" What all you can say about thought is what you have gathered from other sources" ~ UG

     

    In this audio clip (scroll down to the bottom), UG is laser-focused on the fuzzy topic of 'thought'. 

    What sets us apart from animals is the dominance of 'information' or 'knowledge' in each and every aspect of our daily life. Information is to social life as oxygen is to the biological life. Information is the backbone of our complex society. Take away information, there is nothing more to society, nothing more to culture.  

    In humans, information or knowledge is a matter of inheritance. It is what is passed on from generation to generation (referred to as the 'world mind' by UG). The cognitive apparatus (the hardware) that processes the information (the software) is built into our biology. Many sophisticated cortical and subcortical networks and modules are part of the cognitive apparatus. And the information gets downloaded and installed through societal programs like cultural conditioning, education, indoctrination etc. 

    In the world of computers, information is organized and processed in basic units of data called 'bits' (short for 'binary digits' - '1' or '0'). Similarly in humans 'thought' could be considered as the basic 'unit of information'. Of course, 'thought' is much more complex and sophisticated than mere 1's and 0's, it can take on a myriad forms including sound, taste, smell, touch, word, image etc. 

    All our thoughts or 'information units' are filtered, refined, categorized, assembled and reassembled into complex structures, into what we refer to as 'knowledge'. The accumulated or cumulative human knowledge over centuries upon centuries is simply inexhaustible. Knowledge fills and spills out from the world's libraries and in today's world, it floods the digital space or the internet.  

    In short, we humans are able to function or transact in the cultural environment thanks to the currency of 'thought', the primary medium of 'information exchange'. No wonder, our investment and belief in 'thought' is very deeply entrenched. In fact, every aspect of our mental life is just the play-acting of 'thought'.  

    To further get a handle on 'thought' and its nature, let us consider one of its most common avatars, the aspect of 'time'. 

    'Time' is nothing but a facet of thought. Unlike a sundial or clock that keeps track of 'calendar time', the 'psychological time' is 'experiential time', a subjective phenomenon. Unlike the mechanical clock, the psychological clock runs per vagaries of thoughts. Yes, 'thought' as pleasure or pain can impact the duration of an experience by either stretching or shortening the psychological 'time'. 

   " Thought is time, thought is space " ~ UG 

    'Thought' plays the record keeper. It is nothing but the memory or record or knowledge of events, of happenings and experiences. Thought has invented 'time' to 'bookmark', or sequence, or keep track of the 'flow of events'. Every experience, every event gets 'bookmarked' or 'timestamped' birthing an imaginary timeline turning 'thought' into a timekeeper. 

    We refer to thought as the 'past' when we invoke memory. Similarly, when we use memory to plan or achieve something ahead, we refer to it as the 'future'. 

    The flow of events alongside bookmarks makes for a narrative or biography. The 'autobiographical self' is nothing but a record of events or experiences of a lifetime replete with bookmarks or timestamps. 

    UG highlights that it is actually the flow of thoughts or the 'movement of knowledge' that fakes the 'I' or the 'self', yet another mischief of 'thought'.

    " The 'self' or 'I' is nothing but 'the movement of knowledge " ~UG

    For UG, the 'I' is just an illusion, a conjecture that 'appears' or 'pops up' whenever there is 'flow of thoughts' or 'churning of knowledge'. In other words, whenever there is a cognitive demand, say, we want to find out the cheapest available flight, knowledge is set into motion ('thinking') and the illusion of the 'I' ('thinker') just pops up. It is actually a deceptive sideshow, not very different from the illusion of cinema where fictional characters, the likes of Tom & Jerry or Mickey Mouse or Charlie Chaplin come alive in the rapid motion of still images. 

    All that we ever know (our knowledge) is essentially the objectification of our experiences or learnings or events. Thought is the primary 'objectification tool' that captures all phenomena for the purposes of storage and retrieval. This is how knowledge enables us to function sanely and intelligently in society. 

    Thought is responsible for all the knowledge that we have gathered. Ironically, we have also amassed plenty of knowledge about 'thought' itself - the various aspects and definitions about thought given by philosophers and scientists etc. In other words, what we know about 'thought' is what we have gathered from others, from various sources. 

    In this audio clip, UG explicates that whenever we refer to 'experience' or 'knowledge' all that we are referring to is only about 'thought'. All our ideas or concepts are merely the permutations and combinations of thoughts. Fundamentally and essentially, there is nothing there apart from 'thought'. 

    " But when you want to look at thought, what is there is only 'what all you know about thought'.

    Otherwise, you can't look at thought. There is no 'thought' other than what is there, what you know (or your knowledge) about thought. This is all that I am saying. " ~ UG

   Thought is the only 'tool of inquiry' or the only 'instrument' we have. This limitation puts us in an awkward situation where we fail to see the absurdity and futility of 'deploying thought to know about thought'. We endlessly indulge in this frivolous mind game as long as we continue our pursuit or inquiry into thought.

   "So, if somebody asks a question, what is thought? Any answer you have is the answer that is put in there, the answers that others have given. And you have, by combinations and permutations of those ideations and meditations about thoughts, created your own thoughts, which you call your own.

    So, just like you see mixing up different colors, you create I don't know how many thousands of pastel colors we have. Basically, all of them can be reduced to only seven colors that you find in nature." ~ UG

    To conclude, here is a great quote from Mahesh Bhatt's book, the Taste of Death,

" Thinking is a poor alternative to acting. Your thinking is consuming all your energy. Act, don't think! " ~ UG

   Yes, thinking about 'thought' is self-abuse and a sheer waste of energy.

    ****  

    

Audio Clip

Audio Transcription

We are all the time talking about thought and thinking.

And if somebody asks you a question, which I am asking you a question, what is thought?

Have you ever looked at thought? Let alone controlling thought, let alone manipulating thought, let alone using that thought or achieving something - material or otherwise, you cannot look at your thought because you can't separate yourself from thought and look at it.

The illusion that you have is, the knowledge you have about thought, that is all that is there. There is no thought independent (of), apart from the knowledge you have about those thoughts, the definitions you have.

So, if somebody asks a question, what is thought? Any answer you have is the answer that is put in there, the answers that others have given. And you have, by combinations and permutations of those ideations and meditations about thoughts, created your own thoughts, which you call your own.

So just like you see mixing up different colors, you create I don't know how many thousands of pastel colors we have. Basically, all of them can be reduced to only seven colors that you find in nature.

So even the seven colors you see, they are not actually seven. Anyway, I don't want to go into that whole color scheme in nature and all that.

So, what you think you see is yours, is the combination and permutation of all those thoughts. Just the way you have created hundreds and hundreds of pastel colors, you have created your own ideas. That is what you call thinking.

    But when you want to look at thought, what is there is only what all you know about thought.

    Otherwise, you can't look at thought. There is no thought other than what is there, what you know (or your knowledge) about thought. This is all that I am saying.

So, when that is understood, you see the meaninglessness of the whole business of wanting to look at thought comes to an end. Because it is not possible. What is there is only what you know, the definitions given by others.

And out of those definitions, if you are very intelligent and clever enough, create your own definitions. That's all.

It is like any other object you have around you, there are so many objects. So when you look at it, you see the knowledge you have about that comes into your head.

So, there is an illusion that the thought is something different.

So, it is you that create the object. The object may be there, but the knowledge you have about that object is all that you know.

Apart from that knowledge and independent of that knowledge, free from that knowledge, you have no way of knowing anything about it. You have no way of directly experiencing anything.

We started with that. When I use the word directly does not mean that there is any other way of experiencing things.

That's the wrong word. Directly implies that there is some other way of experiencing things directly other than the way you are experiencing things.

So, the knowledge you have about it is all that is there, and that is what you are experiencing. Really, you don't know what it is.

In exactly the same way, when you want to know something about thought, experience thought, it is the same process that is in operation.

There is no ‘inside’ and ‘outside’. What is there is only the operation, the ‘flow of the knowledge’.

So, you cannot actually separate yourself from thought and look at it. So, when once such a question is thrown at you, what should happen is that giving all the answers has no meaning because all that is acquired thought. So that movement stops.

So, there is no need for you to answer the question. There is no need for you to know anything about it.

So, all that you know comes to a halt. Not literally. So, it has no momentum anymore. It slows down.

So, then it dawns upon you the meaninglessness of trying to answer that question, because it has really no answer at all. The answers that others have given are there.

So, you have nothing to say on that thing called thought, because what
all you can say (about thought) is what you have gathered from other sources, so you have no answer of your own.

" Mankind' is an extension of yourself. " ~ UG

    In this penetrating discussion (scroll down for the audio clip), UG lambasts our deep-rooted notion or belief in the 'collective' dismissing it as a mere abstraction, a 'mental construct'. 

    A 'collective' mentioned in this context could be a group or club or community or society, or statehood or nationhood, or even the all-encompassing 'idea' of mankind. 

    A 'collective', essentially, is a well-knit group of individuals sharing some common ideology or a set of goals or beliefs or values that bonds them together emotionally. The collective borrows its reality, solidity, legitimacy and identity through solidarity or allegiance and regular interaction of its members. Minus ideology or adherents, there will be no form or substance for a collective and it falls apart. 

    Then why is the idea of 'mankind' so important, so central to the social discourse or cultural narrative? 

    UG readily supplies the answer,

    "It (mankind) is the projection of your own demand for permanence. 

(But) there is no such thing as permanence at all. That's all that I'm pointing out." 

    We feel a deep sense of emptiness, inadequacy and uncertainty within and seek permanence externally in any form of 'collective' or 'community'. Here, culture or tradition plays a huge role in creating, promoting and facilitating the social environment for 'empty' individuals to come together and experience a sense of belonging or fulfilment.

    Interestingly, culture, to a great extent, is similar to the 'immortal gene' (made famous by Richard Dawkins) that exhibits tremendous 'staying power'. We know that the human gene (homo erectus) has continued to survive over the past two million years through reproduction and replication. 

    The 'selfish gene' achieves its 'immortality' by actively reproducing a host or vehicle or carrier for its own survival and continuity (" The body is immortal" ~ UG)

    Also, the gene cannot survive alone, it needs an environment or a 'collective' for its own maintenance and sustenance. The body or the host forms that 'collective'. Not only does the gene get reproduced but it is also replicated into as many copies as there are cells in the host. That's about thirty-six trillion copies in case of humans. (Source: How many cells are there in the human body? | New Scientist)

    Culture, just like the gene, propagates itself and survives through 'reproduction' and 'replication' in its psychological form as the 'social self'.   

    Culture engineers the 'social self' through a plethora of social algorithms including norms, beliefs, rituals, values, memes etc. and propagates itself through entire generations. Culture as the 'collective' then propagates itself through its votaries or proponents or adherents, all various avatars of the 'social self'. 

    As much as the culture needs the individual to play the host by being a believer or adherent, the individual too thirsts for the 'collective' or the social environment to escape being an 'island'. This is the meeting (mating) point of culture and the individual. The 'social self' is birthed when the individual is culturally programmed or indoctrinated. 

    The 'social self' is therefore nothing but the product of culture and is its replica or a copy. Much like the gene, culture makes multiple copies of the 'social self' by recruiting more and more followers or believers or members into its orbit.

    Humans come and go, physical bodies get recycled over and over, but the 'gene' as well as the 'meme' (culture) continue to survive and thrive, physically and culturally propagating through the progeny.

    Interestingly, UG explicates the mechanism of cultural indoctrination through what he calls, the 'world mind'. World mind or culture is the sum total of human 'knowledge and experience' accumulated over the centuries. Each of us siphon off our lot from this cumulative knowledge sourced from either parents or society or university or books or speeches. Yes, there is no escape from culture as long as we stay invested in society. All our thoughts are rooted in culture or the 'world mind'.

    'There is nothing about 'you' that is original' ~ UG. 

    Culture is therefore a psychological superimposition mandated upon us by the social environment. That I am an Indian or American or Russian or Chinese is very deep rooted and firmly entrenched. Through conditioning, culture ensures that we subscribe to a certain ideology that ties us to the collective or community. 

    Collective or culture is thus a 'social necessity' and the key ingredient of survival of the 'social self'. 

    For UG, we human entities are a wonderful expression of life endowed with extraordinary intelligence unparallelled in nature. He clearly draws a line between what is natural and what is artificial or cultural, 

    " Only thing that is valid and living there you see, (is) the 'natural anger' and 'lust' that is essential for the survival of the mechanism. 

    Those are the two things ('natural anger' and lust) that are there, that are part of the biological functioning of the living organism." ~ UG

    The primal emotions of anger, lust etc.  are genetically ingrained in the limbic or reptilian architecture of our brain. These primitive structures and their associated neural mechanisms are meticulously hardwired and integrated into our biology over millions and millions of years. They are put in place to ensure the survival and replication of the organism.  

    UG is careful here in his choice of words. He is talking of 'natural anger' that is physical or visceral as opposed to the 'psychological anger' rooted in thinking. Getting angry when someone slaps is different from getting angry when we lose money. 

    Similarly, physical fears or phobias are natural and associated with our physical survival - fear of fire, or fear of heights etc. while our psychological fears are rooted in thinking, ex. the fear of the unknown, fear of death, fear of disease, fear of betrayal etc. 

    Finally, 'lust' is natural but 'pleasure' or 'want' is artificial or psychological.

    UG highlights that all psychological angers or fears or wants are a superimposition on what is natural,

    " Everything else is superimposed on them (natural anger, lust etc). The greed, the jealousy, the envy, the whole 'cultural nonsense'. All the human values are imposed on them. They have not touched anything 'there' (the original, primordial or natural state)" ~ UG  

    By birth we are biological entities, through culture we become psychological beasts. UG sums it up beautifully,

    There is such a thing as the 'world mind', the totality of man's thoughts, feelings and experiences passed on to us from generation to generation.

    You have to use that to experience yourself as an 'entity'. You know, what you call ‘you’ cannot be experienced without the help of that knowledge (the cumulative human thought).

    So, our very existence as an individual or existence as an entity depends upon that (culture).

    How can you separate yourself from that (world mind or the culture) and say, this is 'me' in that sense? 

     ****

Audio Clip

Audio Transcription

UG: After all, mankind is an extension of yourself. Mankind is an abstraction.

    Because you know that there is a permanence about you and the things around you, you project a thing called mankind and say that must live forever. 

So, what the hell you are interested in mankind? What for? 

It (mankind) is the projection of your own demand for permanence. There is no such thing as permanence at all. That's all that I'm pointing out. 

Q: Is there no function served by self-consciousness?

UG: The functions are created by your culture. You tell yourself that you are 'bored', that you are 'happy', that you are unhappy. What is there is only 'boredom', there is nobody who is bored. That's all that I am saying, boredom. 

    That's a sofa, that's a woman, that's a man, that's a microphone, that's a TV camera. 

    In exactly the same way you say you are happy, you are unhappy, you are miserable, you are greedy, you are this, that or the other.

    All that is cultural!

    Only thing that is valid and living there you see, (is) the natural anger, you see lust that is essential for the survival of the mechanism. Those are the two things that are there, that are part of the biological functioning of the living organism.

    Everything else is superimposed on them. The greed, the jealousy, the envy, the whole cultural nonsense. All the human values are imposed on them. They have not touched anything there. 

    There is such a thing as the 'world mind', the totality of man's thoughts, feelings and experiences passed on to us from generation to generation.

    You have to use that to experience yourself as an 'entity'. You know, what you call ‘you’ cannot be experienced without the help of that knowledge.

    So, our very existence as an individual or existence as an entity depends upon that (culture).

    How can you separate yourself from that (world mind or the culture) and say, this is 'me' in that sense. 

I say you have no freedom of action. When I say that, I am not saying that there is such a thing as fatality and all.

    You have freedom of action if you want to come here or you don't want to come here. That's all. Even there, I don't know how much freedom you have. There is a conflict, see, there also. 

****