Thinking

[WokeBloke]

"The thinker" is a reference to the source of thoughts by the source of thoughts.

Only the thinker can think. Or in other words only the source of thoughts can generate thoughts. 

 

Thus when you think "I do not think these thoughts" you are actually deceiving yourself. 

Notice what is going on here...

1. The source of thoughts generated the thought "I do not think this"

In this context the user of the word "I" is the source of thoughts itself. It is referring to itself using the "I" reference.

2. Thus this is equivalent to saying "the source of thoughts did not create this thought" which is false because ONLY the source of thoughts creates this thought.

 

Also "there is no thinker" is also deception because that's just the thinker thinking there is no thinker.

 

You are responsible for all of your thoughts.

Only the source of thoughts can deny this but of course that would just mean you are delusional and I pray to God you don't try to convince more people that they aren't responsible for their thoughts.

 

Edited February 22, 2022 by WokeBloke

[WelcometoReality]

17 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

"The thinker" is a reference to the source of thoughts by the source of thoughts.

The mind generates thoughts. Is there something that controls thought? If there is then it should be easy to stop thinking.

21 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

Only the thinker can think. Or in other words only the source of thoughts can generate thoughts. 

If you would be throwing a pebble into water there would be ripples on the surface of the water but there would be no rippler would it? The same is true for thoughts. They appear from the conditioned mind. A reaction of other stimuli.

27 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

Thus when you think "I do not think these thoughts" you are actually deceiving yourself. 

Notice what is going on here...

"I do not think these thoughts" is a thought as is "I do think these thoughts". 

30 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

1. The source of thoughts generated the thought "I do not think this"

In this context the user of the word "I" is the source of thoughts itself. It is referring to itself using the "I" reference.

The source of thought is the mind. Which is referring to itself using the word "I". You are not the mind.

34 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

You are responsible for all of your thoughts.

Only the source of thoughts can deny this but of course that would just mean you are delusional and I pray to God you don't try to convince more people that they aren't responsible for their thoughts.

The thoughts are generated from previous conditioning. So believing that you are responsible for these thoughts would be as absurd as being responsible for the family you're born into.

You do have the option to believe or not believe the thoughts that are generated which there are many tools to help you with disidentifying from them.

[Tim R]

The basis of your argument is a circular assumption, namely that there is such a thing as the "source of thought" / "the thinker" which "does" the thinking. 

"Source of thought" and "thinker" are merely more thought. 

Watch out for implicit assumptions. If the foundation is skewed, the whole house will be crooked. 

[This]

10 minutes ago, Tim R said:

The basis of your argument is a circular assumption, namely that there is such a thing as the "source of thought" / "the thinker" which "does" the thinking. 

"Source of thought" and "thinker" are merely more thought. 

Watch out for implicit assumptions. If the foundation is skewed, the whole house will be crooked. 

You said it! It's how i feel when i read questions like "if god is x then why does he/she y?" it just doesn't even make sense to ask the question in the first place.

Edited February 22, 2022 by This

[axiom]

5 hours ago, WokeBloke said:

"The thinker" is a reference to the source of thoughts by the source of thoughts.

Only the thinker can think. Or in other words only the source of thoughts can generate thoughts. 

 

Thus when you think "I do not think these thoughts" you are actually deceiving yourself. 

Notice what is going on here...

1. The source of thoughts generated the thought "I do not think this"

In this context the user of the word "I" is the source of thoughts itself. It is referring to itself using the "I" reference.

2. Thus this is equivalent to saying "the source of thoughts did not create this thought" which is false because ONLY the source of thoughts creates this thought.

Also "there is no thinker" is also deception because that's just the thinker thinking there is no thinker.

You are responsible for all of your thoughts.

Only the source of thoughts can deny this but of course that would just mean you are delusional and I pray to God you don't try to convince more people that they aren't responsible for their thoughts.

 

All of this makes sense, except the last part: "you are responsible for all your thoughts". Whether or not you consider reality to be a dream, we can say that at least within the dream, all of your thoughts are catalysed by preceding neurochemical processes over which you have no control. It is quite easy to see this happening on brain scans, and in the various experiments which have been done to show the motor cortex acts before the pre-frontal cortex anticipates the action. The horse is before the cart.

Thus, the jury decided a long time ago that free will is entirely illusory - hence the hard problem of consciousness: What is the function of awareness when it has zero input into the decisions made by the body (including but not limited to physical movements and language)?

Nevertheless, people suggest there is right and wrong action, and place blame on people for their actions. 

A VERY large part of enlightenment, in my view, is the recognition that whatever you previously thought of as "you", i.e. your thoughts and actions, are not in fact "you" at all. When distilled to the essence of what it is like to be you - which is surely the best definition of a "you", it can be noticed that you are the awareness alone. It's pretty damn profound when this happens. It is especially very noticeable with practices like Vipassana, wherein you can passively watch your body sitting in extreme pain after many motionless hours... and feel like you're merely watching clouds go by. Total disidentification.

This is not what Leo is teaching here of course. I remain open-minded as to whether there is something meta and/or bigger going on.

Edited February 22, 2022 by axiom

[Breakingthewall]

7 hours ago, WokeBloke said:

"The thinker" is a reference to the source of thoughts by the source of thoughts.

Only the thinker can think. Or in other words only the source of thoughts can generate thoughts. 

Subtle difference: you are not thinking. You are the thoughts. the self that perceives itself as something real, that creates the thoughts, is the thoughts. it is not creating anything, since it is not real. if thought ceases, the self disappears.

[WokeBloke]

4 hours ago, Tim R said:

The basis of your argument is a circular assumption, namely that there is such a thing as the "source of thought" / "the thinker" which "does" the thinking. 

"Source of thought" and "thinker" are merely more thought. 

Watch out for implicit assumptions. If the foundation is skewed, the whole house will be crooked. 

No creation can exist without a source. The foundation is an axiomatic fact.

[Breakingthewall]

29 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

No creation can exist without a source. The foundation is an axiomatic fact.

the source of thought is nothing. it is absolute emptiness. If you want to understand this, you have to disappear first, so there will be no you to understand. you have to detach yourself from the self completely. this last sentence is a paradox. psychedelics are the answer

[Mason Riggle]

@WokeBloke

Consider a boy holding a stick, using it to poke a toad.  Now ask yourself, is the stick poking the toad, or is the boy poking the toad? 

The boy isn't 'poking the toad'.. he's only 'moving the stick'. The stick is 'poking the toad'..   but is the stick 'doing that'?  Is 'poking the toad' something the stick is causing? 

Now consider a person thinking about the beach. This time ask yourself, is the person thinking about the beach, or is it just the brain that's thinking about the beach?  Is 'thinking about the beach' something the brain is causing?  Is there some separate 'you' somewhere causing your brain to think about the beach? 

There is no 'source'.. no 'you' who is 'causing what is occurring'.  There is just 'what is occurring', the totality of which is the cause of 'what will occur'. 

 

[Wilhelm44]

@Mason Riggle  

"the totality of which is the cause of 'what will occur'."

Please can you expand a little bit on this ?

Is it like saying everything is causing everything ?

 

[Mason Riggle]

@Wilhelm44 exactly.   Finding the 'source' of 'what is occurring' is like finding the center of the surface of a sphere.  It's all the center, or none of it is. 

Another way to think about this illusion of a separate 'doer', is to take it out of human terms. For example, consider a tree growing.. what is the 'cause' of the 'growing'?  What is that's 'growing the tree'?  Where is the 'grower' of the trees?  What is 'causing' the tree to grow?  Well, there really isn't one.  There is just 'the growing'.. no 'grower'. 

[WokeBloke]

58 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

the source of thought is nothing. it is absolute emptiness. If you want to understand this, you have to disappear first, so there will be no you to understand. you have to detach yourself from the self completely. this last sentence is a paradox. psychedelics are the answer

The source of thoughts is nonverbal. It exists hence there are thoughts. You either notice that only you can think and thus only you are responsible or you deny that you are thinking by thinking that you don't think. 

[WokeBloke]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Subtle difference: you are not thinking. You are the thoughts. the self that perceives itself as something real, that creates the thoughts, is the thoughts. it is not creating anything, since it is not real. if thought ceases, the self disappears.

This is false. In the absence of thinking I remain. Stop thinking for a second and pinch yourself hard. You will notice that you still exist without thoughts.

Creations can't create themselves. By suggesting that thoughts bring themselves into existence you are suggesting that something that does not exist gives birth to itself. Thoughts do not exist until they are created by you (no-thought). That which does not exist can't create itself because it doesn't exist to create itself.

 

 

[Wilhelm44]

7 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Wilhelm44 exactly.   Finding the 'source' of 'what is occurring' is like finding the center of the surface of a sphere.  It's all the center, or none of it is. 

Another way to think about this illusion of a separate 'doer', is to take it out of human terms. For example, consider a tree growing.. what is the 'cause' of the 'growing'?  What is that's 'growing the tree'?  Where is the 'grower' of the trees?  What is 'causing' the tree to grow?  Well, there really isn't one.  There is just 'the growing'.. no 'grower'. 

Cool, thanks !

[Mason Riggle]

@WokeBloke thinking is occurring..  it's just being misattributed to some separate 'you' who's 'doing it'.   Similarly, digesting is happening, but there is no separate 'you' causing the digesting.   Digesting and thinking are both things that organisms 'do' automatically, similarly to how grass grows 'automatically'.. there is no 'grower' of the grass. 

 

[axiom]

@Mason Riggle Spot on.

@Wilhelm44 Everything is causing everything... yes. Unlike Leo, I think even God's imaginings are deterministic in nature.

@WokeBloke "Notice that only you can think and thus only you are responsible"

It sounds like you're making the mistake of considering thoughts to be originators of action. They are not. Thoughts are actions in themselves. They are merely part of a long line of actions stretching back infinitely far. Within the brain there are neurochemical catalysts for all your thoughts- none of which you control.  Thoughts happen. The thoughts have nothing to do with what you are.

You have been watching the thoughts for so long that you think they are "you". If you had instead watched clouds moving across the sky for your entire life without ever glancing away, and that was all you had ever known, you would think you were the clouds.

Edited February 22, 2022 by axiom

[WokeBloke]

Just now, Mason Riggle said:

@WokeBloke thinking is occurring..  it's just being misattributed to some separate 'you' who's 'doing it'.   Similarly, digesting is happening, but there is no separate 'you' causing the digesting.   Digesting and thinking are both things that organisms 'do' automatically, similarly to how grass grows 'automatically'.. there is no 'grower' of the grass. 

 

You keep thinking but you also keep denying that you are thinking. You are not separate from yourself. Thinking is what you are doing (either consciously or compulsively) not what you are.

[axiom]

2 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

You keep thinking but you also keep denying that you are thinking. You are not separate from yourself. Thinking is what you are doing (either consciously or compulsively) not what you are.

It depends how far you want to distill the idea of you-ness.

Advanced meditators would generally agree that there appears to be a "you" that exists prior to thought, and which witnesses thought.

Edited February 22, 2022 by axiom

[WokeBloke]

@axiom I explicitly claim to not be my thoughts. I am no thought. I am just claiming that I generate my thoughts. Brain activity is what the functioning of consciousness looks like when examined by itself. You don't consciously control your brain but ultimately you are responsible for everything your brain does.

[Mason Riggle]

@WokeBloke thinking is occurring, and that's not being denied.  There's just no 'me' (separate me) who's 'doing it'.  

It's a language thing.   When you use a knife to cut a pizza, you could say, 'the knife cut the pizza'.. but ask yourself.. did the knife 'do that'?  

Just because the knife 'does things', like 'cut pizza', does not mean that 'the knife' caused itself to cut the pizza.