|
Post by enigma on Oct 2, 2013 15:50:44 GMT -5
You can't stop thoughts by choosing to stop them. You stop them by changing the conditioning out of which they spontaneously arise; by seeing them clearly for what they are and therefore losing interest in forming the thought to begin with. The end result is the same but understanding how it comes about is important because it determines how you proceed in dealing with the next thought. Never do battle with your thoughts, just shine the light on them and expose them for what they are. Let illusions die of their own accord. That is exactly what I am referring to by watching the thinker. When I first picked up the pointer it was in the context of the assertion: "You are not Your Mind". Turned out that that was, surprisingly, something that was true ... that this little gollum that I had running around up in my head that took itself as the owner of this body was all in the imagination ... poor little guy! Okay, no Gollum and no owner of the body, but still there is an interest in certain thoughts, right? It's not a person taking an interest, but the interest is still there. It's being expressed here. Can this interest be problematic?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 2, 2013 15:56:57 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't know how to make the distinction between ignoring a thought and 'just leaving it to hang there', but I don't think it matters. What DOES seem important is why a particular thought actually stops happening in the first place. Ignoring means withdrawing attention, so what is ignored can't be seen clearly. A thought witnessed but not followed on the other hand, this get's some light shed on it. Can you hold a witnessing light on a thought without it leading to another thought? Seems to me a thought is witnessed, and then attention moves on, which sounds like what you described as ignoring. (Thoughts are movements and are only experienced in motion. No such thing as a static thought.)
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Oct 2, 2013 16:00:14 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't know how to make the distinction between ignoring a thought and 'just leaving it to hang there', but I don't think it matters. What DOES seem important is why a particular thought actually stops happening in the first place. I think a lot of us here could agree that thoughts have no ownership IOW thoughts are not your own. Okay if we go with this premise then think of thoughts as fruit flies they come and go but they do stay when you feed them. Fruit flies are most efficient in finding any kind of food. They don't really discriminate when it comes to food, so any food will do. Stop feeding them and like magic they go away seeking more food from somewhere else. What stops thoughts is the same imo no food no thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 2, 2013 16:06:05 GMT -5
Ignoring means withdrawing attention, so what is ignored can't be seen clearly. A thought witnessed but not followed on the other hand, this get's some light shed on it. Can you hold a witnessing light on a thought without it leading to another thought? Yes ... and that's exactly the point of the distinction that I'm making. A witnessed thought breaks the train ... if there was one to begin with. Seems to me a thought is witnessed, and then attention moves on, which sounds like what you described as ignoring. (Thoughts are movements and are only experienced in motion. No such thing as a static thought.) Remember our talk about attention to attention last week? There is a temporal aspect to this in that a thought witnessed doesn't necessarily immediately dissipate but in treating it gently, in not ascribing truth value and in disowning the interest in it other than to see it for what it is it seems to take an instant to fall apart and dissolve away. The way I've put this before, is that one is better to have solved the koan of Mu before undertaking watching the thinker. Yes, the thought moves through the mind but what's left when it's gone is an interval of quiet mind. Si has suggested that thinking hasn't really stopped it's really just slowed down and I can't argue with him on that point ... because, obviously, my last thought witnessed in this fashion wasn't my last thought. ... although, with practice, the whole process can happen in real time sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 2, 2013 16:11:59 GMT -5
That is exactly what I am referring to by watching the thinker. When I first picked up the pointer it was in the context of the assertion: "You are not Your Mind". Turned out that that was, surprisingly, something that was true ... that this little gollum that I had running around up in my head that took itself as the owner of this body was all in the imagination ... poor little guy! Okay, no Gollum and no owner of the body, but still there is an interest in certain thoughts, right? It's not a person taking an interest, but the interest is still there. It's being expressed here. Can this interest be problematic? Well yes they can be problematic and that's when they tend to be noticed outside of sitting practice these days and the frequency and intensity of the sense of problem seems to attenuate over time -- the lack of interest always seems related, in one way or another, to the point of identity: who is it that has this problem?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 2, 2013 16:12:48 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't know how to make the distinction between ignoring a thought and 'just leaving it to hang there', but I don't think it matters. What DOES seem important is why a particular thought actually stops happening in the first place. I think a lot of us here could agree that thoughts have no ownership IOW thoughts are not your own. Okay if we go with this premise then think of thoughts as fruit flies they come and go but they do stay when you feed them. Fruit flies are most efficient in finding any kind of food. They don't really discriminate when it comes to food, so any food will do. Stop feeding them and like magic they go away seeking more food from somewhere else. What stops thoughts is the same imo no food no thoughts. nice metaphor
|
|
|
Post by steven on Oct 2, 2013 16:14:17 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't know how to make the distinction between ignoring a thought and 'just leaving it to hang there', but I don't think it matters. What DOES seem important is why a particular thought actually stops happening in the first place. I think a lot of us here could agree that thoughts have no ownership IOW thoughts are not your own. Okay if we go with this premise then think of thoughts as fruit flies they come and go but they do stay when you feed them. Fruit flies are most efficient in finding any kind of food. They don't really discriminate when it comes to food, so any food will do. Stop feeding them and like magic they go away seeking more food from somewhere else. What stops thoughts is the same imo no food no thoughts. Good analogy ;-) Though, It seems that the self, the "ME" is the food, and until the "ME" is "taken away" so to speak, then no amount of ignoring the flies will have them go away. The only thing that I've found that truly takes away the "me", is meditation and Samadhi... Prajna, Wisdom, Right Knowledge...these make it clear that the "me" experience is a kind of illusion, but the illusion still remains, and thusly the food for the flies. Its like being in a dream and knowing you are dreaming....but even with this knowledge, you ARE still in the dream, and the dream is ALL that you gnosis....so "knowing" that its a dream while only ever knowing the dream world, is not the same as actually waking from the dream, and having direct experience of being out of the dream.....still though, knowing that its a dream is a VERY important thing....but don't confused knowing that individuation is a dream with actually being awake.
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Oct 2, 2013 16:18:16 GMT -5
Okay, no Gollum and no owner of the body, but still there is an interest in certain thoughts, right? It's not a person taking an interest, but the interest is still there. It's being expressed here. Can this interest be problematic? Well yes they can be problematic and that's when they tend to be noticed outside of sitting practice these days and the frequency and intensity of the sense of problem seems to attenuate over time -- the lack of interest always seems related, in one way or another, to the point of identity: who is it that has this problem? Aside from my poor humour I'm really rezzing this discussion and was reflecting on the same thing yesterday - thanks guys.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 2, 2013 18:02:42 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't know how to make the distinction between ignoring a thought and 'just leaving it to hang there', but I don't think it matters. What DOES seem important is why a particular thought actually stops happening in the first place. I think a lot of us here could agree that thoughts have no ownership IOW thoughts are not your own. Okay if we go with this premise then think of thoughts as fruit flies they come and go but they do stay when you feed them. Fruit flies are most efficient in finding any kind of food. They don't really discriminate when it comes to food, so any food will do. Stop feeding them and like magic they go away seeking more food from somewhere else. What stops thoughts is the same imo no food no thoughts. The only sense in which thoughts are not your own is that you have no conscious control over what thought arises because it hasn't arisen yet. You don't know anything about a thought until the thought becomes fully conscious and you can examine it in retrospect. However, it's arising from 'your' conditioning according to 'your' interest, so it's not like a fruit fly infestation looking for your interest. Your interest is what forms the thought in the first place. This is what makes ignoring the thought so problematic. You have an interest in it, you create it, and then you conclude the solution is to just not have an interest in it. The fact that you DO have an interest is why thoughts keep happening over and over, and why you so often get caught up in them. How often do you have a thought about basket weaving? My guess is not very often, and when you do it doesn't pull you into a thought train about it. Why doesn't the basket weaving fruit fly come around to be fed? Because you don't care enough to create the thought.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 2, 2013 18:47:35 GMT -5
Okay, no Gollum and no owner of the body, but still there is an interest in certain thoughts, right? It's not a person taking an interest, but the interest is still there. It's being expressed here. Can this interest be problematic? Well yes they can be problematic and that's when they tend to be noticed outside of sitting practice these days and the frequency and intensity of the sense of problem seems to attenuate over time -- the lack of interest always seems related, in one way or another, to the point of identity: who is it that has this problem? So you figure the frequency and intensity decreased because you watched them, or because you don't identify with them so much? I'm interested in exactly what happens there and why.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Oct 2, 2013 18:47:37 GMT -5
The only sense in which thoughts are not your own is that you have no conscious control over what thought arises because it hasn't arisen yet. You don't know anything about a thought until the thought becomes fully conscious and you can examine it in retrospect. However, it's arising from 'your' conditioning according to 'your' interest, so it's not like a fruit fly infestation looking for your interest. Your interest is what forms the thought in the first place. This is what makes ignoring the thought so problematic. You have an interest in it, you create it, and then you conclude the solution is to just not have an interest in it. The fact that you DO have an interest is why thoughts keep happening over and over, and why you so often get caught up in them. How often do you have a thought about basket weaving? My guess is not very often, and when you do it doesn't pull you into a thought train about it. Why doesn't the basket weaving fruit fly come around to be fed? Because you don't care enough to create the thought. How about thoughts that there is a little man in the attic, who is going to one day come and strangle you in your sleep? Or that midgets were after you? Or voices in your head telling you that your own mother is a prostitute and your siblings minions of the devil? Not arguing with you here, but what about thoughts, similar to the above, of a paranoid schizophrenic? Would you suggest that a schizophrenic is paranoid because it interests him/her to be paranoid?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 2, 2013 19:05:18 GMT -5
The only sense in which thoughts are not your own is that you have no conscious control over what thought arises because it hasn't arisen yet. You don't know anything about a thought until the thought becomes fully conscious and you can examine it in retrospect. However, it's arising from 'your' conditioning according to 'your' interest, so it's not like a fruit fly infestation looking for your interest. Your interest is what forms the thought in the first place. This is what makes ignoring the thought so problematic. You have an interest in it, you create it, and then you conclude the solution is to just not have an interest in it. The fact that you DO have an interest is why thoughts keep happening over and over, and why you so often get caught up in them. How often do you have a thought about basket weaving? My guess is not very often, and when you do it doesn't pull you into a thought train about it. Why doesn't the basket weaving fruit fly come around to be fed? Because you don't care enough to create the thought. How about thoughts that there is a little man in the attic, who is going to one day come and strangle you in your sleep? Or that midgets were after you? Or voices in your head telling you that your own mother is a prostitute and your siblings minions of the devil? Not arguing with you here, but what about thoughts, similar to the above, of a paranoid schizophrenic? Would you suggest that a schizophrenic is paranoid because it interests him/her to be paranoid? Not because it interests him to be paranoid. He doesn't actually know that he's paranoid and none of the thoughts are about being paranoid. The interest is in the thoughts themselves, not what some psychiatrist thinks of them. What I mean by interest might be a little ambiguous. Thoughts of terror are of great interest because they refer to something life threatening that seems to need to be dealt with. In the case of mental issues, some absurd stories may be created and believed as coping mechanisms or stabilizing ideas. What we see outwardly isn't usually the problem so much as an attempt at a solution.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Oct 2, 2013 19:07:55 GMT -5
How about thoughts that there is a little man in the attic, who is going to one day come and strangle you in your sleep? Or that midgets were after you? Or voices in your head telling you that your own mother is a prostitute and your siblings minions of the devil? Not arguing with you here, but what about thoughts, similar to the above, of a paranoid schizophrenic? Would you suggest that a schizophrenic is paranoid because it interests him/her to be paranoid? Not because it interests him to be paranoid. He doesn't actually know that he's paranoid and none of the thoughts are about being paranoid. The interest is in the thoughts themselves, not what some psychiatrist thinks of them. What I mean by interest might be a little ambiguous. Thoughts of terror are of great interest because they refer to something life threatening that seems to need to be dealt with. In the case of mental issues, some absurd stories may be created and believed as coping mechanisms or stabilizing ideas. What we see outwardly isn't usually the problem so much as an attempt at a solution. Okay.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Oct 2, 2013 20:19:44 GMT -5
I think a lot of us here could agree that thoughts have no ownership IOW thoughts are not your own. Okay if we go with this premise then think of thoughts as fruit flies they come and go but they do stay when you feed them. Fruit flies are most efficient in finding any kind of food. They don't really discriminate when it comes to food, so any food will do. Stop feeding them and like magic they go away seeking more food from somewhere else. What stops thoughts is the same imo no food no thoughts. The only sense in which thoughts are not your own is that you have no conscious control over what thought arises because it hasn't arisen yet. You don't know anything about a thought until the thought becomes fully conscious and you can examine it in retrospect. However, it's arising from 'your' conditioning according to 'your' interest, so it's not like a fruit fly infestation looking for your interest. Your interest is what forms the thought in the first place. This is what makes ignoring the thought so problematic. You have an interest in it, you create it, and then you conclude the solution is to just not have an interest in it. The fact that you DO have an interest is why thoughts keep happening over and over, and why you so often get caught up in them. How often do you have a thought about basket weaving? My guess is not very often, and when you do it doesn't pull you into a thought train about it. Why doesn't the basket weaving fruit fly come around to be fed? Because you don't care enough to create the thought. Hmmm honestly that has not been my observation at all. Thoughts just come and go with me. I cannot remember when I obsessed about a thought. I guess I must have sometime but when I try to think about it I draw a blank. Nowhereman
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2013 20:38:01 GMT -5
I think a lot of us here could agree that thoughts have no ownership IOW thoughts are not your own. Okay if we go with this premise then think of thoughts as fruit flies they come and go but they do stay when you feed them. Fruit flies are most efficient in finding any kind of food. They don't really discriminate when it comes to food, so any food will do. Stop feeding them and like magic they go away seeking more food from somewhere else. What stops thoughts is the same imo no food no thoughts. The only sense in which thoughts are not your own is that you have no conscious control over what thought arises because it hasn't arisen yet. You don't know anything about a thought until the thought becomes fully conscious and you can examine it in retrospect. However, it's arising from 'your' conditioning according to 'your' interest, so it's not like a fruit fly infestation looking for your interest. Your interest is what forms the thought in the first place. This is what makes ignoring the thought so problematic. You have an interest in it, you create it, and then you conclude the solution is to just not have an interest in it. The fact that you DO have an interest is why thoughts keep happening over and over, and why you so often get caught up in them. How often do you have a thought about basket weaving? My guess is not very often, and when you do it doesn't pull you into a thought train about it. Why doesn't the basket weaving fruit fly come around to be fed? Because you don't care enough to create the thought. " thought arises because it hasn't arisen yet" One is in their head then?
|
|