Being "in the thought"
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17142
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Being "in the thought"
Kind of a nit-picky question, but how would you explain the difference between being present "in" a thought in contemplation, vs. following a thought habitually?
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
-
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Re: Being "in the thought"
thoughts in contemplation are like clouds, in distraction is like the only cloud.Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:09 pm Kind of a nit-picky question, but how would you explain the difference between being present "in" a thought in contemplation, vs. following a thought habitually?
a narrow attention is a mark of distraction.
true dharma is inexpressible.
The bodhisattva nourishes from bodhicitta, through whatever method the Buddha has given him. Oh joy.
The bodhisattva nourishes from bodhicitta, through whatever method the Buddha has given him. Oh joy.
Re: Being "in the thought"
The locus of the subjective?Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:09 pm Kind of a nit-picky question, but how would you explain the difference between being present "in" a thought in contemplation, vs. following a thought habitually?
Maybe being in a thought is acknowledging that "I" is that thought itself - mind only analysis, basically. Whereas if I'm just habitually following a thought, I'm misapprehending the thought as an object distinct from myself.
Edit - oops. didn't see the subfora. Feel free to disregard.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Re: Being "in the thought"
Isn't this a panoramic like presence, where you don't fix on a particular object exclusively? So, not a contemplation actually, maybe a step towards it.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:35 pmthoughts in contemplation are like clouds, in distraction is like the only cloud.Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:09 pm Kind of a nit-picky question, but how would you explain the difference between being present "in" a thought in contemplation, vs. following a thought habitually?
a narrow attention is a mark of distraction.
-
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Re: Being "in the thought"
no, it is where you don't ignore nor cling to experiences.Xango wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:33 amIsn't this a panoramic like presence, where you don't fix on a particular object exclusively? So, not a contemplation actually, maybe a step towards it.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:35 pmthoughts in contemplation are like clouds, in distraction is like the only cloud.Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:09 pm Kind of a nit-picky question, but how would you explain the difference between being present "in" a thought in contemplation, vs. following a thought habitually?
a narrow attention is a mark of distraction.
point is not arriving somewhere, but, if you put it in those terms, it is realizing you are already there.
it's a creepy thing haha
true dharma is inexpressible.
The bodhisattva nourishes from bodhicitta, through whatever method the Buddha has given him. Oh joy.
The bodhisattva nourishes from bodhicitta, through whatever method the Buddha has given him. Oh joy.
Re: Being "in the thought"
.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:56 amno, it is where you don't ignore nor cling to experiences.Xango wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:33 amIsn't this a panoramic like presence, where you don't fix on a particular object exclusively? So, not a contemplation actually, maybe a step towards it.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:35 pm
thoughts in contemplation are like clouds, in distraction is like the only cloud.
a narrow attention is a mark of distraction.
point is not arriving somewhere, but, if you put it in those terms, it is realizing you are already there.
it's a creepy thing haha
No, I don't mean that. What I was referring to, is that if you see thoughts as clouds, than you are separate from them, so it is not contemplation, it is presence, or mindfulness. The only difference that it makes is that in the first case you are lost in one thought, and in the second you are at a distance from the thoughts and in a panoramic way. You are not clinging to them, but this doesn't make it contemplation, it makes it an experience, which is a step towards contemplation. If I understand it properly.
Last edited by Xango on Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Being "in the thought"
Following a thought habitually ≈ dreamingJohnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:09 pm Kind of a nit-picky question, but how would you explain the difference between being present "in" a thought in contemplation, vs. following a thought habitually?
Being present with a thought ≈ lucid dreaming
?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
-
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Re: Being "in the thought"
presence isn't contemplation, but a natural aspect of contemplation. i couldn't put it more simple.Xango wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:04 pm.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:56 amno, it is where you don't ignore nor cling to experiences.
point is not arriving somewhere, but, if you put it in those terms, it is realizing you are already there.
it's a creepy thing haha
No, I don't mean that. What I was referring to, is that if you see thoughts as clouds, than you are separate from them, so it is not contemplation, it is presence, or mindfulness. The only difference that it makes is that in the first case you are lost in one thought, and in the second you are at a distance from the thoughts and in a panoramic way. You are not clinging to them, but this doesn't make it contemplation, it makes it an experience. If I understand it properly.
true dharma is inexpressible.
The bodhisattva nourishes from bodhicitta, through whatever method the Buddha has given him. Oh joy.
The bodhisattva nourishes from bodhicitta, through whatever method the Buddha has given him. Oh joy.
- LastLegend
- Posts: 5408
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
- Location: Northern Virginia
Re: Being "in the thought"
It’s actually a tough question. But I am a Mahayana taliban can’t give my experience here.
It’s eye blinking.
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17142
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Being "in the thought"
I should have explained: This question is specific to Dzogchen contemplation, possibly Mahamudra instruction. So, it's not a general thing but pertains to specific meditation instruction.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17142
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Being "in the thought"
By "being in the thought", you are narrowing your attention in some sense, though not the typical one. This is the conundrum. I feel like I know the difference in experience, but I can't put it into words.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:35 pmthoughts in contemplation are like clouds, in distraction is like the only cloud.Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:09 pm Kind of a nit-picky question, but how would you explain the difference between being present "in" a thought in contemplation, vs. following a thought habitually?
a narrow attention is a mark of distraction.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
- LastLegend
- Posts: 5408
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
- Location: Northern Virginia
Re: Being "in the thought"
Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:12 pm I should have explained: This question is specific to Dzogchen contemplation, possibly Mahamudra instruction. So, it's not a general thing but pertains to specific meditation instruction.
It’s eye blinking.
- LastLegend
- Posts: 5408
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
- Location: Northern Virginia
Re: Being "in the thought"
I’d say people trust their teachers more, so giving instruction by people on here is frown upon. But we can say: this is my experience and this is what I do and it’s helpful. Also we can compare similarities in this area of clarity from experience of different practitioners.
It’s eye blinking.
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17142
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Being "in the thought"
Anyone can answer, i'm not trying to exclude people per se.LastLegend wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 6:16 pm I’d say people trust their teachers more, so giving instruction by people on here is frown upon. But we can say: this is my experience and this is what I do and it’s helpful. Also we can compare similarities in this area of clarity from experience of different practitioners.
The thing is, this is about a specific instruction within Dzogchen/Vajrayana. I don't doubt a similar instruction might exist in Chan or Zen, for instance, but I feel like it's probably hard for someone to get what i'm asking unless they've practiced with these particular instructions, or something very similar.
Even more specifically, this is something ChNN talked about, I have seen other Nyingma/Dzogchen teachers talk about it (Tarthang Tulku off the top of my head).
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
- LastLegend
- Posts: 5408
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
- Location: Northern Virginia
Re: Being "in the thought"
Got it.Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:10 pm
The thing is, this is about a specific instruction within Dzogchen/Vajrayana. I don't doubt a similar instruction might exist in Chan or Zen, for instance, but I feel like it's probably hard for someone to get what i'm asking unless they've practiced with these particular instructions, or something very similar.
That’s cool. I’d imagine something less verbal. Personal experience I get caught up verbally.Even more specifically, this is something ChNN talked about, I have seen other Nyingma/Dzogchen teachers talk about it (Tarthang Tulku off the top of my head).
It’s eye blinking.
Re: Being "in the thought"
I don't think this is nit-picky at all but something I'm keenly interested in exploring.
I think, by "being in a thought" in a typical sense, you have narrowed your attention by excluding all that does not fall within this habitually reduced range of observation. And i think the example the horse with blinders fits here.
I think, "being in a thought", in contemplation, is like seeing the full range (or maybe more commonly, a somewhat larger range) and selecting where you are going to focus for a time in order to understand something better, you are curious to see how something works, observe how it unfolds, examine what processes are engaged. There is a knowing that you are narrowing the range, you are examining something and at any time you can pull back and view a greater range to see how it all fits together.
So I can see how the dreaming and lucid dreaming comparison fits here.
I think dharma practice increases that "larger range", it grows our capacity to see a greater and greater range and at the same time grows our capacity to knowingly focus in on the places where we need to learn more in order access and put into action wisdom and compassion more readily.
An important note, I've not received dzogchen or mahamudra instruction so I would greatly and warmly welcome reliable correction.
I think, by "being in a thought" in a typical sense, you have narrowed your attention by excluding all that does not fall within this habitually reduced range of observation. And i think the example the horse with blinders fits here.
I think, "being in a thought", in contemplation, is like seeing the full range (or maybe more commonly, a somewhat larger range) and selecting where you are going to focus for a time in order to understand something better, you are curious to see how something works, observe how it unfolds, examine what processes are engaged. There is a knowing that you are narrowing the range, you are examining something and at any time you can pull back and view a greater range to see how it all fits together.
So I can see how the dreaming and lucid dreaming comparison fits here.
I think dharma practice increases that "larger range", it grows our capacity to see a greater and greater range and at the same time grows our capacity to knowingly focus in on the places where we need to learn more in order access and put into action wisdom and compassion more readily.
An important note, I've not received dzogchen or mahamudra instruction so I would greatly and warmly welcome reliable correction.
- LastLegend
- Posts: 5408
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
- Location: Northern Virginia
Re: Being "in the thought"
Samsaric mind will do something with the thought, rather than leaving it alone, accidentally confusing itself as a consequence so that it seems as if there is a subject and an object. No habitual interference, no problem.Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:09 pm Kind of a nit-picky question, but how would you explain the difference between being present "in" a thought in contemplation, vs. following a thought habitually?
If you are a ChNNR student, this is what I think might be the most useful book on this question: https://www.ssi-austria.at/shop/chogyal ... light.html
Re: Being "in the thought"
I often struggle to cope with all the suffering I see.
Does this kind of investigation and practice help with this?
Does this kind of investigation and practice help with this?
Re: Being "in the thought"
I think the only difference is whether you have recognition of the base or not while being in the thought. Not whether thoughts come and go by, as they do it anyhow, there is no thought that can stay there for even longer than few seconds. And if you see many or just one is just a matter of focus, not of recognition. And if you stay where you are without following them is also just a matter of focus, as soon as you don't exert effort you will lose this.