18 Random Thoughts About Thoughts and Thinking
Written on May 7, 2008 by Tom Stine
How cool! Some of my regular and new readers are having a lot of fun commenting on my recent post, Are All Thoughts Untrue? I have quite a few responses to make, but I felt it would be more interesting to do another article on thoughts and toss in a little bit on thinking, too. So, here is a random series of thoughts on the subject of thoughts. (Personally, I find it hilarious that we have thoughts about thoughts and thinking.)
- What are thoughts? They are sounds and images passing through awareness. In other words, the sounds you hear and pictures you see “in your head” are all there is to thought. The energy of thought then gets translated into the body and becomes feelings. And really, there is nothing more to it than that. I think. *grins*
- “You can get more stinkin’ from thinkin’ than drinkin’.” The San Francisco sage Joe Miller had a cool way with words, didn’t he? Point well made. It seems clear to me that thinking has far more in common with an addiction than anything else. “Hi. My name’s Tom. And I’m a think-aholic.”
- Who is thinking these thoughts? No one. That’s the ultimate rub of spirituality. The “who” you think you are isn’t. Don’t believe me? Go looking for yourself. In and of itself, that could be all the spiritual practice you need.
- Thinking is conditioned to the hilt. Whenever I studied psychology, I hated B.F. Skinner. I thought all that Behaviorist theory was nonsense. Well, old Burrhus was more right than I could have possibly imagined. Thoughts are incredibly conditioned by our environment. And we all know it, too. That’s why we say, “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree,” and, “You parent the way you were parented,” and lots of other expressions. We are heavily conditioned by our families, school, church, society, you name it. Until, well, you start letting it all go. And then what? Well, something else starts seeping in.
- I seem to have no control over my thoughts. If I had control over my thoughts, I would be able to choose what I’m going to think. I can’t. I can say, “I’m going to think about the ocean,” and then a lovely image of the ocean enters my mind, I may even daydream about walking on the beach. But I didn’t choose the image I saw, the daydream about walking on the beach just popped into my head, and then I had a flash of memory about needing to buy bread at the store. And for that matter, why did I say to myself, “I’m going to think about the ocean.”? My thoughts seem to arise from nowhere.
- We call the “place” where thoughts occur “the mind.” But where is the mind? What is the mind? Show me your mind! Or better still, go looking for it. Point to it. See it with your eyes, hear it with your ears, taste it, smell it, touch it. You can’t? Interesting, very interesting. I would say the mind is a concept about, well, more concepts (thoughts). But no more real than the man in the moon.
- Our thoughts create our reality. True or false? A very popular belief in modern spirituality is that the sum total of all one’s thoughts, feelings and beliefs directly and accurately creates your world. Change your thinking, and you can change your life. You’ve seen The Secret, right? But, is this true? I haven’t a clue. At times it does seem like the world is a direct reflection of my thinking. At other times, the world seems to be exactly the opposite. Some would argue that the world reflects my subconscious thoughts. Maybe so. However….
- Is there a subconscious? Everyone sure likes to believe that there are thoughts outside of our conscious awareness that “stick around” somehow or another. We call this collection of thoughts our subconscious mind. But is there one? No way to know, really. Because as soon as I become aware of a “subconscious thought,” that thought is now conscious and no longer a subconscious thought. It seems we use this idea of a subconscious to refer to those thoughts that seem to repeat themselves. But how can I be sure they repeat? Maybe they spontaneously generate anew each time. No way to know. Thoughts, ideas and beliefs are slippery, are they not?
- We place our identity in our thoughts. We think we are our thoughts. And that’s the trouble. We are not our thoughts. Just for a moment, notice the thoughts you are thinking. Are they you? Do they tell you who you are? Or are you somehow “before” the thoughts? If you add up all your thoughts about yourself, do they really define who you are?
- You are not who you think you are. Ramana Maharshi instructed people to look at their thoughts and see that they all arise from the I-thought, the one core thought that says, “I am all of this stuff I’ve been thinking.” But are you? If you investigate the I-thought, inquiry into “what am I?” and sit with this, you begin to realize that you are not the I-thought. And then it finally dawns: you are not who you think you are. You have been pretending. You are the Void, the Awareness, the Presence, the Nothing, the Emptiness, the Now that is prior to all thought. And that is the where the spiritual journey ends. And a new life begins.
- And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.
As fate would have it, I read this bit of Shakespeare on a blog I love reading, Fake Steve Jobs (yeah, I’m a Mac fan). Perfect, just perfect: “the pale cast of thought.” Right on! - There is a difference between true and Truth. This one is a tough one, but I’ll give it a try. The Truth is, in my mind, synonymous with Reality or That Which Is. What is Reality? Good question. It is things as they truly are. And, I’m afraid, that is something that is beyond words, beyond thoughts, beyond the mind. That’s just all there is to it. We make a great attempt at describing it in words, but we really can’t. All we can do is point someone in the direction of Truth.
- True with a small “t” is more akin to right or correct. And that is problematic in the world to say the least! What is right? What is correct? I have no answers to these questions. It seems to me that it might be better to ask, “What is helpful? What is useful?”
- “Truth is true, and only Truth is true.” This line from A Course in Miracles
gets it right.
- Maybe the issue isn’t whether thoughts are true. Maybe the real issue is that we believe our thoughts. As one of my friends, Takuin, pointed out in his comments, “The problem is the belief in the thought…. The belief in the thought causes suffering. It is devilish and subtle, because the perceived problems seem real and we want to get away from them. But we can never get away because they only exist in our minds. And besides, who is it that wishes to escape? The believer that believes in the perceived problem.”
- It seems to me that believing a thought is about the same as saying “the thought is true.” Not to quibble, but what is the difference?
- Working with, “no thought is true,” has lead to greater peace and happiness. I can’t get away from this one. The more I identify thoughts that I have accepted as true (should I say “thoughts that I believe?”), and then question the truth of them, the happier and more peaceful I become. Doing so is a part of Byron Katie’s The Work, a technique that I like. I strongly feel that it leads to greater happiness and peace.
- I still think no thought is true. There, I said it. It is, as one commenter, Evan, put it, overly simplistic and too absolutist. But, I still like it. It works for me. If anything, the above “thoughts” on thinking are enough to leave one confused.
So there you go. Some random thoughts. Honestly, as I mentioned in the last point, I can’t really make heads nor tails out of all this thinking stuff. It seems to be an experience we all have, thoughts entering our awareness, passing through consciousness, to be replaced by new and different thoughts. Constantly changing, constantly moving. All ephemeral and difficult to pin down.
Please feel free to leave your comments, thoughts, ideas, whatever, below. I look forward to seeing what the above brought up for you. Namaste.
55 comments
on May 7th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Does everyone want a crash course in belief in action? Then keep your eyes peeled for the replies to this post. Haha
Some people will read these 18 points, and instantly, a voice will rise up and say, “That’s not right.” But is that true? Is it true that it isn’t right, or could it be that you only think it is wrong, and therefore, cannot even see what is written? (The preconceived ideas of right and wrong compress the organism into a dull zombified way of seeing. It is not really seeing at all, but a dependence upon our preferences of right and wrong.)
I am not saying that any of this is right or wrong, by the way.
When our objections arise, it is the perfect moment to see how we, the identity of self, operate through thought; how we may react to things we believe or disbelieve.
I am speaking of believing something to be false, but it also goes for believing something is true. If you agree and say, “That’s right,” is that true? Or are you referencing knowledge that the self has deemed important?
This may or may not be an opportunity for someone to see how this movement works in their own mind. Tom is not right or wrong, and neither is Takuin. But if you sit with your objections and agreements, you may be able to come to a sight that is not of memory and preference, but a sight of clarity and freedom.
Find out, and sit with whatever it happens to be.
These are merely questions, after all.
Takuin Minamoto’s last blog post..Rabbit Holes and Artistic Expression
on May 8th, 2008 at 5:10 am
I’m going to leave these questions to sit in my mind for a day or so then reread them just to see if I can separate myself from the emotion that wells up either good or bad. One parting statement though. “He who thinks has never really thought. Think about it!!”
Mark’s last blog post..Justa random thinking, again,and again!
on May 8th, 2008 at 10:11 am
@Mark Let whatever comes, come. Honestly, Mark, I will be interested in seeing what you get if you simply sit with your thoughts for a day. I’ve found that just sitting on something is often the best way to go.
@Takuin I love it. We could spend a lot of time going round and round with “what is true?” I’ve taken the baby with the bathwater approach, and just tossed out everything. Well, all but one thing: the experience I have of the indescribable. Well, not even really experience, but you get the idea.
on May 8th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
How about this?
Thoughts are like golf. A perfect score in any golf game is 18, right? 18 holes in one. So we hit the ball and it goes so far. A par 5 usually requires 3 drives to get to the hole so we’re already doomed unless we go way beyond what is possible for humans and hit the damn thing 600 yards with perfect accuracy. Most of us take more shots than that and end up in the creek or the lake or some other place on the way. The best golfers score a 63 or so on their best days. So we have distance and accuracy.
“In the beginning was the Word”….
Let’s pretend that one thought created all that is. So a perfect score in life is thinking that one thought. We have about 10,000 thoughts per day if I recall correctly. How close do those thoughts come to the hole or the one thought? Some thoughts go farther than others so we get closer. Others hook and some slice. If we’ve been having a bad lifetime most of our thoughts are headed from the 9th tee to the 8th green.
The more accurate our thoughts (true reflections of what is) the better our lives. If we whittle it down perhaps we can hit the “one thought” and awaken. Or disappear. Whichever you prefer.
Beer anyone?
on May 8th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
@Ron Love the analogy. In many respects I think the analogy holds true. I’m pretty convinced that somehow our thoughts, whether individually or collectively, are responsible foecreating the world I see. My only disagreement is the hole in one as awakening. It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that in the end awakening happens by grace. We may plow the field, but the seed grows “from the other side.” The mind and the indicdual self cannot awaken, though. Only that which is already awake, the One, can awaken. “I” am just along for the ride. In other words, only “God” can hit a hole in one.
on May 8th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Great post.
Way too much for me to comment on here except to say…
My thoughts exactly!
Loraleigh Vance’s last blog post..Blogging for Human Rights
on May 8th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
@Loraleigh Perfect comment. Strangely, I agree with you.
on May 8th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
1. Thoughts are sounds and images passing through awareness. This doesn’t mean that is all they are: you would need to argue this case.2. Materialism in the service of spirituality? Are sense impression all there is to reality? Eg you can’t taste, touch etc the mind and therefore it doesn’t exist. What is real here? It seems to need to distinguish several layers (Hamlet - that Danish melancholic collection of abstract symbols, which has passed through many - has affected more people than I am ever likely to. How can something unreal have an effect. Ergo Hamlet is real in some sense.)3. Once thought ends. Images of emptiness are often employed. But then we get stuff like the fertile void - it’s not just being “empty-headed” so to speak. So why are these images more common than fertility, abundance, plenitude and so forth. I find this focus intriguing.4. Helpful and useful are great categories, as long as they are not confused with true. Otherwise we end up with the pragmatists definition of truth: truth is what works. And lies work: so lies are truth: there is a distance between utility and truth. Eg pt. 17 is about utility, you them seem to deduce pt. 18 from this. But this confuses utility and truthfulness.5. You are coming up with great stuff Tom. I’m really enjoying this discussion. And in some ways I think it is important. Eg those who think that ‘with our thoughts we make the world’ seem to me to undercut any need for compassion. Imagine saying to someone starving to death at the moment in Burma “just change your thinking, and your reality will change”! Methinks not.
on May 8th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
All right, how bout this. Thoughts are merely the result of the mind. The mind is a tool designed to fix problems. It is like our heart: Our heart is a tool designed to pump blood. Our mind is a tool to create thought. We are not our heart or blood nor are we our mind or thoughts.
It all came to me in the middle of the night when I woke up with continuous thought. I was reminded of the movie “War Games” with Mathew Broderick. The machine/computer was designed to solve the problems of nuclear war and to run multiple simulations to find the solution. Problems arose when the machine began to believe the simulations were true. The same with thought. Our problems begin when we identify with our thoughts. Or in Stine’s words believe that thoughts are true or Truth. Maybe in that way Tom is simplisticly correct by saying no thought is true. I simply smiled and realized I was not my thoughts when I made the analogy with ‘War Games’.
I guess I am beginning to understand. Thoughts are no more true than words. Words are signposts. Thoughts can be signposts as well. Neither are true but on occasion can point to it.
Hmmmmm.
on May 9th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Tom, As to #5. I agree that we have no control over our thoughts. As for me, mine just sit and wander and wander. They jump from one to the other and sometimes back again. How do you not think? Will meditating just lead to more thought? Hmmmmm. I’m thinking about this a little more.
Mark’s last blog post..Justa inspiration!
on May 9th, 2008 at 4:09 am
Welcome all your thoughts, and they will not bother you anymore.
on May 9th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Hey Tom,
Great article, the kind that will really help many with very valuable insight and understanding.
Cheers,
Anmol
Anmol Mehta | Mastery of Meditation’s last blog post..How to Raise Enlightened Children
on May 9th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
@Evan Lots here to digest. A few “thoughts” for you: Your point #1 seems to be that I need to prove that thoughts are more than sounds and images passing through awareness. My response is: prove that they are more. It is impossible. Oh, maybe you could have someone “think” and do a PET scan, an EEG, or some such procedure, but all you are then seeing is a possible correlation to the thinking. But that’s it. For anyone, though, the only thing that you can really say about a thought is that your only experience of it is sounds and images. How else would you know a thought from a donut? Seems kind of definitional to me. The problem is that we have a lot of THOUGHTS about what thoughts are, and then we believe the thoughts are true. But that’s kind of crazy when you think about it. At least, it’s crazy to me!
#2 My point is simply that “the mind” is a concept, a thought. You can’t point to it, you can’t put one on a table and say, “here it is.” So, all you have is a concept, which is a thought, an idea. The mind seems have as a basic definition that part of us that has to do with thinking and thoughts. Again, we are back to thoughts about thoughts. Which, again, I keep seeing as circular and a bit nutty. Again, at least to me.
#5 First, thanks. Second, I happen to “think” that we create our experience with our thoughts. As one spiritual teacher puts it, “the world we experience is a direct representation of our thoughts, individually and collectively.” Now, to me, where spiritual people get off base is when they say things like, “the people in Burma caused this disaster by their thinking.” Hmm…. well, I guess that would be true if the average person could 100% control their thinking. But you can’t. We are heavily conditioned by our environment. To me, this eliminates the crazy spiritual blame game that goes on. Ever noticed how abuse runs in families, generation after generation? Conditioning.
The ultimate solution to all human tragedy is the healing of every mind on the planet. A shift, as Tolle would say, from ego consciousness to awakened consciousness. And in the meantime, what is the response to crisis in the world from those who have a sense of what’s really going on? COMPASSION and LOVE. Spirit is above all compassionate. The truly awake HELP people, they don’t lecture at them. They teach, they comfort, they send aid, they work, they feed the sick (Mother Teresa comes to mind). But they don’t sit around and say stupid things like “change your minds, Burmese people!” That’s just nuts, and very unloving.
To paraphrase an old Zen master: While it may be true that your thoughts make the world, a fat lot of good it does you if you don’t truly know it in the fiber of your being. It really is a truth only for those who have awakened. And to quote one of my favorite fictional characters, “In this, I am but an egg.” (Same character who introduced the word GROK to the world.)
My two cents.
on May 9th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
@Mark In my view, you don’t need to “not think.” Don’t even try. People struggle mightly to still the mind, and it rarely works. Rather, just don’t feed it. Don’t believe it. Let the thoughts chatter away, but don’t say, “ah, yes, these are important.” Just more noise.
@Master Yoda You’ve got it. Mark, that’s it. If you welcome all of them, ALL OF THEM, they will not bother you. They literally become more noise in the background. And when you need one, you can always make use of it.
@Anmol Thank you! I appreciate the compliment!
on May 9th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
@Mr. Morrissey– Glad to have you here again.
I love the analogy with War Games (and I loved that movie, too). Yes, exactly, thoughts and words can point to the truth, but are not true. That’s all the great spiritual literature is: signposts. As one Zen master put it: they are reflections of the moon on the water. And the more still the water, the clearer the reflection.
You know, really, I used the words true and Truth. But you said it well: it is all about identity. When we believe a thought, say it is true, we are more or less identifying with it. We are becoming it. That’s why for decades, when people came to Ramana Maharshi, he told them to investigate the one core thought: the I-thought. The thought of identity. EVERY thought, he said, springs from there. All are thoughts of identity. Find out what is before the I-thought was his teaching. And, in my experience, that really is all there is to spirituality.
As another Zen master said with regard to words: “Fingers pointing at the moon.” You know, Zen really does have a way with words.
on May 9th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
My point about thoughts was that they are also connected to the exterior world. Otherwise conditioning couldn’t occur. Awakened people do indeed serve: and it is necessary to understand if thoughts have a role to play in this (eg learning about the situation in Burma). Thoughts can serve compassion/enlightenment it seems to me.
Evan’s last blog post..Add Joy to Your Life by Playing
on May 9th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
@Evan Yeah, I would agree: thoughts do seem connected to the exterior world. They always seem to be about something or someone, don’t they?
You know, while I may say ultimately that no thought is true, I think thoughts can have utility. They can serve. No matter how enlightened, it is through thoughts that one would act to serve in the world. I agree with that. I think. Makes sense at least. Maybe once we awaken, thoughts act as an interface to the world of form? Could be.
on May 10th, 2008 at 4:22 am
Slightly irrelevant but I believe (or my thoughts would have me believe) that mind is the result of the soul interfacing with the brain. Brain exists independently, soul exists independently. Mind exists when soul interfaces with brain. Immaterial creating interface to material. Thoughts result as immaterial perceptions of material.
on May 10th, 2008 at 7:54 am
@Nazreel Thanks for the comment. You said it perfectly in parentheses: “my thoughts would have me believe.” As long as we completely understand that the vast majority of spirituality is nothing more than conjecture, idle speculation, then we can have a great discussion. So, that said, I’m not a big fan of the concept of soul. It makes it sound like a separate, individual spiritual entity exists. And to me, it doesn’t seem like there is one. Just One formlessness. At least, I think.
on May 10th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Hi Nazreel,
The question is if they are independant how they affect each other. My idea is that the mind and brain are different dimensions of one complex human phenomena. I think they are separate in this sense.
Evan’s last blog post..Add Joy to Your Life by Playing
on May 10th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Ron - you said “Let’s pretend that one thought created all that is.” Actually you worded that better than you might imagine. One thought did create all that is. And every thought is a dream, so its all a pretend. But it wasn’t one human thought, it was one thought of the One.
This isn’t anything you might or might not believe but rather something you will know when you wake from that dream. The unreal becomes real and the real become unreal. And then the second unreal becomes real again(laughs) when you discover you are that.
Davidya’s last blog post..Living the Dream
on May 10th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Morrissey - you said “Our mind is a tool to create thought.” You might find it better to think (no pun intended) Out mind is a tool to channel attention. A tool to focus awareness. Its also well put to say ‘our mind’. Mind is a field so is not really discrete like an object.
on May 10th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Takuin - love how you opened the comments (laughs)
on May 10th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Someone once said to me that thinking about thinking is just mental masturbation. To understand thoughts, you have to take a step back. You won’t understand them when you’re standing too close.
Great post as usual, Tom. You may consider them random but I did see a progression. And some interesting ways of putting it. A few random responses…
1 - I like the description but the sequence is a bit off. See mind below.
Seriously though, its called an aura. Most people see the emotional energy when they see auras but some see mental stuff too. Think of the mind as a field. Thoughts form in conceptual and intuitive values, become more concrete by taking on sensory values (as you observed), then emotional values, then chemical responses, EEG and so forth.
2 - agreed - living in the head will soon be seen as an illness (laughs)
4 - love the ’seeping in’
6 - Actually you can see the mind. Taste it too. Its called the world.
Mind surrounds the body and out a couple of feet, depending on the person, the energy, and what the attention is on. It has an amorphous ‘boundary’ and can be seen as a wave from a deeper, group mind. And it serves to express an aspect of the world.
But, if you try to find the ego, the self. That you won’t find. Its an idea so has no “location” in spite of some charts you may have seen. It has no “seat” either.
7 - Thoughts don’t create the world. I’d say most of them are like environmental noise, like traffic or the wind. Source creates through the mind and may use some thoughts as a vehicle. And not individual mind, but rather Mind. We can use the mind, and thus thoughts to channel expression. So in that sense they create the world. But not in the individual sense of it. We could think of the mind as part of the field value of creation. Pre-electromagnetic.
8 - Odd logic there Tom. If they become conscious then obviously they USED to be subconscious. If you read the Biologist Bruce Lipton (and many others), you will see that there is definitely a subconscious and it functions quite differently than conscious. It runs much faster but on habits/ programming/ conditioning. Only the conscious mind is creative. I don’t see the sub-conscious as debatable. Without it, you would forget how to walk and type.
9 - exactly.
10 - I would say that is when the spiritual journey really begins.
12 - the error is in thinking/believing there is one truth.
14 - “Truth was true” describes it better to me. I could list the number of Truths that are no longer true.
15 - Takuin covered it perfectly. See comment re: 12.
16 - It is only believing that makes it true. If you don’t believe it, its not true. Ergo, truth is relative.
I agree with your closing. Simple may be simplistic but the deeper we go, the simpler it gets. So Simple is often “more” true.
That said, it does not mean we should ignore all thoughts. We live in the dream and there are some clear thoughts that come through from the bigger dream. Call them intuition or insight. But those ideas do lead us to deeper truths, to the reality of our being, and forward into the life we live.
Davidya’s last blog post..Living the Dream
on May 10th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
@Davidya A couple of comments:
Re: mind. Your explanation of what mind is I find very interesting, intriguing and, well, cool. But, here is the thing, to me it is merely another concept, an idea, and hence, once again, lacking in any real truth. I have no experience of what you describe. What keeps happening to me is that I can play with all kinds of ideas and notions, but only that which is here and now for me seems to bear any real meaning. Again, what you describe may in fact be how things work.
You know, I used to believe in all kinds of really cool science. I have a degree in biology and specialized in molecular bio and biochemistry. But now, it is weird, but I don’t really feel like believing in it all anymore. Cool idea, fascinating stuff, but you know, I’ve never seen a molecule. I’ve seen all kinds of data and valid reasoning for them, I’ve written papers and done research, but still: are they real? Even in a worldly sense? They are fun, to be sure. And the world seems to work that way. But I guess I’m having too much fun playing with not knowing. Life is more fun when everything is a bit in doubt. Everything except the one thing: I AM.
Re: subconscious. Again, same issue. How can I know the subconscious directly? Maybe I can somehow. But all the evidence in the world can’t prove to me that what I am thinking now isn’t a spontaneous generation of a thought vs. the subconscious mind bringing stuff in to conscious awareness. Do you see that?
Right now, if I remember my mother, I have an image in my mind. I say I am remembering her, I am accessing my memory of her, and that memory is from my subconscious mind. But what is the difference between that explanation and the competing idea that I am having a new, spontaneous thought that SAYS I am remembering my mother via the memory stored in my subconscious? It is an old question in philosophy. Those old philosophers had in their hands the keys to spiritual awakening if they had even remotely believed that their questioning of “reality” was a valid thing to do.
So, I stand by what I said: I can only be aware of something supposedly in my subconscious when it becomes conscious. But then, how do I know it was subconscious? Again, subconscious is an idea, a concept, with no demonstrable proof. Why cannot the Infinite spontaneous produce thoughts on how to walk and type and all the things it does? It is the Infinite after all. Does it have to obey any rules?
More to ponder, eh? Oh, God, I love it.
on May 11th, 2008 at 3:28 am
I’m fascinated by the debate on the reality or otherwise of the subconscious. I understand Davidya’s point that, without some form of unconscious control, we wouldn’t be able to walk - we certainly aren’t controlling all those muscles consciously! I’m not convinced, though, that proves the existence of a subconscious as generally understood. Isn’t it possible that the unconscious control is just that? Unconscious, and incapable of thought? If that was the case, how could we call it a sub- (or any other kind of) conscious?
Equally, I appreciate Tom’s view that the existance of the subconscious cannot be proven, so it can only be viewed as conceptual. Fair enough, but given that we are “living in the dream” isn’t this true of everything else also? If your memory of your mother is spontaneously created and there is no little subconscious box labelled “Tom’s memories”, how would it matter if the past you’re remembering is unreal? Any memory which entered your head and declared itself to be a memory of your mother would be equally valid, even if one was quite different from the next. Does that make sense?
I must admit, until now I’d never considered the possibility of having no subconscious; the concept is drilled into us from the beginning and it never occured to me to challenge it. I find the idea strangely liberating, for some reason!
on May 11th, 2008 at 5:21 am
Re: sub-, un- and so forth.
There is stuff that we have learnt that is now habit (walking, talking, ways of expressing emotion and all the rest of it. Even our facial expressions: compare the facial expressions of a person born blind to those of sighted people.) In this sense much of what we do is sub- or un- conscious.
There are also physical substances - hormones and stuff. We didn’t consciously decide to become sexually aware - our hormones did it for us.
There are also the attempts we make to suppress parts of ourselves (desires we have, actions we’ve done) that we don’t like and/or are ashamed of.
In these senses there is a sub- or un- conscious. More than this it seems to me is just shrinks and others saying that, “I know you better than you do.” They may be right but I’d prefer the statement to be made to me directly, rather than phrased as some thing called a sub- or un- conscious.
Evan’s last blog post..Add Joy to Your Life by Playing
on May 11th, 2008 at 10:20 am
@Shadowduck Ah, you know, it is funny. I read your comment, then read mine, and I went, “why do I care about thoughts and the subconscious so much?” And then I had no reason why! The best I can say is that I keep being shown all the ways I’ve walked through live so utterly convinced that I W A S R I G H T! I think my path at this moment is a bit destructive, a bit of a taking apart of what I once was. I’m learning piece by piece how what I thought I knew really isn’t quite so well known! Does that make sense?
So, Shadowduck and everyone, is there a subconscious? I don’t really know. It is a really good theory, and explains a lot. But remember, a theory is always speculative. If we remember that, then we can have fun. If we start to believe it is really true, well, then we get problems, don’t we? Namaste my friends.
on May 11th, 2008 at 10:22 am
@Evan You know, maybe the subconscious is pure biology: the nervous and endocrine systems have patters built in and those patterns repeat. And as Davidya was speculating, maybe there is an energetic field to it, too, that surrounds the physical. It seems to make a certain sense. You never know! I like to keep an open (if non-existent) mind.
on May 11th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Hi Tom. Actually, this illustrates what I raised on your prior post. Reality varies. You suggest thoughts = mind. Thoughts are not real, ergo mind is not real. From your perspective, thats completely valid. In some ways this is also true from a deeper level as the idea of individual mind is an illusion.
Are molecules real? I would suggest yes but not in the models we were taught in school. More as energy nodes in the subtle structure of intention. But there’s hardly the space to explore that here. (laughs)
What it comes down to is that once you know who you are, nothing else matters. Then we see it as the game and can have fun and see where it goes.
On the subconscious, I see your point. Perhaps we fall into semantics here a bit. There is a great deal of reality that is outside our conscious awareness. This is partly due to what Buckminster Fuller called Special Case - the mind focuses on one thing at a time. As soon as it does that, it has chosen all the other things its not on. Tolle comments on this too. There are experiential values that are inclusive of everything, but even within infinity, if we focus at all, we are moving across infinity selectively.
Habit forms or conditioning (and memories) are stored as structures in the mind field. How we relate to that - as sub-conscious, as the akashic records, as the matrix, as illusion, is up to us. One thing seen many ways. As it is outside the individual it can seem spontaneous. As it appears programmed, it seems otherwise. Like many ideas about ‘how it is’, our understanding is probably wrong. (laughs)
Interesting comment about your mother. My father died when i was quite young. In my mid-30’s in dawned on me that my ‘memories’ of him were all constructs based on family stories and photos I had seen. For example, he was only black and white. It was an interesting discovery and illustrates how we build ‘reality’ well. Given that most thoughts arise in relationship to other thoughts (ie: are associative - they arise in fields after all), even a spontaneous thought will associate itself with existing patterns/ memories. Really the answer to where they arise is ‘it depends’. In that sense philosophers on both sides of the fence are correct. For a given perspective.
My western Philosophy Prof. felt you had to take a position so was very irritated by this - this ties into comments over on ‘Practical side’ - there is no need to take a position. Not knowing is one way to be positionless. Taking a view that includes all positions is another.
Davidya’s last blog post..Stop, Look, Listen
on May 11th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Tom - in your response to Shadowduck, you summarized it well. Moving from the egos need to be right to deconstructing the illusion. You may find a book in this one day (laughs)
on May 12th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
@Davidya Reality varies? Whom, don’t know if I agree. I often have used Reality as a synonym for Truth, the One, God, Awareness, Consciousness, etc. All with a capital. It seems to me that this One Thing is the changeless, unvarying Truth. So in that sense, it never varies.
If by reality you mean “everything else,” then I completely agree. Reality as in “what I experience” or what the entire universe experiences. Seems like we are talking about the world of form.
I would see it as: formless = no change. form = change
on May 12th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I thought some more about the sub-conscious discussion and summarized the thoughts in a new post, if it interests. See the link below…
Davidya’s last blog post..What is the sub-conscious?
on May 12th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
@Tom - well its not quite so simple as that. formless does not change but how we perceive it evolves. Reality, from the perspective of the perceiver, varies. So even with the ‘all with a capital’ ones, your perspective and understanding of them will change. You have rejected what was once true as an illusion but what you now find true will also be replaced by still higher understandings. Which then is “truth”? “Reality”?
What of the person who sees themselves as standing in an ocean of love, surrounded by a plethora of life most other people don’t see? And the person who sees all of the world taking place inside themselves. When they touch an apple, its like touching their cheek. Or the person who walks under the heavy thumb of darkness, numbed to all feelings except pain? And what if these were all the same person, at different times in their life?
Yes, all of those are about form but in each case, their relationship with the formless is also different.
Just remember that all of the things you listed with a capital are ideas. Ideas that represent experiences. Experiences change, even the experience of the formless. And any idea about the formless is not formless.
As long as you are taking a position on truth, you are denying all other truths. Wouldn’t want you to get stuck, as Adya warns (laughs)
Davidya’s last blog post..What is the sub-conscious?
on May 12th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
@Davidya EXCELLENT POINT. I gotta bow to that one. Reality never changes, but my experience of reality does. Hmm… Interesting that what I am, consciousness, can never fully see itself. Adya’s example of an eyeball can’t see itself comes to mind. Thanks for the comment.
on May 12th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Thanks. Do you realize how huge it is that you “get” that? Very simple, but without it reality remains relative but is seen as absolute. Its the difference between ideas and real Knowing.
Consciousness can fully see itself, in Itself. Through individual expressions (us), only an aspect of wholeness can be known. We can reflect greater degrees of that as we open but there is always more possible. It is only in Totality that Totality can be known.
Davidya’s last blog post..What is the sub-conscious?
on May 12th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
@Davidya You know, the more we discuss this stuff, the more I see that A Course in Miracles has every bit of this discussion in it. Strange, I had given up on ACIM because, well, I just couldn’t see any more how it could really be written by Jesus, and that was what hooked me in the first place. Now, I wonder. Impossible to figure out. But the more I open, the more apparent it is to me that ACIM has it all. Unreal.
And, thanks for the “compliment” of sorts. I do get it. It seems, well, obvious now that I’m aware of it. In a sense, all awakening and even life is just awareness becoming more aware of itself. Endlessly “investigating” itself via its expressions, whether as stars or humans or crazy thoughts or whatever. I am in awe.
on May 12th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
@Tom and Davidya
We have to be careful. If one’s perception of reality has changed, what has changed? One might say, “the perception.” But is that change? Perceptions come and go, just as thoughts come and go, but what does any of it mean?
This movement of perception may or may not be a fact, but that does not mean that the thing the movement perceives is the fact. This is assuming we are using the word perception to mean an interpreted seeing on the part of the seer.
One doesn’t dispute that this movement takes place, but is reality created by the movement, or is it apart from the interpreted seeings of the seer?
Clearly we use the word reality in a different way, and there is nothing wrong with that. Just be careful that the term is used in the moment by moment exploration, and not as a solidified crutch for one to lean on.
Great discussion, everyone.
Takuin Minamoto’s last blog post..Sitting #2
on May 12th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
@Takuin Point well made. :-B
on May 12th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
ACIM did not come from Jesus. Jesus was much more the devotional, from the heart. Best I can tell, they used the name for familiarity, much like Abraham-Hicks. Thats not to say ACIM is not full of great stuff. For myself, I found it was too much about the head when I needed more from the heart. But I still pick up great nuggets, like the ‘tiny mad idea’.
Davidya’s last blog post..What is the sub-conscious?
on May 12th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Takuin. Agreed. My point was simply that people tend to take positions and as they perceive a new reality, take a new position. Perception and our interpretation of same is the foundation of reality but tells us nothing about Reality. So reality arises out of perception, whereas everything arises out of Reality.
Because our consciousness is the foundation of our perceptions and interpretation of the world, I refer to this as Perspective. Levels of consciousness is the more tradition term but that also implies other things.
“The movement of perception”. I like that. Conciousness flows within itself and perceives…
on May 12th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
@Davidya I actually have some pretty good inside information that all the people involved in “scribing” ACIM believed 100% that Jesus was the source. The woman who heard the “Voice” as she called was utterly convinced, the man that typed her notes was, too, even the leading teacher of ACIM, Ken Wapnick, thinks it was Jesus in a certain, weird, pseudo-Advaita way (he was far more literal about it in his earlier years of involvement). He has concocted some weird theories over the years to explain it all, but at the time of the scribing and as they slowly started to put ACIM in the world, it was considered by all involved to be the words of Jesus.
None of that is to say that it IS the words of Jesus. Ironically, the book has incredible internal consistency with the author speaking as Jesus, and not just in an abstract way. But so what, is my response. Channeling is too incredibly iffy for my taste. I have no idea if a “dead” Jesus could channel a book. Or if anything can be channeled. Who knows? Nonetheless, ACIM is a cool book, IMHO.
on May 12th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
From what I’ve heard of the ACIM the ‘Jesus’ in it (very much in the enlightenment tradition) is very different to the Jesus of the gospels (more of the heart/prophetic tradition). One of my idle speculations is if Jesus had lived longer would christianity have more of the enlightenment tradition in it. The ACIM ‘Jesus’ uses abstract language rather the concrete parables of the gospels. They are in different universes, so to speak.
Evan’s last blog post..Three Steps to a New Life
on May 13th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Yes, a friend of mine is close to the core group, working to have ACIM translated into other languages. I have no doubt they believe it is Jesus. But as Evan comments, its a very different ‘voice’. I know its not Jesus from the horses mouth but this is not the forum to explain.
Some channels are valid in the sense of not just being the conduit talking. But it has several issues. For one, its typically hard on the conduit. Secondly, there is no way of confirming they are who they say they are. And thirdly, there is too often an agenda. Why take over - why not just a conversation? Messy, in my books. Iffy is a great word for it.
Davidya’s last blog post..What is the sub-conscious?
on May 13th, 2008 at 10:30 am
@Evan Yeah, the Jesus of gospel tradition is a bit different. However, when you get into the Gnostic gospels, you start getting more parallels. The Gospel of Thomas has more of a wisdom, enlightenment feel to it.
You know, Jesus is so hard to nail down. We have the 4 canonical gospels, which paint a certain picture. But then you toss in the other dozen or so “gospels” and you get a different picture. I love reading about Jesus and Jesus scholarship, but I’m afraid that we may never have a clue what they guy really was about. That’s why I get into the more mystical interpretations of his words. I find that they support the whole awakening process quite nicely.
No matter how you slice it, Jesus was surely “an awake dude” as a spiritual teacher put it to me. Everything about him makes more “sense” when I simply focus on him as an awaken dude.
on May 13th, 2008 at 10:33 am
@Davidya I couldn’t agree more about channeling. I seem to recall that Yogananda wasn’t a fan of channeling and had some rough words for the subject.
I guess I’m a doubting Thomas.
I need a physical appearance and a spear wound that I can stick my finger in.
on May 13th, 2008 at 10:52 am
With a name like Mark. I could hardly be a doubting Thomas could I.
A physical appearance would be kind of a nice back me up though wouldn’t it? May be a good swift kick in the behind might help too! 
Mark’s last blog post..Justa enjoying the ride
on May 13th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
If you read the more mystical side of it, it becomes clear that the ’second coming’ is not going to be in the flesh but is rather an inner discovery of Christ. A few people I know back that up.
Its interesting how similar certain aspects of Revelations are to Ch 11 of the Bhagavad Gita. Its worthwhile noting the changed form too.
But none of this is to say we won’t get a swift one in the behind anyway. God works in mysterious ways.
Well - we’re still on random thoughts but rather outside the 18. (laughs)
Davidya’s last blog post..The One Truth
on May 13th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
@Mark Hey, I live in the Bible Belt, the buckle of the Bible Belt actually. Jesus a major ass kicker around here, let me tell you!
And not even live and in person, at least I don’t think he’s live and in person. I know a few churches here that would say otherwise. 
on May 27th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Thanks Tom - I felt a release of thought as I read these pointers and feel like they gave me a direction for inquiry - Am I this feeling? - Am I this thought? - as I do this it seems like it gives me a little space to step back from the thoughts and feelings, allowing happens naturally releasing begins to happen effortlessly.
bon voyage
on May 28th, 2008 at 9:27 am
@Annie Cool, isn’t it, how releasing can occur sometimes just by questioning the thoughts. I’m glad you liked it!
on August 19th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Well now you got me thinking…. One thing is true my best thinking got me to places that were the bottom of the barrel. But then who is the one thinking
I like the 5th way like style but…. well guess I want to figure it out. This is something that appeals me major ” The only way to function in life is to present that you are doing something” (Hale on a retreat.
Still don’t know what my next thought is going to be, and I do like the intellectual justification that wanting to control is futile…
Love Barb
on August 21st, 2008 at 11:22 am
@Barbara Ah, who is the one thinking? Or is thinking just happening? And did “your” best thinking really get you to the bottom of the barrel? Question, question, question, always question.
Trackbacks