Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

A primer on thought for newbies

RichardHRichardH Veteran
edited February 2010 in Buddhism Basics
The content of this post is not news to experienced practitioners, but the subject came up recently with some new (offline) practitioners who seemed confused about what can be a confusing topic. This little primer may be a useful to folks who are new to meditation. This is just one way of looking at practicing with thought, and not some claim to gospel on the matter.



For practice sake, thought can be seen to have two dimensions, a real dimension and an unreal dimension. The real dimension is a simple sense phenomena. For example a thought steals attention from the ambient sounds of our environment to varying degrees. This real dimension of thought is dependently arising and empty of inherent existence, just like dogs and people and chairs. The other dimension of thought is unreal, this unreal dimension is the thought's symbolic representation of the real world, the thought's symbolic content. It can be understood as being like a picture on a post card. The paper and ink of the card is real, but the symbolic representation on the card is not real. These symbolic representations of thought do not have a true one to one correspondence with the real world. I can be sitting here in a chair and have the thought “the chair is here”, and at that moment there is a functional fit, there is a one to one correspondence between the symbolic content of the thought, and the chair under my bum. However, if I go to visit a friend and park my car on the street, I may think while I am inside, “The car is parked on the street” assuming a one to one correspondence , but this may not be true. I might come outside and find the car has been towed . This is because the symbol representations of thought diverge from the real world exponentially as we move outward in space and time, somewhat like a weather model. Now consider taking these symbolic pictures of the world as the real world. This is the situation we find ourselves in without practice, literally living our life in a projected, often paranoid dream. IMHO, noticing absorption in the symbolic content of thought, and recognizing their simple sense reality, is the key to entering practice. Without this there is no moving from the theory of Dharma to the realization of Dharma.

Comments

  • SimplifySimplify Veteran
    edited February 2010
    In other words the concept is imaginary but the imagination is real?
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Simplify wrote: »
    In other words the concept is imaginary but the imagination is real?
    Hey you really simplified it.:lol: It sounds like that could work. Some new folks can have a bit of trouble with thought as a simple object of awareness, and think this means thinking about thought. Maybe thats because we are so habituated to inhabiting thought , we have no inclination to witness the process, without entering it, unless it is pointed out
  • SimplifySimplify Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Totally, when I first heard of thought described as a sense just like sight or sound it was like a judo flip on my preconceptions. It was like, "Huh? Oh wow!"

    And then I was like, "Who just said, 'Huh? Oh wow!'? Whose controling my thoughts? Nobody?"

    Funny thing, the sense of self survived all that. Tough little bugger I guess.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Simplify wrote: »
    Totally, when I first heard of thought described as a sense just like sight or sound it was like a judo flip on my preconceptions. It was like, "Huh? Oh wow!"

    And then I was like, "Who just said, 'Huh? Oh wow!'? Whose controling my thoughts? Nobody?"

    Funny thing, the sense of self survived all that. Tough little bugger I guess.
    The initial realization of thought as an object is quite a shift. It's like the thin point of the wedge, and the beginning of a long process. I've been doing this for a while now but the dis-identification with thought has only been by degree. The pictures and stories are not believed as much any more. Some irrational fears that were paralysing twenty years ago are now just a display, others can still be compelling at times. There are some amazing people who seem to completely sense thought at all times, but I've never met anyone who doesn't get drawn into the picture now and then..
Sign In or Register to comment.