The Core of the Teachings :: Thought

Isn’t thinking always “processing power”?

Isn’t thought, by definition, dualistic?

Words and images, signs and symbols, concepts, are not the things they represent, so where there’s thought, there’s duality.

If my thoughts “flow” effortlessly to something pleasing or gratifying or remarkable, what’s the big deal? It happens sometimes.

From the point of view of content, thought seems to be always (or nearly always) dualistic. You think about things, division into thinker/thought is built into the process, there’s no escaping it! There may also be a state of pure object-free thinking, but it’s hard to imagine.

From the point of view of subjective experience, thinking may at times be non-dualistic. You can be utterly absorbed thinking about X, utterly lost in thought, in a nondualistic thinker=thought state.

Always dualistic because to think about things is to use signs and symbols to represent the things.

Actuality can be observed, but to think about actuality is to translate it, reduce it to the language of thought.

You can be utterly absorbed thinking about X, utterly lost in thought, in a nondualistic thinker=thought state.

I have no idea what this means or what you’re trying to say.

I’m saying there is no felt sense of thinker/thought division when you are really immersed in and flowing with thought. But there does seem to be an inherent divisiveness in the act of thinking. I find that apparent paradox (nondualistic-dualistic) fascinating. The same could be said of the observer/observed and the experiencer/experienced divisions. When immersed, you don’t feel division, but the very acts of observing and experiencing are dualistic in nature.

The core of the teachings remains ‘truth is a pathless land’. We’re here reassured that truth exists and that there is no system or method to get to it. No theories must come out of it. All there is is observing or listening, letting the ‘observed’ tell its story. The tool we need is ‘the flame of attention’. No dualist/ non- dualist theories matter when we are there, observing/ listening.

1 Like

I am quoting this in the “Truth is a pathless land” thread, hope that’s okay with you. :slight_smile:

When there is flow, it is not repeatable, so it is not in area of thought. If it would be in area of thought, knowledge, you could repeat it using thought or will. Flow cannot be repeated using memory.

If thought is completely absorbed say someone is envious or hates and that thought absorbs, that person is not aware. In war countries hate each other and that thought absorbs their mind. There is still division in that unawareness. Some people are absorbed by their phones. They are not aware. The divisive thought absorbs their mind in unawareness. TV news for example is now not just about sharing information in an unbiased non divisive manner but using divisive thoughts and ideas to absorb their viewer’s minds and cultivate conditioning so that people watch those shows over and over again. So it is dualistic.

What is non-dualistic cannot be cultivated as it is not controlled by thought. You can call it flow, choiceless awareness, selfless awareness. It is not absorption but sensitivity. Absorptions make mind dull, like watching TV. If you watch sunset or watch nature it doesn’t make mind dull as it is not absorption. Absorptions are made of thought. Whereas nature is not made by thought so nature does not absorb your mind. Nature is sensitivity, silence, awareness and the mind watching nature is also sensitive, silent, aware. TV programmes are made by thought so mind is absorbed in it. Watching too much TV will make mind dull as thought is unaware and absorbing.

Nature is more complex and mysterious than a TV show, but what matters is the selflessness of observation - not what is observed.

I think we are looking at this from different vantage points. I am looking purely from the subjective first-hand vantage point of the person doing the thinking.

When the thinker has no sense-thought-feeling of division, when all that exists for him is pure whole thinking with no separate parts, I would call this nondualistic thinking. But it is not the same type of nondualism taught in spiritual nondual traditions, i.e. the type you have described so well.

I think we might be saying the same thing. Is there a thinker thinking the thoughts? If there is no thinker thinking the thoughts it would be end of sense of division, separation, which is the non-dualistic thinking. Generally we feel there is a thinker, decider, controller. We never say thoughts just arise on their own, but we think there is a thinker who can direct the thoughts, which is the separation as thinker, decider

Is there a “person doing the thinking” or is thought imagining the person?

When the thinker has no sense-thought-feeling of division, when all that exists for him is pure whole thinking with no separate parts

Is there a “thinker”, or is there only thought? Is there a thinker that does “pure, whole thinking”, or is thought always pure, whole, thinking, regardless of how incoherent, illogical, dishonest, ignorant, or insane it may be?

It depends on what one thinks “dualistic” means.

Realizing that there is no thinker - only thought - negates the false sense of division, but isn’t thought itself dualistic in that it is representation for the purpose of communication?

That is a good topic to explore. If division as thinker, controller, motive as decider ends, is there conflict with the world. It is a good topic to explore

We could “explore” this forever.

The only way to find out is for thought to awaken to how it sustains and perpetuates its conditioning by not stopping.

In other words, don’t stop and think - awaken to what non-stop thought is postponing.

This reminds me of a question a friend posed to me 15 years ago. If I am thought, how can I stop it. Perhaps it will stop on its own without me doing anything about it.
Maybe like sleep. Sleep has nothing to do with the effort to go to sleep, it happens on its own naturally without trying.

Yes, I, psychological thought, can’t stop because I is a program, an automatic mechanical process. It may be that this reactive process can’t stop until/unless there’s awareness of this condition instead of identification with it.

What about the thought outside, bombardment of thoughts, words through media, I think that can be stopped. Is then thought whether our internal reaction of thought or the bombardment of thoughts from outside a distraction from looking directly. In today’s age our minds are consumers of media which is a distraction from direct looking. If word is not truth why do we give so much importance to media consumption.

Are you just saying : “don’t watch the news” or switch off your TV etc…?
If so - doesn’t this mean that my wellbeing is all about circumstance? all about the outside world? Which is true in a way - but to a large extent its true if my idea of the inside world and outside world is true - or if I feel like I know truth.

It sounds like you are saying : avoiding everyday life is the solution.

I am questioning what is life? Watching TV doesn’t seem to be life. Is watching TV awareness or unawareness? Unawareness does not seem to be life, but distraction from life. It seems outside words restrict my freedom. If I adhere to some ideas from outside, it restricts, like if I believe strongly in some ideology.or religious idea. If I walk in nature which does not bombard me with words my thoughts have space to flower

Why are your thoughts better than other people’s thoughts?

In what way is watching TV not life?

When you resist or integrate other people’s thoughts, what are you doing?