4 ms·

Within your own self. The first layer of "within" can be easily understood. In between 2 successive thoughts is a state of "no thoughts". Can we like a scientis

Within your own self. The first layer of "within" can be easily understood. In between 2 successive thoughts is a state of "no thoughts". Can we like a scientist hypothesize that we are more than the thoughts? To prove or disprove it we need to observe/experience this state of thoughtlessness, initially they are just few milliseconds long but with practice will be seconds and minutes in length. And remember if we are always observing through the filter of our thoughts then we are changing the thing being observed - just like in quantum physics "act of observing affected what is observed".

0xcde4c3db 9y ago
> Within your own self. I don't know what that is. > The first layer of "within" can be easily understood. In between 2 successive thoughts is a state of "no thoughts". That doesn't match my experience at all. There are times when I don't pay attention to my thoughts, or my thoughts aren't distinct enough to grasp, but that's not an absence of thought. For me, the concept of "between 2 successive thoughts" makes about as much sense as "between two drops of water in a river". The only way I can relate your description to anything I understand is to suspect that what you're describing is shifting your attention away from your thoughts to interoceptive sensations, and then reifying your integration/synthesis of those sensations into a distinct entity rather than a representation of your body. But maybe I just haven't read enough Deepak Chopra to "get it".