Can Thought Truly Be Selfless?
Questioner: Okay. I have two questions.
Acharya Prashant: Yeah, first one from me - nice look.
Questioner: Oh thank you. Actually, I was told to introduce myself in case you don't recognize me.
(Both laughs.)
Yeah, it's new, but yeah, let's take the questions. So the first one is based on something you were talking about a lot a few years back, which was basically about thought that doesn't have self-interest or self-preservation at its center, and now you took a more, maybe a more like, absolute stand regarding the place of thought. I guess that's the first thing if we could explore it. So is there such a thing as right thought or thought that doesn't serve the ego in some way?
Acharya Prashant: The principle that the thought is a servant to the ego will always stand. It's a very topical question. Thought will always be a servant to the ego, so there is nothing called a change in the nature of thought. We often hear this thing being touted. No? How can I change my thoughts, think positively, and become that? How can I get better thoughts? No, do not think this way; think that way.
Thought is a servant; thought is a shadow. The shadow cannot betray its owner, its master. So, what changes is the nature of the ego itself, not the nature of thought. So when we say, for example, selfless thought, that primarily implies that the ego has improved, loosely put. Since I have become better, so have my thoughts. Now, I cannot remain the same and say my thoughts have become selfless, and if I do that, then I'm being pretentious and just fooling myself.
But that's what we want to do. We talk so much of the mind, mind control, mindfulness, and improving the quality of the mind, but the mind is so damn helpless. How can the mind improve? It's like saying that the cow must ascend to the fifth floor when she is tied to the ground. Can the cow do that? She cannot. Similarly, how can thought gain levitation when the ego center itself is down in the dumps?
For thought to be better, I must be better. So, selfless thought can come only from a selfless center, and selflessness is not absolute when it comes to improvement, learning, or being in a process, then selflessness is something one can gradually gain, thankfully. So, as one proceeds on that journey, the quality of thought keeps improving. You don't have to work on it. You don't have to say - you know, I'm trying to improve my thoughts.
Though one must note, even if you want to work on yourself, you will have to watch your thoughts but you don't watch your thoughts to improve your thoughts. You watch your thoughts to improve yourself. The difference is very important. Thoughts are a bit like actions, very subtle action. Thoughts are a bit like relationships because every thought has an object. The subject is the ego, and every thought has a particular predicate. No? Just as we have relationships in the physical sense, there is me, and then there is somebody I'm related to. Similarly, thought is related to somebody. So thought is action. Thought is relationship.
I watch my actions. I watch my relationships not with the primary motive of improving the actions or the relationship but with the motive that by watching my actions or relationships or thoughts, I can come to know myself. Right? So even if one is to watch thought and one must watch thought, the objective is not to improve thought; the objective is to improve oneself, and there's a great difference.
The primacy of the self has to be accepted. All else is subservient. If I am okay, my relationships will be okay; my thoughts, my actions, my words, all the things, and my decisions will be relatively okay. I have to become better. And if I remain the way I am, nothing can improve. And if it appears to be improving, then I'm faking. So, I will observe my thoughts definitely because thoughts will tell me about the ego; otherwise, the ego is just so subtle; how will you watch it?
The ego is practically unavailable for observation except when it is in action, except when it is in a relationship, if the ego remains just as the primordial “I” instinct. That mother instinct - aham-vritti (ego tendency). If the ego remains that way, who will watch it? So, even to watch the ego, you have to look at the stuff that the ego is doing. How do you catch the rat? The rat must do something. If the rat is lying perfectly still somewhere, it will be very difficult to catch it. So you want the rat to do something. You throw some sugar, and you want the rat to have a relationship with sugar. Right? You want the rat to make some noise. The rat can be caught only in action.
Similarly, the ego can be seen only in action, and one of the actions of the ego is thought. So we watch thought. So that we can come to the nature of the ego, and once we come to the nature of the ego, how do we improve the ego? No, you don't need to improve the ego. Just seeing the nature of the ego is sufficient to improve the ego. Why? Because the very disease of the ego was non-seeing. Aatm-agyan (self-ignorance) is the central disease. Right? And once you have seen it, there's no need for any further prescription or treatment.
Not seeing itself was the problem, and if you have seen it, the treatment has been done. The whole thing has been cured. So watch your thoughts, but don't push your thoughts to improve. They are helpless beings. Even if you push them hard, they will be constantly looking over their shoulders to their master. Without the master's permission, they cannot improve, and if the master improves, thoughts will effortlessly improve.
Questioner: The other question that I had in mind is a kind of a counter question to this model. It comes from J Krishnamurti, and he has said it in quite many ways, but one way he has stated it is kind of the opposite of what we're talking about here, which is that “thought creates the thinker.” That thought itself creates the illusion that there's someone thinking, and that itself is what links them together. And this is a bit different from what I guess we take here in general.
Acharya Prashant: No, not different.
Questioner: Yeah, let's take it from this side, then.
Acharya Prashant: Yes. Why did I say that it is impossible to watch the ego directly?
Questioner: Well, because it's not observable in the first place.
Acharya Prashant: Because it is not in the first place.
Questioner: Okay.
Acharya Prashant: Now you see how things converge with Krishnamurti. There is actually no ego. There is only the thought. Remove the thought, and what remains is not observable because it is not. That's why we always say the ego tendency. It's a tendency, not a thing. So when Krishnamurti says that thought creates a thinker, what he's saying is that objects create the subject. And he's very right from where he's seeing things.
What he’s saying is – Sir, you remove the objects and show me where is the subject now? From our lives, all the predicates are removed; do we remain? The mother predicate is the body itself. I am the body. If the body is removed, does the ego remain? Ever seen a bodiless ego? So what Krishnamurti is saying is that there is just the body, and the body creates the ego. And yes, that's very right. Without the body there can be no ego, without the object there can be no subject.
You can look at it from that side or you can look at it from this side. Now, why do I prefer to look at it from this side? The simple reason is - there is the object, there is the subject, and they are together in duality. I could either say the object creates the subject or I could say the subject creates the object. Both are only half-truths because, in duality, the fact is both sides have created each other. Correct? The body creates the ego, and it is in the presence of the ego's consciousness that you perceive the body. Otherwise, there is no body.
So, the subject and object are dualistically dependent on each other. I could say the subject creates the object, or I could say the object creates the subject. Both are fine. But it is more useful to say the subject creates the object. Why? Because it is not the object that suffers, sir; it is the subject that suffers. I have to look at myself. I could very well say the universe creates this self, but what do I keep looking at if I say that? The universe. That will not solve my problem because the universe is not suffering, nor do I associate my “I” sense with the universe.
I say there is me, and there is the universe, and I am suffering; therefore, the Upanishads say that both have to be watched - the object and the subject. But among these two, obviously, the more important one is the subject because the objects are not suffering; you are. So the first thing is to watch yourself. Though very interestingly when you watch yourself, you discover that you are not. So again, Krishnamurti is proven right.
You are suffering, but the more you watch yourself, you discover that the sufferer is a myth. The sufferer is suffering for no reason whatsoever. Not even the reason for his existence. There is only the suffering, no sufferer. As the Buddha used to say, there is only the flow; there is only the process. There is not even an object. Internally, is there a sufferer? If there is a sufferer, it must have a solid permanent identity at least for 2 seconds, but whosoever you are within, he is flowing constantly and changing constantly. Right? Like a river.
Are we the same even after 2 seconds? So, who do we call the sufferer then? If there is no fixed one within, he's constantly changing, tell me the name of the sufferer. There's Julius 1, there is Julius 2, there is Julius 3, there is Julius 4. Who is suffering? So, equally, we could say nobody is suffering; there is just suffering. Nobody is suffering; there is just suffering.
Think of some kind of crowded place or think of a road with heavy but fast traffic. Think of a road with heavy but speeding traffic. Tell me, who is crowding the road? The road is crowded, but nobody in particular crowds the road. The cars are all speeding; no car is parked there. That's the nature of the self - it's a continuous flow. So, while the road is indeed crowded, we cannot say who is crowding it because there is no particular car crowding the road.
So, if there is no car crowding the road, it means the road is uncrowded. Right? No, the road is not uncrowded. The road is crowded without any particular one crowding it. It's a flux. The ego, therefore, is considered as mysterious as the truth. You cannot say it does not exist. You also cannot say it exists. The ego is Maya. You do not know what to say about it. On one hand, you cannot deny its existence because you are suffering. How can you deny your own suffering? You're experiencing. How can you deny your own experiences? On the other hand, you also know that the experiencer is a myth. It's like a dream in which there is a lot of experience sans any substance. That's the ego.
Krishnamurti is very right when he says there is no ego in the sense that the dream has no substance.
Questioner: I had just one quick remark to the beginning of the session. It was like all words and concepts are constructs. That, in some sense we could also say that duality itself cannot stand in absence of concepts. It's another thing. Maybe we should move forward, but many seem to emphasize that also.
Acharya Prashant: Yes. Probably, a fascination with names would help. You know the way names are and how no name can stand without other names and, how every name is just a sound, and how we fill meanings into those sounds. Small is a concept, Happening is a concept.
Questioner: Even Pure Seeing is a concept.
Acharya Prashant: Even Pure Seeing is a concept. It's a very humbling thing to see that even that which you want to talk of as the absolute is just a concept, and it is from that kind of deconstruction that something very fresh can probably emerge.
Your friend behind you got curious for a while and then thought I was not worth his attention.
Questioner: Yeah, I have to get him here the next time. I can still hear him there. He will come the next time. Yes, thank you.
Acharya Prashant: Welcome.
