Are thoughts mere reactions?

betaboy

Namaste,

Are thoughts mere reactions to stimuli, both outer and inner? Outer means environment, circumstances. By inner, I mean past experiences, memories. So is thought simply a reaction to all this and nothing more?

BB

aMatt

I think you're pointing in a positive direction, but I wonder if there is somthing to be seen in the difference between "reaction" and "response".

federica

I think the former is more action-based, and the latter, verbal. But they are both forms of 'reactions'.
Whether they're also reflexes we can control, or whether they are pre-determined and pre-meditated, gets into complex areas.
Good question.

andyZ

I think it's more complex than mere reactions. Sometime I'd be walking and a song that I heard before just pops up in my head, where did that come from? I've learnt to just observe those things with curiosity.

DhammaDhatu

@betaboy

for the most part, "yes"

but there is also enlightened thought. this is not a "reaction" but a reasoned response

regards

Jeffrey

It is an appearance that they are reactions. They just are. Where does one thought begin and where does it end? Where does 'out there' begin and 'in here' end?

santhisouk

In my opinion, thought is a by-product of the mind (citta), and also the 5 aggregates(khandhas). Form gives rise to thought, as of how we picture ourselves. Our feelings gives rise to thought, as thoughts of how we feel. Perception gives rise to thought as thoughts of how we perceive things. Mental fabrication gives rise to thoughts as imaginations. Consciousness gives rise to thoughts as when consciously thinking. If we are one with our mind, our thoughts we always be subjective to our minds first and not the other way around.

with metta

upekka

Are thoughts mere reactions to stimuli, both outer and inner? Outer means environment, circumstances. By inner, I mean past experiences, memories. So is thought simply a reaction to all this and nothing more?

there are six sense bases (inner and outer)

ex:
ear + sound + ear consciousness = passa (in this case, seeing)
when there is seeing that means five aggregates arise (form, feeling, perception, volitional activities, and conciousness)

ear and sound are forms which consists of earth, air, fire and water within the space
feeling and perception are called mano (citta) sankhara and there is nothing can be done about them,
they are kamma-vipaka
they come into being because of previous cause

volitional activities/ san-cetana/ vitakka-viccara are called vacci sankhara
they are causes for future effects

when feeling and perception happen, vacci sankhara happens simultaneously for people without mindfulness and wisdom
thought, speech or deed are the reaction

Jeffrey

"ear and sound are forms which consists of earth, air, fire and water"

I have heard this too. From a chemistry perspective it is not very sound unless you interpret those elements to mean something different in chemistry. For example it could be 'solid' 'liquid' 'gas' and 'temperature'.

But I tend to doubt that buddha had insight into states of matter. I doubt he knew that fire was made of plasma which was caused by energy releasing from the breakage of chemical bonds.

In summation I think the four elements can be pasted onto a modern context but unless I am missing something this way of framing should be modernized.

I also think the five senses as separate is outdated because we know the whole organism is an integrated whole. What happens in feeling affects consciousness which affects vision and taste. The whole nervous system is interconnected rather than six separate categories.

aura

Thoughts are not reactions.
Thoughts are methods of ordering one's awareness.

Because thoughts are methods of ordering one's awareness, they also have the power to limit (and even erase!) awareness. It is why those who seek to increase their awareness will invariably find it essential to cease clinging to their thoughts.

MindGate

Good thread. Thought provoking.

sandy

Jeffrey, that is a very interesting viewpoint to consider the question in. I like the idea of being able to relate the teachings and theories with new ideas. Whether one agrees with it or not it still gives a new angle on which to look at something.

Jeffrey

Thanks sandy. I am not really saying the elements are wrong I am just saying I don't understand them in the same satisfying way that I understand the physical science of chemistry. It is not clear to me if there is sort of a symbolic meaning to the elements? Or if it is just due to a lack of information that they are said to be a description of form.

sandy

I feel like the description of form would be more in line with what happened but who knows? We can't dial up the Buddha and ask Hmm, I like it-Dial a Buddha.

upekka

I think the four elements can be pasted onto a modern context but unless I am missing something this way of framing should be modernized.

I also think the five senses as separate is outdated because we know the whole organism is an integrated whole. What happens in feeling affects consciousness which affects vision and taste. The whole nervous system is interconnected rather than six separate categories.

it is advisable to contemplate on each element of Six Elements one at a time

and

contemplate on each aggregate of Five Aggregates one at a time

to get clear understanding to remove the doubt

Thoughts are not reactions.
Thoughts are methods of ordering one's awareness.

continue contemplation on thought, this view will be changed

SherabDorje

Just to try to answer the OP's question more simply, the human mind is much more complex than that. What about memory, creativity, planning, and so forth? Human experience makes it obvious that thoughts are not mere reactions. What about Tolstoy, Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and others considered geniuses? How could human experience have arisen from thoughts that are mere reactions? For that matter, what about the Buddha himself? Were his thoughts mere reactions? Yes, he arrived at a massive non-thought insight, but then to teach, he had to organize his thoughts about the Dharma before teaching it. If not for creative and rational thought coming from the person's own side rather than being mere reaction, we wouldn't even have Buddhism, let alone the breadth of human experience and creative endeavor other than Buddhism.

All it takes to disprove that thought are mere reactions is to have a conversation with another person. The responses on this thread itself prove that thoughts are more than mere reactions.

aura

Thoughts are not reactions.
Thoughts are methods of ordering one's awareness.

continue contemplation on thought, this view will be changed:)

So far further contemplation has produced both the words "control" and "limit" as possible substitutes for the word "order"...
yielding:
Thought is a method of controlling awareness
and
Thought is a method of limiting awareness

Thanks Upekka for your encouragement!

:wave:

Tristram30

I would agree some thoughts are just reactions. When I meditate in work and I hear a female voice in the corridor I instantly think of sex or knickers or lovely thighs or something like that (lol) - it pops up before I know it. When I hear a car go by I find myself wondering if it's a V8 or whatnot before I can catch myself (I don't mean this to make me sound like some kind of sex pest petrol head btw).

But then that is just those types of thoughts. The brain is far more complicated than that. By trying to desribe it as reactionary or responsive, it sounds like you're trying to nail it down and I don't think you can. Some thoughts arise without our intention yet others arise with what appears to be intention. What I think really needs to be focussed on is the content of thought. Thoughts which arise without our intention clealy arise from our subconscious mind and we have little control over the content.

Volitional thought may appear to be within our control but then if we explore deeper, we see that it is not as free as we may believe. For starters, the situation which inspires us to think has arisen from circumstances beyond our control. "external" actions and events which force us into thought cannot be controlled by us. Further, the content of the thought we chose to have is of a content that we cannot control. For example, if you ask me "how do you feel about the issue of the war in Iraq", my response will be conditioned by the whole spectrum of my previous conscious and subconscious experience and knowledge - I do not really get to control the content of my thought.

What this all leads to is a lack of control over thought. IMO it is easy to fall into the safe assumption that there is control over some thought but not over others. In a very profound level, we are simply reactionary entities but it is IMO a bit deeper than the concept of 1 stimuli = 1 reaction. There is an interconnected web of actions and reactions which has no beginning and no end and incorporates every single one of us.

Tristram30

Good post by the way, I enjoy these ones!

Friday Feeling!!!!!!!