Egor said:
You seem to define thought as an image or a series of words in conscious awareness. By my definition this is only a tip of the iceberg.
Yep, that's how I define thought. I find that thoughts that appear in conscious awareness more often than not lead to some kind of suffering. When these thoughts appear, I ask to the best of my ability, "Where am I?" Then, the thought that arose disappears. I might only have to inquire once after a certain thought or maybe many times, but eventually the thought that arose is destroyed and never returns. As this process continues, the number of thoughts that arise diminishes, and a pleasant stillness of awareness grows more apparent. Suffering greatly decreases. This is "my" experience.
Thoughts as I define them help us differentiate between a shirt and a drawer. They are useful and it is impossible to do stuff in the world without having them. They can be of present moment, of past moments, of future moments. Some of the thoughts draw a line between what is self and what is other. The line is arbitrary, without inherent existence and can be moved or dropped at all.
I do not personally find that it is impossible to do stuff in the world without having thoughts. For example, when I'm in the shower, thoughts do not arise about how to grasp the soap, how to make the water hotter, etc. The body simply "knows" these things. Similarly, when picking out a shirt this morning, no thoughts arose about which shirt to select.
IME, thoughts that draw a line between "self" and "other" and that are about "past" and "future" cause suffering. For example, when a thought of another person arises, it is often mixed with emotion that creates a "disturbance" in the stillness of awareness. As I practice inquiry, these thoughts of "others" arise less frequently and, so, stillness is less "disturbed" by them. Also, I have had a tendency to "relive" past conversations or invent future ones (that may or may not occur). Each time awareness notices these types of thoughts, I inquire "Where am I?" They have now become much less frequent; they simply do not arise as often.
The neuroscience suggests that thoughts of "self/other" and "self through time" are unnecessary a vast majority of the time, since one can function when the Default Network is almost entirely inactive.
To put out a close enough number, let's say it's 98% reduction compared to 3 years ago.
Great to hear!
The problem, as I see it, is not having thoughts. The problem is identifying permanently with thoughts — I am this self and not other forever.
Who has thoughts? To whom do these thoughts arise? Identifying AT ALL with thoughts is a "problem" IME, whether or not it is permanent. Any form of identification is limiting and "false." I have found inquiring when a thought arises eradicates a thought completely so that it never arises again. Thus, there is no longer identification with that thought. As things "progress," as thoughts arise less often, "my identity" is growing more and more vague, nebulous. "I" am dying. There is simply no one here to have thoughts.
I can be this and I can be that, I can be a pain in my knee and feel it from the inside, I can be an observer of that pain and see it from the outside. I can be a single person or a whole reality.
IME, there is a tendency to "latch onto" an experience as a definition of what I am. For example, sometimes "I" latch onto the phrase "I am awareness." or "I am this which sees." This is just another thought though that is noticed and then inquired into. Who has this thought? I am slowly coming to understand/sense that the definition that most accurately describes what I am is simply "I am": pure "subject" without a predicate nominative, that is, without description. Even to say "I am" is limiting, but within the linguistic realm it does "okay." One could also say "no-self." "I am" and "no-self" point to the same thing IME. The former emphasizes Being; the latter having no thoughts. __/\__
