Limahong Posted August 23, 2020 (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 August 23, 2020 by Limahong Enhancement Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted August 23, 2020 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. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ilumairen Posted August 23, 2020 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? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
neti neti Posted August 23, 2020 (edited) . Edited August 24, 2020 by neti neti cause for outrage Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted August 23, 2020 @neti neti seriously wtf? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
neti neti Posted August 23, 2020 3 minutes ago, Apech said: @neti neti seriously wtf? @Apech comedy... Ftw? I love this game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted August 23, 2020 (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 August 23, 2020 by Apech 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doc benway Posted August 23, 2020 @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 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doc benway Posted August 23, 2020 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
dwai Posted August 23, 2020 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
doc benway Posted August 23, 2020 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 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ilumairen Posted August 23, 2020 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
Apech Posted August 23, 2020 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
Apech Posted August 23, 2020 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. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ilumairen Posted August 23, 2020 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daemon Posted August 23, 2020 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! ☮️ 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EmeraldHead Posted August 23, 2020 (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 August 23, 2020 by EmeraldHead Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doc benway Posted August 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Apech said: You see, calling thoughts a symptom suggests an illness. it's a symptom of my profession... 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doc benway Posted August 23, 2020 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Limahong Posted August 23, 2020 (edited) 18 hours ago, dwai said: If a subject doesn’t experience objects, who does? (II) Edited August 23, 2020 by Limahong Enhancement Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Limahong Posted August 23, 2020 3 hours ago, Apech said: @neti neti seriously wtf? 3 hours ago, neti neti said: @Apech comedy... Ftw? 3 hours ago, neti neti said: I love this game. wtf? and Ftw? ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted August 23, 2020 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
Limahong Posted August 23, 2020 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
Apech Posted August 23, 2020 2 hours ago, EmeraldHead said: If I understand Buddhism correctly ... Just stop right there. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Limahong Posted August 23, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, EmeraldHead said: If I understand Buddhism correctly... 33 minutes ago, Apech said: Just stop right there. If... Edited August 23, 2020 by Limahong Enhancement 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
