I want you to look carefully at the following. Where does a thought (known) end and the knowing of it begin? In other words, is there a dividing line between the known and the knowing, or is there just knowingknown?I guess it may be more accurate to say there is witnessing of thought. There is the label of thought claiming to be the witness, but it isn’t a choice, witnessing happens regardless.Have a look and see if you can find a witness/observer of thought. For there to be a witness would mean that there is a subject/object split, which = separation.
If no dividing line can be found, then is there a witness/observer of thought?
And without thought, how would it be known that “If attention focused in for a moment, maybe more associated thoughts would arise”?No, thoughts appeared of their own accord. If attention focused in for a moment, maybe more associated thoughts would arise, but it was just happening.Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?
Without thought, how would it be known if a thought was painful, negative or fearful, or positive for that matter?No, thought just happens.Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?
Lovely, yes.I don’t believe so. It seems like sometimes, this happens, but really it’s just another thought arising to interrupt the original thought. I can’t claim to be driving any of it.Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?
Nice, ColmI need to keep looking at this, but I can see that it happens so quickly that some thoughts are accepted and some rejected. This can give the appearance of continuity. Again though, it is clear thoughts are just appearing, so logical sequencing is most likely just another thought tying other thoughts together, that’s happening very quickly.It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence. Or is it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"?
The following link is a 7 minute clip of a soccer game. If you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with.
This exercise is to help you see that narrator of the game is no different to the narrator labelled as ‘my thoughts’, and that the game played is no different to life unfolding.
1. Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in and notice what the actual experience is.
2. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON.
Notice the differences. Notice how the commentator (aka thought) offers lots of know-how and advice about what the players should or shouldn’t be doing and how they should be playing the game - as if thought can somehow influence what is going on - as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome. The commentary seems to heighten feelings, and calls for loyalty with one team or another, and expounds the importance of this choice, and further expounds the importance of the game and its outcome.
3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary. Just watch the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Just notice what is happening as actual experience.
4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know the commentator is talking about, (and ignore all of your own thoughts as well), and just notice the actual experience of sound.
Let me know how you felt when the sound was turned on. Did you get caught up in the moment with the excitement of the crowd, and/or the excitement of the commentator and his commentary of the game?
How did you feel when the sound was off and there was no commentary at all.
Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?
And in the same way: is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?