The Thought That Rules Them All
El pensamiento que los gobierna a todos
A question about catching thoughts before they arise leads into a discussion of identification, the contentless "I am," and the distinction between phenomenal experience and that which knows experience.
The Thought That Rules Them All
A question about catching thoughts before they arise leads into a discussion of identification, the contentless "I am," and the distinction between phenomenal experience and that which knows experience.
After a while, we probably will be able to catch our thoughts before they happen.
Let me adjust your words a little to make the statement true. I would say you will be able to catch the identification before it happens. The thought isn't the problem. My teacher used to say: the heart pumps blood, the mind pumps thoughts. The only way to stop thought is to not have a mind, and I don't recommend that. The problem isn't having thoughts; it's believing them.
The one thought that rules them all
And, like the Lord of the Rings, there is one thought that rules them all. It is the thought "I am," followed by something after that. The knowing of the "I" as something is the thought that rules them all. One of the things we want to arrive at is recognizing the "I am" that has no content. When "I am" is just "I am," "I am that I am," it has no content. It's not a body. It's not a mind. It's not experiential.
I think you had a sixth or seventh sense that I was about to ask you that question. "I am that I am." So is that about something other than just living the concept? Not just concept, but really knowing it, sensing it, feeling it? And you're saying it's beyond experience?
It has qualities. I often use the word beingness as a way to point at it. These are not my own words, but some I resonate with more, so I use them more. Beingness is one I resonate with. You could also say consciousness, but for some reason I personally find that "consciousness" can still create a sense of an object, as though there is this subtle thing that is consciousness. That's very personal, though. Consciousness might be the right word for somebody, and beingness the wrong one. These are just words.
Pointing at reality
Another way I like to point to it is knowing. I also like a definition of consciousness by Francis Lucille. He says: "The reality that is hearing these words right now." So it is the reality, that which is real. And then there is a distinction between reality and illusion. This comes from Sanskrit, where they have a different sense of reality and illusion compared to Western philosophy. The difference is that illusion is that which comes and goes, and reality is that which doesn't.
Why did you say it's not experience? So many teachers, when they mention knowing, always talk about direct experience.
It's somewhat semantic, because I could also use the phrase "the experience of it." What I am referring to specifically is phenomenological experience, and I need to become a little technical to be precise. By phenomenological experience I mean anything that has content. Thoughts, sensations, perceptions: these are all content.
What knows content cannot be content
What I am talking about is that which is prior to content, or that which knows content. What knows content cannot itself be content. What is prior to content cannot depend on content. And that can be known directly. Osho called it "the zero experience": the experience without experience. You have to juggle words to point at it. You could get very technical and speak about phenomena and the noumenal and the phenomenological, going deep into philosophy, and that can be very valuable depending on the person. But to say it more simply: it is the experience without content, the zero experience, the experience without experience. It can be known directly, and ultimately it has to be known directly.
A natural uncovering
All of this, in a sense, is meant to slowly debunk what appears to be real but is not, so that you are left with what is real. That will happen naturally, and it will depend on how much there is a genuine wanting to know. Because ultimately we are free. We can want to know the experience without experience, or we can want to not know it, choosing instead to always remain in the experience of that which comes and goes. That experience will have a certain intensity, a certain flavor, one that you cannot have if you know the experience without experience. So there is a bit of a choice.
Would you have to give it a name? Would you say that we are the field?
Thoughts are that which can be believed. You can't believe anything other than a thought.