Power of Now: Elimination of thought
May. 18th, 2006 01:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danaerisI have a lot of trouble with many of the premises on which this author works. He seems relatively oblivious to the hard physical facts of science, and makes gross generalizations, attributing all emotional and mental suffering to cognitive factors, and making bizarre statements about humanity's fall from grace.
Setting all that aside, though, or perhaps taking a big grain of salt, he does have some interesting points. And, I try to remember, this is just another paradigm. If I throw out 95% of it, there should hopefully still be SOME value with which to walk away.
Regardless, I present to you some of my thoughts (ha!) on the book. Currently, I am on page 43 of 229.
Elimination of thought
He keeps on talking about eliminating thought, and how thought is evil and bad, and identifying with thought is the one true source of pain. There are a number of concerns I have about this concept which he has not addressed, but I'm only partway into the book, so I suppose I should give him a chance to further explain himself.
I have trouble with his semantics. So far as I can tell, he has defined "thinking" very differently than I would.
However, let me see if I can say what he is saying, so far, in my own words, cutting out the crap.
The thought before the thought
Before a thought is fully formed, before I am fully conscious of it as a verbal or visual or _____ expression within my mind, there is another thought. A pre-thought, if you will. I could get romantic and describe this as a more primal place, something that existed before we developed verbally as a species. But that would be pure speculation, the very sort of thing I find annoying in this author.
Anyhow, if you don't know what I'm talking about, try to quiet the inner monologue. Try to think about things without talking about them inside your head. It's hard; it's like learning not to use an injured limb whilst it heals... you keep on trying to use it and catching yourself too late. All the same, try.
Now, if you asked me, this too is a thought. In fact, while I may acknowledge that there are different KINDS of thought, to me, any expression of awareness where you register difference, change, an observation... any of these are a form of thought. So far as I can tell, however, the author would not agree. He seems to identify only the entrenched thought, verbal, emotional, visual, auditory, as thought. This pre-verbal thought I describe, he attributes to Being, to enlightenment. It is not thought; it is simply Being, and through it, we are connected to everything we are and everything that is.
Thought in time
Being, as he describes it, exists only in the present. Hence, the title of the book: The Power of Now. Thought (used henceforth as he defines it) exists in the past and future, and virtually ignores the present. This, he asserts, is the cause of pain.
As far as that goes, I can agree with him. To see in everything now the painful past (rather than to simply acknowledge that a repeat of the past is possible, and be alert for a reoccurence), or the painful past projected onto the unknown future, is a horrible way to exist -- and it is certainly the way we often do exist.
There is a reason why in the Feri Tradition (and likely in others) we often begin rituals by asserting forcefully to ourselves, "Be here now." We are trying to pull ourselves into the moment, to stop thinking about the past, or the future. We are trying to be experiential, rather than constantly remembering or predicting or judging.
Nonetheless, I am uncertain how I feel about the assertion that all verbal thought MUST by its nature be in the past or future, and not present. Is this truly so? I need to think about this more. No joke intended.
Watching your thoughts
He advocates that, rather than identify with your thoughts, you observe them without thinking any further, without judging, etc.
I find this interesting because this is, to a certain extent, a technique I have used to great effect.
My usual paradigm, discussed for the next few paragraphs/lists:
There are emotions, and thoughts. Physical factors such as sleep deprivation or neurochemistry can trigger emotions, which can trigger thoughts. Alternatively, thoughts can trigger emotions. And events can trigger either.
Negative emotional experiences are generally caused by four things in some kind of combination:
-physical factors such as neurochemistry
-crappy, stressful events
-unfortunate programming from past experiences which promote an unhealthy, paranoid, fearful or otherwise problematic outlook -- kind of like seeing everything through the opposite of rose-coloured glasses
-falling into negative thought patterns which could have been avoided through better awareness and vigilance
->The first can be assisted by proper sleep, proper eating, the right amounts of physical affection and love making, plenty of exercise, and a reliable routine that establishes a steady biorhythm, as well as more extreme solutions such as medications. Still, medications are not perfect, and sometimes it is hard to take care of oneself
->The second can be assisted by properly managing your life, thus minimizing the drama and emergencies that crop up. Still, shit happens.
->The third and fourth can only be assisted through awareness, vigilance, and an effort to watch yourself and be aware of your thought patterns.
(still talking about MY paradigm here) When I become aware that I am being affected by the third or fourth factor in some way, I step back and observe myself. Here, the author of the Power of Now would be telling me that I should simply observe and accept that this is happening. But instead, what I have been doing is attempting to understand. WHY do I have this programming? WHY is this situation triggering this programming? WHY do I have this negative thought pattern, and ultimately, what can I do to eradicate all of these unfortunate tendencies?
The author would likely chastise me for this. By thinking, I have simply identified myself with a different thought pattern, rather then disengaging myself from thought patterns entirely, becoming, simply, myself.
To that, I'm not sure what to say. He occasionally acknowledges that he is not advocating the absence of thought, but rather our tendency to default to thought, and to identify ourselves as BEING that thought, rather than as simply being. But I have so far seen no guidance in the book as to when we should simply exist and passively accept all that is, and when we should think and act. And that really troubles me.
Phew. That was a lot. Philosophical thoughts welcome.
Setting all that aside, though, or perhaps taking a big grain of salt, he does have some interesting points. And, I try to remember, this is just another paradigm. If I throw out 95% of it, there should hopefully still be SOME value with which to walk away.
Regardless, I present to you some of my thoughts (ha!) on the book. Currently, I am on page 43 of 229.
Elimination of thought
He keeps on talking about eliminating thought, and how thought is evil and bad, and identifying with thought is the one true source of pain. There are a number of concerns I have about this concept which he has not addressed, but I'm only partway into the book, so I suppose I should give him a chance to further explain himself.
I have trouble with his semantics. So far as I can tell, he has defined "thinking" very differently than I would.
However, let me see if I can say what he is saying, so far, in my own words, cutting out the crap.
The thought before the thought
Before a thought is fully formed, before I am fully conscious of it as a verbal or visual or _____ expression within my mind, there is another thought. A pre-thought, if you will. I could get romantic and describe this as a more primal place, something that existed before we developed verbally as a species. But that would be pure speculation, the very sort of thing I find annoying in this author.
Anyhow, if you don't know what I'm talking about, try to quiet the inner monologue. Try to think about things without talking about them inside your head. It's hard; it's like learning not to use an injured limb whilst it heals... you keep on trying to use it and catching yourself too late. All the same, try.
Now, if you asked me, this too is a thought. In fact, while I may acknowledge that there are different KINDS of thought, to me, any expression of awareness where you register difference, change, an observation... any of these are a form of thought. So far as I can tell, however, the author would not agree. He seems to identify only the entrenched thought, verbal, emotional, visual, auditory, as thought. This pre-verbal thought I describe, he attributes to Being, to enlightenment. It is not thought; it is simply Being, and through it, we are connected to everything we are and everything that is.
Thought in time
Being, as he describes it, exists only in the present. Hence, the title of the book: The Power of Now. Thought (used henceforth as he defines it) exists in the past and future, and virtually ignores the present. This, he asserts, is the cause of pain.
As far as that goes, I can agree with him. To see in everything now the painful past (rather than to simply acknowledge that a repeat of the past is possible, and be alert for a reoccurence), or the painful past projected onto the unknown future, is a horrible way to exist -- and it is certainly the way we often do exist.
There is a reason why in the Feri Tradition (and likely in others) we often begin rituals by asserting forcefully to ourselves, "Be here now." We are trying to pull ourselves into the moment, to stop thinking about the past, or the future. We are trying to be experiential, rather than constantly remembering or predicting or judging.
Nonetheless, I am uncertain how I feel about the assertion that all verbal thought MUST by its nature be in the past or future, and not present. Is this truly so? I need to think about this more. No joke intended.
Watching your thoughts
He advocates that, rather than identify with your thoughts, you observe them without thinking any further, without judging, etc.
I find this interesting because this is, to a certain extent, a technique I have used to great effect.
My usual paradigm, discussed for the next few paragraphs/lists:
There are emotions, and thoughts. Physical factors such as sleep deprivation or neurochemistry can trigger emotions, which can trigger thoughts. Alternatively, thoughts can trigger emotions. And events can trigger either.
Negative emotional experiences are generally caused by four things in some kind of combination:
-physical factors such as neurochemistry
-crappy, stressful events
-unfortunate programming from past experiences which promote an unhealthy, paranoid, fearful or otherwise problematic outlook -- kind of like seeing everything through the opposite of rose-coloured glasses
-falling into negative thought patterns which could have been avoided through better awareness and vigilance
->The first can be assisted by proper sleep, proper eating, the right amounts of physical affection and love making, plenty of exercise, and a reliable routine that establishes a steady biorhythm, as well as more extreme solutions such as medications. Still, medications are not perfect, and sometimes it is hard to take care of oneself
->The second can be assisted by properly managing your life, thus minimizing the drama and emergencies that crop up. Still, shit happens.
->The third and fourth can only be assisted through awareness, vigilance, and an effort to watch yourself and be aware of your thought patterns.
(still talking about MY paradigm here) When I become aware that I am being affected by the third or fourth factor in some way, I step back and observe myself. Here, the author of the Power of Now would be telling me that I should simply observe and accept that this is happening. But instead, what I have been doing is attempting to understand. WHY do I have this programming? WHY is this situation triggering this programming? WHY do I have this negative thought pattern, and ultimately, what can I do to eradicate all of these unfortunate tendencies?
The author would likely chastise me for this. By thinking, I have simply identified myself with a different thought pattern, rather then disengaging myself from thought patterns entirely, becoming, simply, myself.
To that, I'm not sure what to say. He occasionally acknowledges that he is not advocating the absence of thought, but rather our tendency to default to thought, and to identify ourselves as BEING that thought, rather than as simply being. But I have so far seen no guidance in the book as to when we should simply exist and passively accept all that is, and when we should think and act. And that really troubles me.
Phew. That was a lot. Philosophical thoughts welcome.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 07:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 07:56 pm (UTC)Be in the now, past and future and time itself is a desructive (as is all reality) illusion, shed those illusions and you shed pain.
That or Taggart and his theories of "no time".
It sounds like it could be useful, but in moderation.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 08:23 pm (UTC)When I think about politics, I get upset, and usually to no good purpose.
So I choose to avoid thinking about politics most of the time, except for the occasional "can I think of anything useful to do here?" check. That mental action was based on both thoughts and desires, and leads to thoughts (or avoidance of certain ones) and those lead to emotions, which lead to other thoughts, on and on in endless feedback.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 08:27 pm (UTC)I have had enough experiences to know that stopping thinking and just being can be good on occasion, but to me it's kind of like a reset button. You want to push it, then get back to what you were doing, not hold the button down indefinitely.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-19 09:47 am (UTC)well, yes. this is almost exactly the "goal" in buddhism and hinduism.
this is one major difference between western religions (primarily judaism, christianity, islam) and eastern ones (primarily hinduism, buddhism, taoism).
in western religions, non-existence is taken as a default state and existence is looked at as a blessing bestowed upon us by that which gifted us with it. our goal is to exist as long as possible and to spend that time joyously serving that greater power.
in eastern religions, existence is taken as a default state (arguably, since hinduism does have sorts of creation myths, but they do revolve around a reincarnating universe). as the sort of "base state" which all things have, existence is seen as something to rise above, something painful to be overcome. death simply brings one back in a different form for more suffering and painful experience, one hopes for an end to the suffering and so an end to the self.
also, as i understand it, the "goal" of attaining enlightenment here isn't the state one achieves while still alive, but that an enlightened individual does not reincarnate after death.
in my mind, this difference in underpinnings here is one of the reasons that christianity has never really taken hold in china.
in any case, whether nonbeing and ego-lessness is desirable or undesirable to you is something you can deal with on your own, there are many people who fall into each camp.
personally, i would find eternal life torture, whether it's on our earth or in some "afterlife"-type existence. of course, since i don't believe in reincarnation or an afterlife, i can simply wait out my life before dissolving into nonexperiential void.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-19 09:32 am (UTC)that said, i tend to disagree with the author on several points. my default mental state seems to be a constant pre-thought; thoughts of mine rarely make it to a "verbalized" state while still inside my mind. in this vein, i can also say that thought is one of the things that has allowed me to lessen pain on many occasions. one can use thought to influence other pre-thought, aiding in changing one's perceptions and emotions.
i think that the author has interpreted the idea of "suffering" in buddhism as one of mental pain, while i doubt it is actually intended this way in buddhist teaching. buddhism teaches that unattached, ego-less compassion leads to a cessation of suffering. i do not think this means a lack of pain, rather that one feels and accepts pain, but neither suffers from nor revels in it.
i think reflexive thought can be very helpful. one can analyze and alter one's thought patterns, creating a more positive style of thinking and possibly improving one's moods and emotional outlook as a result. this does not conflict with some of what you report from the book - one can examine, judge and alter one's thoughts without identifying one's thoughts with one's self - but it does appear to conflict with the view that one should observe one's thoughts without further thought ot judgement.
i also tend to agree with your wording, that the formless "pre-thought" still qualifies as thought.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-19 11:19 am (UTC)