Thought

rachMiel

Hi everyone. :-)

Thought is one of the key issues in our quests to realize enlightenment, yes?

It seems to me that thought spans a continuum from useful/beneficial to dysfunctional/harmful. Thinking about a house (blueprinting, etc.) before building it is obviously beneficial. Thinking (obsessing) about a failed relationship can be a very harmful thing. Etc.

Per Buddhism, is there a "clear" line of demarcation between beneficial/harmful thought? When one finds oneself thinking, is there a guiding image to help assess where that thinking lies in the beneficial/harmful continuum? What are the hallmarks of beneficial thought and of harmful thought?

For example, you're walking in the woods. Scenario 1: You let all thought fall away and focus on perceiving "raw" sensory data: colors, shapes, breeze, sounds, warmth and brightness of sun. Scenario 2: You allow interpretive thought to join raw perception: Gorgeous fall colors, great old birch tree, I wonder what animal lives in that hole, etc. Scenario 3: You think pretty much the whole time about a project you're working on, and the beauty of the woods serves as a kind of "backdrop" to heighten your thinking process. Scenario 4: You let thoughts (of any kind) and sensory perceptions arise and dissolve on their own, without attaching to ANY of them.

Does Buddhism say that any of these scenarios is more or less beneficial than the others (in terms of realizing ____________ ) ?

Thanks for reading!

rachMiel

Jeffrey

Rachmiel thought is harmless...

Attachment to thoughts is harmful...

Thought focuses and describes something (my unenlightened words). Then diffuses out into spaciousness (lack of focus) which allows for a new focus to emerge.

That is why meditation isn't about getting rid of thoughts, but about letting go of them.

Those are just my thoughts

IronRabbit

Dharma can be understood in one fashion as "mental contents". Therefore, thoughts, skillful and unskillful are emanations of Dharma. Watching these mental contents with a practiced equanimity propels one on a path of recognizing the inherent nature of all thought - all phenomena - irrespective of benefit or harm. With such realization the need to demarcate between more or less harmful is diminished and replaced with an awakened ability to navigate through cognition in a fluid manner using what is useful and disregarding what is not.

Simonthepilgrim

Of course thought is important but simply trying to train or restrain thought is a pretty unsatisfactory task, because it ignores all the rest of the human condition. Buddhism seems to me to teach us to train thought, as a product of mind, by addressing the whole of who we are, how we behave and the world around us.

For my money, some aspects of Buddhist practice place entirely too much stress on silent sitting. This is not to say that I don't think that it is the foundation of the practice - it is. Like all good foundations, it is of little use if nothing is built on it.

Thoughts are on a feedback loop to our senses and our memories. Some Buddhist writers appear to suggest that meditation alone will, over time, erode that loop so that thoughts do not arise, only sense impressions without associations. Is this actually true? or useful? is this really mindfulness?

There are further trainings that we need if we are learn to keep our thoughts in check and achieve a 24/7 mindful state (if such is, indeed, possible as asserted by our teachers). Elsewhere, for example, I have mentioned the "discipline of the eyes": sight is, for a major part of humanity, filtered into the mind as a primary source of input. The more we are aware of where and how we are directing our gaze, the more we can take control of it and keep it fixed, more firmly, on the Path - or just on what is under our feet so that we don't trip.

Restraining and training the senses - now that we can do, every waking moment.

{Those who have read The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant might like to consider a sensory VSE}