Is There "Space" Between Thoughts?

Many devout spiritualists claim that it is "in the space between 2 thoughts that absolute Truth is encountered."

Well now, that's an interesting proposition (although you'll hear it often in many neo-zen/advaitist circles).

Are they proposing that thought takes up "space"? (or is this some type of metaphorical sleight of hand?)

They also claim that, within that "space" that thought takes up or fills, there is an additional "space between," which we should seek to be IN so that we can have an encounter with "truth" of the absolute type. Would that be a kind of spaceless "space" then?

With respect to time and space, maybe thought is victim to 'time,' but is it also victimized by the crude grossness of "space"? Like the body or anything else with form and substance? Or is it a different kind of space? More of a spaceless-time?

Nevertheless, the masters claim that it is thought and thinking that must be transcended.

Yet, if thought is not victim to, or contained in or by space, as is all other forms and substances, then possibly it is not the villain they seem inclined to frame it as? If thought is not victim to space, and will have nothing to do with it, then there is no telling what can be done with it. If it is not contained then it must be, in some way, free. So why do we continue to act as if it is contained and thus, limited? And why does this limited thinking result in so much suffering?

Maybe we should stop trying to escape or run from it and seek to better harness its power?

In fact, maybe the "leap" they often speak of is not to leave 'thinking' behind, but to engage it more deeply then ever before. Geez, maybe thought is not doomed after all!

But, if that's true then we've been thinking the wrong way all along. Hence, were the ancient masters wrong?

When I broach these questions to many of our modern day spiritual teachers, I often find myself severely reproached, "how dare you question the ancient teachings!"

Sorry... I question everything. My bad!

Intervals between thought? Is there really any break, space or interval between thoughts? Is there some mystical space we call "no-thought" or "no-mind"? Certainly it would seem to appear that conscious thought has intervals or spaces between, but is there not an unconscious thinking that escapes conscious awareness, but that essentially fills the space or interval thereby creating a seamless string of uninterrupted thought? Is there ever a "time," of the slightest duration, in which one thought stops or pauses before the next?

And what about belief? If we agree that belief is the springboard for all thought patterns, where does belief reside if not in some subconscious realm that we are not consciously aware of? But, nevertheless, is it working consistently in our minds with no real break or interval? It must, if thought comes from that deeper field of meaning we call belief.

Many claim that thought is energy. But then, if thought is a form of energy do we need to quantify it within the space/time matrix?

Possibly 'thought' has nothing to do with space/time whatsoever. Conceptualizing it as "energy" would no doubt take us to theoretical, or "quantum," physics, but that's getting a bit overused ("what the bleep"), and even theoretical physics, a division of science, is ruled by sensory data to inform its theories.

Making thought your ally is a bit different than seeking no-thought, or the space between thought, in which you are essentially seeking to exit your thinking (or is that how one makes friends with thought?). Empower your thinking or seek to escape it? Take it further than ever before comprehended or discard it for some theoretical nirvana or bliss?

I am familiar with many of the neo-advaitists (Adyashanti being the more prolific). Adyashanti proclaims that there is no 'you' to think thoughts anyway and that is a typical advaitist theory. In this way thought and self is not necessarily demonized, but we cannot deny the underlying assumption that thought is our problem, so lets escape it and find the promise land of 'no-mind.' Right?

Unfortunately, there is a sense of self-denial in this 'no-thought' path that tends to disenfranchise the mind. Even though the mind MUST take you very far before the hypothetical dissolution or transcending many claim is blissful truth.

If by "engaging thought" we mean understanding thought, I think that may be correct. If by engaging it you mean getting more lost in thought, (which the macro society seems to reflect) then no...

Even egoic thought must serve to take us at least a part of the way, until some deeper guidance can be accessed. But even that will require thought, only it's the type of thinking that we have yet to think about or comprehend.

Sometimes I enjoy what seems to me a type of getting lost in thought. In fact, many of my posts have been just this type of rambling stream of consciousness (my apologies to those who have been bored by it). I often wonder, how high, how far into the deepest regions of thought, can we ascend (or maybe descend?).

I have seen individuals achieve life-changing insight resulting in the termination of a dysfunctional or maladaptive behavior (in fact, this has been my own personal experience through the effective use of thought). As far as transcendence or integration I'm at a loss to recall, although those are merely concepts that some equate with 'truth' but may not be truth in any sense of the word. Note that once you 'name' it, it cannot be anything more than the concept you have contained it in.

Are we really supposed to gain "understanding"? Maybe we should not seek to understand but become more comfortable with infinite understanding, as there may be no endpoint or finality to seeking? Maybe ONENESS is pathless because you can never understand and only that needs to be understood?

Maybe the belief that there is, or will be, some outcome or culmination, some final transcendence or integration, that many have 'named' enlightenment, realization, awakening etc, is a mistaken belief?

If absolute truth is infinite (I imagine we would agree it could not be finite), then why would we expect there to be some stage of final knowing?

Most likely, it never ends!