So, do you notice verbal thoughts?fivebells wrote:Some thoughts are verbal, some are visual, some are physical or emotional. The ones with a clear origin in skillful causes and conditions are the ones to trust. If there is any doubt, the causes and conditions can be analysed in terms of dependent origination, when the mind is stable enough.acinteyyo wrote:Do you verbalise thought?fivebells wrote:Which voice in the head? There is no one coherent voice.
To what extent can you trust the voice within?
Re: To what extent can you trust the voice within?
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
Re: To what extent can you trust the voice within?
How do you handle it? Do you listen to its content? If yes, to what extent do you listen to its content and why. If no, why don't you listen to its content?binocular wrote:Sure.acinteyyo wrote:Do you verbalise thought?
Have you and maybe also some other posters noticed that I never mentioned "your voice"? I didn't ask whether you consider the voice within yours. But now that you mentioned it are you sure you don't consider verbalized thought nor any content of verbalized thought yours? Think about it and don't listen to yourself credulously.binocular wrote:But as some others posters have mentioned, I too, tend to think of the mind as a committee - a lot of voices, and none of them in particular as solely mine, or my voice as opposed to foreign voices. Thanissaro Bhikkhu often speaks of thinking of the mind this way.
best wishes, acinteyyo
Last edited by acinteyyo on Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
Re: To what extent can you trust the voice within?
I would disagree with that partly.Spiny Norman wrote:Arguably the purpose of practice is to make the voice more coherent.fivebells wrote:Which voice in the head? There is no one coherent voice.
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
Re: To what extent can you trust the voice within?
The suttas often speak of "unifying the mind."Spiny Norman wrote:Arguably the purpose of practice is to make the voice more coherent.fivebells wrote:Which voice in the head? There is no one coherent voice.
In one sense, since what goes on in the mind is also action, I think that the mind, the thinking can be thought of in a similar manner as we otherwise think of physical actions.acinteyyo wrote:you probably know "the voice in your head" (for lack of a better term). To what extent can you trust that voice? Which purpose does it serve? What do you guys think about it in general with respect to anattā?
I think the things and stories told by "the voice within" if not observed and recognized carefully and mindfully are a main hindrance to understanding;
Just as one can physically walk into quicksand or off a cliff, or into an oasis, so one can engage in lines of thought that end badly, or well. There are lines of thinking that have a similar effect as walking into a pool of quicksand, for example - one is stuck, and the more one tries to get out, the more one sinks in. Or lines of thought that are like boarding a plane or train: once one boards it and it takes off/starts driving, one is stuck on it, and has to wait until it lands/stops.
Trust that voice for what purpose?To what extent can you trust that voice?
It's a verbalization of thought processes; once verbalized, it's easier for many people to make sense of them and use them.Which purpose does it serve?
That voice is not the self. But since we ordinarily tend to think of it as one voice, it's easy to identify with it, thinking that it is "my voice".What do you guys think about it in general with respect to anattā?
There is also a popular warning against "talking to yourself" and that only mentally ill people do that, or that having more than one voice in one's head is a sign of schizophrenia.
I tink that much like one can move furniture around in a room, bring in new or discard old etc., so one can do with thoughts. Although in general in Western culture, we aren't used to think of the mind this way. There are some new approaches on psychotheraphy that do propose this, but IMO, they lack the connection to and contextualization with a bigger picture that Buddhism provides, but psychotheraphy lacks (because it has to be religiously and spiritually neutral).I think the things and stories told by "the voice within" if not observed and recognized carefully and mindfully are a main hindrance to understanding;
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: To what extent can you trust the voice within?
So you are trying to give us a lecture?acinteyyo wrote:I didn't ask the questions in order to gain something for myself in the first place.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: To what extent can you trust the voice within?
I tend to take a very practical, pragmatic view of things in relation to this physical body and its relationship to a physical world. The word "knows" is meant in the conventional sense. In the same way that one can look at one's hand and KNOW that one has five fingers! There is no mental or physical doubt in such an observation. It is viewed as a matter of indisputable fact. The same would apply to objects (or subjects) within the mental sphere. For instance, if I have taken as the subject of observation the study of the law, I have made the subject of law the object of my observation and mental evaluation. See? (This has nothing to do with the question you asked; it's only a clarification of the terms "subject" and "object" and how I meant their use.)acinteyyo wrote:I have chosen every word and the phrasing of the questions for a particular reason. Would you please be so kind to elaborate on your understanding of "knows" in your answer? Which I find very well phrased btw.IanAnd wrote:But the way you word the question adds another dimension to the mix. You ask, prudently yet almost stealthily, "to what extent. . ." To which one can only reply, "To the extent that one knows oneself and the world he lives in."
Ah. Now you've clarified your intent even further, and exposed a possible misunderstanding of your intended thought. A "verbalized thought" is not the same (in my way of perceiving what you meant to say) as "the voice in your head." The latter term, without further clarification, seems (to me, at least) to suggest an unsought communication occurring in the mind (such as an intuition or, more darkly, a perceived "other" speaking to one in the form of a thought placed in the mind, kind of in the same realm as someone having heard "voices in their head" and perceiving it as having some special significance, perhaps alluding to a deluded state of mind). Without further clarification, I took you to mean asking about an unsolicited "voice in your head." Shame on you for not being clearer in your intention. You can see how this might influence the way in which one may reply to your question.acinteyyo wrote:I looked for a better term as I've used in my initial post. Maybe "voices" alone is to vague. I also mean "verbalized thought", a special kind of discursive thinking.IanAnd wrote:From my own perspective and considerable experience, trusting in voices can be a double edged sword, sometimes with pleasant outcomes and other times not so pleasant. How much discernment does one have to be able to confirm one way or the other the validity of the intuitional inspiration? I suppose it all depends upon who the viewer is and what objective is being anticipated, to the extent that an objective is being anticipated. Is the viewer grasping at anticipations, or is he letting come what may and being content with that.
This puts
"To what extent can you trust that voice? Which purpose does it serve? What do you guys think about it in general with respect to anattā?"
in a whole different light.
You seem to be attempting to learn if people here equate "the voice in your head" with a substantial "self." This is where my participation in your little experiment ends. Good luck with that.
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
Re: To what extent can you trust the voice within?
No. As I already said:binocular wrote:So you are trying to give us a lecture?acinteyyo wrote:I didn't ask the questions in order to gain something for myself in the first place.
acinteyyo wrote:I wanted to establish a base for discussion on this matter with this particular thread.
But maybe someone is giving me a lecture where I benefit from or maybe someone benefits from things I said. You'll never know if you don't ask...
best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
Re: To what extent can you trust the voice within?
Thanks. I assumed you meant it that way.IanAnd wrote:I tend to take a very practical, pragmatic view of things in relation to this physical body and its relationship to a physical world. The word "knows" is meant in the conventional sense. In the same way that one can look at one's hand and KNOW that one has five fingers! There is no mental or physical doubt in such an observation. It is viewed as a matter of indisputable fact. The same would apply to objects (or subjects) within the mental sphere. For instance, if I have taken as the subject of observation the study of the law, I have made the subject of law the object of my observation and mental evaluation. See? (This has nothing to do with the question you asked; it's only a clarification of the terms "subject" and "object" and how I meant their use.)
As you probably know english isn't my native-language. I try to be as precise as I can but there will always be a lack of a better termIanAnd wrote:Ah. Now you've clarified your intent even further, and exposed a possible misunderstanding of your intended thought. A "verbalized thought" is not the same (in my way of perceiving what you meant to say) as "the voice in your head." The latter term, without further clarification, seems (to me, at least) to suggest an unsought communication occurring in the mind (such as an intuition or, more darkly, a perceived "other" speaking to one in the form of a thought placed in the mind, kind of in the same realm as someone having heard "voices in their head" and perceiving it as having some special significance, perhaps alluding to a deluded state of mind). Without further clarification, I took you to mean asking about an unsolicited "voice in your head." Shame on you for not being clearer in your intention. You can see how this might influence the way in which one may reply to your question.acinteyyo wrote:I looked for a better term as I've used in my initial post. Maybe "voices" alone is to vague. I also mean "verbalized thought", a special kind of discursive thinking.
Actually I'm not so much interested whether people here equate "the voice in your head" with a substantial "self" or not but it wouldn't be true if I'd say it is of no importance at all. I'm also interested in how others see it and how they regard these thoughts. I'm also trying to compare the experience of others with my own experience, similarities, differences... Finally I'll be happy with wherever this thread is going to go.IanAnd wrote:You seem to be attempting to learn if people here equate "the voice in your head" with a substantial "self." This is where my participation in your little experiment ends. Good luck with that.
There is now another thing I want to add. I noticed that what I actually do (physically as well as mentally) and what I want or don't want to do according to the different verbalized thoughts I observe has very little in common. It seems that thought doesn't really lead to action but rather it is just an explanation or some kind of illustration of what happens. Like mere reflection of phenomena with little influence on what happens but huge influence on what is perceived as "what happens".
I'm also interested what you guys think about that.
best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
Re: To what extent can you trust the voice within?
I agree with "unifying the mind" but I don't think it means "unifying the content of the mind".binocular wrote:The suttas often speak of "unifying the mind."Spiny Norman wrote:Arguably the purpose of practice is to make the voice more coherent.fivebells wrote:Which voice in the head? There is no one coherent voice.
For example, sometimes I realize the thought "I could eat something" then I notice that I'm reaching for some fruits and eat them.binocular wrote:Trust that voice for what purpose?acinteyyo wrote:To what extent can you trust that voice?
What kind of role plays the thought here?
Don't you need to have some kind of confidence or trust in the verbalization of a thought process to be able to use it?binocular wrote:It's a verbalization of thought processes; once verbalized, it's easier for many people to make sense of them and use them.Which purpose does it serve?
There are times when I'm talking a lot to myself. For example even while I'm writing this sentence and the whole answer to your post up to this point I'm mentally speaking what I am writing down. Actually I'm not able to read anything and in the same time understand it without saying it mentally.binocular wrote:That voice is not the self. But since we ordinarily tend to think of it as one voice, it's easy to identify with it, thinking that it is "my voice".What do you guys think about it in general with respect to anattā?
There is also a popular warning against "talking to yourself" and that only mentally ill people do that, or that having more than one voice in one's head is a sign of schizophrenia.
best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
- reflection
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm
Re: To what extent can you trust the voice within?
If I'm mindful I can see every thought is created by some underlying reason. The thought can tell you something about this underlying reason, but it is better to see it directly. So I choose to trust the mindfulness, and not to trust the thoughts. By not putting value into thoughts, the mind also becomes much more still and at ease, which in term makes mindfulness easier. My most valuable experiences on the path were when the mind was still like this.
Re: To what extent can you trust the voice within?
So dramatic, IanAnd. You need aIanAnd wrote:I tend to take a very practical, pragmatic view of things in relation to this physical body and its relationship to a physical world. The word "knows" is meant in the conventional sense. In the same way that one can look at one's hand and KNOW that one has five fingers! There is no mental or physical doubt in such an observation. It is viewed as a matter of indisputable fact. The same would apply to objects (or subjects) within the mental sphere. For instance, if I have taken as the subject of observation the study of the law, I have made the subject of law the object of my observation and mental evaluation. See? (This has nothing to do with the question you asked; it's only a clarification of the terms "subject" and "object" and how I meant their use.)acinteyyo wrote:I have chosen every word and the phrasing of the questions for a particular reason. Would you please be so kind to elaborate on your understanding of "knows" in your answer? Which I find very well phrased btw.IanAnd wrote:But the way you word the question adds another dimension to the mix. You ask, prudently yet almost stealthily, "to what extent. . ." To which one can only reply, "To the extent that one knows oneself and the world he lives in."
Ah. Now you've clarified your intent even further, and exposed a possible misunderstanding of your intended thought. A "verbalized thought" is not the same (in my way of perceiving what you meant to say) as "the voice in your head." The latter term, without further clarification, seems (to me, at least) to suggest an unsought communication occurring in the mind (such as an intuition or, more darkly, a perceived "other" speaking to one in the form of a thought placed in the mind, kind of in the same realm as someone having heard "voices in their head" and perceiving it as having some special significance, perhaps alluding to a deluded state of mind). Without further clarification, I took you to mean asking about an unsolicited "voice in your head." Shame on you for not being clearer in your intention. You can see how this might influence the way in which one may reply to your question.acinteyyo wrote:I looked for a better term as I've used in my initial post. Maybe "voices" alone is to vague. I also mean "verbalized thought", a special kind of discursive thinking.IanAnd wrote:From my own perspective and considerable experience, trusting in voices can be a double edged sword, sometimes with pleasant outcomes and other times not so pleasant. How much discernment does one have to be able to confirm one way or the other the validity of the intuitional inspiration? I suppose it all depends upon who the viewer is and what objective is being anticipated, to the extent that an objective is being anticipated. Is the viewer grasping at anticipations, or is he letting come what may and being content with that.
This puts
"To what extent can you trust that voice? Which purpose does it serve? What do you guys think about it in general with respect to anattā?"
in a whole different light.
You seem to be attempting to learn if people here equate "the voice in your head" with a substantial "self." This is where my participation in your little experiment ends. Good luck with that.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Re: To what extent can you trust the voice within?
This made me think of something.fivebells wrote:Some thoughts are verbal, some are visual, some are physical or emotional. The ones with a clear origin in skillful causes and conditions are the ones to trust. If there is any doubt, the causes and conditions can be analysed in terms of dependent origination, when the mind is stable enough.
According to some interpretations of nāma-rūpa there is always a name and image associated with each experience. Sometimes depending on the image the "name" may end up being several words or perhaps even a sentence especially if the image is representative of an action. A sentence is even more likely when a sequence of images are being put together to either recall or predict some experience.
Just a thought.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Re: To what extent can you trust the voice within?
to the same extend that your mind has been purified.
"It's easy for us to connect with what's wrong with us... and not so easy to feel into, or to allow us, to connect with what's right and what's good in us."
Re: To what extent can you trust the voice within?
That sounds odd. Can you give some examples?acinteyyo wrote:There is now another thing I want to add. I noticed that what I actually do (physically as well as mentally) and what I want or don't want to do according to the different verbalized thoughts I observe has very little in common.
This -
and this -It seems that thought doesn't really lead to action but rather it is just an explanation or some kind of illustration of what happens. Like mere reflection of phenomena with little influence on what happens but huge influence on what is perceived as "what happens".
That is indirect communication, and possible because there is a number of premises that have been taken for granted by the parties involved (or just by the one person, if one person is doing the thinking and acting).acinteyyo wrote:For example, sometimes I realize the thought "I could eat something" then I notice that I'm reaching for some fruits and eat them.
What kind of role plays the thought here?
For example, one person says "It's cold in here" and the other person goes and closes the window. Or one person is picking their nose, and another one looks at them and says "You're such a pig!" and then the person stops picking their nose.
This doesn't indicate that thought has nothing to do with action; just that there may be some steps between the two that are taken for granted.
This is to some extent culturally specific. If a Westerner would stick out their tongue and one would comment "You pig!" this would mean something like "You should not stick out your tongue, it's inappropropriate." But in some other cultures, sticking the tongue out is a greeting.
Frankly, I haven't thought of it that way, it seems like an unnecessary layer, a complication.Don't you need to have some kind of confidence or trust in the verbalization of a thought process to be able to use it?
But perhaps you are refering to the issue of seeing anumana as a valid pramana?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
-
- Posts: 10157
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: To what extent can you trust the voice within?
So would I.acinteyyo wrote:I would disagree with that partly.Spiny Norman wrote:Arguably the purpose of practice is to make the voice more coherent.fivebells wrote:Which voice in the head? There is no one coherent voice.
I suppose I was thinking of the clearer "voice" of sati-sampajanna.
Buddha save me from new-agers!