I have been practising The Source of Thoughts, and also have been mulling over part of the commentary on the practice contained in the TSK book. In this commentary, Tathang Tulku discusses two common orientations to the question of the source of thoughts which he believes need to be transcended. He then states that from a vantage of more open space, such a source cannot be found (I agree with his comments to this point). However, he then goes on to say:
“It becomes equally appropriate to maintain that this fact (that no source is found) is conclusive evidence that such a source does not exist, rather than being simply a corollary of the source’s existence”
From the Level 2 vantage point of more open space, the question may well be unnecessary, or even irrelevant. Such open space is ‘allowing’ – in my experience, thoughts on this plane may come and go, drift in and drift out. They may or may not have a source – that fact is not really important – our more subtle ‘knowing’ quality can accommodate either. However, I don’t see that the fact that a source cannot be found can be taken to signify that it doesn’t exist. This seems to be much like saying that, since western science has not found irrefutable evidence of the existence of chakras or acupuncture points, this is proof that they don’t exist. I recognise that I may be applying Level 1 logic here, but it doesn’t seem to me that the book’s assertion, even from the point of more open space, is really defensible.
My own experience with the practice to this point has been that, at Level 1, while sometimes thoughts follow linear connecting tracks, they are very often stimulated from the activity of the senses. This however, of course, begs the question of why, amongst all the sensual stimuli that we face, only a few are so compelling as to trigger thoughts and thought patterns.. All thoughts do seem, however, in my experience to arise out of an initial inner surge of energy, which ‘kick starts’ the thinking process. On a higher, more “open ‘ plane, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, in my practice, thoughts simply are allowed by space to arise, with the question of their generation or dissipation being generally irrelevant.
Does anyone else have a different understanding of this paragraph?
Gaynor