Thinking evolved from the simple task of naming things to the difficult and sometimes painful work of confronting our beliefs. Seeing the deficiencies and falsehoods of our blind faith is quite a task. Acting on what we learn is even more so.

 

By Angel Roberto Puente

How did our thinking process go so wrong?

Symbolic thinking is relatively young; research suggests its birth occurred about 50,000 years ago. Advanced thinking, which includes language, emerged about 30,000 years ago.

Writing is only 5,000 years old.

I think many know the story of the first man and woman who lived blissfully in a beautiful garden until they ate the fruit of the tree of good and evil. They suddenly realized that they were nude and felt shame. Before eating the fruit—fruit that gave them the ability to distinguish between good and evil—they simply flowed with the moment. And they were happy.

Thinking evolved from the simple task of naming things to the difficult and sometimes painful work of confronting our beliefs. Seeing the deficiencies and falsehoods of our blind faith is quite a task. Acting on what we learn is even more so.

Siddhartha Gautama, as I see him—a unique depth psychologist—was the first to propose going beyond all thinking.

Not to deny the usefulness of thinking, but to put it in its proper context. His practical methodology could prove, to anyone who tried it, that thinking is not a standalone faculty to which we owe blind obedience.

Gautama sought to show that thinking is preceded by a field of awareness that makes all knowledge possible. By establishing the primacy of this field, thinking would have a base on which to stand. Without it, thinking spins into all the negativity that causes the suffering we witness at every moment.

There are two ways of relating to language and thinking that I have been exploring for many years: dialectics and the modern Relational Frame Theory (RFT). With the help of AI, I’ve been able to compare and understand them better.

Dialectical thinking aims to explore and resolve contradictions.

Its origins are traced from around 800 to 200 BCE. It first appears in Greek philosophy with Plato, in Buddhist debate traditions with Nāgārjuna and the Abhidharma, and in Confucian-Mohist dialectics in China. They structured language to refine thought—an intentional use of words to reveal contradictions, examine assumptions, and reach synthesis.

Dialectical reasoning is not part of the biological roots of language, but it represents a pinnacle of language’s cultural evolution. Dialectical thinking moves from thesis (first thought) to antithesis (contrary thought) to synthesis (resolution of the tension between the two).

Relational Frame Theory (RFT), developed by Steven C. Hayes and colleagues, is a psychological theory of language and cognition.

It explains how humans learn language through the ability to relate concepts arbitrarily—not just by direct experience, but by learned relationships between symbols. RFT also explains how language contributes to psychological suffering—because we relate negative thoughts or memories as if they’re present and real. This is central to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT).

Let AI give some examples of how this works:

Derived Relations

Let’s say a child learns:

1. A = B (“Coin” is the same as “money”)

2. B = C (“Money” is the same as “value”)

Even without direct teaching, the child derives:

3. A = C (“Coin” has value)

This is mutual and combinatorial entailment, a core concept in RFT. The mind connects A to C via learned relationships, not just direct experiences.

Comparative Frames

Now consider:

1. Cat is smaller than dog → The child understands “smaller than” as a relation.

2. Dog is smaller than horse → The child can derive: Cat is smaller than horse, Horse is bigger than cat, Dog is between cat and horse.

These are relational frames of comparison, applied flexibly to new situations.

Why It Matters:

Because of these relational frames, we can:

-Follow complex instructions

-Use metaphors (e.g., “My heart is a stone”)

-Worry about the future (relating “what might happen” to “what it would mean for me”)

But it also means:

-We can relate words to painful events

-And suffer from thoughts as if they’re real, even when they’re just language

Using the theme of failure, a comparison between dialectical thinking and RFT can be made:

Theme: “Failure”

Dialectical Thinking Example: Thesis: “Failure is bad and means I am unworthy.” Antithesis: “Failure is necessary for growth and learning.” Synthesis: In guided reflection, the thinker may conclude:

“Failure reveals my attachments and helps me let go of self-image. It is neither good nor bad—it is fuel for awareness.”

RFT Example

Learned relation: “Failure” = “Bad” (based on past reinforcement) “Bad” = “I am unworthy” → Emotional suffering

RFT doesn’t aim to refute the thought, but to change the function of the relational frame:

Practice defusion: “I’m having the thought that I am a failure.”

Shift context so that “failure” is no longer fused with “unworthy,” enabling psychological flexibility.

In short, dialectic transforms thought by integrating opposites. RFT changes how thought functions by altering relational context.

I personally prefer to go to the roots of the problem of thinking. Dialectical thinking is useful, in my view, for the resolution of life choices. Yet it stays at the surface of confused thinking. RFT goes deeper into how mistakes in thinking are produced and stored. It’s more like the psychology of the underlying tendencies in Buddhist thought.

Bhikkhu Analayo says, “The Pāli term for ‘underlying tendency’ is anusaya, which conveys a sense of something that ‘lies latent,’ a dormant disposition or proclivity of the mind. As it is used in the early discourses, the term anusaya carries invariably negative connotations.”

Given that, as RFT explains, these proclivities are formed beginning at an early age and without conscious effort, their dormancy is a given. I’ll end this trip by asking for forgiveness if my considerations have caused confusion. I find it entertaining to jumble all these views in my mind,

“Like the circles that you find in the windmills of your mind

Like a tunnel that you follow to a tunnel of its own

Down a hollow to a cavern where the sun has never shone.”

No fear—it is just thinking.

 

Photo: Pixabay

Editor: Dana Gornall

 

Did you like this post? You may also like:

I’m Right, You’re Wrong: Buddhism & Right Thinking

Complicated Nonsense: How to Stop Overthinking.

 

 

 

Comments

comments

Latest posts by Angel Puente (see all)