I don't think the argument is that we need to stop thinking. I think the argument is that since thought is a form of calculation (the equal, the more, the less) based entirely upon memory, we should be very aware of what we apply it to and whether we are applying it appropriately. Using thought to construct a bridge or calculate the progress of an epidemic is appropriate. Using thought to choose a lover or determine how we interact with our friends or our children is not.
Switching thought on and off is not a matter of control or discipline (inasmuch as you then have to posit the controller or the disciplinarian, themselves a creation of thought); it is a matter of simple awareness that thought is going on without being totally caught up in it. Of course "simple" awareness is a vast understatement.
Joanna
Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
What's tougher than that is to be able to stop thinking while remaining conscious and highly sensitive. (not claiming to have achieved that myself...)
That's true. A lot of Buddhist-type spiritual culture is about that, about clearing the mind of thoughts that bedevil it. I suppose mental control or mental discipline means that you are able to switch thinking on and off, which can be a challenge (I've overposted). But the idea that human salvation lies in in stopping to think, is not an idea I would go a long with, we do need to think.
J.
