Is there a thought without the image, a thought without the word, a thought without the symbol?
(Whether you say Yes or No, why do you say it? Have you decided one way or another? Or are your beliefs in control of the answers? Can you go into the question without hoping for the answer?)
{ 8 comments }
I say no, because my definition(belief) of thought is an image/word/sound in my mind. So the belief defines my answer in this case without needing to ask the question.
what of feelings, impressions? Are they thoughts?
Some say the image, word, feeling arises from memory. The image or other value is a quality that arises from conditioning. What then is the thought itself? Is the quality the thought or is it the carrier of the quality? What is the carrier?
It may seem an abstract exercise, but it is the doorway to everything.
Very nice, Jarrod.
So, thought IS the image/word/sound.
Now the image/word/sound/thought – or whatever it is – what are they composed of? Can you know the word without being taught? Can you have the representative image without having learned what it represents? Would you say that these things are memories?
Davidya,
Yes, memories.
Is there a difference between the carrier and what it carries?
I, too, define thought as a word or series of words moving through my awareness. They are artifacts, learned and recreated, used by ego to fragment the world (whatever that is) and therefore not genuine.
My beliefs are in control. If I thought they weren’t that would be a belief also. (laughs)
Is there a difference between the carrier and what it carries? The question implies subject and object, so how could there not be? And yet I’m led to believe there isn’t, since non-duality encompasses duality.
I guess all I really know is that one asks questions and one is compelled to find answers. Why?
“Why?” might be the most important question for many of us, Eric. And no one else can answer it for us. But how does one approach it?
A why also implies a who, does it not? It is an order of sorts, issued from the center, or point of reference. “Why am I doing this,” or “Why does this happen to me,” and so on.
Perhaps, instead of looking for the answer, look for the “who” trying to find the answer.
Takuin
No, not a difference between carrier and what is carried. But if we see the second is a quality whereas the first is the essence, we can step closer to what is. Not be distracted by appearances but rather see the flow of what is.
The carrier, the actual thought, is movement within consciousness. That is us. But we miss this point in display.
I think I get what you mean, Davidya. One is the pool, and the other is the drop of water from the pool. Or, one is the underlying function, the other is the reaction of the underlying function. We can use different phrases here, but I think we are getting closer.
That may be a necessary part of it all, but I cannot say for sure. Some may see it, then stop, believing that is all that is needed. My only concern is to find out if anything is beyond all of that.
Comments on this entry are closed.