Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Thoughts are impediments
Nerima
Veteran
Comments
Thoughts are only impediments to meditation to the degree that we deliberately direct them or are oblivious to them, as it is with forms, sensations, activity or consciousness.
The qualifying word of truth in the op's opening post depends on our understanding of what that two word phrase "gives rise" really means.
There is a fundamental difference in meditative understanding between allowing any phenomena to arise, live and pass on unmolested.....and trying to direct it through rejection or avoidance.
Yes, the last bit points to how when we resist thought by 'rejection or avoidance' it only leads to more struggle and defeats the whole purpose of meditating and calming the mind.
In my understanding the difference between concentration (not-thinking) and vipassana or shikantaza (allowing thoughts to come and go) is not fundamental.
That’s because the fundamental and common part is that we don’t identify with the thought (either by letting it be, or by returning to the breath). The common part is that we don’t throw ourselves fully into the thinking and stop seeing the thought as something outside us; as something that we are not.
Also imho in the end the same thing happens. In the beginning of concentration practice all kind of thoughts come and go. And in a prolonged practice of vipassana or shikantaza the mind becomes stilled.
I like this Papaji quote in the OP, just like the Ramana saying: "Don't believe a single thought."
I think statements like the OP topic headline are a little silly. That topic headline is a thought. The diagram is a thought. Each response is based on thoughts. Buddhist thought is a library of thoughts.
Perhaps there is a middle way - thoughts can be an impediment?
I'm thinking more so "views" are impediments rather than thoughts.
Attachment to views is certainly an impediment....not that I'm attached to that view of course.
I don't agree with the notion that practicing buddhism is about removing thoughts in order to achieve enlightenment / peace / contentment.
How would I possibly be able to do my job or raise my children if I didn't ever have a thought? That just doesn't make sense to me?
I believe it's about non-judgement / non-attachment to thoughts.
Some seem to focus on the non-person or no person thing, and I think it ties in with perhaps a mistaken belief that Buddha meant it in some sort of extreme mystical way, in which we must divorce ourselves from our thoughts and everything else mind-wise, that makes us human. I think a divergence happens with this type of notion and the one where he explained the vast interconnectedness / oneness and end up overshooting the mark for what Buddha really meant.
Thoughts are not the problem.
The real problem is what quality of thoughts we buy into and how we choose to act upon them.
Meditation is ideally a dettached observation of our thoughts.
Thoughts thus observed provide vital information as to our innermost states, what makes us tick, what patterns are blocking our development, what thoughts are getting encroached into opinions and views.
There are two different translations of the Magandiya Sutta that run: “People with opinions just go around bothering each other,” or "Those who cling to perceptions and views, wander the world offending people."
Thoughts which are brought to our awareness, can be identified for what they are -friends or foes- and dealt with accordingly.
Mainly unfounded assertions, insecurities collective neuroses and perhaps a sprinkle of egotism for good measure.
Yes, thoughts can be obstacles, and obvious with hindsight.
I do likes it. I do, I do.
However as the NewBuddhi have mentioned, getting rid of thoughts is like getting rid of breathing, turns us into a vegetable. Meditation (down cushion, enough already) helps us to slow down the incessant monkey mind. With some forms of concentration, mantra and mindfulness we can be more in the experience than the monkeying.
Buddhist practice, rather than theoretical dharma also slows or lessens our emotional attachment to arisings of mind and conflictive emotional attachments.
Just a thought . . .
I really like this post. It's the taking ownership of thoughts that causes the suffering.
If we observe a thought like watching TV, it creates distance between us and thought.
Then it doesn't sting when the thoughts come up.
I often catch a thought arising and immediately see the guilt come up. It's at these moments I realise I never chose the thought. Therefore it's not me
Thank you Papaji.
For the most part we go about life not thinking about thinking (ironically just thinking), but when we start to think about thinking, we then realise (thanks to yet another thought) that thinking is actually taking place, and that "Thought itself "is" the thinker" it takes a thought to recognise a thought....
Which led me to this conclusion "I am just a thought who thinks I am thinking I am just a thought!" and taking comfort in this knowledge, I can choose to go with(and not be taken for a ride like in the past) or let go of the thought altogether (Well "I" can't but "awareness" can
)...
Since learning how to think, thought has hardly stopped for a break ....Just think about that for a moment......."No rest for the wicked
"
"I used to think the brain was the sexiest of human organs... Then I thought- look what's telling me that!"
-- Emo Phillips
Now all I have to do is tie a string around my finger! I sure hope it helps.
Welcome to my All Kinds of Excuses Headquarters.
@silver, the best way to remember is to deliberately try to forget...Think about it ....(or should I say don't think about it....
That was confusing ... Gah!
Shoshin puts it nicely. The way to liberation is to forget about the path.
Sounds like zen!
The zen masters of old say the same things. The question now is what do they mean by "thoughts". The thoughts in the picture are a good example IMO!
thoughts are thoughts - they can seem as impediment, if we give importance to it - they can seem as liberating, if we just see their arising and see their ceasing, without us acting on them, rather just observing them. If what Dogen has taught that every moment is complete in itself, and there is no such thing as enlightenment outside practice and there is no practice outside enlightenment and enlightenment-practice is one word - so how can thoughts be impediment or helper to anything and to what - if enlightenment and samsara arise simultaneously and cease simultaneously.
being a human being to function in the world, thoughts are needed, so why have aversion towards them and also why attach to them since they are not inherently ours. i am feeling like i am acting as a complete hypocrite, as even though theoretically i little bit understand what i have written above, but when it comes to practical ground reality, i have all the defilements of lust, anger, greed, attachment, aversion and ego in huge quantities inside me.
Inspired by Socrates, and a word to the truly wise, for one cannot be truly wise without charity towards others:
I'd think, then, that some thoughts might indeed be impediment-removers.
Original Poster: The person who begins the selected thread,
@silver,
"By trying to get rid of something, one is unconsciously granting it reality !"
@Nerima, I know you did not ask me, but for many of us who prefer the objective and impersonal, OP means Opening Post: That is, what was posted and its manner, not the person who posted it. Sometimes we get a little petty when our quirky personalities get involved.
I include myself in the Buddhist beginner sector, valiantly struggling with the utterances of master meditators and teachers and getting it WRONG because I have yet to master much simpler teachings -- like JUST BREATHE (for instance).
Thank you @nirvana
It's all good, either way. Just my take. (And the primary definition in Wikipedia's Internet and gaming entry.) The LOL I placed on your above post is a Smile, not a poke, I assure you.
Good point but there exist such a thing as a pointing out instruction. The pointer may require experience in meditation and then aha moments to correlate the words to the experience. That is why a lot of people say to get a guru. Because we find these things that can lead to totally wrong views and the guru can talk to us and help to understand what the pointers are saying. I thought of something like that earlier today.. I forget what it was.
Also Papaji is advaita vedanta and they have a different vocabulary for studying. You could say it is a different system for understanding reality. But aside from language advaita vedanta is not so much different from certain schools in Tibetan Buddhism.
What is it that knows the thought? Does the thought have sensitity to the thoughts before such that it can pass the thought of 'I am thoughts' on? How does a thought lead to another thought? Too much thinking
?
Your brain produces thoughts the same way your stomach produces gastric juices.
The important thing is not to buy into any thought your brain arbitrarily produces.
The important thing is not to buy into any thought your brain arbitrarily produces.
Cute - interesting analogy.
So, our minds are sampling too much food for thought!
@DhammaDragon, not all Buddhists believe that thoughts are epiphenomena of the brain. But your answer is good for in the mean time until I can answer the question I proposed. I think it depends what is meant by a thought and how we use language for understanding based on our western upbringing as compared to Buddhism with Skhandas etc.
Western, but Buddhist, and both very knowledgeable in Abhidhamma.
I just said not all Buddhists. My teacher is an example. Just an example in a Dharma talk my teacher said that the mahayana right off the bat does away with a universe separate from consciousness. So an ocean is just form skhanda of beings. Not an ocean metaphorically. A clod of dirt is form skhanda of a sentient beings perception.
But yeah I think your view is similar to scientific materialism though I don't doubt that many Buddhists would share your understanding.
I think the point that my teacher makes is not denouncing the brain, but rather pointing out that when she says a thought she is not talking about synapses and so forth. When she says thought she is talking about yogic (direct) experience. The term subjective may or may not be helpful or misleading. A society without any scientific knowledge is presented with the same yogic experience of thought. So when my teacher is talking about thought she is not talking about some brain waves or whatever. One of the illustrations is the thought experiment of scientists who know what you are thinking based on your brain waves. So if the scientist says that your brain wave means you are thinking of sex and really you are thinking of your Christmas shopping what would you do. Where does the buck stop as far as awareness? I think one would have to say that they trust their immediate subjective experience rather than what the brain waves are saying. Again this is a gedanken/thought experiment and not sure how far it goes as a polemic. This isn't an idea unique to my sangha.
My teachers teacher Khenpo Gyamptso Tsultrim Rinpoche said that thinking mind and body are separate is suffering so that is food for thought. He said that in a spontaneous song that I read about.
And just an aside but in western philosophy they talk about this topic too. But I think Buddhism is just from a practical standpoint trying to understand the mind to release from suffering.
Interesting questions @Jeffrey, have you heard Alan Watts take on thoughts and thinking ?
As for the first question "What is it that knows the thought?" I would have to say an altered state of consciousness/awareness...
Your brain produces thoughts the same way your stomach produces gastric juices.
And meditation is like taking an anti-acid tablet.
No... meditation is the self-conscious raft that brings you back to the present being, or the gift of here and now - it's nothing more than that... It's not an antacid. It allows a space for recollection, even if it lasts only for a few seconds...