Can Idealism be without thought?

[David_Sundaram]

I agree, David. In certain sense all this is correct to say. The question (the post at the other thread has few things on this) is that as man progresses on his spiritual journey through the ages, the landscape changes. If few thousand years ago man experienced the Brahman as mighty presence, a profound feeling penetrating through and through his soul, now we are in a process where this presence must find its concrete expression. We can compare this as approaching a forest from a distance. From afar the concept of "forest" is fully appropriate but once we enter it, we must recognize also the trees - otherwise we bump into them and don't realize what's happening. This is not to say we have to reduce and fragment reality but only that we must recognize what is there to be recognized.

I agree with your comment referencing "the trees". The quote mentioning 'Brahman' which you responded to was from Chapter 2 of my six chapter book, titled Godspeak 2000. In Chapter 3, I say "For Life to flower and be more fruitful, desire must be discriminatingly refined and selectively accentuated. That is, what we desire and how we go about trying to attain it must be beneficially altered by greater awareness and under­standing of the unitary nature and psychospiritual dynamic of Being. To promote such occurrence, relevant truth has been repeatedly stated; and I do so again: Individually, each of us is a transient aspect of an interwoven, ongoing whole. No one, as such, continues forever, and, except in illusion, no one has, or can ever have, a separate existence of his or her own. We maximize or minimize our own essential validity and creative potency to the degree to which we do or don’t cooperate with and contribute to developments that go on around us. Of itself, selfishness goes nowhere in the end. ... But mere articulation of this truth is not enough. If it was, we’d already be getting along quite well together, because it has historically been stated in ways that are both profound and eloquent. Raising consciousness and inspiring unselfish involvement aren’t accomplished that easily." The book is an attempt to bring 'religious' belief/philosophy into the 'modern' world.

When we say "the core I-Am-That-I-Am, That which Is at root within each and everyone" this intuitively rings true for many souls. But we must also realize that thoughts like this are produced from the thinking process. Any assertion about reality proceeds from the thinking process. We might be convinced that we are expressing an obvious fact but is it really? What exactly do we mean when we say "the root" within each and everyone? Which one is the root?

I disagree with this statement. I think your question "Which one is the root.?" is a 'diversion' resulting from the fact (it is a fact in my view) that your headset is set in such a way that you did not 'receive' what I was 'transmitting'. Both the thinking process and thoughts which flow therein are 'produced' (i.e. generated) by what I have called 'Brahman' (among other labels). That is the ONE 'root' (albeit said 'root' also has many 'branches') of all Being-n-Doing. Hope to induce you to pull your impressively cogent mind's activity from continuing to go down and leading others into 'spurious' (in my view) rabbit-holes, from Chapter 15. The Bhagavad Gita:

"This phenomenal creation, which is both ephemeral and eternal, is like a tree, but having its seed above in the Highest and its ramifications on this earth below. The scriptures are its leaves, and he who understands this, knows.
Its branches shoot upwards and downwards, deriving their nourishment from the Qualities; its buds are the objects of sense; and its roots, which follow the Law causing man’s regeneration and degeneration, pierce downwards into the soil.
In this world its true form is not known, neither its origin nor its end, and its strength is not understood, until the tree with its roots striking deep into the earth is hewn down by the sharp axe of non-attachment.
Beyond lies the Path, from which, when found, there is no return. This is the Primal God from whence this ancient creation has sprung.
The wise attain Eternity when, freed from pride and delusion, they have conquered their love for the things of sense; when, renouncing desire and fixing their gaze on the Self, they have ceased to be tossed to and fro by the opposing sensations, like pleasure and pain.
Neither sun, moon, nor fire shines there. Those who go thither never come back. For, O Arjuna, that is my Celestial Home!
It is only a very small part of My Eternal Self, which is the life of the universe, drawing round itself the six senses, the mind the last, which have their source in Nature.
When the Supreme Lord enters a body or leaves it, He gathers these senses together and travels on with them, as the wind gathers perfume while passing through the flowers.
He is the perception of the ear, the eye, the touch, the taste and the smell, yea and of the mind also; and the enjoyment the things which they perceive is also His.
The ignorant do not see that it is He Who is present in life and Who departs at death or even that it is He Who enjoys pleasure through the Qualities. Only the eye of wisdom sees."

In case you become interested, I have (to the best of my ability) updated/elucidates the idea(s) expressed in: "Beyond lies the Path, from which, when found, there is no return. This is the Primal God from whence this ancient creation has sprung. The wise attain Eternity when, freed from pride and delusion, they have conquered their love for the things of sense; when, renouncing desire and fixing their gaze on the Self, they have ceased to be tossed to and fro by the opposing sensations, like pleasure and pain. Neither sun, moon, nor fire shines there. Those who go thither never come back. For, O Arjuna, that is my Celestial Home! It is only a very small part of My Eternal Self, which is the life of the universe, drawing round itself the six senses, the mind the last, which have their source in Nature." in Chapter 2 of my treatise What Did Jesus REALLY Mean?

[Cleric K]

Both the thinking process and thoughts which flow therein are 'produced' (i.e. generated) by what I have called 'Brahman' (among other labels). That is the ONE 'root' (albeit said 'root' also has many 'branches') of all Being-n-Doing. Hope to induce you to pull your impressively cogent mind's activity from continuing to go down and leading others into 'spurious' (in my view) rabbit-holes

Alright, that's what I was hoping to hear.
Actually that was what I was saying all along, just wanted to make sure that you speak about the root in the same sense.

Thinking is the only process that we experience as causally-creative. Everything else confronts us as perceptions of someone/something else's creativity. That's why if we ever hope to find a real point of contact between us and the Creative Universe, thinking is the only suitable place to start. That's the place where the creativity of the Universe is experienced not as an external movie but as the actual creative process of the Universe itself. In other words, within the limited environment of the body-psychospiritual complex, Brahman experiences His Divine creativity as thinking, while in all other perceptions, the unconscious (from His limited perspective) creativity of Himself, meets Him as something foreign. He knows "theoretically" that this foreign something is also He but most certainly He does not experience it in that way. Brahman can claim to be living in His unlimited state only if He experiences the whole Cosmos as His own creation - He macrocosmically thinks creatively the galaxies, stars, humans, angelic beings, lesser gods, etc. in a way similar to how He thinks microcosmically, ordinary thoughts in the limited state. In the limited state His limited activity confronts the resistance of His unconscious activity as perceptions.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that the above matches your standpoint (btw I've gone through your Jesus essay few months ago, probably hasn't been updated at that time).

So far, so good. I completely agree that once one finds his stable point of contact with the all-that-is and continues on to refine the desires and relations with other beings (all of which follows naturally from the Law of One), everything will go from good to better. Brahman in his limited state sets on to maximize Love and Joy.

I'll stop here. I would like to hear if we are really on the same page so far before continuing.

PS: I'm genuinely interested to hear what exactly you envisioned by the 'spurious' rabbit-holes

[Cleric K]

Question is purely empirical

OK. Empiricism it is

Attention is a more elementary act of cognition - we simply observe a perception and experience certain meaning in relation to it - its concept/idea. In this sense, it is the same to ask if attention can attend itself or if thinking can think about itself.

We most surely can. To recognize the finer details one should be in at least somewhat meditative mood (businessman beta brainwaves won't do). In other words, we should be calm enough that we can form a thought and keep it as the sole object of our attention at least for some time. For example, we can think in our mind a single word, say "Light". It is easier (we'll see why below) to do this with a word because it has temporal character.

When we try to observe ourselves while thinking the word, what we find (again, this requires somewhat meditative-grade concentration) is that at the time we hear the verbal thought-perception, the meaning that we experience is already something else. While the thought-perception should normally carry the meaning of "Light", now although the verbal perception is "Light", the meaning that we experience is more like "thinking of 'Light'".

This leads us to an important discovery. In our thinking life, the perceptions of thoughts are always in the past in relation to the meaning of the spiritual activity that we currently experience. At the moment we think the thought, we experience its meaning but by the time we hear it, the meaning we experience is already more like "I've just thought that thought". Of course we don't hear that latter meaning as words but it gives us direct knowledge that we are in fact responsible for the verbal content we perceive. We know that we are thinking the thought, even thought the verbal perception is just "Light".

We can imagine this pictorially as if there's a sphere made of meaning - the meaning that we experience at any instance. The idea substance of this sphere continually streams out and as it leaves the sphere it "condenses" into a sensory-like perceptible thought. But at that time, the meaning within our sphere is already something different. Of course we shouldn't imagine this sphere literally, it's just an pictorial way to express purely spiritual experience. But if we have that experience the picture will make perfect sense. Another common picture for this process is a living snake that continually sheds it skin. The dead skin (thought-perceptions) continually become separated from the living (the thinking process as metamorphosis of idea).

So now we see that the picture with the hand drawing itself has some wisdom after all The hand that we draw (the thought perception) is always one step in the past compared to the actual hand (the living spiritual activity).

[SanteriSatama]

Focusing and fixing attention on an object is an old and common meditation. And the chosen mantra-object can be also a smart temporal trick, like the question-mantra "What might be the next thought?"

Attention on some general level of experience is constantly moving. The experiment suggested was not to keep attending some thought-object, but to "chase" attention itself with attention. Is it possible to "directly" catch attention so that it stops moving and stays still or immobile? What happens when we try?

Empirical question and a possible meditation that just popped to mind in this discussion. For theoretical approach, I just did a search, and this came up:
http://buddhanet.net/pdf_file/artofatt.pdf

[Cleric K]

Attention on some general level of experience is constantly moving. The experiment suggested was not to keep attending some thought-object, but to "chase" attention itself with attention. Is it possible to "directly" catch attention so that it stops moving and stays still or immobile? What happens when we try?

Yes, the example was designed to elucidate more easily the "time lag" between spiritual activity and the perception of that activity. That's why a word was chosen because it's easier to perceive the temporal character of the effect.

Is it possible to "directly" catch attention so that it stops moving and stays still or immobile?

Yes, there's no problem to fixate on a sensory perception or immobile thought - say, a circle or a dot.
It's better to focus on a thought because in this way we by necessity are focusing on our own spiritual activity, while when focusing on a perception (sensory, feeling, breathing, etc.) we can easily forget about our activity. This is actually the goal in Buddhist and many other forms of meditation. For example, in the link you sent, (thanks btw) we have:

4. Attention to the Mental Content
This is not analysing mental events or classifying them,
but using the attention to passively register the things of
the mind — thoughts, ideas and concepts — as a witness
without commentary.

But if we want to penetrate into the creative process of reality we have to penetrate precisely into our own spiritual activity and not witness it as something external.

What happens when we try?

Depends on where we are on our spiritual path. And when I say that, I mean that it's not only through some mental trick that we approach these things. The whole life of thinking, feeling and willing must be worked upon in our everyday life.

At first it might be almost impossible.
Then we begin to be able to hold our focus for few seconds and without knowing we find ourselves drifting somewhere else.
As we are able to hold for longer and longer, we begin to clearly distinguish that although our inner gaze and the object are completely immobile we are nevertheless fully aware that our activity "flows" in time - activity of "holding on to the thought". In other words, the sensory-like thought contents is static and immobile but the meaning, the idea flow, which we experience is mobile in itself.
As we go even further, that static focus begins to expand and fill the whole field of consciousness. Or we can say that we "shrink" in relation to the object - it's relative, spatial relations break down at this point. Point is our whole field of consciousness becomes monolithic focused attention while at the same time the idea that we experience becomes increasingly diverse. It feels as becoming denser and denser with meaning.
At this time we have great temptation to begin projecting the meaning into perceptible thoughts. Remember that the idea that gives meaning to our state of being it is not something that we perceive in itself. When idea becomes perceptible we call that thought.
Our ordinary ego is used to work with perceptible thoughts. It needs to have something to hold on to. But this is exactly what we must withhold. The longer we live in the diversifying idea without allowing it to condense into perception, the more we learn to feel comfortable within it and gradually it becomes so clear that we can say that we practically see the idea. But this idea is not the abstract, mineral-like ideas of the intellect. It is something living, growing, transforming, unceasingly metamorphosing. And then we recognize that this idea is itself being shaped by countless other such living ideas, each flowing into each other.
The thinking of our ordinary ego becomes deconstructed, we now live in a realm where all our everyday thoughts are being formed but we recognize them in our ordinary state only when they become substantial enough that we can perceive them in sensory-like form. Our everyday self becomes spread out before us. We see what we are made of, all our ideas and desires, but as living processes as beings that live their elemental life within the "substance" from which our ordinary thoughts precipitate.
Upon "zooming" back into our self we project the densely packed meaning into sensory-like pictures. That's how descriptions like the above are born. We do not see in sensory-like manner these things but at any point we can project them into pictures. We need to do that, otherwise we ourselves won't be able to remember anything. There won't be anything in our normal state that can capture what we have experienced. The pictures are the bridge, the "currency of exchange" between the states.

[SanteriSatama]

It's better to focus on a thought because in this way we by necessity are focusing on our own spiritual activity, while when focusing on a perception (sensory, feeling, breathing, etc.) we can easily forget about our activity. This is actually the goal in Buddhist and many other forms of meditation. For example, in the link you sent, (thanks btw) we have:

4. Attention to the Mental Content
This is not analysing mental events or classifying them,
but using the attention to passively register the things of
the mind — thoughts, ideas and concepts — as a witness
without commentary.

But if we want to penetrate into the creative process of reality we have to penetrate precisely into our own spiritual activity and not witness it as something external.

Let's note how the Buddhist approach does not include bodily awareness in the six (external) senses, but it is analyzed as first, second and third sphere of attention. Witness/Calming meditation (Samatha) and Knowing/Insight meditation (Vipassana) are complementary and meditation moves between these modes, practices and develops it's skills of moving, staying and holding. For my anarchist spirit (Sid Vicious singing "I did it my way" ) it is more fun to first do the praxis and then read the theory. The article was a very nice find in that respect, bringing more clarity and giving language to discuss.

In my language 'attention' is huomio, and to 'take into consideration' is to ottaa huomioon. The still aspect of attention grows by the moving aspect bringing more content and context into attention, revealing new relations, old trauma etc., feeding positive loops and soothing and releasing negative loops. And what not. There's no final goal, the art of the attention is attending and continuously learning, healing, enjoying. There's also the expression 'to know by heart', and for me, focusing on heart chakra is very efficient for calming what needs to be calmed, and of course for sending love in all directions etc. heart breathing.

I'm as dick head as any bloke, but instead of penetration (only!) I experience expanding attention as taking in and care-full inclusion

[David_Sundaram]

PS: I'm genuinely interested to hear what exactly you envisioned by the 'spurious' rabbit-holes

Delighted to experienced and report being 'on the same page' with you, metaphorically as well!, Cleric. I 'totally' resonated with what you articulated in your response.

IMO, the discussion entertaining the idea of 'self' versus 'no self' (water under the bridge, I can't recall the terms used) you had with Eugene, or was it just he having it with you?, was an example of 'spuriosity'.

Getting back to the OP topic of the hypoteshized possibility of living 'without thought':

I think that one's conscious thought process, hence the contents of the flow of one's conscious thoughts, are 'bound' to be determined {i.e. 'shaped') by the set of beliefs and expectations one has regarding one's 'self':

If one's concept of one's soul-self (one's 'i'dentity) is 'ego'- (hence temporary//local personal 'survival' and 'assertion'-) based, one's thought-flow (i.e. 'thinking') will be personal-power-oriented, defense-offense geared, stressed, etc. in relation to others and whatever else is going on (or not going on!) in the context of one's Life - as long as such concept/belief lasts.

If one's concept of one's 'self' is that one is a chicken, one's thinking and consequent actions will be similar to those in the wing-flapping-clucking-chicken video - as long as such concept/belief lasts.

If one believes one [and others] has no 'self'. one's non-thinking and consequent non-actions will be Life-abandoning and, to the degree that is not hypocritical and actually thinks and does so, psychospiritually 'suicidal' in effect.

[u[if[/u] one believes that one's 'self' is a living extension/expression of All-Creating/Ever-Flowing Brahman, one's thinking and choice/decision-based actions will be calm/secure/easy-flowing/seemingly-happening-without-personal-'effort'/at-'home'-among-others/etc.

From Ch.7 of The Bhagavad Gita: "Whatever the form of worship [i.e. 'belief'], if the devotee have faith, then upon his faith in that worship do I set My own seal. If he worships one form alone with real faith, then shall his desires be fulfilled through that only; for thus have I ordained. The fruit that comes to men of limited insight is, [however], finite. They who worship the Lower Powers attain them; but those who worship Me come unto Me alone."

Also, from Ch.2 of The Bhagavad Gita: "There was never a time when I was not, nor thou, nor these princes were not; there will never be a time when we shall cease to be. ... That which is not, shall never be; that which is, shall never cease to be. To the wise, these truths are self-evident."

'Idealists' please note: Though said belief may serve to free you from 'sense' of physical 'limitation' and 'fear' of physical 'death', Just because you believe that your Life is not matter-based does not mean that 'you' are not egotistically 'self'ish!

P.S. We all experience (and some master the art of doing so 'at will') periods of 'no thinking, which are generally quite restful and re-store-ative . I would caution you against believing the absurdity that such 'condition' is the best possible 'Creation' (a/k/a Life), however.

[Cleric K]

In my language 'attention' is huomio, and to 'take into consideration' is to ottaa huomioon. The still aspect of attention grows by the moving aspect bringing more content and context into attention, revealing new relations, old trauma etc., feeding positive loops and soothing and releasing negative loops. And what not. There's no final goal, the art of the attention is attending and continuously learning, healing, enjoying. There's also the expression 'to know by heart', and for me, focusing on heart chakra is very efficient for calming what needs to be calmed, and of course for sending love in all directions etc. heart breathing.

I'm as dick head as any bloke, but instead of penetration (only!) I experience expanding attention as taking in and care-full inclusion

Great practices. Especially the sending love is much needed for everyone's sake

I'll add something about the penetration I'm just adding it here for the record. Please, don't take it as if I'm trying to interfere with your Free Anarchic Spirit

Expansion is one direction. That's how the unique claims its property. As the "event horizon" expands, everything that falls inside could be cast into thoughts. That's how we recognize the trauma, the new relations, etc. This is a necessary process.

Yet we cannot use expansion as means to know the reality of the Creative Being. On first thought it may seem logical that our ego can inflate indefinitely and swallow the whole Cosmos in itself. But when our event horizon meets another human being, what do we do? Do we swallow them within ourselves as a thought or we become a thought within them?

So there's also contraction. We need to find the place of that too. We contract into the focus point of our spiritual activity (thought for example). It is through that pinhole that we pass and expand again but on the "other side". Our ego becomes turned "inside-out". We let go of our ego, let go of everything we are in our everyday life and remain only with our bare thought. Then, on the other side, we find our ego again, although in a quite different form, spread before us. And we are already something else.

So as everything in the Living Cosmos we have rhythms - expansion and contraction.

[Cleric K]

if one believes that one's 'self' is a living extension/expression of All-Creating/Ever-Flowing Brahman, one's thinking and choice/decision-based actions will be calm/secure/easy-flowing/seemingly-happening-without-personal-'effort'/at-'home'-among-others/etc.

I would like to ask you something else about your view.

I presume you were not born with the above understanding/belief. Most certainly you had a life path that led you up to that point. You can now look back upon your own I/ego/self in the past and discern under what beliefs was your former thinking activity being shaped. In certain sense, your current self was already there but was veiled through the layers of confusion.

What I've observed in different instances is that at this point of enlightenment, the identification with the Cosmic I-AM, very often any further unveiling process ceases. For example, there's a great change of self-conception if we have lived in a materialistic belief and now we found ourselves as a purely spiritual being grounded in reality itself, with no further need to look elsewhere for explanation of itself. Often, when one reaches this point it is assumed that the true grounds of existence are revealed and as far as the ego self-conception itself, there's nothing more to be unveiled. Of course, many other things continue to be unveiled - new knowledge, suppressed feelings and so on but as far the ego's understanding of itself - it has reached the zenith. After all, what else could it identify with, once it has already identified with the Source of all-there-is?

Nevertheless, as we discussed in my previous post, we are still Brahman in His limited form, while His Cosmic Creative process is unconscious. The ego knows that it is an emanation of all-there-is but it is nevertheless limited.

My question is, what in your view, is the relation of the limited ego to the Cosmic Ego. I'm not speaking simply of prayer.

First, do you conceive as there's a process that gradually unveils additional sheaths that progressively move us through the gradient between the limited Microcosmic ego and the Macrocosmic. In other words, the Macrocosmic unconscious becomes conscious and thus the ego is now becoming a mixture between Micro- and Macrocosmic Ego.
If yes, do you consider this as a kind of evolution.
And finally, how do you resolve the problem with the "one and the many". If the Macrocosmic Ego is one, how do we imagine the process of becoming many - from first person experience. And the reverse process, which is probably even more interesting, how and when separate egos merge to become a higher ego unit (if we imagine that there's a pyramid like hierarchy of egos that break down fractally the one to many).

I ask this because in what I've read in your treatise, and this is similar also in many New Age themed materials, the focus is always on the souls. A lot is spoken about the path of the souls, dimensions, worlds, post-incarnational careers etc. But for me this seems a lot like taking the earthly ego and copy-pasting it all over the cosmos in different environments, different body/no-body circumstances and so on. It's usually said that the souls are "sparks of the Source" but I don't know if it is meant that the One fragments in a single step to the level of the soul-like ego, or there's a hierarchy of ego-states (as in many esoteric traditions).

[Lou Gold]

In my language 'attention' is huomio, and to 'take into consideration' is to ottaa huomioon. The still aspect of attention grows by the moving aspect bringing more content and context into attention, revealing new relations, old trauma etc., feeding positive loops and soothing and releasing negative loops. And what not. There's no final goal, the art of the attention is attending and continuously learning, healing, enjoying. There's also the expression 'to know by heart', and for me, focusing on heart chakra is very efficient for calming what needs to be calmed, and of course for sending love in all directions etc. heart breathing.

I'm as dick head as any bloke, but instead of penetration (only!) I experience expanding attention as taking in and care-full inclusion

Great practices. Especially the sending love is much needed for everyone's sake

I'll add something about the penetration I'm just adding it here for the record. Please, don't take it as if I'm trying to interfere with your Free Anarchic Spirit

Expansion is one direction. That's how the unique claims its property. As the "event horizon" expands, everything that falls inside could be cast into thoughts. That's how we recognize the trauma, the new relations, etc. This is a necessary process.

Yet we cannot use expansion as means to know the reality of the Creative Being. On first thought it may seem logical that our ego can inflate indefinitely and swallow the whole Cosmos in itself. But when our event horizon meets another human being, what do we do? Do we swallow them within ourselves as a thought or we become a thought within them?

So there's also contraction. We need to find the place of that too. We contract into the focus point of our spiritual activity (thought for example). It is through that pinhole that we pass and expand again but on the "other side". Our ego becomes turned "inside-out". We let go of our ego, let go of everything we are in our everyday life and remain only with our bare thought. Then, on the other side, we find our ego again, although in a quite different form, spread before us. And we are already something else.

So as everything in the Living Cosmos we have rhythms - expansion and contraction.

Nice pinhole metaphor. Chop wood, haul water, cook rice on either side. Viva! the power of now. If not now, when?