Most people experience that they cannot stop their thoughts.

The reason is that the central concept of I am ______ this, that, not this, not that, etc. etc. creates all the thoughts that follow.
The creation of the idea of 'me' and the subsequent desire to control experience (maintain pleasure, avoid pain, guarantee the future) has set thought a challenge which it cannot meet.

It's impossible to solve a problem with no true parameters.
If you ask the question "what is the highest number possible?" It can't be answered.
Infinity isn't definable.

So when the question "how can I (my idea about myself ("ego")) have security?"
It's akin to asking how can an illusion/idea/concept have security.
Can you see the problem?

This may have been the origin of the koans like "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"
There is no answer to a question with no true parameters.

Thought then gets stuck in an infinite loop trying to solve the unsolvable.
So if you find that thought just runs and runs, you now know why!

Ultimately, it's not about stopping thought, it's akin to saying "I can't stop breathing"!
You may succeed for a short while, with a great deal of training/practice, but what's the point?
When there are no false questions, thought only functions when it's needed with no control required whatsoever.

Jim F wrote:
When there are no false questions, thought only functions when it's needed with no control required whatsoever

Nice!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Jim F wrote:
desire to control experience (maintain pleasure, avoid pain, guarantee the future) has set thought a challenge which it cannot meet.

Yes!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Jim F wrote:
So when the question "how can I (my idea about myself ("ego")) have security?" It's akin to asking how can an illusion/idea/concept have security. Can you see the problem?

The unstoppability of thought is its solution to the "problem" of silence. Thought is conditioned to mistake constancy for integrity.

nick carter wrote:
The unstoppability of thought is its solution to the "problem" of silence. Thought is conditioned to mistake constancy for integrity.

Thought doesn't have a motive, it doesn't want to do anything mischievous.
Thought just runs and runs when it is set an unaswerable question.

Jim F wrote:
Thought doesn't have a motive, it doesn't want to do anything mischievous. Thought just runs and runs when it is set an unaswerable question.

While it is true that thought does not have its own motive, it is not true that it just runs and runs.

Thought responds to emotion. When one is attracted to or repulsed by something, thought comes in to differentiate, analyse, categorize and 'solve' the situation.

So long as there is emotional tension, thought will operate.

It also responds to body tension and physical issues.

Together, thought, body and emotion come together as, what we call, 'mind.'

What are you waiting for?

You guys realize that it's thought that's saying all these things, right? :)

"See thought arising; watch it. Without that, all else is illusion and becoming."

Paul Davidson wrote:
Together, thought, body and emotion come together as, what we call, 'mind.'

Oh please! See 'emotion' for what it is. The self attaching to, and owning, pure feeling.

Emotion: "Agitation of the mind". That is the etymological meaning of the word.

Jim F wrote:
Thought doesn't have a motive, it doesn't want to do anything mischievous. Thought just runs and runs when it is set an unaswerable question.

I didn't say or imply that thought has a motive. Its function is to solve problems by devising solutions. Motive is formed when there seems to be a problem, an obstacle to overcome or avoid. When the brain is conditioned to regard silence as a problem, the solution is be constantly noisy.

The "unanswerable question" theory does not explain why thought "runs and runs" because so much of that running is just pointless, mindless noise, i.e., filler. If thought was obsessed with finding the answer, the content would reflect that. But what the content of incessant thought reflects is a compulsion to be constantly occupied, regardless of how banal or inane the occupation is.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Oh please! See 'emotion' for what it is. The self attaching to, and owning, pure feeling.

A description is not the described . . . oh please!

By the way, your 'oh please' is obviously an emotion, your 'self' attaching to, and owning, your 'pure feeling.' By the way, what is this 'pure feeling?'

What are you waiting for?

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Emotion: "Agitation of the mind". That is the etymological meaning of the word.

Then I thank the goddess that I am not an etymolog . . . etymolog . . . analistic pedant

What are you waiting for?

nick carter wrote:
Motive is formed when there seems to be a problem

Well, according to Pat, the motive force is 'pure feeling', kidnapped by the self.

What are you waiting for?

nick carter wrote:
But what the content of incessant thought reflects is a compulsion to be constantly occupied, regardless of how banal or inane the occupation is.

Not sure. Compulsive thought, which is often random and unremitting, seems to also be very present in the silence of night when one is trying to sleep. When I go to bed with no emotional tension there is silence. There seems to be a 'thought production machine' that responds to states of disturbance, whether the disturbance has a concrete external cause or not. Caffeine also sets it in motion as it acts on the enzymes in the heart and stimulates emotional feels of inner tension. It seems to be a motor reaction.

Notwithstanding all that, the need to be constantly occupied, which is an emotional need, not a physical one, also stimulates the basal ganglia into action. It is like one of those old plasma balls. When you put your hand near it it erupts into life. Thought may act like plasma at this level. Conjecture, I know, but I stick with it! No firm conclusions.

What are you waiting for?

nick carter wrote:
But what the content of incessant thought reflects is a compulsion to be constantly occupied, regardless of how banal or inane the occupation is.

True.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Paul Davidson wrote:
By the way, what is this 'pure feeling?'

Try the pain of hitting the finger with a hammer - pure feeling. Then watch thought takes over and make a meal of that feeling - an experience to relate to everyone - a fiercely-held memory.

Whereas the feeling of pain ends, goes away, and is forgotten, leaving no mark (except perhaps a physical scar) - the experience of hitting oneself with a hammer continues as a memory - as the emotion of having experienced pain.

And so the self is well-fed by this, along with all the other experiences of 'emotion' for today! Such as: "Someone spoke harshly to me" - "She doesn't like me" - "I can't stand her!" - "I should be doing better than that other person" - "Why does this have to happen to me?" - the list can be endless while thought is happily at work owning feelings and labeling them to be used as emotions. No wonder human beings are so miserable!

Paul Davidson wrote:
Then I thank the goddess that I am not an etymolog . . . etymolog . . . analistic pedant

Your self-satisfaction is an emotion, isn't it. :)

In fact - K was most interested in the root meaning of words. How else to state clearly what one is talking about, when words are the method of communication?

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Try the pain of hitting the finger with a hammer - pure feeling. Then watch thought takes over and make a meal of that feeling - an experience to relate to everyone - a fiercely-held memory.

OK, sensation. Yes. But I feel that even sensation has become part of the conditioning. We are not in a position to discern between what is pure sensation and what is conditioned. It would take a pure mind to do so.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Your self-satisfaction is an emotion, isn't it. :)

Quite . . . and on a light-hearted note, as they say south of the border - y su mama tambien!

What are you waiting for?

nick carter wrote:
I didn't say or imply that thought has a motive. Its function is to solve problems by devising solutions. Motive is formed when there seems to be a problem, an obstacle to overcome or avoid. When the brain is conditioned to regard silence as a problem, the solution is be constantly noisy.

The "unanswerable question" theory does not explain why thought "runs and runs" because so much of that running is just pointless, mindless noise, i.e., filler. If thought was obsessed with finding the answer, the content would reflect that. But what the content of incessant thought reflects is a compulsion to be constantly occupied, regardless of how banal or inane the occupation is.

The unanswerable question set to thought is the finding of psychological security. As this is impossible, yet seen as a vital imperative, there is a great deal of stress created.
If one observes the content of thought, by far the greatest volume is that concerned with myself.
When there are periods of lesser activity it brings to light the fact that one is so ill at ease, hence the demand for endless drama/entertainment/busyness.

Jim F wrote:
If one observes the content of thought, by far the greatest volume is that concerned with myself. When there are periods of lesser activity it brings to light the fact that one is so ill at ease, hence the demand for endless drama/entertainment/busyness.

Both Nick,and Jim make good points,it is interesting Krishnamurti said,"It is not what the mind is occupied with so much as the fact of it's occupation".This seems to point to the fact of present moment awareness,and the following question/observation. Can a mind that is occupied with it's content[whatever it may be] see what is?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

RICK LEIN wrote:
Can a mind that is occupied with it's content[whatever it may be] see what is?

But the content is important. If I'm planning a shopping trip, then attention will be on the thoughts about shopping. If I'm seeking psychological security, then a great deal of attention and energy is tied up with that unattainable project.
When there is no movement psychologically, then there is plenty of energy and attention for meeting life with and without memory as required.

Jim F wrote:
... If I'm planning a shopping trip, then attention will be on the thoughts about shopping. If I'm seeking psychological security, then a great deal of attention and energy...

Obviously there is a difference between the time as physical and psychological and actually there is no psychological time.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Wed, 01 Sep 2010.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
and if it is then it is energy itself.

I don't understand what you're saying at the end of this sentence.

If what is, then what is energy itself?

Could you try again?

Jim F wrote:
When there is no movement psychologically, then there is plenty of energy and attention for meeting life with and without memory as required.

Are you speaking experientially or theoretically? When, if ever, is there "no movement psychologically"? If such a phenomenon was real for me, I would not be inquiring into "unstoppable thought", but speaking from silence and emptiness.

The reality for me is that thought is unstoppable and I'm inquiring as to why that is. It seems to me that the conditioned aversion to silence and emptiness is what's behind the unstoppability and not the futility of an "unanswerable question". If you know better, please elaborate.

There was a time and there will be a time.We are all dwelling in the midst of these two times whereby forgetting that there is just a time.We call ourselves living while the truth is that we just lived and will be just living.

'living is all about balance'

nick carter wrote:
The reality for me is that thought is unstoppable and I'm inquiring as to why that is. It seems to me that the conditioned aversion to silence and emptiness is what's behind the unstoppability

Only part of thought enters the rarefied heights we are 'conscious' of. This constant chatter has been called the monkey mind. Is this constant chatter what you are mostly referring to as 'unstoppable?'

But there is also the underlying structure of thought which is mostly 'unconscious. K does not like to use the terms conscious and unconscious because they stress a division he says is not there.

What psychologists have called 'unconscious' K refers to as the deeper layers of consciousness. This contains the deeper memory, the suppressed materials, the structures and so on. These deeper layers are also in continuous flux.

We seem to live in the surface tension of the sea of thought and know little what lies beneath, the hidden currents. But it is all one body of water.

We seek to calm the waves on the surface, whereas it is the whole ocean which needs draining. Can an ocean drain itself?

What are you waiting for?

Jim F wrote:
If I'm seeking psychological security, then a great deal of attention and energy is tied up with that unattainable project.

yes this is the content which is our conditioning,this is what he was referring to.Of course you need memory to find your way home everyday. I could have worded that more clearly. Thank you for pointing out the difference!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

This post was last updated by RICK LEIN Tue, 31 Aug 2010.

Paul Davidson wrote:
But there is also the underlying structure of thought which is mostly 'unconscious. K does not like to use the terms conscious and unconscious because they stress a division he says is not there.
What psychologists have called 'unconscious' K refers to as the deeper layers of consciousness. This contains the deeper memory, the suppressed materials, the structures and so on. These deeper layers are also in continuous flux.
We seem to live in the surface tension of the sea of thought and know little what lies beneath, the hidden currents. But it is all one body of water.
We seek to calm the waves on the surface, whereas it is the whole ocean which needs draining. Can an ocean drain itself?

We know the "unconscious" is operating, but we don't know what it is up to until it's too late to do anything but acknowledge that it overtook the conscious. So please, don't presume to speak knowledgeably about what you admittedly (by calling it "the unconscious"), know nothing.

nick carter wrote:
Are you speaking experientially or theoretically? When, if ever, is there "no movement psychologically"?

From present moment experience. The psychological movement has ended here.

nick carter wrote:
If such a phenomenon was real for me, I would not be inquiring into "unstoppable thought", but speaking from silence and emptiness.

This is a projection, an assumption. You do not know as this is not real for you.
The passage at the beginning of this thread was written from insight. It was prompted when asked by another why thought is unstoppable.

Thought is a natural human function, it functions when necessary and ceases when not. But only if it is not set (unknowingly) impossible tasks.

Paul Davidson wrote:
Only part of thought enters the rarefied heights we are 'conscious' of. This constant chatter has been called the monkey mind. Is this constant chatter what you are mostly referring to as 'unstoppable?'

But there is also the underlying structure of thought which is mostly 'unconscious. K does not like to use the terms conscious and unconscious because they stress a division he says is not there.

What psychologists have called 'unconscious' K refers to as the deeper layers of consciousness. This contains the deeper memory, the suppressed materials, the structures and so on. These deeper layers are also in continuous flux.

We seem to live in the surface tension of the sea of thought and know little what lies beneath, the hidden currents. But it is all one body of water.

We seek to calm the waves on the surface, whereas it is the whole ocean which needs draining. Can an ocean drain itself?

These are all thoughts about thought. They just add more content to an already confused person.

There has to be an insight into the nature of thought itself. Then thought functions where and when it's necessary.

Just ask the question, "what is thought?", and then not accepting a secondhand answer, just observe and see what arises.

Jim F wrote:
The psychological movement has ended here.

So you say of yourself. But if it's true, why announce it? Those here for whom "the psychological movement" continues can only believe or disbelieve your testimony, so why put them in that awkward position? Why, for that matter, participate in a forum which exists for those inquiring into the psychological movement? If for you it's over, start your own web site or write a book or give public talks. This forum has seen a dozen or more of your ilk come and go.