Nature of thought

[Forrest Adkins]

1. Is thought the first "layer" on top of consciousness or is every thought ego?

2. = If every thought is ego how can I focus my thoughts on a mantra?

3. = If the "I" who focuses does not exist am I just a deterministic machine, a consciousness watching a movie? Are my intentional thoughts part of the movie? 

OR

Are some thoughts coming from higher while some other thoughts come from a lower ego place?

[Forestluv]

Ime, exploring the nature of thought can be insightful - both in depth and expansion. It can also be a limiting trap of contraction. 

There are many different constructs we can create about thoughts. A mind that wants to define a thought as an objective, universal "x" is a rigid, contracted mind. I've found it helpful to have a fluid, flexible mind that can observe thoughts from many different views/essences/beingness/concepts. I imagine standing on a mountain top asking "what is a view?". There are so many ways we can explore this question. The view can be a sensory perception, it can be an experience, it can be a feeling, it can be an essence, it can be visual, it can be multi-sensory. The view can be separate from me. I can be one with the view. All of this has truth. Each is beautiful, yet to hold onto any one idea as being universally true is very limiting. . . Each of your questions can be answered in many different ways. There is not one "right" answer.

26 minutes ago, Forrest Adkins said:

1. Is thought the first "layer" on top of consciousness

This is one of the imageries I use. I imagine thoughts are like the surface of an ocean. Quite often, we are like a boat on the surface of the water. The waters (thinking) may be rough - which causes unease. We want to settle down the waves, so it is calm and peaceful. This is a major source of seeking. There are uncomfortable waves (thinking) that we want to stop. Yet, even when the waves settle down - the relief is only temporary. . . Yet calm waters often allow space to explore Here and Now. . . When we are not obsessed with surviving the rough waters, we can relax and look around Here and Now. We can notice things we've never noticed before. . . In regards to first "layer", we may notice. . . "Hey, I'm floating on the surface - there are deeper waters available". Then perhaps we put on some scuba gear and dive beneath the surface. Now we can observe the waves (thoughts) from an observer perspective. There is no longer attachment/identification to the waves (thoughts). Or we can explore beneath the waves. We can explore the coral reefs and fish. The waves may continue above, yet they are not bothersome. We are not immersed within the waves. It's just another aspect of the ocean.

35 minutes ago, Forrest Adkins said:

is every thought ego?

It depends on how we define "ego". The conventional use of "ego" is attachment/identification to a finite, separate self (a.k.a "me"). As we dive down and observe the surface water, what do we see? In the beginning, the majority of thoughts are related to "me". Most are related to "my" story. Things I need to do, things I desire, what she said to me, what I should do, how I want to feel, who I want to be. . . and on and on. There is nothing wrong with such thought stories, yet down below we can see them as thought stories. This is an amazing sense of freedom and it opens many doors. We can view and explore thoughts from a very different perspective. Or we can let go of thoughts and swim around - exploring the majesty of the ocean. 

For example, I may go hiking and be immersed in thinking. In which I am the thoughts. I may worry about what I need to do at work and the upcoming holidays. I may contemplate about my childhood and how it shaped who I am. These thoughts are merely appearances happening Now, yet they are very alluring and mesmerizing. They can entice us to enter a place of past and future in which we lose presence and awareness of Now. . . . Yet these thoughts can also appear in the background. Rather than being immerse within the thoughts, there is distance between awareness and the thoughts. The thoughts become appearances of Now - just like the babbling brook, wind and bird chirps. . . The thoughts can become so distant that they dissolve or get filtered out - similar to how the background buzzing of a fluorescent lightbulb can get filtered out. . . Then a whole new relationship with reality arises. The direct experience is not restricted to thought constructs. Here, Beingness is revealed: feelings, energetics, connection, intuition, empathy - without those pesky thoughts trying to control the narrative. 

In this space, thoughts don't have the same type of power. Sometimes, they just contribute to Beingness. For example, as I sat in nature a hawk flew by and there was an essence of its spirit. Then a thought/imagine appeared of native americans and their spiritual relationship to animals. This was a beautiful thought that flew away with the hawk. The thought did not grab the reigns and try to figure out the spirituality of nature.

53 minutes ago, Forrest Adkins said:

2. = If every thought is ego how can I focus my thoughts on a mantra?

I would let go of the thought that "every thought is ego". There are places in which thoughts = feelings. There are places in which thoughts = the mantra. Rather than try to control thoughts so they align to a mantra, I would let go of that desire and become the mantra. If you become the mantra, then any thought is also the mantra. Or a thought is just a passing appearance, like a dog bark in the distance. I think you are giving way to much attention to thoughts. There is vastness to explore in which thoughts are not running the show. 

57 minutes ago, Forrest Adkins said:

3. = If the "I" who focuses does not exist am I just a deterministic machine, a consciousness watching a movie? Are my intentional thoughts part of the movie? 

I would drop the "deterministic machine" part. That is the type of thing a self will resist. I would explore the "consciousness watching a movie" part. When you are watching a movie, do you ever just watch the movie without analyzing it? There are simply movie appearances and there is understanding, without analysis. Have you ever watched a movie with a highly active thinking mind? Have you ever felt that you "missed" something about the movie? And when we observe without the hyper-thinking, we may notice certain things. Perhaps and essence of the characters. 

1 hour ago, Forrest Adkins said:

Are some thoughts coming from higher while some other thoughts come from a lower ego place?

To me, this sets up a "good ego" vs "bad ego" dynamic which I don't find helpful. It keeps the ego in the game, controlling the narrative. This immersion doesn't allow space for transcendence to reveal itself, ime. 

[Highest]

It cannot be seen, but you aware of it. What is aware of thoughts, literally all thoughts? What is aware of being aware of thoughts? What is very source of the "I" and "me" thought? 

Don't try to answer these using more thoughts. Observe, be focused in the present moment. Become conscious of the answers. This can go very deep. 

[Corpus]

Understanding the nature of thought through thought is a fools errand but that doesn't mean metaphors cannot capture aspects of the essence of the question. Serotoninluv has a good "grasp" of this IMO.

Heres another metaphor which is again limited but "sheds some light" on the matter.

Picture a small pan sitting atop a gas hob, containing simmering water, with a transparent lid covering it. The gas is the energy source, the bubbling water is the "sea" of consciousness  and the whole is unseparated through the bottom of the pan. The steam in the pot are like thoughts arising, an unavoidable consequence of the energetic process and these are the same as the water but in a different form. These coalesce on the inside of the lid to form water droplets, the same as the steam and water in the pans' base, but "lacking" in the energy of the other 2; inevitably  they fall back into the water and become united with the source. The illusion is created by the mind thinking the steam can take the form of ice if so willed, rendering them solid. This is at variance with the process which has been described and is as it is, despite what the steam might wish. It flows, it takes forms but in reality there is nothing which has or could change.

(Insight on LSD-25 and methoxetamine).

[Nahm]

Yes, relative, the movie.

[LastThursday]

21 hours ago, Forrest Adkins said:

1. Is thought the first "layer" on top of consciousness or is every thought ego?

There are many ways to see thought as @Serotoninluv says. 

The everyday notion is thought is rooted in some sort of private experience that other people can't access - in other words reality out there is shared and public, but thoughts are not shared and are private.

If you take the most expansive version of thought though, then the entire subjective experience itself is just thought. If you give up on the idea of there being a delineation between the private domain of thought and the public domain of reality (you collapse the duality), then thought ends up being the same thing as reality out there.

A simple exercise to try is to purposefully think about moving your arm. Say to yourself "Arm. Move!" and then wait for your arm to move.  Try and notice the exact moment you move your arm. When did the thought become an action? Did the thought cease once the arm moved? Notice how hard it is to pin down the moment thought becomes reality out there. The more you explore it, the more you realise there really is no boundary between the two.

It may seem absurd that reality is just thoughts. Reality seems to happen with or without our input, but thoughts are somehow under our control and have deep relevance to us only. But the illusion is broken just by asking where do thoughts come from? If you examine it closely, they come from nowhere. Thoughts  just "arise" spontaneously and just as quickly disappear. If you try and force a thought, then the thought about "forcing a thought" arose spontaneously from nothing. Thoughts are not "controlled" by you at all.

One way to view it, is to think of consciousness as a continuum between ephemeral intangible thoughts and solid tangible reality. Reality and thought are not different in kind, just different in quality. Consciousness is just like a fluid that can observe itself, and its self-act of observation brings itself into being. Thought and reality is just the constant movement of that fluid.