Am I my thoughts?

Who or what are we? Isn’t it so that we tend to assume that our thoughts are essential to what we are or we consider them to be our innermost and precious “core”?  The language we use however already indicates a distinction when we say; “my thoughts”. Who is this “me” who says these thoughts are “mine”?

It is quite obvious that we are not actually our thoughts, since thoughts come and go and we do not experience that we “disappear” when that happens.  When you sit quietly for a few minutes with the strong intention to “not think”, you will see that you can’t even control your thoughts. At one point they appear anyway and then disappear. So what are you then?

In some traditions the word “witness consciousness” was introduced, which suggests that you are the witness to everything you think, feel or experience. This does however introduce a duality of the awareness and the object it is aware of.

One of the problems of language is that it introduces frames or boxes into which we try to squeeze reality and through which we look at reality or analyse reality. One of the limitations our language and our thinking introduces is the “noun”. A noun suggests an entity, a something or what we usually call; an object. This is how we humans tend to interpret the world; subject versus object. We assume that the subject is a something (me) and the object is another something (that).

What if our language and thinking in terms of “nouns” is misguided?

What if a “verb” is a much more accurate form to express what we are?

So instead of a “something” (witness consciousness) being aware of another “something”  (a thought, a feeling, etc.), there is no such thing, but rather what really is happening, is “being”, “experiencing”, “feeling”, itself?

For ages we have assumed that there must be something at the center of this activity, a “something”, a subject, which we call “me”, but when you look carefully into this, the latest insights from Neuroscience as well as your experience in fact, will show otherwise.

Isn’t it wonderful that what we are is not any “something”, but rather what we are is feeling, thinking, experiencing itself? In that the distinction between the experience and the experiencer falls away, it is one and the same. (“no-thing”)

This is what “non-duality” points to. To our human mind, which thinks in terms of separation and division between subjects/objects this is a complete paradox and can’t be understood.

For the “awaring” or the “being” that we are, it is completely natural.

Somehow when this is seen all of life becomes very simple and very profound at the same time. All of our humanness, our whole human experience is included in it…

Isn’t that a way to describe Love?

How wonderful!

3 COMMENTS

  1. Very well said. Id like to add though my recent realization that communication is inherently flawed in the fact that it is metaphorical to what is being described. An experince has to be experienced to fully understand the experience. Communication can paint a wonderful picture of the experience, but until the experience being described is experienced, you will not fully comprehend that experience.

    Ive used this as an example before, a doorbell is not a “doorbell”; a doorbell is the word on your screen or the sound that comes out of your mouth to say the word doorbell. A “doorbell” is the sound that is made when someone pushes a button to let you know they are at your house. To fully comprehend the “doorbell” you have to have experienced it. If you know only the meaning of the word without having experienced it you may have a very good understanding of what the “doorbell” is, but you may not know the typical sound one makes or the feeling associated with someone ringing the doorbell to your house or even the feeling of dread when an unexpected visitor rings your doorbell.

    Communication has brought us a very long way and it is a highly important thing, but its metaphorical nature has led to many misunderstandings and miscommunications. We don’t often take into account that a person may not have the actual experince associated with a word or phrase and only grasp a general understanding of the experience being described. What I am saying right now can be translated completely differently by someone else based on their own experiences, potentially taking on a whole other meaning than what I am intending to convey.

  2. To define is to limit And language is just us ..describing everything and labelling everything.. the things we seek .. or feel are unexplainable and only be understood in terms of frequency.. you might have observed .. I wud Have said expression play a vital role .. but we are limited in that area as well… if you are in pain you scream . If you are angry you scream .. if you are too sad you cry .. if you are too happy you end up with tears … so we are bounded by everything and conditioned well ..over centuries to limit our thinking .. universe is always communicating with us .. but are we capable enough to comprehend?

  3. this is my main beef with english when it comes to my own spirituality. i like what you touched on with regards to verbs being more accurate to what we are — that same logic is why i’ve taken to calling human beings “humans being”. i think a lot of the things people try to “understand” to become “enlightened” or “awakened” or whatever they want to call it simply cannot be expressed through earth words. we can come close to a lot but imo, what i perceive as “a lot” really is just a fraction of it all. we can’t know it all and we damn sure can’t express it all.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here