Most of us feel like sometimes, or often, we’re at the mercy of thoughts.
They arise when we don’t want them to, like when we’re trying to silence the mind in meditation. They fail to show up when we need them to, like when we’re trying to remember where we put our reading glasses.
But there’s a basic assumption here that could be mistaken: that the “we” in the two sentences I just wrote isn’t separable from “they” — thoughts. This puts the problem of thoughts in a different perspective. Not as something that happens to us, but is us.
Here’s passages from an interesting chapter about thoughts in Robert Saltzman’s book, Depending on no-thing. The chapter is called “Bombarded by thoughts.” It’s in the form of a question and answer.
Q. Robert, I am wondering about the concept that thought “arises.” In my experience thought feels more like a constant “bombardment” within the space of consciousness.
A: If the flow of thought feels like a bombardment, you may be taking thoughts too personally. They do come and go, after all, flowing like water, not dropping like bombs. What real harm can they do?
Imagine sitting on the bank of a river on a lovely summer’s day, far from the madding crowd. Your feet are bare and you’ve worked your toes into the mud. You breathe deeply, taking in the sweet air redolent with the perfume of a thousand flowers. Birds are singing… But even amidst this wonder, “myself” is still there — in your case feeling bombarded.
From that feeling of vulnerability — the lack of any means of escape from the stream of consciousness that flows uncontrollably — a new thought bubbles up about how to find a method of immunity against what feels like a bombardment. That seems logical but rarely seems to work.
What does work, I have found, is understanding that “myself” — the “me” feeling bombarded — is not separate from, nor more permanent than the thoughts, feelings, and physical experiences that constitute the apparent bombardment.
“Myself” is a thought, no different from the thoughts that in your case feel like a bombardment.
The apparent bombardment and the “myself” supposedly under attack, are part and parcel of the same mind, and it’s all impermanent — the thoughts, the feelings, the physical experiences — all of it. All of it is dying just as it is born — no staying power at all.
This transitoriness, this impermanence, is a plain fact, but one most of us routinely elide. We prefer to feel that the world around me is always changing, but that “I” am unceasingly myself, the same as always, the fantasized changeless “witness” or “presence.”
That illusion of permanence is only smoke and mirrors, but we like the illusion and allow religion, spirituality along with other habits and customs of society, to keep the illusion fresh, because the truth — that we are dying and being reborn in every moment of our lives without ever getting anywhere but closer to personal extinction — can feel intolerable.
“Myself” consists of thoughts and feelings that are never the same from one moment to the next. Don’t take my word for it. Check it out for yourself. Noticing this ceaseless, ever-changing flow does not require years of meditation. A few moments of sincere investigation reveal it.
If one is frightened by impermanence and sees that perceptions, thoughts, and feelings have no staying power, one may rely on the physical body — which is changing too, but much more slowly than perceptions, thoughts, and feelings — as a kind of anchor to affirm one’s existence as a “person.”
In that view, “I” is a name, a physical form, and the autobiography of that form. Although the autobiography is constructed of thoughts, and although we know that thoughts are impermanent, we ignore that information and imagine a permanent, persistent “myself” who has thoughts.
That tactic of splitting, of creating an artificial separation between thought and thinker, is part of the lie. Thoughts are not had by “myself” — they are “myself.” Those thoughts, along with perceptions, feelings, the body, and the awareness of all that, comprise one seamless happening that cannot be separated into thoughts and a “haver” of thoughts.
The separate “myself” that has thoughts is a ghost in the machine, a lie.
That lie is repeated unconsciously, over and over and over again. And each reiteration adds to the creation and maintenance of a self-image. There are two self-images actually: the one I hang around my own neck but hide from others, and the one I burnish and refine to show the world.
Most of understand that the public self-image is a lie — perhaps one we need to survive in this cruel world. (“It’s showtime, folks”) — but far fewer see that the private self-image is not less a lie. If we have an instant of awareness without that lie — a time when, as Toni Packer put it, “There’s a moment of no sense of ‘me'” — in that moment, we are free. There is nothing to live up to, nothing to maintain, nothing to do.
In that moment, something dies, yet it is not “myself” that dies, but only the false images of myself.
…This dying to self-images — the frames one has hung around one’s own neck — can at times feel fearsome or poignantly sad, but that’s where all the beauty is too. We never really have a proper eye for ourselves, our loved ones, or this astounding world of ours, until we embrace our oft-hidden understanding that none of it lasts.
The “myself-image” that once felt so firm and lasting, falls apart, leaving a kind of emptiness in its wake.
…When Toni says, “There is just a vulnerable being exposed, alone, without knowing, without a word,” I find myself in accord entirely. That’s just how this feels. And I like the way she puts it. It’s firm but gentle — the way we best treat ourselves, I say.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The one witnessing thoughts is not the thoughts. Thoughts come and go, but in a moment’s stillness the witness remains, and except for the impact of thoughts, is the same. The witness watches the show, and the more they do so in peace the more persistent the witness becomes. They don’t lose themselves in the momentary thought anymore, they enjoy it, as they realize they are simply a witness and not actually any part of what they witness. They are not the world, they are not the physical body, they are not even the thoughts. And this they discover with greater clarity and depth as they gain that Zen state of greater calm and peaceful observation. Then the world doesn’t impact them so much. Then emotions are not so intrusive. And this makes clear they are not these attachments, these things, the passing show.
The questioner was right. The answer given was in error.
On reading the first two paragraphs that Brian wrote here, l thought who is this ‘we’? Then l read on and the third paragraph clarified the issue.
Saltzman’s chat that followed just served to further clarify the point that there is no we, no l that does anything. Thoughts, actions etc., all manifest automatically, or rather, from whatever information the particular organism has been programmed with – either through genes or culture.
The main obstacles that prevents realizing this is the strong instinct to protect and maintain the physical organism that poses as me, as who l am – or who l seem to be. This instinct has now largely been usurped by the ego, which comprises thoughts, opinions and beliefs that serve to maintain the illusory sense of being me.
When the anchor doesn’t move at all despite the raging storm, despite the howling winds when all of nature has been uprooted and flying recklessly around you, untethered. That anchor, right there, there is your true place hidden, invisible but unmoveable, the very foundation, the implaccable witness that always looks, deeply within the center. You. No it’s not another thought at all. It’s far deeper within, without words or thought. It is beyond thought. That is where you belong and what you truly are, and so easy to enjoy just being there by letting go all else.
Nevermind the frog in your pocket 😯
@ Spence T.
>> That is where you belong and what you truly are, and so easy to enjoy just being there by letting go all else.<<
Hahaha ….
Many are called but few are chosen .. for those that were chosen it is indeed easy … hahahaha
It reminds me of that wonderful tale that Prof. B. would relate sitting next to the late MCS about a worm, trying to lay his hands on the golden apple, he had HEARD of was to be found in a high tree.
Whatever he tried it all failed and exhausted, the eagle came and offered his help …. hahahaha … taking the poor worm is his beack …hahaha .. imagine how scarefull …or ..offering him to grab him with is paws …haahaha ..
But most funny was that MCS had the professor say that the eeagle does not understand what the problem of the worm is … after all the eagle is not interested in the worm, nor in the apple and reachting the top of the ree is also not of any interest … hahahaha ..I can dance from joy writing down these memories … hahaha
Compared to him … you appear to me a snake oil seller … hahaha
Well versed
Hi Um:
You wrote:
“But most funny was that MCS had the professor say that the eeagle does not understand what the problem of the worm is … after all the eagle is not interested in the worm, nor in the apple and reachting the top of the ree is also not of any interest … hahahaha ..I can dance from joy writing down these memories … hahaha
Compared to him … you appear to me a snake oil seller … hahaha”
But you are neither eagle nor worm. Where compassion lives, all lives do matter. These roles of eagle, worm and snake oil seller, these are only roles handed out, assigned. Or in your assignment, in your mind. You could fly, letting those go, if you were not tied to the snake oil seller and the mystic. One is equal to the other, in the place beyond their roles. Beyond the necessity of discrimination.
That’s what MCS taught. He said that not everyone could be at the bottom, in the foundation. Some bricks had to be at the top, others at the middle. They had their destiny out here. Not everyone could enjoy, nor understand the foundation beneath these. Not everyone even wants to be there at the bottom.
An initiate asked Baba Ji “I’m having difficulty accepting you as my teacher.”
And he replied, “Ok. Can you accept me as your servant?”
At the bottom, even below the bottom, where identities don’t exist.
MCS said “I would rather not be up here. If it were up to me I’d be right there in the audience with you all.”
At the bottom, Um, even below the bottom, not the top looking down at or laughing at anyone. That’s a very time-limited and precarious place to be.
Join me at the bottom, underneath, within and beyond even discrimination and judgement.
The worm may not want light, may run to darkness in fear of the eagle. But light is still there. Light is constant.
Toni Packer –
Starting from not knowing who or what we are –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjucWg7Sk5E
@Um
Never healed of TP. Nice.
Alex .. where stands the abbreviation TP for??
Tony Packer
@ Spencer T.
What do snake oil sellers do?
They use words to sell a message, a message that people can believe to be true.
You are wel versed in using words.
But Spence … I am more or less insensitive to the conceptual use of words … it has always been that way with me.
There is that saying … the tone makes the music
and
there is a difference between solfège and playing from the heart.
It is energetic
@ Alex
Thank you.
Yesterday I read her name for the first time => googled => looked at one of the first video’s that came by => put the link in here.
Tried another video of her in a conversation with Joan Tollifson as that name is often used here and by the different writers like Saltzman.
To be honest I could not stand her body language longer than 5 minutes and stopped the video.
So it is just curiosity on my part and informing myself about what is at stake here.
So that said … what “disease” do I have i should heal of???
@Um
Yeah. She talks with her eyes closed. I did the same and clicked on the Joan video.
What disease?
@ Alex
I misunderstood your words I guess .. you wrote about yourself I realized later … my english is not perfect
@ Alex
By the way:
Although I can agree with many things said by Mrs Packer and Mr. Saltzman, I can’t escape the intuitive notion that there is something “wrong” with their overall message but I fail to put my finger behind it for the moment.
They started out with finding a “solution” for themselves and ended up generalising it in public
@Um
Maybe the “wrong” is something you’ve touched upon in a previous post. Something finds them. Something that can’t be passed on or fomulated. Yet they talk on and on about it.