Continuous Unraveling…

Okay. So I had a thought. Is it possible that all thoughts are neutral – but it’s a thought about our thoughts that cause us to create feelings?

What if… What if we had a thought that our thoughts were real – and that our thoughts were important. If we had these types of underlying thoughts ABOUT our thoughts… or about our “thinking”… then each thought would seem like fact, not merely a thought. The thought would be taken as fact/reality by the older lizard brain – and we’d react to it via emotion. Which then causes action and ultimately, a result.

But what if thoughts are just thoughts. I remember Byron Katie saying something like “thoughts just appear” or they’re “like leaves on a tree or raindrops”. Would that mean that a thought – at its core – IS just a neutral circumstance. Not good. Not bad. Just neutral. And it’s our thought ABOUT our thoughts that have us categorize that thought. Meaning… If I think my thoughts are true – and in a new model, a netural circumstance appears (traffic) – and a thought appears (This traffic is terrible!) then since I believe all of my thoughts are true, I’m upset at the terrible traffic. But if I don’t think all thoughts are true (or maybe have a thought that “thought just is, with no inherant meaning) – then when I’m in traffic, it’s easier to see “thought arose” and nothing has gone wrong. A “bad thought” didn’t arise. Just a thought.

Is this possible? I asked recently about “thought” being a C – and from my continued thinking, it appears that the concept of “thought” could possibly be very neutral. (Meaning, for clarification, we could all agree a thought appeared in my brain of “so-and-so” – without a human adding additional meaning). The meaning added (Thoughts are true, thoughts are action signals, you must do something when your thoughts tell you, you must respond to thoughts) would then be a thought about my thoughts.

Am I unraveling this correctly? Would love to hear your thought on my thoughts about thoughts. 😉