Ah very good you've pinpointed this thing about the content of thought being 'just as real' as DE. The thing is that you won't get clearer on this area if you always go toI also realise, through videos like the Joey Lott one and generally reflecting on everything you've said, that I don't have thought in perspective, that it's content is just as real as DE. I know this isn't a direct answer to your question but I'm trying to think this through.
. The trick is to be able to distinguish (through observation in DE) the difference between thought as another sensation and the conceptual content - the stories made up by - thought. When you can do that it should be fairly straightforward to see that all types of thought are arising self-lessly. So - a bit of 'theory' first to try to clarify the difference I'm getting at and then some practical exercises at the end:think this through
By 'direct experience' we mean sense experience, including internal feelings, and observed thoughts, in short, whatever can be directly perceived. This is as opposed to stories, interpretations, theories, speculation, ie being carried along in thought.
For example, if asked 'what is being hungry?', a 'normal' answer might be along the lines of 'it is when I want to eat' ... this is of course quite accurate for normal purposes, but is not getting at the 'direct experience' of being hungry - it still begs the question 'how do you know you want to eat?' .... if one were to speak from 'direct experience', the answer might be along the lines of "a slight tension in the stomach area, thoughts arise containing images of food, and ideas about how to get food."
Why is this important? Essentially, what we are doing is learning to distinguish immediate perception from interpretation and thinking. This is not because thinking and interpretation are in some way 'bad', but because the delusion of 'self' is, precisely, an interpretation that is mistaken for an immediate perception, a thought taken to be a reality.
For our purposes, 'direct experience' is real, sense experience is real, thoughts are real, but the CONTENT of thought is not real. If you read 'King Kong', an image of a huge ape probably arises in your awareness ... this thought is real, but of course, it is only a thought, the ape is not real, there is nothing to run away from. This is, no doubt, obvious. Yet when we think about 'I' and 'self', we behave as if these are real.
And so we investigate what we mean by 'I' - what is actually directly perceived? What is present in Direct Experience? Where is 'I' to be found, and what is it made up of? Is 'I' a sense experience, or an observed thought, or what? So have a look at thinking again and tell me if you are clear in direct experience that all kinds of thought / thinking are arising self-lessly...
Some areas to look at in DE:
In the moment that there are just ‘bare’ sensations, is there a sense of ‘self’ present? Can a ‘self’ be found at that moment?
When a thought like ‘this is me thinking’ arises, is there an experience of ‘me’ deciding to think that thought, then thinking it? Or does the thought just arise without precognition?
Let me know how you get on with that,
Love,
Vajradakini
