Greg Goode: The Existence of Thoughts

"Is the current thought the only thought occurring in the universe?"



Your Question:


I'd like to explore the implications of what you've said. If awareness
"cannot be other than global and universal," then there is no "
my thought" or "your thought", as you noted. There is just a thought,
without ownership.



Greg:


Right, awareness cannot be partitioned. There can't be a multiplicity 
of places where thoughts appear, because there are no borders dividing 
the ocean of awareness into separate lakes or pools. As you 
investigate your experience directly and it no longer seems that there 
are separate pool of awareness, one "here," and maybe another one 
"over there," then thoughts will no longer have the psychologistic 
connotations they would normally have. Thoughts no longer seem like 
mentations or cognitive entities, as opposed to emotions, or 
sensations or intuitions.



What arises can't truly or actually be a "thought," because thoughts 
are usually said to require thinkers or minds or external objects and 
reference points, etc. And by this point in your investigation, you 
have examined your direct experience and found none of these things, 
objects, categories or reference points actually exist. So the 
word "thought" is simply a catch-all term for "that which appears to 
awareness." This is why I like to use the word "arising," because it 
is so vague and unspecific. Other than appearing to awareness, there 
is nothing else that an arising truly IS.

So now you list some thoughts that arise....



The question continues: 


So let's imagine the following thoughts occurring in succession:



1. My knee hurts.


2. It's getting colder.


3. She said she would call, but hasn't.



Greg: 


In your investigation, by the time it no longer seems that thoughts 
arise in separate locations, it will no longer seem like they happen 
in only one location either. Those things made sense when it seemed 
like the *mind* was where things arose. If there are minds, then 
there are many of them (but there aren't!). But it doesn't make sense 
with witnessing awareness. The sense of location, as well as the 
one/many duality, won't be categories you seriously apply to awareness 
because it CAN'T be multiple. So with the impossibility of 
multiplicity, the need for unity has fallen away. These two 
conditioned opposites travel together. Informally in everyday talk of 
course, some people think of non-duality as Oneness. But have you ever 
noticed how the term "Oneness" also carries the trace of more than 
one? Where there's Oneness, there is the hint of Twoness. But in 
this investigation, at least after this witnessing awareness settles 
in, it doesn't even seem like it's Oneness. It's much closer and more 
intimate than that!

 So then to your question!



The Question Continues:


As each of those thoughts occurs, is that thought the only thought occurring 
in the universe? It would seem to be so, since there can't be two 
thoughts appearing simultaneously in the one universal awareness. The 
notion that there's another thought occurring simultaneously "somewhere 
else" is itself just another thought.

Hope that makes sense. It seems to lead to a kind of solipsism, except that
-- as you've pointed out -- there is no one for whom it could
 be solipsistic.



Greg:


Yes, thanks, it makes a lot of sense. Most serious inquirers actually 
have similar questions sooner or later

.

By the time it no longer seems like there are separate places or ways 
that thoughts or arisings can appear, the conceptual structures that 
allowed the usual old ways of looking at things have fallen away. 
The notion of thoughts being in one place versus many - fallen away. 
The notion of what arises being really a literal "thought" - fallen 
away. The notion of "this being the only thought" here or elsewhere 
- fallen away. The notion of there being a multiplicity of thoughts 
happening here - fallen away. And as you mention, even if these 
should arise as passing thoughts, they are just thoughts. There is no 
"here" or "there" or "only" or "plurality" outside of a thought. 
There are no external structures or entities for these words to name. 
The is no place to point to check the veracity of the claim. Once 
this settles in, then claims like this stop offering themselves for 
verification.



So what does this say about solipsism? The solipsism issue is 
something that almost every sensitive and serious inquirer confronts 
sooner or later. Sometimes it's a question about the word "solipsism" 
itself. So the issue might present itself because the word sounds 
like a charge that one wouldn't want to have leveled at one's own 
path. In Western philosophy, "solipsism" is usually what you call 
your opponent! No one wants to be one!



More often, the issue comes up because at about this point in the 
investigation, it can feel like the world has really shrunk. Back in 
everyday life, there seemed to be the whole existence of people, 
places, things, galaxies, inventions, art, history, science, space 
exploration, the romance of love, and the mystique of the unknown. 
And now it can seem like everything has narrowed down so that all you 
get is the current thought! It can seem downright constricting and 
scary!



But it seems this way only if one carries the old habits of thinking 
into the investigation. According to the old habits of thinking, it 
was a separate mind where "Greg's thoughts" occurred, and there was a 
whole world (unseen by Greg but believed by Greg to exist) that was 
held to be *separate* from Greg's awareness. The "shrunken world" 
notion is then found to be another carryover from the everyday model. 
In that model there were said to be separate and individual minds 
where things appeared, but where most things were defined as existing 
unseen outside of consciousness or awareness.



Actually in this investigation, the world comes to be experienced as 
unlimited, without edges or borders of any kind. Separation and 
objects and individual minds are actually not experienced as truly and 
actually existing. They will have been searched for as existing the 
way they were claimed to exist (actually outside of awareness but 
intermittently and temporarily cognized by an individual mind's 
awareness), and found not to exist in that way whatsoever. What one 
is left feels sweet, light, loving, and without limits.



When one takes the "I" to be undivided, impersonal, timeless, 
spaceless awareness, everything that arises is awareness. Let's say 
there is an arising of the entire world with galaxies, people, 
romance, mystery, travel, art, science, space exploration and 
subatomic particles. Where can it be other than awareness? It is - 
as awareness. Whatever was, is - as awareness, not separate from 
awareness. Since awareness has no edges or periphery, there is 
nothing else for anything to be made of. Nothing fails to arise. 
Where would the failure take place? There can't be anything missing. 
What can possibly be missing unless it were somewhere else? But where 
could that possibly be - with no edges or borders to awareness? There 
are no separate "places."



Other pointer-words don't *define* awareness, but they give the flavor 
or fragrance or esthetic of awareness: "presence," "love," 
"inclusion," "fullness," "home." Mmmm, very sweet!

Love,

--Greg