This is an excellent post. In many ways, I feel a distinction between thoughts and intentions much the way Andrea describes. Thought is something I observe, like leaves floating down a stream… I pay attention to the stream and I don’t always choose to “pick up” any particular thought. Sometimes there are thoughts which get stuck in eddies and spin, but even then, the question of “control” is more about my response to observing or engaging with them. Some I choose to pick up, some I help along… and I’m always vigilant about not identifying them with Me. They don’t always originate with me.

Intentions I choose very willfully. I create them. I may choose to also collect a thought that floats by that may be useful to consider in association with my intentions.

The idea of “control” is usually spent more on my behavior and my reactions. I am often choosing to release thoughts, more than anything…

Slade

enjoy, gregory

It’s very interesting to note how we are not always in control of our thoughts, which makes it even more compelling. What exactly causes our thoughts to pop up?

What I find interesting is that no matter how hard we might try to stay focused on one thing (the dog for example), other thoughts easily pop up. The question is how and why?

Fascinating stuff. The brain is one hellva organ that still needs to be understood more. I think it’ll forever remain a mystery.

1. Who is the “you” that has control over what you do with those thoughts?
2. Are you sure you have control over what you do with those thoughts? Isn’t “I have control over what I do with my thoughts” just another thought? And did that not arise spontaneously? And the thought “I will act upon this thought but not that thought,” did that not just arise? And so on.

@Eric Perfect adaptation of an old Zen saying to current times. And that gives me an idea……

Peace to All

Thoughts and ideas have been dropping “into” me like crazy lately and I know I haven’t created them. Who knows where they come from? What I do believe is that I have control over what I do with those thoughts.

Naturally, you will find some desires fall away. But obligations to family should not be shunned. Responsibilities must be met. Activity is not a barrier to awakening – indeed it is the fulfillment of its expression.

Perhaps it would be useful to think of it more deeply. Activity is not other, it occurs ‘within’ awareness. Any conflict is an illusion.

Give it a try. Thanks for leaving your comments and questions. Namaste.

@gregorylent Ah, nice point. However, I want to be clear. The “you” that I refer to is the false identity, the “you” that we are not. That is what is shown to have no control, as it is merely a thought, too. What is in a certain sense “in control” isn’t what I would really call control. It just is, and then it comes into being as.

I stumbled upon this website recently. This debate resonates with what I am facing in my life right now i.e. finding the balance between a material life (ie. implies a “me” who has desires/ aspirations/family) and spiritual life (me as the witnessing presence or pure awareness).

Can each of the group memebers please share their views/perspectives on how you deal with this? Its the same debate as above, but looked at it from a slightly different perspective which I am sure many seekers face in their path.

I have moved from being very materially focused and successful person to one that is increasingly questioning the “who/what” of me and (atleast tries to be) the witnessing presence 24×7 (which I find is the essential common teaching/practise of Ramana/Adyashanti/ Poonjaji/Sedona/Kriya Yoga/Osho/Buddha etc). However, at times I do feel that I am not being my best at a material level and question whether I am not fully doing my duties to my job/family by taking the focus away from material success.

I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks a lot!

Regards

TP

As Ruiz says, i’m telling you my story. Don’t believe it. But see if there is anything of value there for you.

The trick here is to recognize that its just a story, your dream of the world. You can edit the story all you like, but if you don’t see that it’s a story, the story will control you rather than you the story. It is only a story that says we control anything.

Letting go of the idea of control is stepping out of the box of your story. Its a much bigger and more fun place than some ratty old novel. And a lot easier to edit if we’re not inside it.

Perhaps it might be useful to touch on the values of mind or fields of thought. I spoke above a little about thought categories, as they related to the person.

There’s another way of looking at this. Mind comes in various values of localization or density. What most of us think of as mind is our own mind, the ‘individual’ mind. But this is just a localized value, a focus one could say of a larger field. Sheldrake has done some research on this, demonstrating less localized ‘group’ minds such as family and social, associated by attention.
(some noise value and some of the play of action arise here)

Any time someone talks about some sort of group consciousness, like a cities or countries, they are often referring to the mind value of that awareness, the common thought forms of the group. When we say we are American or Nipponese, we are associating ourselvs with that mind value and its thought forms. And we experience some commonality. (mostly the play of action, noise accumulates as group stress which may express in violence, bad weather, stupid politics, etc – group suffering, hence further value of finding peace within)

More broadly is what one might call universal or cosmic mind. The thought form of our universe and all beings in it. More broadly still is what we might call divine mind, the field of creation. All of what one might call creations or dreams of God arise here. Within ours, all the universes. (Yep – it’s a LOT bigger than a universe)

These layers of personal, universal, and divine are also the layers of Maya, the illusion or dream. As we progress through expanded states of awareness, we progressively wake from these dreams. That’s why we call it awakening.

To your point, allowing of the person is indeed controlling of a higher value. But as we step up through that, we are shifting into progressively higher values of mind until we transcend mind all together. We do perceive new values of reality that may lead to new beliefs, yes.

So you are right, but this is an intellectual concept. If we instead look at the actual experience, it is of allowing rather than being the doer. When we favour that experience, we shift upwards. If we stay with concepts of doership, we don’t. Make sense?

Its not necessary to believe any of this layers crap but it does provide a framework that can satisfy the mind and thus get it out of the way. As well, some people experience this stuff so it can help integrate by putting it in context.

Tom’s current series is certainly creating some interesting discussion.

However, it seems we only engage in semantical hairsplitting as you say “attention and allowing” is NOT control and I say it is exactly that. There is as much an aspect of ‘doing’ in your surrender of control as in my seeking control. Both demand a doer, or a not doer, which does NOT exist.

Nevertheless, which ever path you choose one thing is certain, there will be greater conscious awareness of thinking patterns and this can only be a good thing for everyone and the world as a whole, since we will no longer rely on ‘default’ thinking and the deleterious results of that in our shared worldspace.

Thanks
mike S

One cannot control thoughts as they don’t originate with us. We can with our attention and intention give direction to a thought. Emphasize an idea.
We can also work at controlling the mind, thus controlling what it receives (thoughts). But this tends to encourage resistance, for obvious reasons. Much easier is to surrender control.

Adyashanti used control but he doesn’t recommend it (laughs)

Perhaps its worth observing closer how you trigger those heightened states. Is it control? Or is it with attention and allowing? Your experience may be different but that’s what works for me. Any attempt to control just shrinks the experience.

You say, “So, a thought arises. If I get interested in it, then it produces results. Good or bad. Heaven or hell.”

What if I intentionally construct a thought? (which we can do simply through force of will). And if I hold and nurture that thought through intent, or as you say, “interest,” it produces results such as altering belief which becomes springboard to further intentional thought, which then may generate additional thought patterns thereby altering belief, etc, etc, and on up the ladder of evolving consciousness we go.

Now I am at a level of consciousness in which I can adequately interpret satori or heightened “states” of consciousness and I may, in fact, initiate such states intentionally, eventually leading to an enlightened state altogether (but the ‘I’ that is identified with cannot choose enlightenment since the ‘I’ ends). But note that, whether I (ego) choose a path of surrendering control of thought, simply allowing it to arise by detaching from control, or asserting control of thought and generating intentional thought/belief, the results are the same.

However, I’ll even use your conceptual descriptors. In your CHOICE (ego?) of surrendering control, who is it that has chosen “no control”? Looks like that “enchilada” breaks down just as easily.

Thanks
mike S

You say, “Seriously, I would agree that there “appears” to be what we can call a soul. But is it real? Is it meaningful? Does it matter? To be honest, I have no idea!”

and then, “But the key for me is that in my experience, I do not find a soul or anything like one.”

The real is firstly beyond experience/appearance and then you seem to say that experience is the real. At the least that there is a division in experience – appearance and reality. This seems fatal to any strict monism. Unless of course our concept of the one embraces organisms – one dog contains many parts yet is one dog.

I’m glad you provided the word missive to describe these essays. I think that pretty much sums up all writing: MISS-ives. All are missing the mark in some way. But oh what fun!!

This also leads to another value you may have even more fun with, that Tom touches on in the last few words. Who is the doer? If your actions arise from thought, who controls your actions.

Looking forward to Tom’s next missive.

To me, the post, plus Andrea’s comment on intention reveals the deeper question – who thinks? From whence do the thoughts arise? (as Tom suggests) This is easier to explore if you step under the noise and field of play.

The answer changes as your consciousness expands. But the answer is also not always the same thing. As the above suggests some thoughts arise in mind alone, some simply reactive. It is only the third type that will take you to the question of controller.

Its also useful to think of the mind as a field which reacts to impressions with thoughts. Emotions are another more gross field that interacts with thoughts and itself in a similar way. Intuition and deeper ‘thought’ values arise in more subtle values of ‘mind’.

For myself, the sense of individuation arises in ego and identity. Soul I use for the increment of wholeness the arises to express this form. Without the masks of separation, it is the divine in us.

To me, there’s no breakdown at all – because inspiration, ideas, the impetus for those intentions – they come from the Soul. But you don’t believe we have/are a Soul … so hence the breakdown.

To me, the Soul is the beginning of the illusion of separation – how the Divine experiences itself by creating something that it is seemingly not. That Soul then acts as the Divine in its creativity and self-expression – so that the Whole can experience itself.

That’s how I see that whole Oneness/separation conundrum. If your foot is getting a massage, the whole body feels pleasure. But if the whole body were getting a massage in all places all at once, it would not even notice. Separation allows the Whole to partake of an experience. The Soul allows the Divine to experience its own creativity. To me, the Soul is the creative force that shapes our lives.

Blessings,
Andrea

@Andrea I would agree that there is a distinction (seemingly) between an intention and a thought. When you get a real intention cooking, it seems to have some power and energy behind it. Intentions would appear to be quite creative in the world around us. No argument there.

But here’s where I’ve got to ask the question: where do your intentions come from? Let’s use an example: you set an intention to increase the number of clients in your business. Great. But at the moment that the idea came to you to set an intention about your business, where did that arise from? How did YOU decide to set that intention? Did the intention not arise out of nowhere? And even more problematic, who is the YOU that set the intention?

See, that’s the rub. Here’s where the whole enchilada breaks down. More on this score in the next essay. Love the comments, Andrea. You’ve really got me cooking on intention, by the way.

@Evan I will agree that this essay isn’t a definitive “proof” that there is no control. But if you think you have control over your life, it is a definite blow to that assumption. IF you have control, it is obviously very little.

@Mike Ah, the minute we use words, we are clearly in duality, are we not? But what fun to play around with duality as long as one realizes that duality isn’t inherently meaningful.

First, let me say that I’m glad you do see any spiritual gestapoism in my blog!! You know, in point of fact, I’m not very attached to the words I say, if attached at all. As the Zen dudes love to say, at best my words are fingers pointing at the moon. AT BEST. At worst, well, they are crap. Pure and simple. All I try to do is relate my experience and what words or ideas arise in me. Nothing more than that.

Second, let me address one interesting question in your comment: the distinction between thought, belief, feeling, etc. Here’s a working definition for you. Thought is an energy that arises in the “mind” (whatever that is) and then fades away if left alone. However, if consciousness turns toward it and becomes interested in it, then we get some more energy behind it, and if believed, then we have a belief. Intention, well, it would just seem to be some energetically juice thoughts that have some attention behind them. Lastly, feelings seem to me to be an experience of thought via the more physical body/mind. We “feel” our feelings via our senses. We experience them.

So, a thought arises. If I get interested in it, then it produces results. Good or bad. Heaven or hell. As Adya likes to paraphrase: “one thought believed separates heaven from hell.”

Nevertheless, I enjoy reading and participating in the dialectical discourse of your blog since there is little of that spiritual gestapoism that many teachers seem to rely on in making there points.

Once again, if you examine closely the concept of “no control” I think you will discern that there is a degree of control, just as there is equally as much letting go control in the seeking of greater control.

Paradoxically, they are the same.

However, it seems that to the ego, that aspect of mind that chooses (judges) one path over another there is a big difference. Notice your commitment to “no control.” What, but the ‘ego,’ could be so deeply committed? Of course, you can deflect the same concept back to those committed to control.

Your choice of “Rene” as subject for your experiment seems a little disingenuous since his “Meditations on First Philosophy” exemplifies sustained, concentrated focus and intense cause and effect thinking. Although much has been refuted, many consider Descartes meditations (thought) into dualism to be the precursor of the modern age and the founder of the scientific method. Too bad your Rene has so little control of his power of concentration and I would suggest you choose a more committed subject for future experiments. LOL.

You seem intensely focused on the abstract concept of “thought,” but possibly fail to account for ‘belief’ or even ‘will.’ I think Andrea’s “intention” may cover this aspect of your experience. In your previous essay you write: “In this presence or awareness. Being still, resting in reality, feels like the ultimate answer.” So how do you account for the emotion or ‘feeling’ your path seems to provide?

If “one thought of separation” leads to suffering, why would not one thought of Oneness, founded on deep and passionate belief and infused with sustained emotion, lift us to a point where control is no longer necessary because the “you” of belief merges with the infinite “you” of Oneness?

To me the point is clear, control is the surrendering of control as much as no control is essentially controlled. But, NO! the ego demands, it must be one or the other and thus we remain stuck in dualism.

Good Stuff!

Thanks,
mike S