What happens then?
[— fill in to be able to send this post —]
To inquire into the unchangeable nature of existence, we must begin by seeing the limitations of thought. Thought can only project ideas, images, and concepts; it cannot touch the actuality of ‘what-is’.
Can we set aside the desire to define or grasp the unchangeable?
Can we observe directly, without the interference of thought, and allow the nature of existence to reveal itself as something living and true?
Hi, thank you for asking.
It’s interesting to see that when one looks more closely at the formulations one makes, one doesn’t exactly hit the mark as it is.The formulation: to let go of your own convictions for example, I think the only thing that can happen is to realize that it’s a conviction, that intuitive sense of wrong! or right, emerging directly after hearing or seeing something, which is not a conscious decision.
I think what happens is that you realize that, a kind of clarity about how we perceive or react. It seems that this removes the feeling of being entitled to a reaction because someone else has said or done something, and that it is an internal process, not externally based.
What happens seems to be that it is us, not me and them, which are like that.
1 Like
Limited for the thought that interprets X as a point of view, and as such in agreement or opposition to its own point of view about what X would be or would not be.
Not limited for a mind capable of listening without seeing X not as a point of view, but as the normal flow of inquiry together about what X may or may not be.
Why does thought always want to know things a priori? 
This reminds me of what we said about thought, that the process of thinking (thought flow) is a fact, but the content of the thought is an image.
Let’s say that the movement of thinking is an activity of the brain and is more or less constant …similar to breathing , heartbeat etc. The thinking is different though, in that it arises out of stored memory. From the past. When it is working as a tool, it has to be present to what is happening now. (It may use memory). When it isn’t working as a tool it can ‘free associate’, theorize, dream, imagine, speculate, etc. When it’s working as a tool, there is no need for the I/me/mine (Imm) but imm needs to be present when it is not acting as a tool. Is that so?
Unless language is confrontational, it is not language at all. It is mere babble.
Language is the way in which we confront life, our neighbours, our friends, our feelings and our own mortality. To confront means to come face-to-face with existence, not just meet it halfway on or at an angle.
Thought is always working as a tool, whether it’s for physical survival or psychological survival.
Thought is a mechanism that can’t stop thinking until/unless thinking serves no intelligent purpose, and intelligence is just another concept, more grist for the thinking mill.