← Back to Kinfonet

Understanding, not a distraction

I can say I understand when someone says motive is fundamentally the nature of thought. But do I understand this is pointing to an underlying condition bringing about motive as I live my life? At one level I can say I am aware of this and that, but this is an applied awareness, a perception made in thought. Motive is an action at a level not in awareness of any underlying condition. Thought works mechanically, not with awareness. The nature of thought is a mechanical operation fulfilling its conditioned pragmatic directives, and this is to have motive. In this way I am not observing the fundamental nature of my way of life, my way of thinking. This will always be in distraction, continually, repetitively, applying thought, looking to satisfy the conditioning.