No more faith in thinking

no, I never said we shouldn't think. Thinking happens. There's no should or shouldn't about it. It is what it is and it's not important. It's questioning the absolute truth of the thoughts. It's NOT giving them relevance. It's NOT becoming absorbed in the meaning that we assume exists there. It's questioning the entirety of thought and what it produces, aka the insanity of the human condition. It's no longer believing the spin doctor in the mind.

 

Only attachment brings pain.


x

 

This thread deserves some sort of prize for the craziest on Hip Forums, and that's quite an achievement. The pros and cons of "thinking" are being discussed in such an abstract way as to be meaningless. Humans think, and our greater capacity to do so abstractly distinguishes us in degree, if not in kind (as far as we know), from other animals. Thinking can be painful and get us into trouble, but it can also help us to cope with the pain and get us out of a jam. In fact, without thinking, albeit at a low level, this dialogue obviously would not be taking place. Yes, I agree that attachments are a source of human unhappiness, as Buddhist, Stoic, Christian and other philosophies and religions have told us. Those conclusions were arrived at by thought. I think it's absurd, as well as hard to believe, that anyone can think but not be influenced by thoughts, or even to try not to be. I think civilization has value, and thinking is how we got it. Descartes said: "I think, therefore, I am." Should we now say:"I don't think. Therefore, I'm not"?

 

If you dont hold onto any idea or image of yourself, then, nothing can hold onto you.

 

Ooh ooh, i got it now, so its like xenon and budha said, detaching yourself from eveything. And the point of this is to eventually become an objective observer of the world/reality?
Somebody who i know once said that the greatest wisdom and insights don't come from thinking but from the silence.

 

you are not your mind

 

Same goes if you're dead!

 

If "I think therefore I am" were true, then how is it that we know we're thinking?

What is outside the realm of thought that even lets us know that thought is happening?

 

What do you mean by "thought"? Consciousness? That is the most fundamental thing we can experience, and it is beyond our control or denial--something we can't turn off and on. Consciousness Are Us. Or do you mean reason? Calculative, analytical thought? I sense that that's what you do mean, in which case I disagree fundamentally with your point of view. As J.S. Mill said (no personal slur or insult intended), "I'd rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." Thinking is what it's all about, as far as I'm concerned--"the unexamined life is not worth living" (Socrates), but it can be painful, and to each his/her own. As for Descartes, I think his maxim can be interpreted in one of two ways: (1) the purely analytical, left-brained approach: thinking logically entails a thinker; or (2) a more intuitive, right brained interpretation: an inescapable sense of self-awareness. The latter meets your objection about how we know we're thinking. It's intuitively obvious--the only thing that is.

 

Just to clarify a bit of what I mean, thought and consciousness are not synonymous. But before delving into all that, I'd like to ask you something. If thinking is what it's all about, then what is it that thinking is supposed to result in? What is it that the process of thinking is supposed to lead us to, in the utilization of it? Is there simply enjoyment of the process itself? Or is there a purpose for it?

 

Maybe thought and consciousness are not synonymous for the reason of evidence consciousness gives to anyone experiencing it for its existence possessed by anyone (anyone does not = anyone). Nevertheless, thought is identical to consciousness. One, anyone beyond just being a conscious sentient being, is thoughtful for being at consciousness of something, and is an existing conscousness for proven worth of thinking in the presence of a thing.

Life is at states of mind.

 

But please tell me, what purpose does thought serve?

 

That's quite a thought

 

hehe

 

It's easy to assume that whenever there's communication, whether written or spoken, that it arises from typical thought structures, which are conditioned by the past. Inspired communication may contain an organization and coherency, which may outwardly appear as thought, but the origin of it arises from insight, which is born not out of conditioning but out of causeless awareness of Truth, which is always accessed now, in the present moment.

 

Your posts appear to me to indicate a lot of reflection and analysis, which to me and apparently others suggest thinking. If you think this is coming from "insight which is born..out of causeless awareness" instead of conditioning, I can't prove you wrong, and if it keeps you happy and harmless to believe that, go ahead. I still think you're thinking--a lot!

 

But of course, if thinking is considered to be the end-all, and that there's nothing outside the realm of thinking, then everything would be perceived as coming from thought.

I notice you didn't answer the question I put to you. It may be helpful to inquire, but if you'd rather not that's fine of course.

 

Yes, this seems pretty true Everything is a concept in thinking, even this magical awareness you speak of

still thinking!

 

Hahaha Xenon and Budha?

 

you mean xexon?