Who is listening and who is talking?

Skeeterkb

I think words/thoughts in my mind and at the same time listen to them internally. What's going on, how can I both talk and listen in my mind as if there are two egos there at the same time?

Earthninja

I don't think listening is the word, your thoughts come up and you are aware of them.
Like if the thought of a pretty girl comes up, you are aware of the thought. If a word comes up you are aware of that too.

You only have one ego we have thoughts about our thoughts which may create an illusion there are two

Shoshin

Kia Ora @Skeeterkb,

Perhaps this might be of some help...

Venerable Piyasilo... A Malaysian monk's take on "Being your true self"

NO UNCHANGING, PERMANENT SELF

"There is no single unified, completely integrated self that is continually operative inside us. We can even say that we are each a collection of selves, each of which is fighting for supremacy, and this explains why we so often fail to do the things we have set out to do.

Another way of looking at this situation is that we are always going through an ever changing process without any unchanging, permanent self. We are but the totality of this "bundle" of selves, which are often in conflict with one another. It is as if we were a bundle of selfs loosely tied together by the thin string of personality with' a label bearing our name and address.

GETTING "ON THE LEVEL" WITH OURSELVES

In order to harmonize our various conflicting "selves", we should learn to know ourselves better. This is done through the practice of awareness, of which there are four aspects: the awareness of oneself, of others, of the environment, and of the truth. The awareness of oneself is best cultivated through the practice• of meditation. Such meditation methods, like the Mindfulness of Breathing, helps us become more calm and more aware of ourselves. When we reach a state of mental calm during such a practice, we are said to have reached "horizontal integration" - we are "on the level" with ourselves.

"VERTICAL -INTEGRATION"

As we become more and more of ourselves, we get a clearer understanding and experience of other people and our environment. We begin to see our untapped energies and enjoy our own higher potentiality. Our consciousness becomes more and more developed. This is called "vertical integration", that is, the integration of our conscious mind with the Unconscious (or the "higher mind").

As our consciousness becomes more and more developed, our experience of things begins to deepen and the horizon of our thoughts begins to widen. People and things around us no more delude us, but appear as they really are. No more do we see merely the surface of things, but we begin to "see through" them!"

Metta Shoshin . ..

Toraldris

One function of mind is speaking, another is listening, yet another is awareness of both. There is no "one"... only a collaboration.

Hamsaka

There is a thinking mind and an observing awareness both happening simultaneously. Meditation (samatha in my experience) has made this pretty clear. The observer or witnessing awareness does not think, but the thinking mind makes commentary (endlessly) on what the observing awareness is . . . awaring .

In the book The Happiness Trap by Russ Harris the author describes this almost the same way. The book 'uses' mindfulness techniques in a strictly scientific way, sans reference to Buddhism and even the 'mindfulness movement'. If you like to explore the drier behavioral science take on some mindfulness techniques, it's an interesting book full of exercises that to me don't offend or distract from the essence of the practice.

poptart

@Skeeterkb said:
I think words/thoughts in my mind and at the same time listen to them internally. What's going on, how can I both talk and listen in my mind as if there are two egos there at the same time?

This is when you realise you are not your thoughts.
As a species we binge on thinking. To the extent we have lost a sense of who we are without our thoughts. But thoughts are just mental disturbance, like waves on the surface of the ocean. You are the still ocean, not the waves.

Woah93

I view the awareness of experience as the soul basically. Not the mind and body which work as some kind of computer, processing thoughts and then acting upon them, but the one behind it. The one that sees.

Jason

@Skeeterkb said:
I think words/thoughts in my mind and at the same time listen to them internally. What's going on, how can I both talk and listen in my mind as if there are two egos there at the same time?

That's actually something worth continually trying to observe in meditation, such as repeating a meditation word like buddho and observing the reciting as well as that part of you that's aware of the reciting. In the Thai Forest tradition, this awareness is called poo roo or 'one who knows.' From Ajahn Sumedho's recollections of Ajahn Chah:

Q: What is your point of view about Luang Por Chah’s way of teaching?

A: It was about getting to know yourself, to keep looking at your mind, at your citta, so you’re aware all the time of what you’re feeling. Know your emotion, do not get caught by your own emotion. Keep observing what you’re feeling emotionally. I had a lot of emotions coming up about being the only Farang (foreigner) there, feeling insecure and not understanding everything very well. Sometimes I’d feel lonely and other times arrogant. I felt that a lot of what they were doing was stupid and I didn’t agree with it. But there was this emphasis on knowing yourself, knowing your emotion, to be the one who knows or ‘poo-roo’ in Thai. The ‘poo-roo’ style, being the knowing, I found really helpful. I began to see how I was creating my own suffering by holding on to views or by projecting things onto other monks. When I actually reflected on the existing conditions, I saw they were very good. I had food and requisites, a good teacher, and the monks were basically all very good people. So when I really contemplated the actual situation, I saw it was a very good place. Then I could see emotionally I would bring up jealousy or fear, resentment or arrogance and because of the ‘poo-roo’ style of Luang Por Chah I could see how I created these things. Once I could see that, I could let go of them. I didn’t have to do that. Once I saw that I was the one who created these ‘arom’ (moods), I could take the position of being the one who knows, the one who is aware. I worked through a lot of emotional habits that way. You know how it can be when you’re the only foreigner, you don’t know what’s happening or what they’re thinking. I experienced a lot of fear or paranoia, thinking “What are they really thinking? Why do they do that?” And yet because of the teaching, the ‘poo-roo’, I could see that this was what I made up myself, that my fear or my projection of that monk was what I made. It wasn’t that monk. It was what I was making up myself.

The mind isn't a static whole completely under our control; it's conditioned and composed of many factors or components, some of which can be aware of others, and some of which help to (and even try) to obscure others. It's something to watch because this is where insight into anatta develops.

upekka

@Jason said:
my fear or my projection of that monk was what I made. It wasn’t that monk. It was what I was making up myself.

this is the most important part that we should apply to ourselves which make it quicker to see Dhamma

lobster

From a Christian perspective eg John 3:30
http://www.christianspiritualism.org/articles/intimateDivineUnion.htm

from dharma, stillness (meditation) allows awareness of arisings . . .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zqrx34j

:wave: .

sova

@Skeeterkb said:
I think words/thoughts in my mind and at the same time listen to them internally. What's going on, how can I both talk and listen in my mind as if there are two egos there at the same time?

beautiful question!

may your next hypothesis be "what if there is no self?"

^_^

wisdom abounds!

pegembara

@Woah93 said:
I view the awareness of experience as the soul basically. Not the mind and body which work as some kind of computer, processing thoughts and then acting upon them, but the one behind it. The one that sees.

Really there is no soul (self). Without the experience, there is no "awareness". Or rather "awareness" is the experience itself. No thinker without thoughts, no knower without the known. They arise dependently - not two, not even one. There is ultimately no "poo roo" (one who knows).

'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"

"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."

"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?" [1]

"This speaker,** this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there** to the ripening of good & evil actions."

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."

.... in many ways the Blessed One has said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness.'"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html

So who is listening and who is talking? No one - only just listening and talking.

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html

lobster

@Skeeterkb said:
I think words/thoughts in my mind and at the same time listen to them internally. What's going on, how can I both talk and listen in my mind as if there are two egos there at the same time?

lobster

@Skeeterkb said:
I think words/thoughts in my mind and at the same time listen to them internally. What's going on, how can I both talk and listen in my mind as if there are two egos there at the same time?

Part of the reason for meditating, is becoming aware of the nature of the mind. What a ceaseless jabbering monkey [speaking for myself of course].

We observe the mind. Some discipline or direct the mind. Some calm or tame the mind. Space and quiet, integration a sense of Wholeness emerges . . .

We look for our self. Is it in the speaker or the listener? Is it in the body sensations or the thoughts, memories, imaginings?

No. Those associated or co-dependencies for consciousness are 'not self'. It is the form that gives the emptiness of self its being.

'I think therefore I am?'

. . . or . . .

'A yam I think?'

Woah93

@pegembara I think I disagree. I view the thoughts of the mind as a calculating computer, constantly decoding emotions and putting these in their place, comparing to data acquired in the past memories and then storing it. Your whole experience of life is basically information decoded as electric signals in your brain. Have you wondered why computer games and technology itself is starting to look like reality so much? It's pretty much the same concept, quantum physics is basically confirming this as well. So anyhow my point is the field of awareness can vary but the soul to me is the one who handles the computer, not the computer itself.

anataman

There are different aspects to consciousness if you care to explore them, and Iam prepared to be blown away by my ridiculously simple definitions:

1. There is the self-conscious, and very comfortable self. It is a rather limited view, but it is very functional, it's how you have survived so far.
2. There is the self-awareness, which includes the self-conscious, but on reflection has a broader and all-encompassing being-in -itself.
3. There is...

pegembara

@Woah93 said:
pegembara I think I disagree. I view the thoughts of the mind as a calculating computer, constantly decoding emotions and putting these in their place, comparing to data acquired in the past memories and then storing it. Your whole experience of life is basically information decoded as electric signals in your brain. Have you wondered why computer games and technology itself is starting to look like reality so much? It's pretty much the same concept, quantum physics is basically confirming this as well. So anyhow my point is the field of awareness can vary but the soul to me is the one who handles the computer, not the computer itself.

Computer games, movies, virtual reality, science, maths are products of the mind and it is no surprise that they resemble "reality". The fallacy is the believe that there can be a thinker independent of thoughts. Or a doer independent of the act of doing. In other words there is no thinker without thoughts, no doer without doing, no knower without knowing. No awareness without "awarenessing". Verbs, not nouns. This is something that one has to see for oneself.

neither samsara nor nirvana is a place. Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds, (this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth). Nirvana is the end of this process.

Just as all phenomena are rooted in desire, consciousness localizes itself through passion. Passion is what creates the "there" on which consciousness can land or get established, whether the "there" is a form, feeling, perception, thought-construct, or a type of consciousness itself. Once consciousness gets established on any of these aggregates, it becomes attached and then proliferates, feeding on everything around it and creating all sorts of havoc. Wherever there's attachment, that's where you get defined as a being. You create an identity there, and in so doing you're limited there. Even if the "there" is an infinite sense of awareness grounding, surrounding, or permeating everything else, it's still limited, for "grounding" and so forth are aspects of place. Wherever there's place, no matter how subtle, passion lies latent, looking for more food to feed on.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/nirvanaverb.html

lobster

neither samsara nor nirvana is a place. Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds, (this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth). Nirvana is the end of this process.

Sounds about right. A slightly more intelligent interpretation of ancient superstitions. The Buddhist cycle of birth and death occurs in our interior dialogues and states of being.

What happens as we begin to break these interior and external chains of being? Do we stop becoming better Buddhists, Christians or citizens? I would suggest our inner nature is twisted by needs, sense of being, affiliations to the past, creed or credo. What happens when we listen to silence or the emptiness?

I will leave you with a tool to kneel or sit on . . . :wave: .