I to oneself) then after a while your hear those thought resonances not emanating from the same source as I

I-thoughts dependently arise and dependently subside like all other thoughts; thus they have no single source, only relevant sources depending on the context. Like all thoughts, their contents are ultimately illusory and latching on to them leads to self-deception.

 

Frankly, this looks irrelevant to me. Please explain more fully what you're implying here. (Because if it's just "shut up and stop thinking", well, thanks for the response, but just so you don't get the wrong idea, I have no intention of following that advice.)

 

The Buddhist in you talks a lot. Both of them plays you. And plays "you". Genuine progress means not looking at thought.

That "speech" is not rooted in frivolous talk but arises from the apprehension of causes and conditions. If I am mistaken in that regard, please explain where I have been led astray. There is no self-nature involved till at least one meta level up, and even that is a relative categorization drawn from the Sutras. Not looking at thoughts is ignorance, which can engender no progress. Progress (the kind I'm talking about, anyway) occurs through the analytic loosening of narrow thinking.

 

Also, most Buddhist Sutras and Shastras "talk a lot". Spiritual traditions that interest me the most tend to do that.

 

Don't take this amiss, but if you never look at your thoughts, what reason do I have to believe that you know what you're talking about? Did you just spontaneously say whatever came into your head? Either way, what was the relevant source of that idea? Or do you deny that "do not analyze your thinking" is an idea?

Edited August 14, 2012 by nac

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy

[Stosh]

I-thoughts dependently arise and dependently subside like all other thoughts; thus they have no single source, only relevant sources depending on the context. Like all thoughts, their contents are ultimately illusory and latching on to them leads to self-deception.

 

This is an interesting approach you have made.

I have some difficulty in getting the meanings that folks assume the words they write have, on an intuitive basis.

You say that thoughts of myself as an I, pop up like other types..

Can you give me an example of an I thought in a sentence form?

I hear the word I in my minds ear when formulating sentences but I dont think I hear them the rest of the time.

Are there are also times when I would be refering to to myself wordlessly? and is this still considered an I thought?

for instance,,

a self direction to look at the sky without a grammatical component ,

Is that an I thought by inference?

or would that not be considered a thought.

Stosh

Edited August 14, 2012 by Stosh

[joeblast]

I-thoughts dependently arise and dependently subside like all other thoughts; thus they have no single source, only relevant sources depending on the context. Like all thoughts, their contents are ultimately illusory and latching on to them leads to self-deception.

 

Frankly, this looks irrelevant to me. Please explain more fully what you're implying here. (Because if it's just "shut up and stop thinking", well, thanks for the response, but just so you don't get the wrong idea, I have no intention of following that advice.)

 

I wasnt referring to a spontaneous arising of a though that happens to be "I" - I'm talking about watching the internal reflections thereof when considering random thought vs actively saying to oneself repeatedly "I" as a reflection back on the seat of awareness. But that sentence is giving the answer away. It is a method of connecting with the seat of awareness, but a tiny tool in the bag that doesnt have a ton of relevance outside of gaining experiential connection to the seat of awareness.

 

Personally I dont favor a "shut up and stop thinking" approach, at least not for beginners, not for beginning a session. Training must be done that will harness and utilize the thought-stream-energy and create a path for that energy to follow - that is why in meditation awareness is paramount. I favor shutting those thoughts up via rote repetition as a foundational mechanism - each movement of breath having the awareness fully sunk into it. I sat for months and months trying to execute perfect breaths for my present cardiovascular rate - because it changes from start to finish of a session, and diligence in practice changes your starting baseline - and since it is ever present, ever aware, this is imho the best way to fully establish the requisite proprioception is via this fully aware movement - it ingrains what one is doing more thoroughly. With time and training, this establishes a new path of least resistance for the thought-stream-energy, the more "in practice" you are, the more likely it is that your mind settles down into a calm, serene, thought-less, fully aware state. Bringing part of that focus to the seat of awareness (after the breath mechanisms have been imbued with a certain amount of muscle memory) will help one let go of the sinuses and not use...well, anything above the diaphragm to facilitate breath - then, much much less stimulation of the olfactory, smooth, calm, long, deep - it is establishing the poles of yinyang within the body and expressing that via the meditation.

 

That's why "it all starts with the breath" - untrained, the cranial nerves receive too much stimulus, be it from air flow through the sinuses hitting the olfactory bulb, the uneven motion of the guts tugging at the vagus, or one's own internal dialogue (although at times the dialogue is helpful, say if one is doing standing practice, readjustments of alignment are sometimes necessary and fall into this category, so while it may contribute to more dialogue, so long as one stays focused then one will still be able to bring the matrix of action-impulse-feedback down to lower consumption, higher amplitude states.) So get these foundational aspects addressed, and herein is the mechanism by which the thoughts "naturally drop off."