Yes the putting into words the movement of thought. This is the work of the ‘thinker’ function of the process of thought. K: “The thinker is merely the verbalization of thought”.
So what is ‘the activity which produces thought’? Is it challenge, desire, conditioning? And is the reaction of thought to move along habitual lines: Belief, experience, knowledge? The inquiry here is whether thought is moving on its own, mechanically? Through association of memory?
And if that is so, what is the danger of there not being an awareness that it operates in that way? In dialogue? In relationship?
In cognitive science, awareness refers to the state or ability to perceive, feel, or be conscious of events, objects, or sensory patterns. It often involves a level of meta-cognition—being aware of one’s awareness. This is studied in terms of neural activity, attention mechanisms, and the distinction between conscious and unconscious processing.
In nondual religions, awareness is considered more foundational and universal. It is often equated with the ground of being or pure consciousness, transcending individual experience. This awareness is not tied to thought, perception, or personal identity but is instead the formless, observing presence in which all experiences arise and dissolve. It’s seen as unchanging, indivisible, and the essence of all existence.
I used to think that thought was just thought, and then I learned that Krishnamurti talked about two distinctly different types of thinking: practical and psychological.
Thought can acknowledge its use of psychological thought and the incoherence it causes. But thought’s acknowledgment that it is confused and conflicted by this incoherence is not directly perceiving the incoherence when thought is active.
Thought is a closed system that operates only when needed. But when it operates constantly (as it does with the conditioned brain), the illusory thinker, I, me, mine, is the center, the authority, effectively, God.
I think that it’s generally accepted that thinking is a natural activity of the human brain. The quality of each thought may depend on challenge as you offer or simply a matter of each individual’s experience. Everybody is familiar with the image of mentally deranged people who articulate words and loose ideas endlessly!
More precisely, thinking arises as a function of the human brain. But is it meaningful to consider thinking ‘natural’?
The word ‘natural’ often implies something innate, unconditioned, or essential. However, much of our thinking is shaped by memory, experience, and societal conditioning. In this sense, thinking may not be ‘natural’ in the way we often assume but rather a learned, conditioned process that reflects the environment and influences that shape us.
When we say that thinking is a process, we mean that it functions as a sequence: mechanical, habitual, and self-perpetuating.
Any process, by definition, has no intrinsic purpose or center beyond its continuation. Thinking doesn’t possess its own need or meaning. Its purpose, if any, is defined not by itself, but by the awareness that observes it. Awareness, unlike thought, does not create meaning. It simply perceives. This perception may reveal whether thinking has value in a given moment or whether it is merely perpetuating itself.
It is important to note that this awareness is not a “thinker” outside of thought. The idea of a separate thinker assigning purpose is just another creation of thought. True awareness has no center, no judgment, and no agenda as it is a clear seeing of what is. When thinking is seen for what it is, as a mechanical process without inherent necessity, its hold weakens, and the mind may uncover stillness beyond thought.
Actually I used ‘natural’ in the sense of being innate. To speculate about it I don’t think is of any use. We have to deal with it as it is now, it’s our life and we see that thinking is there all the time.
Aah, just because something is “what is” in the moment does not mean it is natural in the sense of being aligned with reality or necessity.
To deal with thinking as it is now requires seeing it clearly, not as something to be justified or dismissed, but as a process that operates through conditioning, habit, and memory.
The question is not whether thinking is there or not - it clearly is - but whether we can observe it without judgment or justification, and in doing so, discover whether it truly has any connection to what is real and necessary, or if it merely perpetuates itself without end (which very much seems to be the case as pointed out earlier).
That is true. Thought is a movement. It arises out of ‘stillness’. From the stillness or silence, the movement can be seen without interference. There is nothing in the silence that can interfere. No effort. Thought can’t go beyond itself to reach the stillness.
And the servant turned master ‘thought’ has over hundreds of thousands of years sunk its roots into every nook and cranny of the organism. Can thought return to its proper servant role? Killing it off, as with HAL, is not an option.
Thinking is an inherent function, a movement of the brain shaped by evolution, accumulating knowledge for survival. It does not serve a “who” or a higher purpose; it operates as it has evolved to do. Perhaps the deeper question is not about assigning thought a role, but rather seeing it as it is without imposing ideals or expectations upon it. In that seeing, doesn’t clarity arise about its place in our lives?
Krishnamurti spoke for over 50 years about the importance of such simple observations, yet here we are, on a forum dedicated to these teachings, still failing to engage in basic inquiry. Perhaps the challenge is not the complexity of the questions but our unwillingness to stay with them.
Thought serves the organism in the sense of helping it and its species survive. But thought overstepped its charter and in doing so became dysfunctional.
Regarding what goes on in this forum, our explorations range from Krishnamurtian to quite far afield. Your inquiries are welcome, they enrich the brew.
Our assumption is that thought did something it shouldn’t have done, but jmsaario says that inattention is the problem; that thought is just doing what it’s designed to do, and we’re not aware enough to know when it’s operating needlessly.
Thought trumps attention often in my experience. Say thought snowballs into crazy (obsession, worrying, fear), a process that can happen lickety split. Being attentive to the snowballing has little effect. Once the arrow has been released, it needs to complete its flight.
The difference is the desiring of an “effect” (change, escape) and choice less attention to what is happening. The disturbance when met with resistance exacerbates it, sustains it. That’s what thought is conditioned to do. It reacts to a disturbing image it has created and then tries to resolve the disturbance which affects the whole system.
The snowballing is the result of a build-up of assumptions and conclusions drawn for lack of awareness. By the time content is snowballing, it’s too late to do anything but be buried, overwhelmed by it.
To state the obvious, thought operates properly when the distinction between thought and what is not thought (or a product of thought) is clear.
Thought is mechanical and sustains itself by thinking, but there is no thought without awareness, so why aren’t we always aware of what thought is doing?
