In Buddhism I have often heard the idea that there is nothing wrong with what you are feeling, thinking and sensing, it is only our relation to those things that define/judge them to be bad. Well this has me thinking. If there is such a thing as a "wrong relation" to our thoughts, that relation is itself a thought, which would mean that suddenly there is "something wrong" with our thoughts. So to me this is an apparent contradiction. Either there is something wrong with your thoughts that can be fixed by sitting, or there is not. If there is nothing wrong with your thoughts, feelings, senses, then why sit at all? If there IS something wrong with your thoughts or your relation to your thoughts, that seems to go against the whole non-judgemental awareness idea. In other words, in meditation we say that we are not trying to achieve anything and get anywhere outside the current moment. But getting to that state of mind DOES take effort and training. It IS trying to achieve something. It is moving towards something. It is applying effort in some direction. I can't seem to reconsile these two thoughts. It has been bugging me for a while now, I hope you all can help. Cheers!

Every day I struggle with an onslaught of negative thoughts (perfectionists with a huge ego). I came upon two different schools of thought in Buddhism teaching. One would be to try to ignore the thoughts, not give them energy, not identify with them, be present and in time they would go into the background. Basically they are just thoughts; they are not you. Another approach would be to sit down, meditate and try to go deep inside to find the root of those thoughts (I suspect I have myself deep down :P). Try to see clearly the constant river of thoughts that is happening inside (things I notice is just a small surface of things). I was never sure which one was correct.

Are there any list of thought patterns / believes of a person who have extream aversion, conceite .... etc ? There is an android app that gives a similar result. (I'm not sure that I can linked to a that kind of source from here) But that app is on topics like Perfectionism, low self esteem .. etc. That app let us know what are the common thought patterns, believes if we have one of that problems. Also they provide some pracices to overcome them. It is very useful to know that common belives, thought patterns as we can understand our mind / situation easily and quickly. Also, that may let us know some belives we have that we might think we don't have. Can anyone post list of common belives on topics from buddhism ? Especially on five hindrances ? (Wiki answers may suitable) Example format for an answer : *Common believes of a person who have aversion* *Common thought patterns of a person who have aversion* ***Very sorry for bad english*** **Kind regards**

As the core goal of Buddhism is to cease sufferings, any task that not relevant to it will be unawarely ignored, and any task that hindering it will be strongly rejected. Analysis/intellect can either be irrelevant to the goal (as in, don't forget that the finger is not the moon), or an obstacle that Buddhists have spent all their life to fight (as in, it's the source of proliferation). However, in some cases where analysis is necessary to remove an attachment, automatically rejecting intellect means (1) the attachment is not removed, and (2) they don't think they have attachment at all. Or as someone puts it, they seem to have [anti-thought bias](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/22195/13525) , and I think anything they say would be [thought-terminating clichés](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%c3%a9) at that point. How to fight this bias? How to make them realize that before you see the moon, as least you should have the finger? How to present them an analysis and they accept to read it as it is, rather than questioning anything irrelevant? Related: - [intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/23639/13525) - [I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31152/13525) - [How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31193/13525) - [How does philosophy not fall into the confirmation bias?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/60848/19487)

From [I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31152/13525) , I get that Buddhist goal is not only to get wisdom, but as a practice for "understanding suffering, the causes of suffering, the ending of suffering and the path leading to it. Everything else goes beyond the point." This explains why others miss my point. It is more of Daoism I think, in which sufferings are not meant to be cessated, but to be transformed into something more useful. It's like saying "hey, sufferings are fun. Please give me more". This attitude makes sufferings not sufferings anymore, although technically you are suffering. I think every Buddhist aware of the importance of intellect. Yet, when I especially ask for an analysis they still focus on the core goal, thus missing my point. For example, [this person](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/arl4jl/is_buddhism_about_cognitive_linguistics_and/egnx005/) stops replying after I explain the Daoist point. Another example is my very previous question. At first the titular question asked for "what to do" , but then *all* answers focused on the reason, forcing me to change the title to "why is that" (ChrisW's answer is an exception). (Nevertheless this has a good side, as it tells me that I am missing Buddhist points too.) There are two advantages if I can ask other Buddhists to do analysis with me: - My understanding can be refined, and my wrongs can be corrected - If the other person doesn't seem to understand the teachings properly, but dismiss any analysis because they misinterpret that Buddhism advocates to abandon reasoning completely, then this will be beneficial for them (cf. the snake sutta, the raft sutta) So, why does it hard to ask other Buddhists to do analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?
FWIW, my though is said to be [interesting](https://www.reddit.com/r/EasternPhilosophy/comments/ar4qbj/are_eastern_philosophies_early_understanding_of/?st=jsc0k1oy&sh=5a22127d) if the readers are in analytic mode. Related: [Why does Buddhism seem to have an anti-thought bias?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/22195/13525)