The necessity of thought.

[doc benway]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

 

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

 

Crossword puzzles!

[dwai]

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?  

[Apech]

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'.

[Bindi]

27 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Thank you - not sure I fully understand tho'.

What on earth is not understandable about what I wrote 😜

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, Bindi said:

What on earth is not understandable about what I wrote 😜

 

'the unhobbled half of its own equation?

 

[Nungali]

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' .

[zerostao]

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

[doc benway]

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?

[Bindi]

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. 

[Apech]

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?

[Apech]

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?

[Apech]

11 minutes ago, steve said:

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

 

Why not?

[doc benway]

21 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Why not?

Your thread... just asking

[doc benway]

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.

[Nungali]

38 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

You thought you did eh?

 

  I  believe so  .

 

[ilumairen]

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?

[Limahong]

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

 

[silent thunder]

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 August 23, 2020 by silent thunder
changed a word in last sentence

[Limahong]

 

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.

 

 

[Limahong]

22 minutes ago, Nungali said:

I  believe

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

[manitou]

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.

[manitou]

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.

[dwai]

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. 

[Nungali]

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 ;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2020 by Nungali

[neti neti]

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 August 23, 2020 by neti neti