Thought is to be understood more generally than the sort of fantasmal propositional activity such as might be prominent while engaged in writing or speaking. It should include every kind of purposeful activity and differentiated perceptual or more generally passive experience; it is engagement in situations where it embraces both sides of the integrated whole, the situation and the one who is engaged. Perhaps most generally it covers any experience or aspect of experience which is intrinsically dualistic, that which is most naturally grasped in dualistic terms regardless of the many different kinds of distinctions such dualisms can be based on. It is in this sense that it is contrasted with awareness,  which can be taken to point to that in experience which is intrinsically non-dual. Of course the distinction, thought/awareness, is a dualism and therefore belongs to thought, and as such, no matter how well awareness is 'understood' there will always seem as if there is something further to do, and as such it is a self-deconstructing distinction. For the same reason there is really nothing that is intrinsically dualistic; the very same natural lines of cleavage in any experience dissolve into something unspeakable when 'viewed from awareness' - if that last phrase were not an immediate contradiction. It is because the structure is not a structure that it is such a cunningly entrapping structure.