To the same extent that you or I can be honest…is the way I see it.
Can we be honest? Or is (self-)deception built into being human?
This sentence appears a bit sloppy - if you were a bit more careful, would you not prefer to put it differently? If not please explain.
What do we care about the discernement of thought in this matter?
There is motive or there is not, there is silence or there is conflict - when there is awareness of thought, the immediate action is silence - unless of course there is some need for thought in that moment.
If I want silence for some sort of gain - this is just fear - If I sit down to meditate with some imagined goal in mind, this is just desire.
Silence is already silence.
In the first case, conflict & struggle & effort & self-checking are apparent.
In the second there is just immediate seeing - with no separation ie no seeing and seen at the same time - thus no thinking and seer existing simultaneously - thus no thought, only realisation/silence.
Can thought clearly discern that it is itself fear? That it is itself greed, conflict, etc? It must be very honest to discern that about itself, about its very movement. Nothing can bring about its ‘stopping’ , where it only creates suffering …but itself.
Are we saying that freedom from thought is an intellectual/emotional decision?
I am not sure what the answer is - but it would be safer to go with No - because there is no separation (I am merely a concept)
So although we feel/conclude that something is so - this is again merely our subjective perception at work - we do not see the whole picture of intelligence.
PS - though a clear understanding that the purpose of the self, is to suffer, is probably helpful.
A mistake took place. Thought created an image of itself as continuous, as an entity, a ‘me’. A me that suffers, that ‘feels’ alone, confused, frightened, etc… Only thought itself can awaken to the fact of where it went ‘wrong’. Can ‘thinking’ about this situation bring it to an end? Obviously not. And yet it must stop. It is the only question.
Can it only function in its rightful place as a tool for survival and be aware of the danger and chaos created when it brings ‘time’ into the psyche?
Not necessarily. A thought can occur spontaneously, be a direct response.
Thought itself is a mechanical process. It may be an appropriate response, neither fear nor greed, and it may be an expression of fear or greed. Thought is not the problem. It is a mechanism that intelligence uses when intelligence is awakened. When intelligence is dormant, thought substitutes for it by reacting.
You talk quite a bit about intelligence, seem to be convinced it is real, rather than the product of hearsay and wishful thinking. How do you know?
Are you sure? Can a mechanical process “awaken” to anything, or can it only operate as it’s designed to operate? Thought can correct itself, but even when it is correct it can only express what it knows or believes to be true or rational. It has knowledge but it can’t know what intelligence is.
I don’t know. I’m as benighted as anyone here. What I do know is that thought is inadequate to the task of living intelligently because it is a tool, a mechanism, and it can’t substitute for that which can utilize it.
Who or what made this mistake?
Only thought itself can awaken to the fact of where it went ‘wrong’.
But thought is wide awake and hyperactive, so is it thought that’s asleep?
Can it only function in its rightful place as a tool for survival and be aware of the danger and chaos created when it brings ‘time’ into the psyche?
We desperately hope so, but what if we’re mistaking thought for intelligence?
If intelligently means harmoniously, happily, peacefully, then yes this is painfully evident from a look at the history of humankind. Plenty lot of smart people, plenty little peace and harmony, both on an individual level and collectively.
Unlike most non-dualistos, I haven’t given up on thinking as a viable way to get a clue about the nature of reality. I’ve had glimpses of “right thinking” and it’s potent, capable of truly deep dives.
We can’t give up on thinking because it’s all we’ve got, but if I can realize how identified I am with thought, might there be some space?
Thought is the response of memory and experience. Can thought understand the present? Can present be comprehended by the past? Obviously not. The present is always in a flux ,moving changing but the past is static . The conflict comes into being when a static thing tries to explain a dynamic thing that keeps changing. Being aware of that by itself defuses the overactive thought in the Psyche.
True? What about intuition, feeling, emotion? Are these all thinking for you? And ‘pure’ awareness or non-judgmental observation?
1 Like
We can divide thought into the practical and the enlightened, but what is it that we are saying is practical or useful? The corrupt and devious, serves some people well.
Thought is the undisputed master of deviousness. Chances are it’s working its deceptive magic on you (me, all of us) right now. 
There is a question.
“but what is it that we are saying is practical or useful?” Not a theoretical question. A question to actually look into for oneself.
Maybe, that is the reason why Buddha said change is a teacher.