But you asked about thought being absent at any level. Is this question dealing with a fact. The fact of living on this earth? You and I use thinking in order to communicate. That is a fact. So the question is, can the mind be free of a pattern and still use thinking? Or is the mind equal or dominated by thinking, which means patterns? Is your question, whether thought can be absent at any level, just thinking, the result of a pattern or does it spring out of a mind free of patterns which uses thought to write the question down here?
“Only when thought ends is there truth.” K, Commentaries on Living, Series I, ‘Cessation of Thought’
And that is why K asked, can thought (that is, thinking) end?
Dear Charley,
is not the quoting of K nothing else than thought? We can do it and get in a competion who has the most suitable quotes of him. But does it lead anywhere? Here are some quotes of K underlining the function of thought and that ending it, does not mean there is not thinking anymore:
Only when the mind is uncluttered can the new come into being, and for this reason we say that thought must be still, operating only when it has to - objectively, efficiently.
The meaning of the word understanding and the understanding of that meaning is thought. That is necessary in life. There thought must function efficiently. It is a technological matter.
If there was recognition of the blackbird singing, then the brain was active, was interpreting. It was not still. This really demands tremendous alertness and discipline, the watching that brings its own discipline, not imposed or brought about by your unconscious desire to achieve a result or a pleasurable new experience. Therefore during the day thought must operate effectively, sanely, and also watch itself.
And, a man who is capable of thinking negatively has the highest capacity for thinking.
You are missing it. Thought is constantly active; it is always turned on. Whether it is the surface activity of dealing with practical issues or the deeper activity of mulling over psychological problems doesn’t matter; there is always thought ticking away. Can thought take a pause? Can the thinker stop thinking? After all, the acceptance of the continual presence of the thinker is our oldest human habit or pattern. Can the thinker be absent for a while?
Listen both to the question and to the responses that arise immediately from the thinker. The responses indicate we have not listened to the question. The question may or may not be dealing with a fact. The total cessation of thought may be something impossible. But we have to put the question first in order to find out.
So your response comes from the thinker? Is that what you are saying? Why do you ask that question about thought being absent at all? Is it a wish, a thought, the thinker in action? The thinker is the self, which is thinking and nothing else. If the thinker stops, does thinking end - in the sense that we do not think no more? Or is it just the thinker, the self which is the continuous activity of thinking that ends?
We are putting the question in order to find out first-hand something about the nature of the thinker. That’s all. Am I, as the thinker, able to listen to a question about my very own nature without the almost immediate urge to offer some response or intelligible answer to this question?
But why do you want to find out about the nature of thinker? You already gave an answer to Ayham or even several answers what thought is. And there is no thinker without thought which is obvious. And your question was, if thought can be absent at any level.
To see if there is something new, something that is outside the experience of the thinker.
Is this not just your thinking, that there might be something new or outside of a thinker?
It’s extremely important to find out because if everything is filtered by the thinker then, psychologically, nothing has very much meaning; or the meaning is always contaminated by memory. Either way, whatever we find out, there is bound to be a tremendous change to the entire thinking system.
Dear Paul, you are not concerned with my question. If you already know that is important to pose that question in order to find a change the entire thinking system, you are not free in finding out. You walk in a direction of a certain goal. Is that not just your thinking, the thinker itself?
No, we are putting the question in order to find out if change is possible. We don’t know. Therefore the question is vital. It is not about finding a way to change. There may be nothing to change.
But you wrote it, that whatever we find out, there is bound to be a tremendous change to the entire thinking system. So you know. Again my question, is that no just your thinking asking? Why do you want to change or want to find out if change is possible?
Because there may be nothing to change. In other words, the answer may be there even before we put the question. That is a different issue, however. For the moment, we haven’t really put the question and gone into it together. I am saying that whatever we find out will bring about a tremendous change as we discover the truth of the matter, which is either that the thinker is capable of action or that the thinker is incapable of action. Whichever is true, that’s all that matters. But at the moment we are guessing which one is the case.
1 Like
Why is that important, whether the thinker is capable of action or not? The question would be what is the thinker, would it not? And the thinker is thinking. We have been there already. And your question then would be is thinking capable of action or not, would it not? Look around, yes it is. Thinking leads to action. The whole society is build on thinking. And now, what change does it bring to you?
You are saying that thinking leads to action. Therefore it is an action that is dependent upon time. Thinking is the interval between perception and action. In that interval, all our problems have their genesis because action which is the result of thinking must always be limited action.
Can we see this together, perceive the truth of it, that any action based on thinking must be limited? This perception must inevitably change the nature of both thinking and the thinker.
If thinking stops, there’s no way of consciously knowing until it resumes.
Does it change the nature of your thinking or is it just your thinking that says it? Is it just your projection of a change? And if it is truth to you would speak of a thinker still?
1 Like
Quite right, but that is not the point I was raising here. If the self stops we still will think to fullfill the tasks in our everyday life.
1 Like
That is what we shall find out. But we haven’t yet agreed on the question, so it seems we are stuck before we begin.