K made the statement that “thought is fear.” Not that psychological thought creates fear, but that it is the fear itself. That can be observed. One moment there is calm and then an image of some possible event happening and there is a reaction…the image with the resistance or reaction is what is called ‘fear’. But if there is awareness when the image arises, there is no reaction…just a ‘seeing’ that a negative image about something has arisen and can fade along with the billion other possible future scenarios that ‘could’ take place. If the image has the possibility of actually coming about, then something can be done regarding it to whatever degree possible, like contracting Covid. And if nothing can be done
about what ‘might’ happen to you or someone else, then its silly for thought to continue thinking about it. Thought / time is the ‘ogre’ here as I see it , and in agreement with K and Paul and others; it must stop.
Dan: K made the statement that “thought is fear.” Not that psychological thought creates fear, but that it is the fear itself. That can be observed.
Observed, yes. That’s different than asking the question, ‘can thought cease?’ Who is asking the question but thought/fear/conflict itself? It’s like ‘me’ asking if ‘me’ can end. Can the self end itself? Can thought end itself? It can inquire, yes, but it’s totally unknown where that inquiry will lead. Perhaps to self knowledge…but we don’t know. I’m speaking of observing the fact of fear/thought…of conflict…not asking if it can cease.
Is thought our only method of inquiry? Into a question like : “Is silence possible?” Is thinking about it our only option?
mac Is thinking about it our only option?
There ARE no options. That’s a trick of thought. What initiates the inquiry? Thought, no? Can thought then remove itself from the picture? I would think not. Not without there being understanding of the problem of thought itself…self-knowledge.
You are still resisting the question. Why wait for understanding? Can thought stop? The approach to this question may be the essence of self-knowledge. It may be a waste of time. But we have at least to give the question a chance.
Why would I ask such a question? Obviously in order to achieve something beyond thought which is imagined by thought or spoken of by K and then becomes a goal to achieve. It’s thought which wants to reach the ‘beyond’. I’m not implying that we cannot observe the actions of thought…observe how it functions…be attentive …see what thought actually is.
Seems obvious that it’s not. If thought takes up the question, the only thing that will result is, more thought!
No. I would say. Awareness of ones, as well as, the world’s suffering brings up the question of ‘can it not be this way’? Could it be thought is in the wrong place? Let’s look at it. Then ‘insight’ may reveal what is going on…or it may not. And when and if it is observed that thought is the psychological suffering, then the energy fueling that duality of thinker / thought diminishes. Or to use Dominic’s word, the space between the thinker, me and thought collapses. Awareness of what is going on in the moment seems to be key.
We are asking the question to find out if thought can stop. That’s all. There is nothing beyond thought.
Ask away, then. Let’s see if anyone else wants to address your question. What is the fact now? That’s my question. What is happening right now, at this moment? If there’s thinking, then the fact can be observed…thats all. Any reaction to the fact is a contradiction. Let’s stick with facts.
No, there isn’t anyone else involved. There is only thought asking itself, ‘Can I stop?’ Thought knows very well that it can go on in a thousand different guises. It has any one of a dozen other immediate concerns it can turn its attention towards: my family, my job, my anger, my pain, my hopes and ambitions, and on and on. Thought knows how to be active. Can it also be inactive? Not just as a temporary blip, as a moment of absence, but deeply, wholly inactive. Is it putting this question with as much intensity as when it tries to deal with all the rest of its perceived issues? All the other issues cause thought to be fragmented because there are so many questions about which it can be active. But this one new question that it is now putting to itself has no other part to it.
Well, there ARE others reading our posts here. Let’s see if they want to ask the question…and whether thought stops. For me personally, there’s no meaning to thought asking questions. That’s the intellect as we discussed…functioning in limitation…in the field of the known.
A lot of people think they’ve had an insight into themselves when they’ve merely acknowledged that something they do habitually do is ignorant or foolish or insensitive. This isn’t insight…it’s just facing a fact. A good thing, of course, but it has little, if any, meaningful effect. Insight is something deeper that has profound, transformative effect. It isn’t as common or ordinary as you seem to think.
On the contrary, it is the function of the intellect to put the right questions. Otherwise, no enquiry is possible and no learning can ever take place. And at the moment, the intellect is questioning itself: Can I come to a complete stop? It already has enough excuses to carry on as normal and say, ‘No, I can’t stop, because X, Y and Z are more important.’ However, this question is of a different order because it invalidates all positive responses, every single reason to say, ‘Yes.’ And the negative responses are already invalid, because excuses are not good enough. Therefore, the only sane response to its own question is the complete cessation of thought. Then insight and understanding are minor affairs, side issues, and the mind will never again chase after them.
But if you don’t put the question and make it the only question in the world that matters, none of this makes much sense.
I don’t recall ever saying that. I put in in the ‘Grace’ or ‘Blessing’ category. ‘Light’ into the darkness. And which K said, you should be your own.
You seem to be stating that our only way of investigating reality is to think about it?
So just looking in order to see is not possible? Judgement, interpretation, recognition is always bound to occur.?
Question: Do we necessarily have to believe our thoughts, continue reacting to them? If I think something (thinking being part of reality) is the thought necessarily all powerful ie a true representation of what is? Are any thoughts a true representation of reality?
The question was,’Is silence possible?’ right? Faced with that question, what type of investigation do you propose? What does it mean to ‘look in order to see’ if silence possible?
Really? We’re on a different page here, but that’s OK. Perhaps I will return to this when I have more time.
Thought has to ask itself if it can be quiet, if it can refrain? If not, why not? Why does it continue when there is no need for it to continue, etc. Thought will answer. It will continue, but it will finally concede?
Fear? Desire? That’s why thought continues, no? It brings great pleasure and it can as well, create great fear. Thought creates fear and then tries to get rid of or escape from it.
Either we enquire from our conclusions, therefore dictating the direction in which we proceed, or we enquire into the very tools we are using. Thought produces the conclusions; thought says, ‘One must have insight; one must understand, realise the truth.’ So behind all these concepts of insight and understanding there is still thought. I am saying that insight and understanding are unimportant; chasing after them is wasted effort. Our only tool of enquiry is thought; and it is a faulty tool. Therefore, can we abandon it altogether, turn it off, and see what happens? Then there is something far greater than mere insight and understanding.