The key lies in understanding (click here for definition) that awareness beyond thought is not an act of thought being aware of itself. When thought tries to observe its own movement, it inevitably creates a division of the observer (thought) and the observed (also thought). This division is still within the realm of thought and conditioning.
True awareness beyond thought arises when this duality dissolves, which means there is no separate observer trying to control, analyze, or judge. It is not thought being “aware” but rather a choiceless observation in which the entire movement of thought, its conditioning, and its limitations are seen as they are. In this state of stillness, there is no interference from thought, and thus, no division between the thinker and the thought.
So while “thought being aware of its movement” can be part of the process of inquiry, the stillness or awareness that is truly transformative goes beyond thought altogether. It is not something thought can achieve… it happens naturally when thought ceases to divide.
I read an interesting description by K, that thought and the ‘thinker’ are one process: “ The thinker is merely the verbalization of thought”
So there isn’t a duality in that sense; it is one process of thought - verbalization… The ‘duality’ occurs when the ‘thinker’ (verbalizer) function of the process acts as if it is separate from the process. A separate entity: ‘me’.
In other words : a particular concept is a particular expression of thought.
For example, Yahweh the Christian creator god exists as a mental concept in my bank of knowledge - I know or believe that Yahweh is as I imagine Him to be (whether this image ressembles anything that actually exists outside of my imagination or not)
If we just accept, for the sake of this discussion, that Yahweh is only an image, can He be aware of anything?
nb. if this is too tricky, try replacing the Christian with a Viking and Yahweh with Thor.
I doubt the process of thought can be aware of the process of thought. That would be like the thunderstorm being aware of the thunderstorm. Awareness awares thought, then thought grabs what awareness has awared and runs with it. There is always a lag time with thought, it’s always at least a smidgen behind awareness, which is in turn a smidgen behind actuality. We aware, see, and experience the past.
That said, using thought to explore thought can be huge fun and yield fascinating results. There is in nonduality circles too little appreciation for creative thinking.
We are thinking about (examining, manipulating, analyzing) the objects that awareness has illuminated and made available to thought. Sans awareness, no thinking.
That is what @jmsaario was saying: thought can inquire about its self, its process…but can’t ‘go beyond’ itself and create the stillness or awareness that can observe it without interference, resistance, judgement etc.
What language are your swear words in: English or French?
Are you disagreeing with the assertion that sans awareness there is no thinking? We may be using awareness differently. I think of awareness as illumination, it shines light on objects (events, things), reveals them to the body-mind. Without awareness there is no object that thinking can think about.
You mean recognition - its a form of awareness that even a fascist monster has
Its normal awareness - that isn’t about the movement of self - has not been informed by insight into self/suffering.
Its the same as yours - I shouldn’t have reacted - I was hoping to avoid this rabbit hole - but it is important - let me see if I can cut and paste something hold on.
Sorry, forget it ; by awareness we usually mean recognition - conditioned awareness - so awareness is nothing special - it only becomes special, as in transformative when there is awareness of conditioning - which necessitates insight into conditioning.
Without awareness there is nothing we can see-perceive-experience. We may be talking about different types of awareness: awareness (cognition) vs. Awareness (nonduality).
Thought is conceptuality, and the conditioned brain is confined to thought. But thought can be reasonable enough to acknowledge the possibility that it is imagining itself as the thinker, the doer, the agency that uses thought.
