…a series of reactions, maybe, it seems it is just this which I called 'a flow of thought"
Is the flow of thought like an endless field of dominoes tipping over in sequence and only pausing for rest during brief gaps between thoughts and during deep sleep? I am all for thinking, it’s a beautiful thing. But not being able to leave it for more than a brief moment during your waking hours, investing it with the huge amount of power we invest it with, believing it to be magical, capable of reason-defying miracles, it’s in the realm of addiction and delusion, and addiction or delusion of any ilk is dangerous.
Thought manifests through its reactions and responses to the rest of the universe, including the world of nature as well as the world of humanity. But while the universe is a living, moving and changing phenomenon, thought itself is not. In order to be able to react and respond to what it observes and meets in life, thought has to depend on its store of knowledge. This knowledge is terribly limited and often distorted, especially in the field of human inter-relationship. Above all, knowledge is the product of the past. So it has no immediate life or vibrancy within it. Thought therefore is really a form of dead or inert energy. And this form of dead, inert energy is myself also. I am not separate from any of this as a nobler or more refined centre of existence.
We talked earlier of the challenge to meet one another at exactly the same time and in exactly the same place without creating between us different levels of achievement, prestige or status. This means a moment in the endlessly changing universe where there is absolutely no energy of thought. Then you and I and the universe are not three separate centres of energy; but it is all one energy.
To some ears this may sound like a strange and wonderful experience, but it cannot be. It is only the separate centre that operates and thrives on its experiences. This is instead about something else that can never be within the field of experience. It is therefore neither strange nor familiar; it is neither wonderful nor mundane. It is taking place right now until the moment one reacts or resists. Such reactions and resistances are merely the past returning, and thereby hoping to take charge of the present. But the present has already gone.
Thought, in and of itself, can’t do anything any more than a hammer can do something. It is just words, images, concepts, etc., that are used by the brain conditioned to react when awareness doesn’t support the conclusions, assumptions, beliefs that are the brain’s psychological content.
Is thought being used by the brain? Or is the brain being used by thought? Surely, if there is any psychological content in the form of beliefs, it points to the fact that thought is using the brain as some kind of safe space in which to hide itself. It isn’t that the brain is saying, ‘Come and hide away in here and make life miserable.’ The brain is quite neutral in all this, isn’t it?
For this to be true, thought is the equivalent of The Devil, evil incarnate, and we are Christians praying to be delivered from its machinations. If that notion appeals to you more than what Krishnamurti said about thought being mechanical and the brain being conditioned by its psychological content, it explains why you come across as a clergyman.
To think that thought is the culprit, the cause of the human condition, that which must be defeated and controled, is to make the same mistake members of most religions make: that our problem is not our doing, but the doing of something apart from us that must be dealt with. It’s an escape to point to something other than ourselves as the cause of our misery and misbehavior.
But oneself is thought. The brain, the organism, the body - whatever word you find - they are all neutral. But oneself is not neutral. Oneself has ideas, beliefs and opinions which lead to war with another. This is the basis of our mechanical and conditioned existence. Can the human organism - which includes the brain and the rest of the body - function sanely and healthily without the interference of the self?
It can. And then communication between human beings is no longer restricted to the narrow channel of the self. So thought is far from the culprit. Thought is our salvation. As you say, thought is a tool. Quite right. It is the only tool we have. But to believe that there exists a separate entity who is capable of using this tool intelligently is to deny what actually happens among people.
It is only thought that can come to terms with its own mechanical nature. To believe that one exists outside of this mechanism as a separate observer, thinker or controller is to maintain the very mechanical process one is trying to understand.
Why must you pretend to know what you admittedly don’t know? Why pose a question and then answer it when you don’t really know the answer?
If you don’t play with this fairly and lightly, you are still caught up in the field of beliefs. Therefore, you view what I am saying as another set of beliefs, in opposition to yours. But to have beliefs of any kind is a stupid way to deal with these questions. It is a mechanical approach. Whether you believe that I know or don’t know is quite irrelevant. It is what you yourself know about all this that matters. And what you know cannot come from any place except the immediate moment. Therefore knowledge is less important than direct perception of the truth.
And we are saying now that thought is our salvation, not as something we know but as something we see as rather obvious and true.
Before you jump on the statement that thought is our salvation - which may sound rash and foolish - take a little time to work out if there is any other salvation or solution. Because whatever it is you find, thought will be there with you all along, either doing its job or being interfered with out of fear or desperation. Therefore is it possible to allow thought to do its job unimpeded and not be influenced by any element of the self with all its beliefs about salvation?
Thought is our salvation when we are thinking together. When we are thinking together, working together, living together, then life is a joyful movement because we are looking at one another directly. But when we rely on what we already know in order to solve our problems then life becomes a battle for the best position and the strongest argument; and our living together then is impossible because it is beset by judgement and condemnation. Whereas to look at one another directly is to see only oneself. Probably now we have answered our original question.
This may or may not be true. It’s your belief, what you cling to for lack of the silence and stillness of thought that is needed to perceive what is true.
Test it out. Find out if it is true or false. There is no need for any belief. It is only possible to think together when we have established a foundation of immense silence and stillness. We have not done that. So let’s do it now and move from there. Two serious human beings will do it in an instant.
Thanks for the sermon, Father Paul.
Take it how you like. This is an invitation to change. And the invitation remains open, which is much more scary than any sermon.
What is scary about it?
“Step into my parlor” said the spider to the fly.
Do we know what change involves? We don’t, do we? It may be the end of us. Or it may be the beginning of something else. All we have and all we are is mechanical thought, which can only predict a future based on the past. Change therefore implies the ending of thought altogether. This is the invitation. Once one sees that any fear generated by this invitation is also mechanical thought, thought has nowhere else to go. And the cessation of the mechanism is the birth of something else, something quite different; it is life after death.
May I ask you a question? How do you know about this “birth of something else, life after death”?
If we believe that there is life after death, then we are forever denied fearlessness. (this is a great loss, freedom from the known may depend on fearlessness)
If there is no fear of death, no fear of ending, then acceptance of death becomes meaningless.
For us to be liberated from death, death must be real, if not we are not being liberated from anything.
If Jesus knew he was to be resurrected, then he sacrificed nothing more than a long weekend.
Logic and evidence indicates that if something ends then necessarily that thing has ended, which also necessarily means that something else is now in its place.
Everything indicates that this is so. It is never otherwise - it seems (if we accept logic and experience) that it cannot be otherwise.
Aren’t evidence and logic quite different things here, where we talk about our lives and consciousness?
How so? I don’t understand : why are our lives and experiences outside the realm of logic and evidence?
Do you mean that we should consider nonsense and imagination more?
Or are you referring to the fact that we are confused?