Is this not an important question? Do not let me make it important to you. Is this not a vital question to each one? If it is, must we not find the true answer? We are nourishing the ego in many ways, and before we condemn or encourage, we must understand its significance, must we not? We use religion and philosophy as a means of self-expansion; our social structure is based on the aggrandizement of the self: the clerk will become the manager and later the owner, the pupil will become the Master and so on. In this process there is ever conflict, antagonism, sorrow. Is this an intelligent and inevitable process? We can discover truth for ourselves only when we do not depend on another; no specialist can give us the right answer. Each one has to find the right answer directly for himself. For this reason it is important to be earnest.~~j. krishnamurti
As far as I can tell, you're asserting something like: (1) when I think, I am doing something; (2) any time I do something, I strengthen my ego since it is I who am doing something; (3) strengthening my ego is bad, since ego is the ultimate source of all evil; (4) therefore, I shouldn't think.
The problem is that (2) and (3) are obviously false. There's lots of things I do that make me a kinder, less jealous, or self-centered person. Volunteering at a soup kitchen. Offering to stay with a sick friend. Teaching adult literacy classes. These are all actions, but none of them can plausibly be regarded as somehow inherently egoistical. Further, it is also obviously false that ego is the source of all evil. It's false in two ways: there are evils that don't result from the selfish decisions of individuals--flood, pestilence, death itself. Second there are decisions I make from myself and about my own life that aren't plausibly regarded as evil either. I decided to go to college, I decided upon a certain career, I decided to cultivate a taste in classical music. These are all expressions of my individuality and affirmations of my self, and the value I place on my own life, but there's nothing immoral about them.
One reply from Buddhism, which Krishnamurti would no doubt have been aware of, is that thought does not need to act.
"For a dispassionate person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I realize the knowledge & vision of release.' It is in the nature of things that a dispassionate person realizes the knowledge & vision of release.
Anguttara Nikaya 11.2, 'Cetana Sutta: An Act of Will'
Thought, may have "become the means of self-expansion, to act without giving sustenance to the ego, the cause of conflict and sorrow". However, I do not for a moment think that it is the only designed function or outcome of thought.
Just as a bad act results from thought, so also a good act. In fact, much of the evil that is done by humans results from thoughtless, impulsive reactions learned from childhood. On the other hand, if were to go through the cognitive analysis of what we are about to do, then, our actions will probably be often different .
This is a very interesting and relevant question. It seems that its basic assumption is on the emptiness of the 'ego concept', in which roots one can possibly see the Buddhist teachings. (As it is said in the Heart Sutra, "Form does not differ from the void, and the void does not differ from form. form is void and void is form; the same is true for feelings, perceptions, volitions and Consciousness"). Thought which arises from a self-centered activity can't but reinforce the self by any means. Even when one acts altruistically, how cannot the very good feelings arising from that act be seen not as a way of enhancing the self-image?