Thanks for the clarification! I totally misunderstood your meaning…obviously. Yes action conforming to thought is what I recall K speaking of. Action based upon thought…the past…the ‘me’. Effort…yes. Good point! Will return to this later…just having morning coffee.
Yes
Yet, this has been the way of man for many thousands of years. No one has even spoken about this other than K. Well, almost. Perhaps one or two out of millions. The priests and politicians, leaders, teachers, gurus even…they base everything upon the past. They live for the old…continuity…live in the old…are the old. And action based upon the idea of fulfillment…in search of continued pleasure or excitement…is also man’s way, right? It’s what most of us live for. It’s all action based upon thought.
The thinker/actor is himself based on the past, constituted by the past, as we see; and his reaction is based on the past. And effort too is based on the past. Right action can’t BE based on the past, can it? The past is repetition of the old, the old (the past) applying itself to solving the new (the living moment).
But we think that knowledge of the problem will solve the problem. We have been conditioned by many centuries of knowledge and conclusions about fear, anger, violence, etc. And also the belief that if we apply knowledge we can solve the issues before us. We never realize that our minds have been brainwashed over the centuries by what the experts have taught us about mankind’s countless problems. Without realizing that our minds are conditioned…brain washed…old…second hand…we will continue to make efforts to solve problems using knowledge of the problems.
Creative action is needed to solve mankind’s problems, isn’t it? “Creative” meaning that it must be action that is completely new, not an adaptation of the old - which is still the old. Obviously, the old cannot be new, and the new cannot be produced by the old, can it. That is, action which is based on the past and determined by the illusory thinker cannot be creative.
Right…it’s repetition of the old…second hand
Don’t see where the problem is. All the suffering caused by thinking can be avoided if one gives up unnecessary thinking. Thinking about thinking is just more of the same. The question is what need does unnecessary thinking feed. 
There needs be an innermost change of heart from which there can’t be any further relapses. When choices don’t lead to the very ending of itself, when life with it’s patience hasn’t lead us to that suffering from which there is no return other than the revealing of a singular direction of continual and effortless correction without leaning onto precepts, until then, we are to be the part of the stream.
Leaving the necessary unnecessary aspect of thought aside, would it be helpful to look at this important question of the ‘ending of thought’ from the point that K. somewhere brought up: When thought ‘identifies’ with sensation, the 'self arises. That struck me as important. It was the thinking process moving from its rightful place as another of the senses to seeing itself as the ‘overseer’ of the senses. Thought is a calculator, a planner, a trouble-shooter. An invaluable asset as a survival tool. And our brain’s main difference between us and our neighbors here. So the eyes see, the ears hear, the nose smells, the fingers touch, etc…thought somehow changed that to ‘I’ see, ‘I’ hear, etc…that would be harmless enough creating that imaginary center if it hadn’t added along our way: I ‘like’ what I see and want to see more…I ‘hate’ that sound and want it to stop…Thought identifies itself with the senses and in doing that creates a center or self that takes on a life of its own. Dividing each of us from the other as a result of the ‘accumulations’, memories, experiences being ‘felt’ as ‘my’ memories, ‘my’ experiences. This illusory ‘me’ being felt as something solid and continuous, an ‘individual’. And another point, thought’s creation of past, present, future, so valuable as a tool to calculate, measure and plan was brought along into its ‘coup’ of the senses which hitherto had always operated in the only ‘time’ there is: the eternal now.
So is the question “giving up unnecessary thinking” or is that there must be an awareness of thought, (necessary or not) as it identifies itself as ‘I’/‘me’/mine?
Do you mean to imply that the man who’s wife of 20 years walks out on him will simply give up thinking about this? Or if his wife is found to be cheating on him with his best friend? Just give up unnecessary thinking?
My desire to have a good time…my desire for romance or sexual excitement…my desire to watch the Super Bowl with my friends. In a word ‘pleasure’. And also the feeling that I can solve my problems which overwhelm me at times. What do you say, John?
A quote from the unknown:- Necessary thought sustains the necessary, Unnecessary thought sustains the unnecessary.
Is there a recognisable difference between the unnecessary and the necessary?
Tom,
Are you saying that it is the need to sustain the illusion of identity, that unnecessary thought continues?
Is it psychological thought that creates, and maintains the division between observer and observed, thinker and thought, experiencer and experience,etc…that would be the ‘wrong turn’ or what you are calling ‘unnecessary’ thought?
Tom,
Are you saying that it is the need to sustain the illusion of identity, that unnecessary thought continues?
No. I never said that. I want to escape fear and conflict and suffering. So I look for pleasure and psychological security. Psychological security is related to ‘identity’ however, so you may have a point, John.
Thank you, Huguette and Tom for expanding and clarifying on the point of effort.
Not to think, Is not the problem.
The problem Is to think not to think.
Really? I think it’s quite a bit more complicated than that.
This is using the word aware in a way consistent with the nature of thought. What is the awareness of a lovely sunny day, taking a walk in the park, quietly looking at the birds, butterflies, and flowers?
The problem Is to think, to not to think.
The use thinking to get not thinking.
I understood you the first time. But my response is the same. Maybe you can explain a bit why you’ve reached that conclusion.
Do you use your violence, to get not violence?
We search for not violence.-
we search not to think.-This serching is an object of desire.-
Is not desire thinking?
we use thinking to get not thinking.-
It is an ilusion.-
Not thinking is not on time.-
Thinking is in time.-
We can use time to go out of time?
That’s clear…thanks!