Watching Thought Without Adding to It
Observar el pensamiento sin añadirle nada
A question about whether awareness is prior to both attention and intention, leading into a practical inquiry about how to observe thoughts without layering additional narration on top of them.
Watching Thought Without Adding to It
A question about whether awareness is prior to both attention and intention, leading into a practical inquiry about how to observe thoughts without layering additional narration on top of them.
I was thinking through the meditation process, as in what was described earlier about putting attention on the feet. Isn't it the case that, prior to attention, there is an intention to do so? But I immediately realized it's not just that. It could be the case, but it could also not be the case, in the sense that something else could catch our attention without our intending it. And if we take a step back, then it's actually being aware of the attention or the intention. So probably awareness is prior to that. Is it?
Yes, and there's something prior to the intention as well, because the intention is always prompted by something. There's always something prior in time. This connects to what you brought up in a previous group about dependent origination, which is a Buddhist concept. For example, if I say "direct your attention to your feet" and then you form the intention of bringing your attention to your feet, that intention was caused by my prompting. In time, nothing comes out of itself. The intention isn't the source, because it was a response to a prompting.
What is prior to attention
But what I'm pointing to is something different. What I'm pointing to is prior in the present moment. That which is prior to attention is prior to intention. If you name what it is, it's not that. There are words for it, but the words can make it into a thing, and it's not that. You could say "emptiness." You could say that which is prior is empty. But all descriptions are going to fail. I could say "that which doesn't move," but actually there isn't anything that doesn't move.
Because there is nothing, after all. Right?
There is nothing, and there is everything, and there is something, simultaneously.
Can I clarify something about what you described just now regarding looking at thought? Say a thought appears and we let it be. Of course, we try not to get engaged in the thought, not engaged in discussion about it. But when noticing it, would there be an identification of what it is? For example, when I watch my thought, a thought passes by and I say, "Ah, judgment." Or I notice there's a narrative, or I recognize, "I was thinking about the past." Even if I try not to say the word out loud, I'm still aware that this narrative mode is happening. So my question is: how should I watch thought without that additional description? Because it can actually be quite noisy.
The naming is just more thought
What you're calling the disruption is the naming of what is happening. The way you can do what you're asking is by seeing that the naming is just more thought.
Yes, I realize that, but I just can't stop it.
You're creating a trap for yourself. If you want to not care about thought and you also want thought to stop, which one is it?
I know I can't stop thought. But my intention is not to add to it, not to add more elements to the whole thing.
The trap of splitting thought into two types
Perhaps you're splitting thought into two types. It's as if you're saying, "This is a thought that is just happening, and this is a thought that I'm creating. I want to stop the one I'm creating and let the other one happen." But actually, the one you think you're creating is just more thought happening. It's just the identification with a thought that says, "This is the one I'm in control of. I want to stop doing the one I'm in control of." But if you're truly in control of it, then stop doing it. And if you can't, then let it happen.
What I'm saying is: it's just more thought. There's a trap in the idea that that type of thought is in your control. It's just more thought. And the "you" that's supposedly controlling that thought is also a thought.