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.
seeing/knowing/thinking of a thought/thougts
upekka
Veteran
is there any difference between seeing (knowing) a thought
and
thinking of a thought?
what happens if we can see a thought?
what happens if we are thinking of a thought?
what exactly is a thought? (not grammatical explanation please)
and
thinking of a thought?
what happens if we can see a thought?
what happens if we are thinking of a thought?
what exactly is a thought? (not grammatical explanation please)
0
Comments
Apple is red , this makes the mind delete everything that is orange, watermellon, etc. by singling in on apple. Then it makes all yellow green etc apples excluded by the label red.
This is how the mind sees in conventional language, It imputes conceptual labels upon reality and sort of morphs the object of direct perception into a conceptual object.
Hope that helps.
It seems relevent......
When beginning meditation I, typically, struggled with thought. Then over time, instead of being drawn into the content of thought at the expense of my immediate sense reality, I became aware of thought as a simple immediate sense occasion, somewhat like seeing a painting and affirming the painted surface at the expense of what it represents. Breaking the belief in a one-to-one correspondence between a thought-symbol and what it represents became the direction in practice. For instance, before if I parked my car and came inside I would think "the car is outside" and assume the thought was the reality. Yet I found that I could go outside and discover that the car had been towed. The correspondence between my thoughts and the world they represent diverge exponentially outward in space and time, like the cone of uncertainty in hurricane prediction. The thought "this computer is black" is a better functional match than "next Tuesday the sun will shine for two hours". With time and practice thought can now present as a simple sensation and symbolic representation without loss of ground in immediate presence.
Don't watch the thoughts
Let them pass
Look at the space between thoughts
Cultivate that
When space between thoughts
Are seen as they are
Turn in the seat of that consciousness
And look there
Maybe yes, maybe no. What is a thought?
Best regards
p
Mental events are mind moving, no more no less. But there is no coming and going in mind. When seen for what it is, that experience of sensing movement, where there is none, ought to wear out.
Movement seems to be there, but it leaves no trace. If there is no trace was it there or not? Who knows?
Utterly empty and awake.
Best regards
p
There is this experiencing moving, it goes like that. No background essence. There is no background stillness. Experiencing moving alone. There is stillness in the moving alone.
There is no seeming in it, there is no seeming. Because there is no other.
Ok. I trust that is your experience. But I can only speak from here.
what is thought?
it is always a historical experience of a thing or a person (incident)
what is a historical experience?
an experience gained through eyes, ears, nose, mouth, body
another thing to reflect on
can a past thought become a thought again?
This opens an interesting can of worms. We cannot experience the past, only a memory trace (image) in the present, likewise we cannot experience the future, only our imaging of it in the present.
ok
Yes in fact our percieved past consists of memories of memories of memories , re-edited everytime it is re-remembered. Thoughts are flashcards, picture symbols, but they can line up in useful way.
You can't trust my experience Richard, but I take those as kind words anyway.
Confusing mental events as experience is a limitation of samsara. That is a classic view from Atiyoga. In general mahayana the mind itself cannot be a valid object for experience since it is empty and by nature not an object...you know the heart sutra. There is no experiencing, remember, no eye, no ear, no nose and so on. There is a point to that meaning besides 'emptiness'.
To say there is no experience however is also a provisional view since we know we experience. The dichotomy to be resolved is when is experience confused and when is it suchness?
But this is far from Uppeka's question.
however mindfulness is not present always
true
isn't this the way we confirm and re-confirm our wrong view?
It's definitely our life view, self image, narrative, etc.
now a question arises
what does 'Mind' mean now?
is it consciousness (vinnana)
or
is it awareness (knowing)?
Upekka
Those are great questions to examine for yourself. Distinguishing the difference is essential. Different traditions have different views on this subject which can be confusing.
Since you seem to have affinity to the Theravada tradition I have pasted this:
-snip-
Sitting here, our bodies are in a tranquil posture. The knowing is abiding within the heart, and each one of us is aware. This present knowing is our true mind. The conditioned mind of thought and proliferation is almost like a demon. Through its actions external phenomena tend to become preoccupations which then obstruct or destroy meditation. But if the meditator grounds himself in the present moment then he is able to make use of the various meditation techniques. He may develop inner recitation for example or perhaps focus on parts of the physical body such as head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, sinews and bones. When contemplation of the body ensues in perception of its unattractiveness, or of its constituent elements of hardness, cohesion, temperature and vibration*[1]*then that is meditation. When the mind is at peace in the recitation of "Buddho," then that too is meditation. And the meditator is the mind.
The mind itself has no color, shape, or form, but it has energy. It is our duty to let go of and abandon the conditioned, proliferating mind. But the mind of present knowing, that which concentrates on Buddha, listens to Dhamma and reflects on its meaning, having been clearly observed, that true mind should be developed. In this case to "develop" means to give care and attention to establishing it in peace. Peace comes by countering the out-going stream of mentality and penetrating this present knowing.
The normal unrestrained mind is absorbed by the thought-consciousness seeking distraction. Go against the stream by looking at the source of mental activity. It originates from this knowing. The source of the mind lies within us. However this knowing is nothing substantial. It has no color, form or shape in the way that material objects do. It is a formless element. -snip- Looang Boo Sim more here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/sim/simplyso.html
Best regards
P
Is there an awareness separate from vijnana? For clarifications: Are you saying there is an existing knower of vijnana called awareness (even though I highly doubt you mean this)? Or are you talking about a quality of mind, like prajna (wisdom), or sati (mindfulness)?
You can't see thoughts, but you can see the results of those thought nearly everywhere.
1. It's like seeing a flash.
2. Sounds weird, but that's what you do 99% of your time ( supposing that 1% represents the period in which you sleep).
3. I personally don't know exactly.
Example:
Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye, lets say consciousness of an apple.No speech, no Analytical speech, just knowing in a sutile way its an apple.
From consciousness of an apple a thought arise about that consciousness, "a personal idea about that", "an history, a speech, analytical thought".
Then, dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness,
Lets say conciousness about a mental quality-analytical thought, "a sutile way of knowing im thinking in a analytical way"
And at least from consciousness of a thought of an apple a thought arise about that consciousness, "a personal idea about that personal idea", "a personal idea about that movement-thinking"
I repeat, i can be wrong -_-.
You would have to meditate to realise such answers, not ask on an internet forum
yoniso manasikara
yes
for example, when we say 'we see the computer screen', we take the 'seeing+computer screen' as one entity and we are conscious to the computer screen
this is what happen to us all the time
this will be what happen to us all the time unless we can not understand Buddha's Teaching
yes
if we are mindful, if we have sati, if we have yoniso-manasikara, we do not cling to the 'computer screen', we are not with ignoranace (avijja) so do not create any sankhara (kamma-formation)
when there is no kamma-formation, there is no place for Consciousness to reside on
one thought moment arisen and fallen away without any residual to come back again in future
in other words, in one thought moment there is no Dependent-arising activated
but
with mind (when you develop the technique) we can see thoughts
whatever we experienced through our six sense bases (eye, ear etc.) would come back to mind as thoughts
these past experiences can be from this life time itself or from a previous life time
can not agree to this because i have the experience that experienced practitioners can provide guide lines for those who need guide lines
to give credit to where credit is due,
xabir in another forum (bswa forum) gave me valuable advices and guide lines for my meditation practice and i get immense help form them and i am indebted to xabir for it
not only xabir many other forum members (bswa) helped me in many ways to develop my meditation practice
my motto is 'Take what is important and Let go of unimportant topics'
again yes, this can be a thought
important thing is, if we can note that thought is a thought, we do not go on making personal opinion on such thought, and think over it more and more (making mano-kamma) or do something based on such opinion (making kaya-kamma) or speak based on such opinion (making vacci-kamma)
rather than giving an example it is advisable to ask,
just close your eyes and take whatever thought that comes into your mind now
there should be a person or a thing
if we do not see this is just a thought, our mind take the person/thing in the thought as something/someone outside of us
but if we can be mindful or skillful to catch the thought as a thought, then we do not build more and more stories on that thought thinking the person/thing is real
Now I understand what it means when Buddha said,
"Consciousness without surface, without end, luminous all around, does not partake of the solidity of earth, the liquidity of water, the radiance of fire, the windiness of wind, the divinity of devas [and so on through a list of the various levels of godhood to] the allness of the All."
— MN 49
We can definitely see thoughts, they are clearly delineated sense experiences. It does take practice. At first we are immersed in thoughts and everything is seen through the veil of thought, everything has spin, but with alot of cushion time thoughts are thrown into relief. There is a point where the assumed thinker dissolves, and thoughts are clearly flowing of their own accord, ownerless. It is easy (at least for me) to get drawn into thought-identity without regular sitting, because some thoughts, like those that compose self-images, are deeply habituated.
So "thought" seen and/or thunk (that's a great alliterative past participle/homonym - thunk! - like when my forehead hits the table.) is a vehicle for recognition of non-existence - providing one can reduce the reference point to pointlessness.....
Are then mind and awareness merely the shadows of consciousness that coalesce to bring clarity, or sight to thoughts, whether referential or not? Conversely, are no-mind and non-awareness the same as not seeing the absence of referentiality?
Not trying to be a smart-ass, it's just that the I we refer to is at once a habitual, well thought out self image and a manifestation of clear and present awareness - arising and falling away continuously, infinitely. Choosing between them sounds suspiciously like craving and aversion.
...now you may take that and say... whatever... but since I'm not heavily invested in convincing you of something I'll be happy to leave it at that.
You do have a good name ...... Iron Rabbit. Like that.
Deepening aloneness sounds daunting yet strangely familiar.......
Nice weiner dog.
As long as you don't mistake understanding, for genuine insight, then perhaps it is OK but that is not always so easy.
Bless.
I am not sure what the doctrinal position on this is, but I think that this is too literal. Emptiness and its object co-exists, emptiness does not mean that the object does not exist. So, assuming my thoughts are correct, the mind can be an object even though it doesn't inherently exist, because it is co-arisen with its emptiness. Form is emptiness....emptiness is form.....mind is emptiness....emptiness is mind. I think no form, no eye, ..... is path language. I don't see this as inconsistent with general mahayana.
if we have any doubts, we have to think it/meditate on it again and again until we see clearly
then we do not have to say 'I think'
Cheers, WK
practice makes us perfect
if it is not correct, why should we say it?
if it occur spontaneously
1. there couldn't be a question of should we use it or shouldn't we use it
2. a good indicator that we still have to practice mindfulness