Are you characterizing understanding as a discrete event (Archimedes' Eureka!) or as a cumulative state (the sum total of that which I understand)?

In this I am charactising understanding as something that happens after the event. Is understanding something that happens as a result of thought, or it is a product of the digestion of thought and therefore occurs outside of the thought, i.e. in the gap after the thought is processed.

In that case, understanding is definitely a synthetic or synthesizing function. As to whether it is a thought or an absence of thought, there is a well-documented phenomenon called the "Zeigarnik effect" (better known as "tip of the tongue" where mental effort can impede the mental task of recollection, whereas a relaxation of effort will result in success. This has also been shown to be true of problem-solving. So there is a good case to be made for "not thinking" here.

I agree. An abundance of thought profits nothing, but silence is of great benefit. So it follows, would a person who had never developed language still have understanding? On this basis, it seems that they would. There would be no mental commentry, but there would be understanding.

Also, is there such a thing as "gradual understanding" or is all understanding arrived at in "a flash" moment?

I guess it depends on how big of a gap is being bridged? i.e. how much new knowledge is being acquired.

I would equate more silence (bigger gap) to greater understanding. However, the moment of initial understanding also interupts the process and creates thought, so breaking the silence. I think also the Zeigarnik effect has parallels with the notion of "we never learn by getting things right, we only learn by getting things wrong". Success comes to those who fail the most because they are the ones who are learning.

"we never learn by getting things right, we only learn by getting things wrong" — Antidote

Popper takes a similar view of learning as eliminative of error in his perspective of scientific realism.

Absolutely, when we are born we know very little, children make mistakes all the time - because they're learning all the time. I liken this very much to alchemy. You have to burn down and distill to get rid of the rubbish, and what you are left with it pure, so it is eliminative. Karl Popper had a good process then.

Does understanding arise as a result of thought, or in the gaps between thoughts. — Antidote

Since understanding is a kind of thought, this is nonsensical.

Not so, "a kind of thought," already implies an incomplete understanding of what thought is. What "kind" of thought do you imagine understanding to be? Understanding is spontaneous and does not require thought as stated above. Consider how empathy works, or humilty.

What "kind" of thought do you imagine understanding to be? — Antidote

Thought is mental/brain activity with cognitive content. So is understanding. So is empathy and humility.

To phrase it differently, once you're not just talking "understanding" in the abstract and try to think of specific instances, you immediately get to: what are you are understanding? And badabing, badabum, you've got thought.

If thought were the natural outcome or effect, brought on by confusion, then the more you think, the more confused you will get. — Antidote

That's a nice example of a self-undercutting argument. If the premise is assumed, then everything that follows from it can be dismissed as confused ramblings. No need to go any further.

If the statement creates a pause in the continual stream of thought, then something else has the opportunity to arise. Perhaps, something more meaningful than thought.

I'll try not to think about what you just said.

Understanding is mixed with thought mainly because of our confusion. René Descartes made the mistake of mixing thought with being, "I think therefore I am" and you are doing the same thing here. René Descartes should have said, "I think I think, therefore I think I am". That would have been more accurate.

So, if your arguement held true, those spiritual masters who claim the importance of "no thought" would not attain understanding, because they are without thought - again, not so. Thought creates "distrubance" within what would otherwise be perfect understanding, or the grounds to create perfect understanding. All thought, words, etc are just distrubances.

Consider then what a vision is (not optical vision, but a vision in the mind). thought is not involved but understanding is present.

Quite right, now that's wisdom!

Not everything that is in thought is of thought (objective knowledge). So if understanding is conceived as the synthesizing event (which it is here) then understanding isn't "thinking," it is the event in which new knowledge (which ex hypothesi did not come from thought) becomes integrated into thought. By simple definition (in this case) understanding is not a species of thought simpliciter.

Understanding is mixed with thought mainly because of our confusion. — Antidote

A couple of problems here:
If your entire counter argument boils down to "you're confused," then it's not only weirdly presumptive, it's pointless. Confused how, why, and about what exactly?

I'm not surprised, of course, that the person whose argument is that understanding happens without thought is also the person to not have any real arguments--those require thought.

I'm sure it is super convenient though to just wave off criticism by saying it's just a result of confusion. Saves you a lot of.... thinking. :wink:

So, if your arguement held true, those spiritual masters who claim the importance of "no thought" would not attain understanding, because they are without thought - again, not so. — Antidote

I haven't met a "spiritual master" yet who's impressed me much with his or her "understanding." I've read several books by so-called "spiritual masters" that have very much put me in doubt of their level of insight, to be perfectly honest.

Here's a challenge: give me some example, something specific, about which you think a person might gain understanding without thought.

Here's a challenge: give me some example, something specific, about which you think a person might gain understanding without thought. — Artemis

Actually, what was said was

the moment of initial understanding also interrupts the process and creates thought. — Antidote

As I follow this, understanding brings something into thought, so is a synthesizing function, not entirely thought, and not merely thought. And in some cases, thinking can impede understanding (examples were given, Zeigarnik effect).

As I follow this, understanding brings something into thought, so is a synthesizing function, not entirely thought, and not merely thought. — Pantagruel

Actually, he says:

All thought, words, etc are just distrubances. — Antidote

Precisely that. Artemis sees thoughts as the "ends" of the process, where it appears as the "beginnings" of the process, but to be moved beyond and past in order to gain the understanding, mere thought on its own and of itself becomes an obstacle or a distrubance. The order is, a thought occurs, the thought ends. Understanding appears. If thought comes back in, then understanding doesn't appear, because it was given no grounds in which to appear.

But as I was suggesting above (albeit in a tone of amusement, but I'll be serious now): the problem with theories that want to do away with thought in favor of some "other" kind of understanding is that they fail to give any coherent theory. There either never is a whole theory, or it just runs into contradiction after contradiction. It's not surprising, because they inherently desire to exempt themselves from the need to make sense. It's just another form of accepting Jesus as your Savior: you have to believe first and only on the basis of faith and then you'll see the light. Miraculously.

Precisely that. Artemis sees thoughts as the "ends" of the process, where it appears as the "beginnings" of the process, — Antidote

Wrong again.
I see thought as the process. Full stop.

I haven't met a "spiritual master" yet who's impressed me much with his or her "understanding." I've read several books by so-called "spiritual masters" that have very much put me in doubt of their level of insight, to be perfectly honest. — Artemis

Read Eckhart Tolle, Power of Now or New Earth. He most certainly understands this as having almost killed himself, had his eyes opened.

If your entire counter argument boils down to "you're confused," then it's not only weirdly presumptive, it's pointless. Confused how, why, and about what exactly? — Artemis

Thought creates the confusion when its mistaken for understanding. Consider bump-starting a car. Thought its the initial push to get the car moving, but then it fires and propels itself. If you keep trying to push the car once its going, you would struggle and be confused as to why the car has sped off.

He most certainly understands this as having almost killed himself, had his eyes opened. — Antidote

Understands WHAT?

Thought creates the confusion when its mistaken for understanding. — Antidote

Understanding WHAT?

the problem with theories that want to do away with thought in favor of some "other" kind of understanding is that they fail to give any coherent theory. — Artemis

You are relating everything to thought still. Your point then is, if I cannot understand it with thought, or if it cannot be put into a form that thought can understand, then it is not coherent. The relating it to thought is not coherent.

Understands WHAT? — Artemis

Understanding in both cases that thought is the method creating the confusion. If you go beyond thought, you gain a greater understanding of yourself and the world you are in.

Artemis, read his book, or take a look online for a PDF copy of his works, it might help this make sense. Or don't, it's your choice.

If you go beyond thought, you gain a greater understanding of yourself and the world you are in. — Antidote

Give me an example.