>> I have no doubt that something exists beyond thought. Many things, no
>> doubt. What I asked is how you might know about their "essence" ---
>> or that whatever you experience is indeed the "essence" of something
>> beyond thought --- without thought.
>
> When thought is absent, "what is" reveals itself. It is only through
> direct experience that you can discover the essence of something.
The only thing that reveals itself is your experience. E.g., if you look at
a bright light and then close your eyes, you'll probably experience an
after-image. But that experience is not "of" something "beyond thought." It
is part of thought, part of the workings of your nervous system. For you to
interpret it as the "essence" of something "beyond thought" requires some
further thinking on your part --- you will have to have placed it into an
ontological framework of some sort you have created, wittingly or
unwittingly.
> When you focus on your breath, for example, thought is absent. It's
> impossible to both focus intently on your breath and think at the same
> time. If you are thinking, then you are not fully attentive.
I agree its useful to be able to focus on the signals your nervous system
is delivering without preconceptions shaping the perception. But
determining whether they signify anything beyond themselves will require
you to interpret them --- to fit them into some coherent structure. Until
you do that, all that experiential data is just random noise --- the
infant's "great, blooming, buzzing confusion" described by James. They
signify nothing beyond themselves.
> Again, thought only comes into play *after the fact* to assimilate and
> communicate about the experience.
Agree. And until that is done, you cannot classify whatever experience
you've had as revealing or representing the "essence" of something. You
can, in fact, conclude nothing about it. Before you can *say* anything
about it you will have to have *thought* about it
--- positioned it within
some interpretative scheme. And you always face the question --- how valid,
or useful is this scheme I've constructed/adopted?
