Language and how it shapes our thoughts.

One thing that I have stumbled upon recently has been the issue of language and words we use and how it affects our thoughts. It has primarily come about by listening to and reading Bohm who also was a linguist and had an obsession about finding out the origins of a word and going to the root of it and then more importantly comparing it with what that word is trying to describe and see if it fits. Well he didn’t try to see if it fits. He raised the questions and leaves it to the reader to make up his or her mind. A true philosopher who was not strait jacketed by any belief system and bogged by concepts and steadfastly believed in dialogue and arguments to talk things through and see if things can be made clearer.

Apart from using the correct word at the appropriate time, Bohm also shed light on problems the Subject-Verb arrangement of words does in our thought process. In English we have to have a subject who needs to be doing something or something needs to be happening to it for there to be a complete grammatically correct sentence. This happening or doing is denoted by the verb.

So for e.g. we can have a sentence like:

  Ram   Laughed

Subject+ Verb.

So a two word sentence( subject  and verb) would be the shortest possible sentence in English. IN such a format the subject takes exaggerated importance. There has to be a doer of action for there to be action. This is in contradiction to lot of eastern philosophy( hindu,buddhist) where we  say there is action. The Verb is all important in that set up.

Bohm then  gives the example of a common  English  expression " it is raining".

What is this "it" that is raining. Logically we should say  "Rain is falling of "There is rain"

Bohm says this is due to our contrived way of thinking and giving so much importance to the subject and not being able to think wholly and just seeing things in parts.

While it may seem as an extreme example, you can see the point he is trying to make from a larger philosophical point of view. If we accept that language shapes our thoughts then surely when we learn to make sentences where the doer of the action is going to be paramount that shapes in our mind an image of the importance of the individual. The "I". The "ego' .That becomes our default setting if you will.the way we look and interpret things and event.

if some ill luck befalls us and we are in rut we think of people to blame it on or blame ourselves for it. We find difficulty in accepting that things just happen and there maybe no one to blame for it. There was no grand cosmic plan to fail us on that day .Things happen. You handle the present moment and then you move on to the next moment. Or maybe you don’t move on anywhere, the next moment happens and  you react in it

So stuff to munch on,,this subject verb thing and on a wider scale how language shapes our thoughts.

David Bohm-Wholeness

I have been reading about David Bohm and his theories off late. David Bohm was a theoretical physicist who also had a long association with Krishnamurti. He had come up with lot of interesting theories or looked at existing theories and gave some out of the box takes on them.

Some of it has been heavy reading as one needs some basic knowledge of physics to make sense of it all which I don’t have. but once you can look through and beyond some of the technical scientific words used you do come upon some profound stuff.

He talked about wholeness in the universe and beyond. Everything  is connected or has a relationship with everything else. While we talk about this as a philosophical concept it just looks words to us in this increasingly fragmented world. But to have a man of science explain this concept of wholeness as a scientific concept was a new experience for me and probably gives it more legitimacy in my mind  .

My rudimentary explanation ( taking some liberties with the science )would be that everything is made up of matter. Matter in turn is made up of particles and when you study the movement of particles you see a few patterns:

a.       Particles move discontinuously i.e the tend to jump from point A to point B rather than a continuous movement. this movement of the particle without leaving a trace suggest that they have some relationship to the particles nearby and to the overall eco system in which they are operating. There seems to be an indivisibility in that relationship  which allows these particles join together and take form

b.       Particles( or the sub parts;atoms and electrons)  also respond to the environment that they are in. they break up and again take up some shape based on changes applied to them.There again is a relationship between them which allows them to act interdependently.

Electrons which influence each other non-locally must both be regarded as  in Bohms words as “projections of a higher dimensional reality:” i.e., these particles do not simply interact between themselves but rather are projections of the same higher dimensions. There seems to be an order in this relationship in which particles function and Bohm calls this relationship as the implicate order.

The movement of the particles is based on the theory of relativity and the Quantum theory which Bohm then develops  into this concept of wholeness.

Bohm basically says in this theory that everything is enfolded into everything else and everything unfolds to take shape of things that we see with our eyes. There is no separation due to this enfolding.

He then goes on to suggest this particle movement properties also is how our thoughts work. we have one thought and then we have other thoughts. Sometimes one thought leads to another thought but most times we seem to jump from one thought to a completely unrelated thought. Because our mind works at a very fast speed we feel its been a discrete movement i.e one thought leading to another inter connected thought. While that may happen at times ,it does not happen at other times. The thought process is capable of or is designed in way where it jumps from one thought to the other.

This is were probably understanding of Bohm and his theory of wholeness and implicate order can help us.It could be laying a good explanation for how our thought process works. we probably need to understand the process and observe the process rather than spend so much time trying to control our mind or thoughts. The thought process is not designed to be controlled. It moves discontinuously . This is where Krishnaji and Bohm meet in their  theories /philosophy also. Instead of trying to control our mind we need to observe it. In that observation we will get to a quiet mind.. or atleast a quieter mind.

Defintely food for thought.We don’t have to agree with Bohm or Krishnaji.but enough there to try and test out.There is a lot more of Bohm which I will touch upon later.

More on Duality

I have been thinking more about the duality of opposites concept specially from a emotions or feelings perspective .If we accept the concept we can say seemingly opposite emotions actually co exist like two sides of the same coin-one is the harbinger of the other..The seeds of sadness are embedded in happiness,hate includes love and so on.My thoughts have been centered how to deal with emotions or feelings we dont like-i am staying away from the value judgement of good or bad but for practical purposes in life i may encounter a situation where i hate  a person and the sight of that person makes me sick.So how do i deal with this situation assuming just avoiding the person is not a solution since that person is  a relative or someone i work with.So if i accept the duality of opposites theory how to deal with this situation within that theory.

The way i look at it i can think of the following options.There may be other ways which someone with a superior consciousness may be able to guide me towards.

Accept/Surrender to the emotion: We can tell ourselves that this emotion is part of my consciousness and i accept that right now i am going through it and i let it go through its natural ebb and flow inside of me without fighting it or beating myself over it too much. So going to our original example where i hate someone i accept my hate of that person as part of me and deal with that person on a worldly basis without trying to eradicate the hate.

Analyse the cause of the emotion:i work on the assumption that there has to be a reason for every emotion and i try and deal with that material reason.So if i hate a person i delve into myself and my thought process and see if i can come to the reason of hating that person and address that reason


Harvest the opposite emotion:Based on the duality of emotions each feeling or emotion will have a seemingly opposite emotion that co exists with that emotion/feeling.So if he current emotion i am going through is something i want to remove then i try to  harness the opposite emotion.So if i am feeling hate i try to cultivate love for that person.


Drop the emotion: here i work on the fact that feelings and emotions are a product of thought.so if a feeling appears non conducive i know its merely a construct of my mind and i need to observe my mind as that feeling is occurring and feel the process of thought feeding that emotion. In that observation there shall be cessation of that feeling/emotion. This is what Krishnaji is saying  to try and do or what i understand he is saying :-).

Each comes with its pluses and minuses and all may not be practical.but this is what i have thought about so far

Duality of Opposites

I came across this term :duality of opposites" and have been trying to comprehend it in its entirety,I wont say i have got it entirely but it does seem something profound and more importantly useful.i am obsessed to make this quest for a peaceful mind a practical one.I want to put to test every little thing which appears useful or else i discard it.I dont just want intellectual stimulation.Thought for the sake of thought.It should contribute in this journey.But when i say a" quest from a peaceful mind" isnt that problematic too. arnt all these seeking and wanting to become  the root cause of our suffering, of this unrest? ah well one problem at a time. So lets get back to the duality of opposites conundrum.

Duality of opposites basically implies things which look different are merely opposites and not separate. The presence of one implies the presence of other too. For e.g if we have fear it also means the feeling of hope wont be far behind.they are complimentary in nature.They are like 2 sides of the same coin.its a difficult concept to grasp intellectually but if see its use in our daily life and in our thought process we maybe able to make more sense of it.

if we have violence in us, if we see ourselves getting  angry we want to become non violent. We try to cultivate non violence.we read about it,we try to use will power to overcome this desire for violence,we practice meditation. We do what we can to get over this malaise. But if we understand this duality of opposites then we know the presence of non violence also implies that violence is still there within us. we have not really got rid of it. we may have found some temporary method of suppressing it. So instead of trying to become non violent we need to realize violence lies within us and we need to drop it .we have to let it go. If we hate someone we tell ourselves we need to stop hating that person. we dont try to cultivate love for that person.In that trying to love that person we perpetuate the existence of hate inside of us.we just drop the emotion "hate". Well thats how it is supposed to work. Lets try and see where we get with it. I certainly will.

Quest for a quiet mind

Came across another thought provoking passage from the book " Krishnamurti's Notebook"

"The brain is nourished by reaction and experience;it lives on experience.but experience  is always limiting and conditioning;memory is the machinery of action.without experience,knowledge and memory,action is not possible but such action is fragmentary,limited."

The starting point of a calm self is a calm mind. It is in this context that i am thinking about the above quote.before we try to have a quiet brain we need to understand a bit of its functioning. Krishnaji uses few terms which he has defined at various places. The definitions are based on my rudimentary understanding and and are my own words.

Experience: whatever happens to us as we go through life. the decisions we make,the decisions made for us, the job we do,the person we marry,the toothpaste we use all are experiences.

Knowledge:is derived from experience as we go through life we pick up ways to deal with those experiences ways are the sum total of our knowledge.

Memory : all this knowledge is stored in the part of brain known as memory.

Thought or our thinking process is a result of our experience,knowledge and memory.

To get on with life we obviously need to think.we also need  knowledge,experience and memory.Going to school is an experience. we need education to give us the knowledge to do a job.we need to store that information in our memory which we can use from time to time.So on the face of it this intellectual process,this interplay of knowledge,experience and memory is good for us and probably essential for our existence.

So thinking is good but what about excessive thought? what if we fill our brains with incessant thought? worry about the future/Laments about the past? What if the brain is so filled up that it is not present with us in the present? what if it is always ticking and never quiet? Quite chaotic isnt it?

So to have a quiet mind,we need to study this interplay of knowledge ,experience and memory. I intend to do that the next few days.

On Love-excerpts from Krishnamurti's notebook.

I have been reading the book " Krishnamurti's notebook". It is a book in which he tries to capture the internal processes that are affecting him as he goes about in this quest of stillness and peace.it is a daily journal which he did not intend to get published initially. I came across a passage where he talks about what he thinks love is.

" Love is not attachment.Love does not yield sorrow.Love has no despair or hope. Love cannot be made respectable,part of the social scheme.when it is not there,every form of travail begins

To possess and to be possessed is considered a form of love.this urge to possess,a person or a piece of property,is not merely the demands of society and circumstances but springs from a far deeper source.it comes from the depths of loneliness"

The passage made me think .Lets try and go a bit deeper into his words. firstly what kind  of love is he talking about? Just the man-woman relationship? or does it encompass all sorts of love? The love a human feels for a dog and also the love the human can feel for a material possession?.I think we can assume he is talking about all kinds of love because he talks about the "urge to possess,a person or a piece of property"So he is not limiting himself to talk about just the man-woman kind of love or evn just love between humans.

So what the characteristics of love? He approaches it from saying what love is not.

Love is not attachment:just missing someone and not being able to do without him/her or it is not love. we are attached to our phones. we keep messaging,chatting what not with it all day. We really cant say we love our phones though. its one of the many ways our mind tries to trick us into filling our void with "stuff".Being attached is servile.it has a negative connotation.
Love has to be pure

Love does not yield sorrow: Love at no point should be the cause of sorrow.love os bliss.The love when a mother feeds a kid and watches it look satisfied and happy,that is love. Later on when he doesnt do well in school she sits and worry about his future.she says she worries out of love.But again love has degenerated into something else. Worldy needs and societal demands have clouded the mother's love.Love at no point can be the cause of sorrow.

Love has no despair or hope: we can call it a corollary of the previous characteristics. The desire to see the person you have affection for is again a worldly desire.The hope that both of you together will have a blissful time together is borne out of the mind needing comfort and meaning in everything.When that person does not come to meet you you feel despair.all this is not love.Love is a spiritual connection with another outside the realms of space and time and away from desire and despair.the moment either creeps in it ceases to be love.

Love cannot be made respectable:Here Krishna ji is trying to elude to societal norms which set the standards for our relationships.We marry a person because society tells us to have a family.we put up with evil minded relatives because society tells us to.Love is away from all this.THe love my dog feels for my cat is not taught by society.it is there.he just reaches out to it when he sees the cat and his whole world for that little short while is trying to play with the cat.he doesnt sit and think over this later on nor does he plan what he will do when he meets her next. They just meet and they are happy.That is love-no boundaries,no set of rules to adhere to.

I am trying to document my journey as i proceed and try to get calmer and more peaceful.I want to jot down things i do,things that work,things that dont.I am starting or i have started on the premise that this is a journey for one to undertake oneself.The other important pillar of the base of my quest is that it is an inward journey. It is not a new thought process but a something i have given a lot of my mind to and the idea makes sense to me. Lot of us want a more peaceful existence. Peace with oneself.We all work towards the goals society tell us makes us happy. Money,family, house,vacations,,what not. we go there we get them at varying degress of success. If we dont get them we spend our time  trying to get  all that is defined as worldly success. If we do get success we keep wondering what next. If i have what my neighbour has i will be happier. if i get that promotion i would be blissful.we keep tricking ourselves into believing so.the mind tricks us.When i had a decent job,a job which allowed me to live on my own in one of India's metros i believed i still am not unhappy because my personal life is not good.i dont have my soulmate with me.That pining and longing for her made sure i carried in my heart a lingering  sense of dissatisfaction which affected everything i did or my perception of everything i had.I found a way to poison my present with what i wanted my present to be like,

Now when i think and try to jot down  my reasons of unhappiness i know it isnt the mystery of the missing soulmate.if i indeed had the person i wanted i would have found ways to be unhappy even then.I would have found something to dislike in the city,in my job ,in my siblings and when everything failed i would be blaming the cosmic powers for taking my Dad away from me when i did not know how to handle such a loss. The point being i carry within me my seeds of discontent. Any external change in my environment doesnt really add value or change my internal circumstances too much. There is only one way to stem the internal rot and that is to go into a deeply inward journey.
So i need to go inside of me and i need to go on my own.and why on my own?

Well Society has set up this institutions that should help someone like me.find solace and lasting peace. There are the grand old religions with their traditions and centuries old infrastructure beckoning me and promising me nirvana if i just hang in long enough. My religion is smart. it says one lifetime may not be enough. so hang in there longer. So all these systems should work for poor souls like me. But what happens to me when i try to come close to the religious structures and systems? I see a festival type atmosphere i see people enjoying themselves like a family outing when i go to temples.Its not too dissimilar from the scenes in a multiplex.when i sit down with a priest trying to conform to a ritual i am supposed to do for my bereaved parents,he stops in between and reminds me of the gold my mom had given to him during a similar such ritual she had to undertake.Is this pious? Is this spiritual? . So the system society has set up from me doesnt work for me. Maybe its the fault of the limited capabilities of my mind in understanding them but even then the truth should not be difficult to grasp.it must be simple to understand.yes its a onerous task to undertake-living a truthful life or set out in the search of the truth,but what is truth should be simple to understand. if it is not simple it is not the truth. it is not THE way.So here i am setting out on this journey on my own,inside of me.