Hi Rali,
Thank you!
OK, I watched the soccer video and this was a beneficial exercise. It is clear that the commentary (thought) is not needed for the game to happen. Yes, it adds color, context, etc. but the game is being played whether on mute or with commentary. The commentary does not caue anything. It is a mere description of what is already happening, whether or not the commentary is there.
And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?
No, it is not. It is not creating or compelling anything - same as commentary on the game. It is describing what is already happening - in no way necessary for the happening to happen!
And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?
Look at ordinary life. Harper cries. A thought appears: "Harper needs me." Action (sensation) happens. Look carefully.
Is the thought causing the action? Or is the thought more like commentary describing what is already unfolding?
No - the thought is definitely not causing the action! Ah! So, then, "I" am not deciding to care. I am not thinking caring into being. It just is. I keep using this term, but it's "baked in"! The action of getting up arises on its own and after (or during) the fact of "getting" up the thought-as-commentary comes in with the old script, "this is what I am experiencing" - but the DE is just "happening"!
How fast is the thought “Harper needs me” actually moving?
Just look at thought, can you find a point where it began?
How long does the thought last?
No, I cannot find a place where the thought begins, nor can I determine its duration. It seems as a flash. And if I
really look there is no direct experience of an orderly precession of thought → action. It's all jumbled.
Where does the thought start, and where does it end?
This seems undeterminable.
Is there any direct experience of one event (e.g. thought “Harper needs me”) following another (e.g. sensation, sound… labelled “action: getting up and attending to her”) outside of the thought about sequence?
Ah! No, it's all happening "inside" thought. The "order", that is. In DE, it kind of all seems to just "happen" (at once).
What is there without the DE labels?
Without the DE labels, it is all still "this" - the labelling isn't "doing" it. The labels are not necessary for the "thing to be".
Thought appears. A sensation appears. A sound appears. Can an actual dividing line be found between them?
Is thought happening outside of direct experience? Or is the presence of thought - thought itself - directly experienced too?
Can a diving line between DE and thought be found?
No, there is no actual dividing line. Thought itself does not and cannot happen outside direct experience. There is a direct experience of thought.
The subtlety here is that stories are also appearing. They are not outside experience; they are simply stories. That's a very different insight from "thought is separate from DE", right?
Yes, I see. Thought is within direct experience, and stories are just the flavor of the experience of thought. Thought is not separate from DE.
Have you heard the Buddhist saying "Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and rivers once again rivers "? What do you think it means?
That before practice we take the label as the thing (the thinking about the thing as the thing itself) - inquiry throws this on its head and the labels (river, mountain) are removed such that they are not the label-words. Then, after inquiry, the thing is just what the thing "is" sans labels, which is, of course, the mountain, the river, etc. just being as "this"
Furthermore… you say:
I see plainly there is thought as label of experience and thought as thought about thought - but it's all thought.
Who is doing the seeing? What is looking made of?
I don't experience anyone as doing the seeing. Looking is made of ... looking. Itself. Hearing is made of hearing. The "I" is thought about it.
OK, so, circling back to a previous inquiry
Now look at this supposed relationship between thought and "action".
Is there actually a direct experience of acting on a thought?
There is not! There is commentary about it.
So when I get up to help Harper, it's because she is my daughter and caring happens. I do not think it into existence. I do not choose to care. I don't have to. It's all commentary at this point. There is crying. There is caring. There is action. The self "I" may not perform the action, but there are still actions; those actions have effects, and those effects land on others - life, in a word, is arising one way or another.
"I am going to take a sip" feels different simply because of the word "I", it seems. But it's still just language, just words, just a thought. It does not cause the sip. It's just a co-arising, so to speak.
Thanks,
Pat
