Spiritual, The: Journal of Natural Spirituality - Spiritual Management Thesis

Introduction

Roszak (1995, p130) has mentioned Ginsburg’s poem; in reference to Zen ‘Satori’, or enlightenment;

I feel as if I am at a dead end
and so I am finished
All spiritual facts I realise
are true but I never escape
the feeling of being closed in
and the sordidness of self,
the futility of all that I
have seen and done and said

Thinking is an interesting phenomenon. There is a story (from spoken tradition in sub-continent) that once a wanderer came to the Royal courts of Emperor Akbar. The stranger was an expert in languages and spoke 16 different languages with undistinguishable accent. He posed a challenge to all the ministers and intellectuals to determine his native tongue. Different people came forward and conversed with him in their own tongues. None could challenge his knowledge and mastery of language. Birbal, the Wazir, asked the man for time to think and requested him to be the guest of the palace for a day. The man smiled at their helplessness and agreed. He was given a Royal treat and allocated a Royal chamber. Having feasted on delicious food and sweets, he was in deep slumber the moment he hit the pillow. At around midnight, a shadow came from behind the curtains and splashed a bucketful of cold water on the stranger. The stranger shouted abused and looked for the offender but could not find him.

The next day, in the court, he took his place and sat erect in his chair, beaming with confidence and pride. The Emperor asked Birbal if he has the answer and Birbal nodded his head in an affirmative, smiling. He got up from his seat and told of the true native tongue of the stranger. Stranger was surprised. He accepted that the answer was right and requested Birbal to disclose how he found out about it. Birbal told his that the shadow that splashed cold water on him at night was none other than himself. Birbal said, “When you were deep in sleep and unmindful of your tricks, you shouted abuses in your native tongue.”

Language is our defence. In spiritual terms, it is also a barrier. Our reliance on language becomes so intense and complete that we try to define everything in the terminology that we know and understand. A person may be speaking a number of languages but the only difference would be that his data bank has more data than others. Knowing more languages does not imply enhancement of knowledge. It rather suggests an excess pool of information and more clutters of memories then usual. “I” or “Me” is associated and identified through the words and thoughts. Words create language, language creates notions and thoughts and the thoughts turn into memories. The entire thought process is what we call mind, where preferences, desires, assumptions, beliefs and personality traits are floating. If we have a close look at ourselves, we would find that most of our choices, perceptions and views exist only in our thoughts. Relationships are what you think about them. If you do not think about something, it does not affect you. Our own personality is standing on our own view of ourselves; as a manager, teacher, brother, father, musician, preacher or alike. Therefore, what we think we know is only what we can “think” of. The thing that we call knowledge is therefore limited to our vocabulary.

It is in the same context that we have discussed Kolb, Maslow, Herzburg, De Bono and questioned established paradigms. If the learner or worker remains a perceptive personality, how can a true learning be created? Who is getting motivated and whose aspirations are working? Without know the self, no knowledge can be taken as a concrete knowledge and no satisfaction is absolute. Let us further analyse this concept.

5.1 Think of Me and I am There

Most of the times, we think in our native languages as well. A habit can also be developed to think in a language other than the native language. That is what mind is all about; it was formed because of repetition of words and habits. If we admit that we can train mind to alter the way we think and speak, how can we be sure that what we know is not part of the same type of conditioning? It is imposed, formed or given learning and knowledge versus natural, inherent, intrinsic learning and knowledge.

Thinking is depended on words, memories and imagination. Steiner (1996) has written that;

All children are born into a culturally patterned environment; the shared task of confronting them, such as learning to talk, to walk, and to attach meanings to their experiences, are reflected in their cognitive strategies. But their strategies are also an expression of the particular features of their culture. The changing systems of children’s thoughts are variously shaped by the prevalent methods of physical and economic survival, by language and visual symbols used by their people, and most importantly, by the ways in which care and instructions are ordered by their society (Steiner, 1996, p13).

Thinking is like talking to yourself. Sometimes it happens in awareness and most of times in unawareness. That must sound kind of peculiar. Would not we know if we were talking to ourselves? Thinking has become so essential of our existence that we cannot “think” what would happen if we did not think. Since not much literature is available in this field, I wish to refer to an article from a web site (www.netatoz.com/anaamic,) as attached in Appendix A. The article provides a fundamental process of creation of mind and ego. Creation of memory is explained through repetition of words through a process of registration, repetition and retention. It substantiates the argument that is followed in this chapter and other parts of this paper. The phenomenon of memory or thought creation starts right from the birth of the child and continuous throughout the life. There is a fine line somewhere in the process of growing up when our awareness of the natural, inner self starts diminishing and we switch to the mind. Once switched, it starts a perpetual cycle of thought, logic and perception that becomes our reality. The article helps understand the fundamental objective and discussion in this paper about “natural self” and “imposed self”.

Much of this text can be classified as spiritual or holistic. However, it provides a plausible explanation of the thinking process and creation of perceptive mind-personality. It is not difficult to test this theory (although it is said to be a true account of knowledge dawning in the process of self-realisation). There are various methods that can be used to achieve a thoughtless state of brain. Thoughtlessness is the key. When they are no thoughts, there is no mind, no identification and no personality. Desires, preferences, perceptions and logic all drop. That is when the fine voice of the inner world is whispered in our ears. If this concept is taken any further in a major thesis, some practical experiments can be made. For now, let us consider some basic issues;

• We cannot think in any other language (or more) than we know.
• We cannot think without the aid of words; ie if we did not know the word “Mango” we would not be able to think about it. But will recognise the moment we see it. We may be able to visualise it (once seen) if required but would not “think” about it.
• We cannot trigger a memory or a particular thought without first “thinking” about it. Imagination, pictures and flashback are all triggered by sight or thought of a familiar event or object. If no memory, no thought; and if no thought, no memory.
• Our actions are determined by what we think (or feel) with exception of self-realisation.
• Feelings are also triggered by thoughts. If we did not know the words like “sad”, “sorrow”, “cry”, “feelings” etc. we would not be able to create an emotion.
• We do not get emotional all the times. One incident might invoke an emotion in a person but may not in another. This is another evidence why emotions are perceptive as well.
• Emotions are condensed thoughts that erupt when a specific event or memory occurs.

Psychology has some support to this theory. It calls it imprinting. As Arkes and Garske (1945, p16) have written, the most heavily researched topic in psychological ethology is imprinting. In their words, imprinting is a kind of learning which occurs during a particular interval (called the critical period) early in an animal’s life and which is difficult to alter thereafter. They give example of bird in which hatchelling leaves its imprints on a newly-born bird. Shortly after hatching, a young bird develops an attachment to its mother and follows her around. Even if a moving object is substituted for mother, the bird becomes attached to this object instead; even if the object is a wooden decoy, a person, a football or a gym shoe. I wish to reproduce some quotes from different psychologists on imprinting from the same book. (Source: Psychological Theories of Motivation, Arkes and Garske, 1945, p16-17)

Lorenz (1952) believed that imprinting is innate but the tendency to imprint on a particular stimulus (the mother) is not.

Hess (1959) claimed that the characteristics which most clearly distinguish imprinting from typical forms of learning is that imprinting takes place most strongly during the critical period.

Bowlby (1969) believed that the human infants indeed imprints on mother, presumably during a critical period. Harlow, Gluck and Suomi (1972) strongly disagree.

That is where the psychologists have their limit. They are in a Catch 22 situation. If they, for a moment, agree that imprinting does take place in human infants, they will have to take all the stimuluses like language, culture, environment, society and genetic influences in to consideration. Having acknowledged that, they will have a dilemma called human personality; for they would not know how much is imprinting and where. The psychology, and science to some extent, has come very close to discovering the perceptive nature of mind but has pulled itself away when faced with instinctive and inherent questions.

Watts (1966) has put it nicely;

We do not “come into” this world; we come out of it, as leaves from a tree. As the ocean “waves”, the universe “peoples”. Every individual is an expression of the whole realm of nature, a unique action of the total universe. This fact is rarely, if ever, experienced by most individuals. Even those who know it to be true in theory do not sense or feel it, but continue to be aware of themselves as isolated “egos” inside bags of skin (Watts, 1966, p8).

This ego, or “I” is the problem, as I have kept repeating throughout this paper. Neck and Milliman (1994, p13) have cited Minz’s description of thought pattern as “certain ways of thinking about our experiences” and as “habitual ways of thinking”. This view argues that individuals tend to engage in both negative and positive chains of thought (habitual ways of thinking) that affect emotional and behavioural reactions.

That is where theories related to “thinking” come under scrutiny. The frontrunner in present times is Edward De Bono with his supposedly revolutionary “thinking” techniques that alter the perceptions. Personally, I am highly critical of such theories. They are like arrows thrown in the dark with a hope that they will hit the mark. It is the Guru syndrome that works in such attempts. Since not much knowledge is available about human nature, and brain at that, one might throw weird ideas around and hope them to be working. If it can be understood that the mind is a perceptive entity that resides only in thoughts and memories, all these theories will prove futile. What can we achieve by changing the thinking patterns or thinking differently? Our personality is the mind itself and thinking differently will make us act differently. It would appear to us that the theory is working. However, it would not solve fundamental problems of mind such as insecurity, greed, lust, desires, and fear among hordes of others. People have tried in vain to relate natural processes like creativity, intuition and insight with thinking. The natural part of us, however, is independent of thoughts and languages.

Do Bono (1971, p4) emphasises that the traditional logic thinking is vertical thinking in which one moves from one state of information to another state. He is highly critical of such traditional logic thinking that he believes is the only form of learning that we recognise. Thinking is always based on perceptions and inherent though-models (conditioning of mind through cultural, social and ethical values during the childhood). There is no escape from the unconscious thinking habits and resultant process of making preferences and choices. Thinking is an interesting phenomenon. It is like talking to yourself. Sometimes thinking is at a conscious level, in which we are sitting and thinking about one particular problem or issue. Other times, it is at unconscious level in which our body responds to brain signals in a mechanical order and we are unaware of what we are doing.

According to him, lateral thinking is concerned with thinking; with the generation of new ideas and new approaches, and with the escape of old ones. He adds that it is not a method for decision or for action. Once the ideas have been generated, one has to satisfy oneself as to their usefulness before putting them into action. He summarised the principles of lateral thinking as;

• Recognition of dominant or polarising ideas
• The search for different ways of looking at things
• A relaxation of rigid control of vertical thinking
• The use of chance and provocative methods in order to introduce discontinuity
• An understanding of new operational word PO (like NO in logical language)

De Bono created tremendous interest in the management and scholarly circles when he first proposed this idea in 1971. It sounds like a revolutionary-thinking concept where an alternative way is provided to look at individual paradigms. The key, however, is to first determine how thoughts and thinking is generated in the first place. If one is not able to distinguish one thought from another, how are they supposed to make any changes in their thinking patterns? Since most of the thinking is at subconscious level where is the chance to see and change it?

He has described the thinking process as per the following diagram in his book, Lateral thinking (1971);

Fig.5.1 : De Bono’s Lateral Thinking

(Source: De Bono, 1971, p43)

5.1.1 The “Thinker” about Thinking

De Bono (1971) describes that if one considers brain as a special channel through which information flows, then the information that comes in as data, evidence, appreciation of a situation, goes out as action, choice, decision, reaction, problem solving and so on (Fig.5.1). It is not only highly susceptible, it is an uncharacteristic statement. Because not much scientific information is available on brain, he seems to have used the fact to propagate his absurd theories. Who says that we think from the brain? Brain is the Grey Matter, composition of neurones, the brain cells. Brain is the powerhouse of the body and controls every bodily function imaginable. To say that the brain acts on the data fed to it, we imply that brain works only on the data fed to it. We, as thinking zombies, do not even control 1% of our body functions ever in our life times. If that were true, we would not suffer from so many illnesses and decay of the body. In our present, thinking state, we cannot even get rid of constipation on our own. Of course, we have created medicines but that is another issue. The mind, or ego, or “I” is illusory in nature and has nothing to do with natural aspects of life. The life essence is beyond our (mind and “I”) reach and brain is the power that keeps us alive. History tells us that most of the astonishing inventions have occurred when “the mind was not thinking”.

Does not matter what kind of thinking it is, lateral, parallel, visual, verbal or whatever, it is always perceptive and confined to words, language, thoughts and memories. Just remember the conversation between Zen master and his disciple I mentioned in the earlier chapter (page 53). The truth about life, along with all hypothetical questions, can only be known in a thoughtless state of mind. That is, to eliminate the ego (and thus ‘I”) and remove burden from the brain. The brain, in its free form, works naturally and reveals the true meaning of life. Just think of it in another context. Do not “mad” or “crazy” people stay alive? How will that be possible if they were supposed to control their bodily functions or “feed” brain with necessary information? We can see a distinct example here. Even if the mind has gone astray, the brain keeps on functioning. What happens to people in amnesia? They do not die. If we consider or perceive different persons with different abilities (apparent only), ie intelligent, illiterate, wise, foolish, good, bad, evil and so on, their obvious characteristics have no bearing on their natural functions. There might be some genetic influences (there are not enough scientific evidences to suggest that “behaviours” are genetic) but their bodies do differ in functioning. Brain has no discrimination. It is a natural entity; but burdened with thoughts and mind.

Having said all that, it is now easy to describe natural human components such as instinct, insight and creativity. They are not entirely different. From now on, let us just keep an eye on the words, “mind” and “brain” used by scholars and psychologists and we should be able to assess the extent of their knowledge of the human nature. Like in the case of McDougall cited by Arkes and Garske (1945), The human mind has certain innate or inherited tendencies which are essential springs or motive powers of all thoughts and actions, whether individual or collective, and are the bases from which the character and will of individuals and of nations are generally developed under the guidance of the intellectual faculties (Arkes and Garske, 1945, p11).

5.2 Beyond the Mind and Thoughts

At this point, let us just analyse some of the natural human qualities as described in this paper (creativity etc.) from a different perspective than what we have been so far accepting as established theories. The writer recognises the fact that although the aim of this paper is to create an awareness towards basic human nature, that is to go beyond thoughts and perceptions, the present approach remains academic and argumentative in nature. However, if some light can be thrown on the natural aspects of life and if, even on conceptual level, an idea can be proposed for developing natural skills and competencies, more opportunities can be created for a more concrete and realistic/practical research in future.

The psychologists are fascinated by words like “intellect” and “intelligence”. They just do not want to come out of mind; least fully understanding it in the first place. There are at least ten distinct contradictions in McDougall’s statement. Because he cannot see mind as a perceptive and illusory entity, he associates words like “inherent” and “innate” with it and then says that they are motive powers of thoughts and actions. I cannot even correct the statement if I want to; it is so ambiguous. All the actions are not necessary comparable with thoughts and also do not happen because of thoughts. Who controls our actions when we sleep? What happens when we are shocked because of an intense or fearsome incident and are dumbstruck? Freud, at least, defined it as id or the “instinctive animal part of human beings” (Adams, 1986).

Roszak (1995) has quoted R.D. Lang as saying, The inner does not become outer, and the outer become inner, just by the discovery of “inner world”. That is only the beginning. As a whole generation of men, we are so estranged by the inner world that there are many arguing that it does not exist; and that even if it does exist, it does not matter (Roszak, 1995, p120).

Instinct and insight belong to this inner world. Blackney (1941) has cited Eckhart on a quote from Boethius, Ye People, why do you seek without for the blessing that is within you (Blackney, 1941, p84). Unfortunately, the psychologists have branded human instinct as something animalistic and primitive. The human body has been designed to survive on this planet and its environment. Throw a newly born baby in the water and see what happens. The baby will not drown. It is the survival instinct that is inherent in the human nature. No matter how much we try to ignore and hide it, it does come out from time to time. And it comes out for good. People who are in high-risk jobs, fireman, soldiers, rescue workers etc. tend to develop and rely on it more than others. Their job has an element of risking the life and the instinct works harder to preserve and save the life. There are numerous examples if we just look around. When a young baby is hungry or sick, the mother knows it straight away. When you meet a person, his appearance and credentials appeal to you (in whatever cases) but there is also an inner voice that tells you something else (or vice versa). No doubt, the instincts are primitive, for the human life is primitive, but they work towards wellbeing and fortification of life. Developing tendency to hear for an inner voice may open doors for an insight.

Insight is a jewel of the inner world that comes forth by accident (in the present state of perceptive mind). An insight is a reflection of true human potential. It is a knowledge that comes when all the external resources are exhausted. As long as the mind, or thoughts, is active, there cannot be an insight. Psychology has difficulties defining it. Spirituality arises from it. Rao (1999) has quoted J.Krishnamurti on insight as shown in Appendix B. Krishnamurti is talking about the “live moment” in which there are no pasts and futures. He has illustrated the biggest dogma that faces an ordinary person in context of spirituality – what can you do when you do not think of anything? In other words, people wonder if there is no mind, no personality, what would become of life? The answers to these questions are not hypothetical or logical. They go back to the question of the purpose of life. If we say that we would not know what to do, have we first determined what we are doing in our daily lives is actually meaningful and fulfilling? He has talked about “Pagya” the natural knowledge that dawns in the thoughtless state of brain. That is when our hidden treasures are revealed. It is an example of the highest form of spiritual experience and relates to our arguments in this paper. Hui-Neng said that from the first nothing is (Suzuki, 1992). It is same as what Krishnamurti is saying; and same as what Eckhart, Augustine, Buddha and other spiritual master have said.

In absence of true spiritual insight, the term, “insight” has been used to define anything from analysis of data to understanding of a complex design. The human mind needs name and definition of anything it comes across. That is where reality separates from mind. Richardson, Eysenck and Piper (1987) have tried to coin the term in a divided form. They believe that insight is of three kinds that correspond to the processes of “knowledge acquisition”; selective encoding, selective combination, and selective comparison (Eysenck and Piper, 1987, p59). They have explained that an insight of selective encoding involves separating relevant from irrelevant information (Fleming’s discovery of Penicillin). An insight of selective combination occurs when an individual puts together diverse sources of data in a novel and consequential way (Darwin’s theory of evolution). The insight of selective comparison results when one relates new to old information in a novel and consequential way (Kekule’s dream and resultant structure of benzene ring).

This is another attempt by clinical psychologists to give a name to a natural phenomenon. Since they had all the trouble defining ‘knowledge’, they had to associate insight with it; for there could not be any other explanation. A mind cannot know more than what it has been taught. The psychologists are aware of this fact. The philosophers have given them terms like ‘deductive logic’ that has made their problems a bit easier. They “think” that everything has to be and can be explained logically. That is one of the reasons why we have digressed from the natural path. An insight can result in to creativity. In fact, there cannot be creativity without an insight. If a painter wants to paint a true picture, the inspiration has to come from within him. Merely drawing something or doing a theme-based job will not be called creative in any sense. Skills can be acquired; creativity cannot.

Pauchant (1995) has cited Jung (from his book, Memories, Dreams and Reflections 1961) on insight. In his words;

Jung provides wonderful evidence of how many insights we glean in later life were actually known to us in childhood but not understood because we did not have the context by which to encode the character our knowing. Jung makes a powerful argument that to access these insights during adult life, we need to take a child-like posture. The most profound is truly simple (Pauchant, 1995, p195).

We always feel that we contain some greater insights within us but are unable to reach them through our thoughts. These insights hold the key to happy and true life. That is what spirituality is; when thoughts disappear, the nature reveals itself. We, the human beings, are integral part of the nature and the part of us that binds us together is the basic human nature.

The definition of basic human nature cannot be wrapped in words. There are just not enough words to describe natural phenomenon. The language has its limitation and spiritual experiences are consequences or effects of a thoughtless, meditative process. The knowledge is not sought; it dawns. Similarly, the basic human nature is not sought, it just manifests. A sculptor does not create a shape from stone or wood. He chips away the useless parts and the image appears

***