Thought and Voidness

[PuerAzaelis]

When you draw a thought in (for interrogation) or when a thought disappears, it is not that it has gone into a clear Voidness (or one has been left in its place). Rather, the thought that arises all of a sudden is itself a clear Voidness. When you realise or gain this insight, then you have recognised (the nature of thought).

There is not even the slightest difference between the non-conceptual state and that of true insight into the fact that moving thoughts, the settled mind and the nature of thoughts themselves are all three clear, void and brilliant. To hold the two (as being different) is an interpolation of the mind that does not recognise them.

Dbaṅ-phyug-rdo-rje, Beru Khyentze Rinpoche, Ngawang Dhargyey, Alexander Berzin, and Aśvaghoṣa. The Mahāmudrā Eliminating the Darkness of Ignorance: A Guide to Ka-gyü Mahāmudrā and Guru-yoga. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 2002.

 

[sealchan]

This language is a bit tricky and unfamiliar to me. Would this be a good paraphrase of the above?

When you reflect on/consider an idea/thought or when a thought is forgotten, it is not that it's impact has disappeared from all physical reality (or that it has left any sort of space for a new thought). Rather, the thought that arises all of a sudden is itself without instrinsic meaning or physical character/consequence. When you realize or gain this insight, then you have recognized the emptiness of thought.

There is not even the slightest difference between the non-conceptual state and that of true insight into the reality of thought. Thoughts in consciousness, the resting-thoughtless mind and the nature of thoughts themselves are all three clear/pure, void/empty and brilliant/energic. To hold the two (thought and non-thought) as being different is an interpolation of the mind that does not recognize them.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

I like that a lot.

 

[BSM1]

When you draw a thought in (for interrogation) or when a thought disappears, it is not that it has gone into a clear Voidness (or one has been left in its place). Rather, the thought that arises all of a sudden is itself a clear Voidness. When you realise or gain this insight, then you have recognised (the nature of thought).

There is not even the slightest difference between the non-conceptual state and that of true insight into the fact that moving thoughts, the settled mind and the nature of thoughts themselves are all three clear, void and brilliant. To hold the two (as being different) is an interpolation of the mind that does not recognise them.

Dbaṅ-phyug-rdo-rje, Beru Khyentze Rinpoche, Ngawang Dhargyey, Alexander Berzin, and Aśvaghoṣa. The Mahāmudrā Eliminating the Darkness of Ignorance: A Guide to Ka-gyü Mahāmudrā and Guru-yoga. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 2002.

This language is a bit tricky and unfamiliar to me. Would this be a good paraphrase of the above?

When you reflect on/consider an idea/thought or when a thought is forgotten, it is not that it's impact has disappeared from all physical reality (or that it has left any sort of space for a new thought). Rather, the thought that arises all of a sudden is itself without instrinsic meaning or physical character/consequence. When you realize or gain this insight, then you have recognized the emptiness of thought.

There is not even the slightest difference between the non-conceptual state and that of true insight into the reality of thought. Thoughts in consciousness, the resting-thoughtless mind and the nature of thoughts themselves are all three clear/pure, void/empty and brilliant/energic. To hold the two (thought and non-thought) as being different is an interpolation of the mind that does not recognize them.

Just a question for my personal clarification: in your opinion, can or do thoughts exist on their own in this void, or do they have to have been conceived mentally to have any sort of form or validation?

 

[sealchan]

Just a question for my personal clarification: in your opinion, can or do thoughts exist on their own in this void, or do they have to have been conceived mentally to have any sort of form or validation?

For me this gets at something about the phenomenology of an idea as being nothing in itself. An idea is always a composition of relationships to other ideas, each also nothing in themselves. But doing the math this means that all the ideas add up to nothing, which is, of course, non-sensical and counter-intuitive. Nonetheless in meditation you get this sense of, perhaps, the undoing of the value of thought.

Maybe it has something to with relaxing a muscle that is already tensed...you realize that the muscle was tensed but you didn't feel it...now in the act of un-tensing it you feel it but when it relaxes it again doesn't feel like anything. So if you went from nothing to nothing then you must have been going nowhere to begin with. Somehow there is an analogous experience in the mind when you "relax" the mind.

Such mental experiences seem to me to be the result of taking a time out from the constant headlong rush of cause and effect and the brain following that until one chooses to relax from that activity and put on the mental brakes. Then you are left with this experience of mind "beyond" causality and the other background flavors we normally associate with our common sense of reality.

On the other hand I assume that for every thought there is a neurological behavior associated with that thought...and even when there are no thoughts there are neurological happenings.

 

[crossfire]

Twelve linked chain of causation:
https://www.nst.org/articles/basics-of-study/the-twelve-linked-chain-of-causation/

 

[Aupmanyav]

Thoughts are like formulas written on a black board. A teacher removes all others but lets one remain. That is when you pick up a thought. Not a very good simile, I do not really like similes, but I am trying.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ding.

Thoughts are like that.

 

[Srivijaya]

Thoughts are the nature of stress. Stressful because we are bound to their stream and do not experience them as anatta. We take ownership of them instead of relinquishing them. Jhana breaks the bond to thoughts. You do not own your thoughts, or even the mental processes which engender them. Thoughts are only "clear voidness" if you don't own them, otherwise they are in the nature of stress. Metaphysics can't help, because that enticing edifice is held in place by thoughts too.

 

[Samana Johann]

Good to not forget:

First Things First, by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu (2018; 6pp.)
Whether in practice or in popularity approaches by emptiness, impermanence, and not-self are always the leading head lines but the author explains why the Sublime Buddha kept the dominance and concern of the Four Noble Truth more importand, and why putting the first thing first supports conductive for success.