On an overnight flight to Europe last night, I thought to myself, “I’m tired.” But as I looked further, I realized that “Thou” can never be tired. Thou cannot have any qualities. It is adjective-less. Thou is the space in which all experience and all possible experiences appear. It itself, however, can never be experienced as something, or as something with qualities.
So what happens when I say, “I’m tired”?
An experience is generated (though not ultimately caused) by the Organism—as all experiences are. The experience is neither good nor bad, nor does it belong to or define anyone. Most commonly, Thou assumes the existence of an “I” to which the experience belongs, thus bringing into existence the Ghost. The Ghost is created by assumption but never exists as an actual entity. Suddenly, what Thou appears to be, is a small, separate entity with the quality of tiredness. Thou has hidden itself from itself.
The Ghost exists and does not exist. Let us begin with how it does not exist. It does not exist in the way we presume it to exist: as the controller of our actions. It does not have any control over the actions of the Organism. It arises because of a belief by Thou that what I am is an entity separate from everything else—I am the agent responsible for my thoughts and actions.
It does exist in that the belief that creates it produces a condition for how we experience life. The belief in there being a controller (the agent or doer as Ramesh says) gives rise to suffering in the forms of various moods, especially guilt, resentment, and anxiety.
Where are these moods? They affect the Organism, altering its perception, cognition, and capacity for action. The experience they generate belongs to Thou, as all experience does. So the Ghost does not exist in the way we believe it to exist, but the belief in its existence creates moods that alter how the Organism moves and how Thou experiences life.
Where does the belief in the Ghost exist? We could say that it also exists in the Organism, inasmuch as it is a form of cognitive content. But it must arise in Thou.
Can Thou let go of the belief? Yes and no. Yes, of course it can, in that the belief arose in Thou. And no, in the sense that Thou does not exercise independent control (the belief that it does is the very one we are discussing getting rid of.) Everything that happens is an expression of Thou, since Thou is the One. Therefore the arising of the belief and its disappearance are expressions of Thou, of the One.
Chris
One of the challenges in conversations about the nature of what we are is the confusion created by the lack of words to distinguish different dimensions of the phenomena “you” or “I.” I share here my first attempt at inventing some distinctions for speaking about these phenomena. I introduce the distinctions by considering the three types of ‘you’ I currently see.
There is the ‘you’ that arises from the belief in having control of your actions. Let us designate this ‘you’ the “Ghost.”
The second ‘you’ is what Ramesh Balsekar calls the body-mind mechanism. This ‘you’—let us designate it the “Organism”—is what life acts through. The Organism performs actions, in the sense of eating, walking, driving, and also, requesting, promising, assessing, etc.
The third ‘you’ is the pure subjectivity in which all experience shows up. Let us designate it, a little poetically perhaps, “Thou.” It is the most difficult to designate because it is not an object and therefore ultimately unnamable.
We at least now have three different designations to enable a level of shared rigor in the conversation, which opens the space for further exploration.
Chris
A dozen of us just completed the twelfth Wa this past weekend. I left with the same sense I have left the other explorations—grateful for the remarkable space it provides for going deeply into life with others. And, once again, I am very clear it is not of my doing. This event, in particular, produced lots of reflections for me about the nature of the “me,” which I share here.
Action happens through the body-mind systems we are. The “me” arises when that-which-we-are believes we are the agents controlling our actions and navigating our pathways through life.
The arising of the “me” alters the moods that the body-mind system is in: with the “me,” guilt, shame, envy, and anxiety all become fairly common moods. These moods in turn, alter the possibilities of perception and action available to the body-mind system. So, the arising of the “me” does alter our possibilities, even though the “me” itself has no direct control over these possibilities.
The “me,” however, does not cause its own arising since it cannot actually cause anything, nor, since it has no causal power, can it cause its own disappearance. The “me” is a product of the belief in the illusion of control. That which believes can also stop believing, which results in the disappearance of the “me” as a source of suffering. The paradox one encounters is that if we are not in control, then we cannot will ourselves to stop believing. In the moment one fully realizes this fact, however, one has disappeared the “me” and the conversation becomes moot.
The moment the belief in control returns—which is a natural, uncaused arising—the “me” is back. At least that’s what happens for me.
Chris