Laura/thoughts...

[Guest guest]

At 01:10 PM 2/12/00 -0500, you wrote:

> " Laura Olshansky " <editor

>

>Dear Dan,

>

>> D: I'm simply where and who I am. That's enough, thanks.

>> No need here for experienced or inexperienced meditators defining

>> what should and shouldn't be " my " state :-)

>

>L: But isn't Krishnamurti suggesting a similar kind of " should " in those

>six articles? (Again, I haven't looked at them in a couple of months,

>so this is really a question.)

 

D: I have no idea. If he is, it doesn't matter. Simply who I am

is enough.

 

>> D: How do you tell when you are more or less aware?

>

>I'm not sure whether you're asking for a definition of " aware " or asking

>literally how I recognize the state.

 

D: No hidden meanings to it. You used the words, and I just

was curious how you applied them to your experience.

 

>If you're asking about a definition:

>

>When I am meditating, or trying to, and suddenly realize that for the

>last five minutes I wasn't -- at that moment of realization, I'm " aware. "

>With practice, that condition can be prolonged and made habitual.

 

D: O.K. Perhaps it could be looked at this way: In this moment,

without comparison, how can any judgment be made of

whether or not it is more or less aware? In this moment,

what is the need to continue it or make it habitual? Where is

the one situated who wishes to continue it or make it a habit,

or is that one itself merely a habitual response pattern?

 

>If you're asking literally how I know when this condition occurs, I don't

>know, just like I don't know how I know when I'm hot or cold or hungry.

>I think this is a question for neuroscientists.

 

D: No, it's a question for you and me. It's urgent and essential.

It clears away debris. I know awareness through awareness.

There's no other way, no neuroscience needed or helpful.

Awareness knowing itself is an explosion of the Unknown,

sometimes a quiet and gentle explosion, othertimes boom!

>

>> When exactly does a thought come into being

>> and when does it leave?

>

>Again, I was using the word " thought " in the context of the previous kind

>of experience. A lot of this conversation depends on definitions .

 

D: For me, it's this way: there's no way to tell when a thought begins

or ends. Such determinations are arbitrary. There is no thinker

apart from thinking to make such a determination. This is not,

for me, about measuring electrical activity in the brain. It's

a question of the nature of self-identity, the self-organization

of thought, and the spaciousness from which thought arises, has

apparent form, and apparent dissolution.

 

>In that context, with that definition, the answer is self-evident: the

thought

>is seen to come and go.

 

D: Maybe, maybe not. What is the nature of a thought. How is a thought

different from no-thought? I would say that when one is aware of

no-thought, that this awareness involves thought.

 

>I am skeptical that anybody, even somebody in Ramana Maharshi's state,

>has conscious access to all levels of mental functioning. So I suspect it's

>impossible for anybody to know when " thoughts " stop and start, if we define

> " thought " broadly. Some " thoughts " probably chug along in subterranean

>stop-and-go fashion for weeks or months or lifetimes -- I don't know.

 

D: Yes. Thought is anchored in other thought. The cells of the body

are thought, their communications with each other thought-forms.

Our definitions of biochemical processes doesn't change this fact,

as such definitions are themselves thought. The only way to know

the nature of thought is to know what is beyond thought, which is

to be Unknown Knowingness itself.

 

>> Where exactly is a thought occurring?

>

>I think this question has no answer. It's like asking the color of a

logarithm.

>Logarithms don't have colors, and thoughts don't have locations.

 

D: Then, how can you refer to a thought coming and going? From where?

How can a thought have any substane or being with no location?

 

>> Essentially I agree. However, I do question whether ideas about

>> enlightenment aren't thoughts similar to other thought, and whether

>> opinions and concepts about defining characteristics aren't irrelevant

>> regarding the original nature of awareness. ;-)

>

>I would say, yes we can find similarities. But we can also find

differences. " Compare and contrast " is a workhorse in school

>assignments because it harnesses so fruitfully to almost anything.

 

D: Ah, but Laura - my point here is that whatever the reality to

enlightenment is, it will never be in any thoughts about the nature

of enlightenment or what it is like to be enlightened. We need to

be careful, because we tend to take our manufactured descriptions

as far more real than is the case.

 

>But as for irrelevant -- well, I'd prefer to ask whether these ideas are

useful to

>seekers who want to recognize and abide in naked awareness.

>

>Perhaps yes, because:

>

>1. Such concepts help them find a teacher.

 

D: Ah, but perhaps such a teacher will delude them further. Perhaps

their true teacher will then be unrecognized, as that teacher might have

nothing to do with supporting their concepts. Perhaps they won't

find their true teacher, it will be their true teacher

who finds them.

 

>2. Such concepts help motivate them to find that state.

 

D: Perhaps such a motivated search for a thought-to-exist

state is itself a form of delusion.

 

>3. Such concepts help prevent them from deluding themselves.

 

D: Perhaps belief in such concepts is itself delusion.

 

Love,

Dan