We are phenomena of the physical world collectively. We are nature. Thought creates with human labor, but it does not create nature. Thought, knowledge, memory, intellect, sense of self, and identity are functions of our brain. Why would we vilify our nature unless intelligence is self-annihilating?
1 Like
Because we think its bad? This is our confused nature - both confusion and annihilation do occur in nature.
A better outcome would surely be clarity and freedom from delusion?
2 Likes
Thought is incoherent because it is confused, so why vilify it?
Thought isnât aware of its confusion because itâs ânormalâ, what thought has been doing for so long, it canât imagine doing anything else. But if thought were to stop, be quiet, inoperative, might something be revealed that would be revolutionary, transformative?
âTo meet the present, the mind must be totally devoid of thought, so that there is observation without idea; and it is this observation without idea which gives the tremendous energy for mutation to take place. That is, the mind must be empty of all the things that memory has put into it. We need memory in order to function, to operate, to do things; we must have the past as knowledge but without letting it interfere in any way with the present, which is action, which is energy.â
Saanen 9th Public Talk 25th July 1963
1 Like
Surely the inquiry is about the right place of thought - when it is appropriate and when it isnât. Practical thought vs psychological thought as we often refer to it here. It is not a matter of judgement. By the time we vilify or celebrate the thinking process, it is way too late. Itâs the origination of thought which is of import. Does it have a basis in reality or is it mapping a helter-skelter world at the center of which lies a manufactured âpsycheâ.
As others have pointed out above, if our interest is to explore thought in a fundamental manner, we cannot use it as the instrument of investigation. We are investigating whether or not thought is feeding us erroneous information. At a very minimum we would have to find a way to not look through our individual perspectives.
1 Like
Is thought keeping us from â meeting the presentâ for reasons of its own? What is it about the present moment that thought continues to obscure it? Thought has labeled Nature and takes the words as the âthingsâ.
If Thought is present in the mind, the Present canât be met?
Itâs important to be aware of our thoughts and how they disrupt observation in the present.
But they are our individual thoughts, and we can change them and even pause them sometimes. Thoughts are part of our being.
That is the point as I see it. The body, its senses all operate in the immediate present. As does the brain. But with thought/ memory occupying the brain/mind, the vital Presence of the present is âdilutedâ, distortedâŚThe âenergyâ of the Present, necessary for the âmutation â is not realized.
1 Like
Iâve got to go with : No. Silence, by itself is not necessarily transformative or enlightening.
Iâm going with the understanding that there are naturally spaces between thoughts - even long moments eg. sunsets, fatigue, zoning out looking at the sky/fire etc
Freedom from thought, the understanding that useless, detrimental thought is useless and detrimental (eg. rumination, longing, rambling narrative etc) comes from some understanding of what thought/self is - And this in turn allows silence to arise from awareness of our experience.
1 Like
So youâve concluded on the basis of very brief moments of silence. Are you not open to the possibility that more extended silence might make a difference?
You can learn to hold your breath for a few minutes, but that doesnât mean you can live without breathing. Likewise, the conditioned brain may be capable of resisting the effect of short spans of silence, but not longer lasting silence.
Freedom from thought, the understanding that useless, detrimental thought is useless and detrimental (eg. rumination, longing, rambling narrative etc) comes from some understanding of what thought/self is - And this in turn allows silence to arise from awareness of our experience.
Yes, we can learn to suspend thought for longer spans of time than usual, but it may be suppressed thought (like holding your breath), and is not the silence K was speaking of (which is not to say that this isnât a worthwhile exercise). But the silence of thought that occurs when the conditioned brain awakens to the actuality that thought is inadequate, limited, and corruptible, stops the train of thought in its tracks.
Yes, we can be aware of our thoughts, see how they are irrational, emotional, reactive, and this self-awareness brings self-knowledge and modification of our conditioned response. But that isnât the radical change K was talking about. As good and necessary as it is, itâs superficial.
The change K was talking about occurs when the brain is acutely aware of its dependency on thought, a limited, corruptible process, and why K raised the question, âis there another instrument rather than thought? You understand my question?â
K: "So, we are saying that the first essential quality in the investigation, in the enquiry, if there is another instrument, the first thing is, one has to be extraordinarily sensitiveâŚWe live by senses, and perhaps some have developed a particular sense. But the speaker is saying to awaken all your senses to their highest degree so that you look at the world with all your sensesâŚHow can you destroy the most extraordinary instrument that we have, the body, with all its senses; the body which is - if you have gone into it - such an extraordinary instrument. âŚSo we must understand the nature of desire; it is very important in the investigation of a new instrument, realising the old instrument, which is thought, is not solving any human problems. So in the investigation of that, we have come upon this thing called desire. What is desire? "
When K asked if there is another instrument ârather than thoughtâ, was he referring to the body, the senses, or to a change in the way the brain operates, greater communication throughout the brain, wholeness.
Thought doesnât operate intelligently because its use is not determined by intelligence, but by the brainâs total dependency on thought. The brain is addicted to incoherent thought because it hasnât the intelligence to acknowledge its condition and respond appropriately.
So what, if anything, can the brain do to lose its addiction to thought if it canât stop thinking? Drug addicts can quit using their drug (willingly or not), but the human brain has been addicted to thought for so long that it dares not quit for fear of losing everything it knows.
By being alert to the movement of thought. Alertness, awareness, sensitivityâŚto the thought/image that arises with the sensation. The ânamingâ, the like/dislike, the desiring, comparing, etc. Thought is of no use in this, only its âabeyanceâ. Which can only come about through âawareness â?
I donât know.
Awareness is all we have, but if the brain is not aware of incoherent thinking as it occurs, awareness isnât enough. If the brain canât see the error of its way, it canât put thought in its place.
But it can see the conflict and the fear and divisiveness of thought. It can also understand that it is only the the quiet mind that can âmeet the presentâ. That thought is locking it in the past?
Yes, but retrospectively. If you and I canât see incoherent thought as it operates, but only upon reflection, weâre not aware of what thought is doing as it happens.
Itâs that situation that for me brings about the effort to be aware of what I am thinking. An excercise to see if I can follow the thoughts as they arise. Not to be confused with âchoice less awareness â.
And in trying such experiments with oneâs thoughts, breath, sensations , etc and failing to be able to be aware of these but for short spans, brings home to one that this fictitious âmeâ is NOT in control.
1 Like
Is it possible to catch an unbidden thought as it arises? to be present as the thought is forming? to catch the first words in the narrative - and eventually see what provoked the thought?
Or do we only know the past?
This is what is interesting: theyâre never âbiddenâ, they arise on their own. They follow more or less the rules of association. The âmeâ we consider as the one doing the âbiddingâ is thoughtâs creation of the âthinkerââŚno thinker only thought. Yes there can be an awareness of the process but I canât say where the awareness comes from.