what thoughts are OK and which aren't?

Q.

What thoughts are OK and which aren't? Ayya Khema used to say that all thoughts involve movement and therefore subtle mental friction. Obviously one needs to think to survive/function in the world. What is one to do?

Her answer was a very pragmatic one, which is to start by eliminating the worst thoughts first. The categories are "unwholesome thoughts" and "negative thoughts". These make obvious sense. After this however, it gets tougher. Even "unwanted thoughts" is a slippery category. Yes, unwanted thoughts should be eliminated. But what's left over are "wanted thoughts" and some sub-set of those should almost certainly need to go because this is where subtle greed can hang out.

I'm very attuned to problem solving and planning...I was a strategic planner and for a number of years ran an international strategic planning consulting business. Nearly every awaking hour was devoted to either solving client problems or planning problems about the business itself. It was really quite beautiful at times to get lost in such thoughts. They were however, often intertwined in self seeking objectives that I wasn't always aware of at the time. Ultimately, the only workable approach seems to be to be mindful of every though and to evaluate it on it's own.


Gary:

your statement, "Obviously one needs to think to survive/function in the world", is not correct, IME, for most functions and for most folk, most of the time. If one is a "knowledge worker" with much planning and strategizing, as both of "us" have done, then that type of internal mentation is necessary, but these are distinguishable.

The difficulty with the other statement, "Ultimately, the only workable approach seems to be to be mindful of every thought and to evaluate it on it's own" is that, in practice, it will not work in the "real world".

The distinction that Ramana Maharshi made is to just eliminate the "I, me, my", then those "selfing" thoughts will fall away and whatever remains is not a problem. That eliminates all of the problematic and energy-charged thoughts that occupy 95% of most folks' mental life and their craving, fears, desires, etc.

Ramana also pointed out that if one analyzes every thought as you are proposing, you will "die analyzing". There is just not enough bandwidth or processing speed to analyze all of your thoughts "real time" and make "keep/throw away" decisions on them and still function effectively. one also is likely to be drawn into, and carried away by, the most attractive and "sticky" thoughts, if one gets into in-depth analysis.

As you point out, when you were busy working, your apparently "good" planning and problem-solving thoughts could become "...intertwined in self seeking objectives that I wasn't always aware of at the time."

re eliminating the source of the problem, the "I,me, my"; don't be concerned w/the "I" that is inherent in languaging in virtually all of the world's languages. If one really loses the attachment to the "I" concept and realizes it is just a construct, there is no "energy" to the "i" inherent in languaging. Attachment doesn't arise as there is no one to hold it.

As the Yale research is showing, the two "command and monitoring" centers, the dACC and dlPFC, are simultaneously activated w/the deactivation in the core "selfing" center, the PCC, if one does serious meditative practice. These "command and monitoring" centers are "watching" for any arising of PCC/"selfing" activity and presumably deenergizing it as soon as it begins to activate. This is what you are proposing with your "being mindful of every thought and evaluating it on its own", but the brain is doing it, "all by itself", in real time and dispassionately.

Conceptually, these "command and monitoring centers" are "watching" based on "is there an 'attached/energized' I, me, my there?". If you watch carefully, you will see that there is a completely different energy between "how do i get to I-95?" and "i must get this project out by 3:00!!!" i suspect these centers make this same distinction w/ease once they get enough data.

Gary,

Yes, that was very helpful.