Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register
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.

You are your thoughts?

LiveToLearnLiveToLearn
edited November 2010 in Buddhism Today
I'm just curious to what people's opinions are on this quote, I believe by James Allen.

"You are the sum total of your thoughts, emotions and experiences."

Recently I keep reading that your thoughts are impermanent, and therefore "not-self".

So...what might this quote mean then?

Comments

  • thickpaperthickpaper Veteran
    edited November 2010
    LiveToLearn wrote: »
    I'm just curious to what people's opinions are on this quote, I believe by James Allen.

    "You are the sum total of your thoughts, emotions and experiences."

    Recently I keep reading that your thoughts are impermanent, and therefore "not-self".

    So...what might this quote mean then?

    It seems very similar to the Buddha's "There is no thinker, only thought(s)". What do you think?
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    Thoughts are thoughts. You are an aggregation, a compilation, of conditions and matter; but you are not permanent, not separate ("self" or "I"), and until a selfless view of reality is the only one you have, you suffer because you cling to who you are while the world doesn't seem to let you (because you're delusional; we all are). That's the crux of the problem; Self. That's our Satan and our Mara. Nothing impure exists otherwise, no sin. Nirvana, God, whatever you call it... that's the finale. Jesus taught of compassion toward all even at the expense of his life and against his religion (Judaism), the same as the Buddha. Without Self, and with full understanding of reality and the suffering of others, only Compassion and Wisdom (Right View) remain.
  • LiveToLearnLiveToLearn
    edited November 2010
    Personally, I think one shouldn't separate their thoughts from their self.

    Too label ones thoughts as "not-self" creates a duality, to me. Your body and brain are what compose your physical essence, and your thoughts are fundamentally connected to that physical essence. Every thought you have is generated in your brain, which is you!

    True the body is impermanent, but then again so is your perception of reality. To me its an issue of ego vs self. Do you associate your body with your ego, or with your self? If you are fat, do you tell yourself "I am fat, therefore I am ugly, undesirable, not deserving of compassion, etc.." with all of the ego connections...or is it just plainy and simply, "I am fat." because its true...you are fat. That's you.

    No offense intended to overweight persons. :)
  • LiveToLearnLiveToLearn
    edited November 2010
    Cloud wrote: »
    Thoughts are thoughts. You are an aggregation, a compilation, of conditions and matter; but you are not permanent, not separate ("self" or "I"), and until a selfless view of reality is the only one you have, you suffer because you cling to who you are while the world doesn't seem to let you (because you're delusional; we all are). That's the crux of the problem; Self. That's our Satan and our Mara. Nothing impure exists otherwise, no sin. Nirvana, God, whatever you call it... that's the finale. Jesus taught of compassion toward all even at the expense of his life and against his religion (Judaism), the same as the Buddha. Without Self, and with full understanding of reality and the suffering of others, only Compassion and Wisdom (Right View) remain.

    The paradox in what you are saying is one word you use over and over: "you".

    Who is this "you" you are referring to....? Who is the "you" that perceives that "I" should have selfless view of reality?
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    Everything is dualistic in this way, not standing on its own. That's the point. If nothing stands on its own, there can be no self or self-nature. In knowing that everything is dualistic, reality becomes non-dual. It is emptiness, transient, conditionality carrying forth and whipping the ephemeral cloud into new shapes and states of mind.

    When you meditate and focus on the breath, all sorts of thoughts, feelings, sensations, sounds, etc. are thrown at you, regardless of you. How then could you be any one of them? Deeper meditation shows that part that observes the breath isn't the "self" either, but that's more advanced and off-topic.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    Conceptual you; the parts that actually comprise the mind-body complex that you consider to be "mine", of which there is no independent "self". Didn't mean to confuse. :)
  • EpicurusEpicurus
    edited November 2010
    Yes, everyone is their thoughts. We are what we think. And that applies to buddhism too.

    You might talk about not-self, but what has led you to buddhism were your thoughts too. And everything you learn about compassion and patience etc are your thoughts too.

    Lots of people in history knew this. People who didn't even came into contact with James Allen OR Buddha's words.
  • LiveToLearnLiveToLearn
    edited November 2010
    Cloud wrote: »
    When you meditate and focus on the breath, all sorts of thoughts, feelings, sensations, sounds, etc. are thrown at you, regardless of you. How then could you be any one of them? Deeper meditation shows that part that observes the breath isn't the "self" either, but that's more advanced and off-topic.

    I'm not so sure, and this is where my opinions might differ.

    True when you meditate and thoughts rise and fall in your head, you are not anyone of those particular thoughts. However, to say those thoughts aren't you is creating a dichotomy. You are telling yourself, that anger isn't me, its only a thought...or that jealousy isn't me, it is only a thought.

    But in reality, the jealousy and the anger ARE you when the thought arises. Because at that moment, that is your thought....but the observer watching the thought is you too! There is no separation, the observer and the observe are actually the same thing.

    Krishnamurti spoke frequently about this topic as well.
  • LiveToLearnLiveToLearn
    edited November 2010
    Sorry if we are talking about the same thing here. This is one of those very fuzzy concepts!!
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    Jealousy and anger are feelings. So now you're the feelings? :) What we think to be the self is whatever we cling to, and hence the illusion of a separate "I" that has likes, dislikes, etc. as attributes. This is a Buddhist forum, so we're talking about (I assume) the Buddhist view. If you're not so sure, maybe you've misunderstood the teachings? No offense or anything intended, but generally not something that's argued about in Buddhism at-large.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    We may very well be talking about the same things, on some level. In my view currently, we are every thought, feeling, sense-impression (sight/sound/taste/touch/smell) etc. that we have ever had... as well as the matter which has transformed from plants, animals, our parents, etc. to comprise the aggregates and sustain them... and all of this arisen, changed, and ultimately transformed into "new" temporary things by Conditionality. As such, there's nothing we can truly say is our core being, our soul, our self. The self-centered way that we live based on this wrong view of what we are causes all of our problems with life. All. Aging, death, physical pain are all taken in proper context by the enlightened and do not disturb them. Temporary pleasures are taken the same and do not entice them. The awakened live life fully and freely in each moment, an integrated and harmonious part of the larger picture, knowing they never were so will never be again, and helping others who they know suffer as they did.
  • LiveToLearnLiveToLearn
    edited November 2010
    I'm talking about my personal view. I realize its a Buddhist forum, but I don't think its necessary to put a label on it. I'm not talking about teachings.

    When you say:
    "What we think to be the self is whatever we cling to, and hence the illusion of a separate "I" that has likes, dislikes, etc. as attributes."

    I associate this as the ego quality. The ego is what carries likes and dislikes, what judges things as good for you, or bad for you. Yes...the ego is part of myself, just as my leg or my arm is. Many Buddhists speak of "egolessness" in the sense that one is no longer attached to their compulsions or aversions. But the fact that you aren't attached to your compulsion or aversion doesn't mean you don't have an ego, it simply means you are AWARE of your ego and don't let it dominate your personality.

    I'm sorry i'm not a traditional Buddhist. I think we are bothing trying to say a similar thing, but we have slightly different interpretations on what self means.
  • DazzleDazzle
    edited November 2010
    You are your thoughts?


    No, we are definately not our thoughts !
    "The mind wanders and you start thinking, and then it will start planning for the future or remembering the past. Awareness then, is bringing attention to the way the mind works. The future is a thought in the mind, in the present, and the past is a memory. You can be aware of thinking, be aware of thoughts.

    We are not our thoughts; our thoughts are artificial creations. So we can think anything. It can be reasonable or totally insane or whatever, but thinking is an artifice that we tend to identify with, intimidate ourselves with, and we let our thoughts control us."

    Ajahn Sumedho ''The Sound of Silence''


    .
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    It's all good. I think it's really semantics. When I'm talking about a self, or an "I", I'm not referring to ego or other-than-ego; that's getting into psychology which is also an evolving and "unsure" science. I'm referring only to wrong thoughts that have arisen due to ignorance of reality.
  • LiveToLearnLiveToLearn
    edited November 2010
    Mmmm, sorry but I disagree with the way Ajahn Sumedho phrases that.
  • LiveToLearnLiveToLearn
    edited November 2010
    When I get home I will try to find a good quote from Krishnamurti on the subject. He has a special way of putting things.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    Well there's our problem! Buddhism and its teachings, whether true or not, are not Krishnamurti or other world views. Whether you believe them or not is a personal thing, but we're certainly going to always be on different wavelengths if we've depended on other things to bring us to our current views. The greatest conviction that I've developed in the studying and practicing of Buddhism is that until we abandon fully our selfish thoughts... our speculations, theories, logic-based conclusions and the like will always be distorted by those wrong views, which themselves arise from a foundation of ignorance that is sub-thought. This is the reason the Buddha is a refuge; he taught from a place of no-self for the benefit of all. Whatever else may be said, his teachings of suffering and the cessation of suffering, and all they include, can not only be reasonable to people but also lead them to know them; to be selfless.
  • EpicurusEpicurus
    edited November 2010
    Krishnamurti is the man.

    Anyway, I definitely have a problem with the buddhist view on this whole thing. It says we can't be our thoughts or our desires because they change and all that, but it's funny.....because even though it says everything is impermanent, it seems to want to define 'what we TRULY are' as inherently static and constant so as to bypass the law of impermanence somewhat.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    How's that? You mean the rebirth thing? It can be taken many ways, but there's only one right view. That's not really a good point of discussion, since the self gets in the way and distorts that too. :) Selfless is the word of the day.
  • LiveToLearnLiveToLearn
    edited November 2010
    Basically, I think you can take this from two approaches.

    The "letting go" of your attachements, which is the way of perceiving them as non-self.

    OR

    The full acknowledgment of your attachments as part of yourself, and then letting them go once you realize they are no longer necessary.

    Its like this...if you have a poison in your body, you could think of it in two different ways. (1) The poison has infected me, but it is not a part of me or (2) The poison has infected me, and its now a part of me.

    In either case, the poison will eventually pass through you, and will no longer be part of you.

    Does this make me any more clear?
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    If I say a tree grows from a seed with water and nutrients in the soil, and then sunlight and also good weather, as conditions... at some point makes seeds of its own, and eventually dies and rots... what is this tree? It's just a temporary phenomena in a stream of causality; the stream of life. We're no different, neither are other plants or animals or bacteria, you name it. We think otherwise, and that is our poison. We can cling to as many beliefs as we want, but reality shows us a different picture and the Buddha's teachings are meant to allow us to come to grips with that reality. That's all. If I can't explain it in a way that you understand, then that's just the way it is... no point debating. We choose our path, but those choices invariably need conditions to arise. :)
  • LiveToLearnLiveToLearn
    edited November 2010
    No no, no debates here! I enjoy discussing! I'm not trying to prove you wrong or myself right, I'm only interested in describing my own take on it.

    Using your example of the tree, the tree is a process of growth and death, a process in relation to its environment. Therefore, I don't think of the tree as a static object, but I think of it as that process.

    I feel the same away about the self. I don't see the self as a static entity, but an ongoing process.

    Like when you have a flip book of still images. We take each moment in time as one individual snap shot, but because we flow through time like a river, we see snap shot after snap shot after snap shot, all in rapid succession...just like a flip book! There is nothing permanent to us, but it is the motion itself that gives rise to our vision of self.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    Yes, in other words, our delusion is completely natural. As I always say, nothing unnatural exists (it can't, natural laws shape reality). For all I know, and mentioned somewhere in the teachings, all life progresses toward Nirvana. The entire process may just be for mind to come into being that can understand its true nature and the nature of all phenomena. This could be the consciousness that many posit is required for new life to arise and continues on afterward; rebirth. My mind/heart rests in a place of non-clinging to beliefs (and disbeliefs) that haven't yet borne evidence, so I don't get in those rebirth arguments between people who insist it's one way or the other without actually having personal experience of it themselves. :) Well, except to maybe point out there is a "middle way" to viewing rebirth also.

    It's really this natural arising of suffering that conditions us to seek release from suffering. Not everyone is "pushed" as hard in the direction of the Buddha's teachings. So following them isn't right or wrong, just a means to an end from the perspective of suffering and its cessation. Really it is all good; nothing is wrong, it's all a process as you say. :)
  • DazzleDazzle
    edited November 2010
    LiveToLearn wrote: »
    The "letting go" of your attachements, which is the way of perceiving them as non-self.

    I find it easier to understand anatta as "not-self" rather than "non-self".

    This essay on 'Anatta and Rebirth' by Ajahn Buddhadasa is well worth reading.

    http://das-buddhistische-haus.de/pages/images/stories/dokumente-englisch/Ajahn-Buddhadasa/Ajahn_Buddhadasa--Anatta_and_Rebirth.pdf


    Kind wishes,

    Dazzle
  • IronRabbitIronRabbit Veteran
    edited November 2010
    Our thoughts and actions are our karma. Our selves are conventionally identified with all the conventional data about residence, work,relationships to others and/or accomplishments or failures. Thoughts are chatter that arise independently no matter if they are stimulated by outside influences. Thoughts may also be directed to accomplish a task, project or practice. Thoughts are the tools of the ego that may instigate enlightenment or more usually confirm the conventional concept of reality, hopefully without leading to debilitating mental illness. No easy task living in delusion with the awareness of truth side by side. We are far more than the sum total of our thoughts, emotions and experiences unless we choose to be limited by them. Our true selves are unbounded by conventional. Nothing is as it seems........
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited November 2010
    We may be the immediacy, the clarity openness and sensitivity, of thoughts, but not the 'moments' of thoughts which are conceptual limits.
  • LiveToLearnLiveToLearn
    edited November 2010
    Iron Rabbit wrote: »
    Thoughts are the tools of the ego that may instigate enlightenment or more usually confirm the conventional concept of reality, hopefully without leading to debilitating mental illness.

    Interesting you say this!

    I believe the ego is something physically a part of us, as much as our arm and our leg. If we can understand the ego, then we can actually use it to our benefit. But that involves completely unconditioning it...which ain't no walk in the park!
  • Floating_AbuFloating_Abu Veteran
    edited November 2010
    LiveToLearn wrote: »
    So...what might this quote mean then?

    Meditate.
  • LostieLostie Veteran
    edited November 2010
    Quote for keeps. Thanks!
    Cloud wrote: »
    Thoughts are thoughts. You are an aggregation, a compilation, of conditions and matter; but you are not permanent, not separate ("self" or "I"), and until a selfless view of reality is the only one you have, you suffer because you cling to who you are while the world doesn't seem to let you (because you're delusional; we all are). That's the crux of the problem; Self. That's our Satan and our Mara. Nothing impure exists otherwise, no sin. Nirvana, God, whatever you call it... that's the finale. Jesus taught of compassion toward all even at the expense of his life and against his religion (Judaism), the same as the Buddha. Without Self, and with full understanding of reality and the suffering of others, only Compassion and Wisdom (Right View) remain.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited November 2010
    Can these things exist and evolve without form?
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    Saw a picture taken by a special telescope using some sort of electromagnetic imaging that made part of the early universe look like... a brain. Maybe we're something else's thoughts. :)
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited November 2010
    Cloud wrote: »
    Saw a picture taken by a special telescope using some sort of electromagnetic imaging that made part of the early universe look like... a brain. Maybe we're something else's thoughts. :)

    128709841287362974.jpg
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    Cool. The thing I saw was on the Science channel either last night or the night before; looked like Superman's x-ray view of the side of a human brain. It's always been thought-provoking to think of how closely our solar system resembles what we think an atom would look like.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited November 2010
    I used to wonder if our entire existence is just a thought of some higher being. I don't believe that, but crazy to think about.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    I still think the universe is alive in a sense, since we can't define life as being merely the biological forms we identify ourselves, other animals, or plants with... life is really change, and change is the fundamental nature of all existence. How else could life come from lifelessness, unless we're just making a distinction that isn't truly there? We label certain things and suddenly there's a difference, but it's only a conceptual one. That's the world we're trapped in, where there is such a thing as birth and death, life and not-life. Sad. :) Worse if we don't realize that it is only this conceptual world that we ever leave.

    Well, this was a fun little tangent. Bit off topic though. :)
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited November 2010
    Right. Anything that can be looked at as separate is only conventionally true.
  • LiveToLearnLiveToLearn
    edited November 2010
    Everything in the universe exists in the form of relationships, exchanges of energy, and processes. Any form of life is just an ongoing process of interactions between atoms and energy. No one really knows exactly how consciousness or awareness arises out of this, all we know is that energy is emitted and received and processed and somehow we call this "awareness". For all we know the entire Universe might be aware. Energy is constantly being emitted, received, and processed all over the Universe. Who knows...maybe we are just tiny parts of one large consciousness.

    I enjoy thinking about it. :grin:
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    I think just about the same. :) It's helpful to think of how infinitesimal we are in comparison to how large we visualize/depict our universe to be. Helps keep us in perspective... we're not all that important, not all that special, so we should do our best to accept what truth we can find in this world (and share!).
  • LiveToLearnLiveToLearn
    edited November 2010
    Haha, yup. Although I think each and every one us is special!

    We may be small, but life is actually pretty sparse in the Universe. I'm glad that some atoms came together and made this little thing called me. And you too.
  • EpicurusEpicurus
    edited November 2010
    Cloud wrote: »
    I think just about the same. :) It's helpful to think of how infinitesimal we are in comparison to how large we visualize/depict our universe to be. Helps keep us in perspective... we're not all that important, not all that special, so we should do our best to accept what truth we can find in this world (and share!).

    I think perspective doesn't take away from feelings of specialness. We are infinitesimal but so are the particles that constitute us.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    We don't know life is sparse. It seems when the right things come together, life happens... the universe is a life-making production facility. Probably a buncha life out there, and since there are older galaxies than ours there's probably more-intelligent lifeforms than we are. :)

    I wouldn't say we're "special", but rather "unique" in comparison to each other. Then again it's only our differences in conditions...
  • LiveToLearnLiveToLearn
    edited November 2010
    Well, I meant sparse in a quantitative aspect, such as mass. Take the mass of all the life forms in our solar system compared to the total mass of the solar system and you'd probably get 0.0000000000000000000000001%

    So...pretty sparse in that regard, haha. :)
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    Okay okay. :)
  • LiveToLearnLiveToLearn
    edited November 2010
    Wooo lets be special together!
  • EpicurusEpicurus
    edited November 2010
    Cloud wrote: »
    We don't know life is sparse. It seems when the right things come together, life happens... the universe is a life-making production facility. Probably a buncha life out there, and since there are older galaxies than ours there's probably more-intelligent lifeforms than we are. :)

    I wouldn't say we're "special", but rather "unique" in comparison to each other. Then again it's only our differences in conditions...

    Well I always equated specialness with uniqueness. But I guess, yes "unique" is a better word.

    And I don't care if there are more intelligent lifeforms out there. Intelligence is overrated. And so is life :p
Sign In or Register to comment.