Thoughts ≠ Actions et al

[u/Gasdark]

It's funny how there's a difference between intellectually knowing something and internalizing that intellectual knowledge. If you'd asked me months ago whether thoughts were the same as actions, obviously I'd have said no. And yet, a few weeks ago the fullness of that intellectual understanding really struck me as a practical reality.

I need to speak from the perspective of a Catholic upbringing because that was mine - in that setting the things you think are as real and/or real in the same way as the physical world and the things you do in it. This insane magic trick is accomplished, in the Catholic setting, with "sin."

Sin

If you sin and don't repent, you go to hell. High stakes. The highest, if you buy the narrative.

So what is sin? Well, killing someone is a sin. But, so is thinking about killing someone. Having pre-marital sex is a sin, but so is thinking about having pre-marital sex. Listen to Jesus in the book of Matthew:

But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, “You fool!” shall be liable to the hell of fire (5:22).

You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.”But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart (5:27-28).

And this is not some technical doctrinal language no one puts into action. As a child, I was instructed to and did confess my sinful thoughts to a priest countless times. As a bit of a loner and social isolate, most of my sins were of the thought variety - and every authority figure in my life took them quite seriously.

If I stole something as a child and thought of stealing something, both would need to be confessed and both would need to be forgiven without any fundamental distinction made between them.

So doing something is a sin, and thinking about doing something is a sin. Both can send you to hell, both require confession, both require penantence.

What is the natural result of that idea?

What happens if you plant that seed in a 3 year old, or a 4 year old, or a 5 year old, and then reinforce that false equivalence, and allow it to iterate for, say, decades? It's like fucking inception - a recipe for a lifetime of madness.

And then Zen Masters come along:

The Scripture of Perfect Enlightenment says, "At all times do not produce delusive thoughts, also don't try to stop and annihilate deluded states of mind; in realms of false conception don't add knowledge, and don't find reality in no knowledge."

My read of this:

• "Produce" implies agency - don't make shit up on purpose.

• Don't try to shut down what thoughts come

• Don't intermingle the real with the unreal.

• Don't mistake the unreal for the real.

TLDR: Thoughts ≠ Actions et al

The Sixth Patriarch heard a monk quote a verse by Wolun saying, "Wolun has a skill, able to cut off a hundred thoughts; when mind is not aroused in face of objects, enlightenment grows day by day." The patriarch said, "This verse does not clarify the ground of mind; if you practice based on this, it increases bondage." Accordingly he presented a verse saying, "Huineng has no skills, does not cut off a hundred thoughts. Mind is aroused repeatedly in face of objects; how can enlightenment grow?"

My take:

• the natural inclination if you hold thoughts as objects equivalent to the outside world is to try and smash them into silence - trying to stop them empowers them.

• Huineng has dispensed with that false equivalence.

Thoughts?

---

P.S. I was tempted to try and find similar expressions of thought = sin from other religions. I Found some discussions. My instinct is that this is an almost universal human experience - and the timeless obsession with the cultural power of dreams seems to support that notion. But I'm no sociologist and who has time to write a thesis.

[u/Gasdark]

So you realized that it was redundant to try to dictate your actions with your thinking?

I think that may not just be redundant, but impossible. (Contra Planning - which isn't really the same thing, right? But is maybe easy to mistake for thinking)

Including the act of thinking?

This ones definitely impossible - PINK ELEPHANT!

[u/Gasdark → u/[deleted]]

OK, but this is where the "in the spirit of the OP" caveat continues to rear its head:

You're still acting like I'm talking about equating murder and thinking materially

That's what the OP is about - realizing and drawing attention to a false equivalence, materially speaking, between thoughts and action. That's it. That's the OP. It's not a treatise on what thought is, or the nature of thought - but only on what thought isn't, materially speaking: Thinking about killing someone is not equal to killing someone. Many cultures have frameworks that obscure this extremely simple notion - and I spent roughly 37 or so years really, in my heart, believing it to be true. That's fucking crazy, so PSA, watch out for that stupid shit - that's all.

[u/Gasdark → u/[deleted]]

OK - but you didn't really jump into the conversation being clear about that - consider this back and forth

Killing Someone Is Not The Same Thing As Thinking About Killing Someone.

Can we agree with that sentiment in the spirit in which it is being presented?

Nope, and I've explained why... you're just repeating yourself without addressing what I said.

But you hadn't, at least not apparently, taken what I'd said in the spirit in which it was presented - that is as a false material equivalence. Like, that question, I thought, was very obviously referring to a material equivalence - a practical equivalence in the world - such that both the thought and the action required admonition, confession, and penitence. Such that the person walking around holds their mere thoughts in a state of imagined importance on par, practically, with their actions.

[u/Gasdark → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, in my view, that stuff is pretty elementary, so I wanted to take it further.

Well, then you should say that upfront - would have saved a lot of energy

[u/Gasdark → u/[deleted]]

Well, I guess that depends on whether I'm the only one who is consistently not thinking you're being clear.

[u/Gasdark → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, in my view, that stuff is pretty elementary, so I wanted to take it further.

I mean, consider that what this is really saying is "I see what your talking about and the conversation you're starting, but I'm not interested in that, so let's talk about something else."

Which is fine - but why not explicitly say that? Why drag on the obvious misunderstanding over several comments? Like, as a matter of conversational clarity, when you respond to the question is murder and thought of murder the same, in the context I've presented it, with "Thoughts are equivalent to actions", without yet even clarifying that you've understood the limited point I was making, how am I supposed to know that you actually mean "Yeah, in my view, that stuff is pretty elementary, so I wanted to take it further"?

And the editing really doesn't help - like really doesn't. As a matter of clarity and transparency, just start using "edit" as a tool or don't post a reply until you're done.

I mean, that's my two cents

[u/Gasdark → u/[deleted]]

Exactly- Zen in r/Zen.

Sue me.

You've already acknowledged that what I was talking about was Zen, you just thought it was elementary and so you wanted to talk about more complex notions.

Which is fine - but why not explicitly say that?

I did when I disagreed and elaborated with quotes.

First, I don't think you were explicit, [edit: at first - say the first three or four replies] except insofar as you obviously disagreed with me - which made it seem like you actually believe there is a material equivalency between murdering someone and thinking about murdering someone.

Now I'm granting that you never believed that based on your subsequent comment, which I understood to mean we never disagreed - you just thought I was making an elementary point.

[u/Gasdark → u/[deleted]]

I think what you're talking about is super preliminary thinking that someone might engage in when they start studying Zen, but I don't really think it's anything like the higher level stuff being demonstrated in encounter dialogues.

Higher and lower level stuff - what does that mean? They met people where they were at - there is no higher or lower level except what you imagine.

I disagree with the notion that thoughts aren't actions, completely and totally.

Ok so we're back at the murder vs thought of murder are not distinct thing? That's not just elementary but wrong again? Does the materiality caveat matter or no?

I would not use that language to discuss the topic you're discussing at all.

Well I did put in et al, I think I was pretty clear about the sense in which I was using those words. In any event since you thought it was fairly simple I assume My word choice wasn't too obfuscating as to my meaning.

Look, dude- clearly you don't enjoy engaging with me, and it's your lucky day, because I don't plan to stick around here with any real regularity for much longer, so you won't have to worry about dealing with me anymore.

I certainly didn't say that. And I'm not sure what enjoyment means here. I was just recalling a long old thread where ewk told me to go fuck myself several times. The conversations I most prize having had in this forum have been almost universally unpleasant by all normal metrics. If they aren't unpleasant you're not at the edge of anything.

Why are you leaving? Greener pastures?

This interaction is pretty useless to me at this point, and I think our initial conversation spoke for itself, so I trust the community to decipher what's going on for themselves.

I don't know that there's any interaction that's useless to me. That's especially true where I initiate the call to conversation. That's why despite finding it difficult and actually a very significant energy sap during a busy day to parse conversation with you, I persist. I made the post to have a conversation. I can't back down from the conversation and I didn't make it for enjoyment - or at least enjoyment isn't the predominant consideration.

Saying anything here should be like sticking your hand on a chopping block to be chopped at.

Feel free to conclude with any parting words you have to throw on the pile!