Thoughts

Hello Lucy and other friends. This thread, and all of the rest, on the website, the website as well, and everything which led up to and supported Richard in manifesting this tool, it's all thought based stuff. How would one know otherwise, how could one distinguish that anything is happening, without thought? A blessing or a curse, is thought? I would say neither and maybe both. A baby, prior to taking on any solid concepts, can probably determine that something is happening here, on this website, images flashing in it's world, along with some voices, given that the baby watches the videos, and then if exposed to the Forum here, well that's a different happening, one of squiggles and various shapes, maybe less interesting than the videos? But really it seems that nothing specific is happening without thought, and if we were all meant to remain like babies throughout our lives, then that is the way it would be, but it's not. Yet with that said, there is still much to learn from babies, and how they go about living in this world. This is my own experience which is all that I can go by; In a state of no thought, or when the attention basically returns to itself, rather than fixating upon anything "out there", in this state of Being, there is nothing, absolute Peace but without any concept of Peace, just pure complete silence. I would go onto say, that this space of Being without thought, is always happening. That is something which Advaita, especially the neo-Advaitist, repeatedly point towards. Self, the Heart, IAM, whatever you want to call it. Is it a state or our true nature? (this can be a whole other topic) Lets assume it is a state since for most of us, conscious abidance as this, comes and goes. (although my direct experience is that there seems to be a greater awareness of this "state" as being so familiar and simple, a genuine feeling of me, without any personality at all about it). Anyhow, it (thoughtless consciousness) is so desirable and probably a physical necessity, since it happens and is imperative for optimal functioning, every night, a necessary recharge, so much so, that we crave deep sleep, and without it for too long, have much difficulty. Quickly after awakening from our deep rest, form takes shape, for whatever reason, through thought. Once again, direct experience, I recall on various occasions, actually seeing forms perhaps as I did before conditioning, as simply shapes, with no meaning whatsoever. At those times, there was sort of this proud feeling, that "I", body mind organism personality, had just experienced a happening, without any interpretation, but as it was happening, there was no meaning whatsoever to it. I am not saying here that one can't live in this world without thought, (in fact more and more, it seems like I am experiencing experiences, without much interpretation at all, and it's deeply satisfying to simply be present with the moment in it's entirety without the obsession to label it, or be telling some irrelevant story which may or may not be conscious), although once again, in my experience, it would be very difficult to function, unless you always had others doing things for you, which allowed you to simply abide in a samadhi like state. So then it appears to me, that thoughts give things meaning through structure, and this can be where the trouble starts, (or some great opportunities to enjoy Life!), which Advaita is offering a solution to those whom are having some problems with how they interpret things, or really our relationship to what is interpreted. The more strongly I believe in my interpretations, (including this post), the more attached I get, and potentially suffering follows. When I through Grace, let go of the grasping, my addiction to knowing, through belief, when that drops away, there is still usage of thought, although in my experience, then there is a lightness, a playfulness, less meaning to things, and every moment is complete in and as itself. That moment is the meaning, then it's gone, no grasping for it to repeat, (because it is known that it will never be like that again), and no more seeking. So it seems, from my direct experience, when I identify with an interpretation of Life, that Life can quickly become a fragment, separate from the rest of Life, and this usually leads to suffering, even though there may be ecstatic bliss along the way. Another point here, I caution all of us, even though I have done so in this post, to watch how we interpret the teachings of Advaita. I don't know anything for sure, I'm no expert, although going by what the words Advaita Vedanta mean, the definition is fairly clear, One without a second. We somehow miss the simple and go for the complex, and then take ourselves seriously and spout on and on, in these forums like we are experts about something. And with all of that said, sharing like this, it can be fun, especially if we don't take ourselves too seriously. Love to you all...

Ok, where to place my post? There should actually be a sign above every topic that says: ¨ Wanna read this thread? Please first look at all the dates, and then look at the time they were posted on those days...Got them in the right order? Happy reading!¨

On topic: I just wanted to note that it´s not all that clear what is being meant by thought. Just as it is also not entirely clear what ego is, for example.
I assume we usually mean by thought these visual and auditory ´thingies´ that seem to fly by behind our eyes. But I have also heard/read it said that also our body is a thought, and that in fact the appearance of the world is a thought.
If this is so, then after enlightenment thoughts may still appear (for example this world.) But perhaps the chattering behind the eyes (where there was thought to be a separate me) subsides, as it is not believed in as necessary, yet everything is still welcome. And as there is no struggle getting rid of these thoughts (even the thought, say, you want to kill someone) there is no fuel for them to live on.
Well, just some thoughts :)

Getting back to the title of this thread (difference between "I" and "I am"...)

I is the principle form of separation from anything and anyone else who is perceived as not-I (subject-object).

And I am is the beginning of that separate form's identification with (fill in the blank).

I.e. "I am sad"; "I am happy"; "I am not enlightened"; etc.

What would happen if we no longer used the terms I and I am in our dialogues with ourselves and with others?

I.e. "feeling sad"; "feeling happy"; "not enlightened"; etc.

There's only one way to find out. Try it.

Hey,

Thank you for the brilliant post!.( danny and peter had already posted their comments, and i by mistake posted mine here, sorry, and adding my apologies now(edit))

any way...

There are two things , I would like to put forth for your consideration and further comment(if necessary). You are saying 2 things ....

1) lucy>>>>>thought ceases to be the slave of ego and becomes infused with our true nature;

2) Lucy>>>> Knowing your true nature is not freedom from thought or your ego, but a holistic experience of our true nature which incorporates thought.

your post if rightly understood , can be put in one line.

That is why its one peach of a post!

you are putting forth a way of living! direct! how brilliant! how "LIFE"?!

Anyway..what you have attempted to answer in this post is this(pitting it in one line..):

If "I AM" Fearless, why do at times I fear?! Or in other words/variations...

If I am love why is there at times there is "dislike"..

If I am "peace/rest( true basic nature) why is there at times "distress"?

why is the "basic/true nature" or "truth" is(seemingly) always not( or (seemingly) not discerned), and at times why does it seems it is clouded by "other" or "others" which are not "basic/true"

Now I would like to bring your attention, on the above 2 things , which you have stated:

1. thoughts being infused with true nature

2. true nature( holistic) also incorporates "thought"

dear lucy..only one can be true and it is the later.

what is there in "fearless"....if one has to split it up? ...

a) the knowledge/realization that there is fear
b) the realization that fear is useless/empty/anatta etc etc

so , what you say as thought , is not that thought as such, but rather your wonderful "ability" to see that it is a thought!

hope I am getting to you!

I use the word "fear" not only as its my experience but rather it is very easily relatable. So I will put it again using the example of "fear".

so when I fear, its not that I fear as such, but I have the knowledge that I am in fear OR THAT THERE IS FEAR WHICH IS NOTHING BUT ONE PART OF "BEING FEARLESS"!

simlilarily...

in thought, its not thought as such , but my "seeing" that its a thought! this "seeing" is only a component of the true nature!

there is no "fear"/"thought" , but only the knowledge that there or "it" is "fear"/"thought" which is nothing but "fearless"/"true nature")

thus, that question doesnt exist at all as to why there is thought, when my "true nature" seems or is not thought!

because , "thought" which is in reality is "seeing that it is thought" is the first component of my true nature.

thus of the two statements that you have made, only the later is true and I hope it resolves what you were really, really , looking for, for once and for all...

regards

"The Advaita perspective is to dismiss thought and treat it as just another phenomena that arises in Awareness and many teachers emphasize how thought is the tool of the ego to keep the search going."

I must be swimming in strange Advaita waters, Lucy. I don't recall being encouraged to "dismiss' thoughts while I take a dip in them.

I, personally, don't view thoughts as a tool for the ego to keep the search going.

Our i-d-e-n-t-i-f-i-c-a-t-i-o-n with them, however, does propel that and every other intention.

Thoughts are, indeed, simply appearances. As every other form is.

They don't ask us to transform their mirage-essence into a felt experience of being real.

That's something that we do when we claim them as ours.

Beautifully said Lucy ... my sentiments can only echo yours.

So often, it seems that a side-effect of the non-dual realization is that there is a tendency to deny or reject those very qualities that make us uniquely human — i.e. thinking, imagining, verbalizing, etc, and in so doing, create a split between that which we believe we are, and that which we believe we are not ... just more separation. Where as, by definition, ‘non-duality’, like love itself, should be a unifying factor.