A lecture presented in Cambridge, UK,
August 23, 1997
Conference on "Beyond the brain", organized by the Scientific and Medical Network
Psychology explores the mental content.
Thought fixes perceptions and cannot express movement.
Perception belongs only to the present.
It is not possible to perceive yesterday or tomorrow.
Past and future are mental representations which are perceived at the right moment.
All introspections based on an exploration of the past and the future are distorted by the fact that a mental representation is not a reality. It is only a reconstruction of an event or a situation which no longer exists in the present moment.
A pure perception does not belong to memory. It is a direct perception of that which is.
The interpretation follows the perception and belongs to the memory. It is the reflection of social and cultural patterns, and a synthesis of happy and unhappy experiences.
From this memory comes the avoidance of situations which carry suffering and the grasping of situations which carry happiness.
Emotional reactions are so conditioned.
Choices and preferences are intimately related to these systems of patterns.
To talk of that which is beyond psychology means to talk of pure perception.
A pure perception is immediate, instantaneous and colorless. It is neither pleasant, nor unpleasant, neither beautiful nor ugly.
Without the intervention of memory, the world would be only an unbroken succession of perceptions.
The source of suffering is not in the perception but in the interpretation.
The vision of a lion would not frightening in itself, if it were not be linked to the vision of the destruction of the body.
The innocence of the look is revealed in this ability to reveal beauty and wondering.
At the heart of change lies a consciousness which perceives the change.
At the heart of movement lies a consciousness which perceives the movement.
This consciousness cannot be perceived, because it is that which perceives, but can be experienced as an immutable space within which all space-and-time projections emerge.
The conscious establishment in unity signals the recognition of the projection as a projection and the clear awareness of an immutable timeless silent background.
This background cannot be described, as it has none of the qualities of a representation.
It is both the ultimate object and the ultimate subject, knower of all experiences.
A deep relaxation of the whole psycho-corporeal structure is necessary for the loosening of the perception which is no more tensed toward a purpose but welcomed through the openness.
When the openness is pushed to extremes, it brings the resorption of the witness into the consciousness, the ultimate knower.
A peace and quietness free from the circumstances are signs of a liberation from the wrong beliefs concerning the nature of the "I".
Suffering reaches its end when the object of desire is resorbed in a
plenitude free from desire.
First of all I would like to thank you all for having given me the opportunity to be here. I would like to thank the Scientific and Medical Network and especially David Lorimer, Peter Fenwick, Julian and Kevin.
I would like to introduce this talk by saying that it is more a meditative talk than a regular talk. Sometimes, if I don't introduce such a talk, it will have more of a reactive effect, because very often the emphasis is on the content of the words and not the silent background that is behind and before the words. So it is only a question of replacing the attention from the content to the background.
When we speak about the 'I', it is exactly the same. Usually the focus is on the body-mind. This means that the focus is on the object of observation. There is a forgetting of what is before, of what is perceiving.
[ silence ]
So the inquiry into the nature of the 'I' is like going backwards against the flow of the river. Usually when we speak about the 'I', we either speak about the body - the body image -, or about the emotional reactions of likes and dislikes which are conditioned by memory. We usually never ask what is behind this, who is the knower of the likes and dislikes. That is, when we say, "I like", or, "I dislike" what is the 'I'? Does the 'I' really like or dislike?
This inquiry brings maturity of understanding. It is not necessary to reject something or to approve, but just to take note of the functioning of the reactions and the involvement of the I-image in these reactions. Because functioning usually goes very fast, it looks transparent, so that when there is an emotional reaction there is usually a fast conclusion that the reaction comes from the outside, from here or there, because the I-image which is behind the reactions is not directly visible.
A certain clarity of observation is necessary to see this functioning. We can say that this seeing is liberating because by seeing the functioning there is a new quality of space which emerges: a space that is no more related to the reactions, the preferences, the choice systems.
[ silence ]
When understanding is not mature, then the space can also become an object of observation. Silence and space become like something external. This means that there is a need to go deeper in the exploration of the knower of the silence and the space, for deconstructing the fixation on the object of observation. It is like a game - to go backwards until there is no more place for moving.
[ silence ]
If, someday, we would really like to be free of suffering, this inquiry would be useful.
[ silence ]
The fact that there is a natural desire to be free of suffering means that such a thing exists, that it is not a dream, because when we inquire into what we are really looking for, it brings us to this quality of being which is free from emotivity, of affectivity.
[ silence ]
There is usually a confusion, a misunderstanding on what the 'I' is.
[ silence ]
When someone comes to you, as a therapist, and says, "I am this, I was this, I will be or won't be that…", there is a turning around, as if we turn the centre of the axis around. It is related to what we named yesterday "verticality". This verticality is usually forgotten because there is an involvement in the situation, an involvement in the mental process, in the past and the future, and you begin to realize that it is not possible to conceptualize the present moment. If there is conceptualization of the present moment, it is already the past, so it is only possible to be one with it. To live the present moment is a fundamental experience of unity, of oneness.
Very often we live in the space in front of us because there is a habit of anticipating, of trying to become something. That is, there is a fixation on the becoming process.
It is possible to take note of this, just to observe it like an object on the table.
[ silence ]
And the space on the right, and the space on the left, and the space behind can also be explored and integrated, like a whole. That is, there is usually a habit of living like a fraction. It is no more than a habit because during the deep sleep, there is a natural returning to globality.
[ silence ]
The body can also be explored in the same way. The body appears as a tool which reflects inner posture. Each tension on a physical level is the result of a misunderstanding, the consequence of the idea that there is something to reach. Because of this habit of trying to grasp and control, the agonistic muscles of the arms and legs are very often contracted.
This habit is the expression of fear, like a fear of the unknown which creates a need to look for a kind of psychological security, which of course can never be found. When an understanding appears very clearly in the mind that there is no psychological security, at this right moment there is a release, a transformation of this habit: controlling becomes accepting and grasping becomes listening.
In accepting and listening you can experience that there is no more question of time. It is not possible to listen to yesterday or tomorrow. Listening finds its existence in the now, like feeling and observing: they are the more natural tools of consciousness. It is also important to see clearly the difference between feeling and 'I feel', or listening and 'I listen', because in real listening there is no mentalization of listening, there is only listening. The sentence, 'I am listening', comes afterwards. It is like an interpretation that arrives secondarily.
We could say that it is only a defense, an escaping of that which is. When the sentence 'I am listening, I am feeling' emerges, it brings a sense of psychological security. The experience of the present moment has been put in a box, a framework, which contains the idea of the 'I' and the idea that we are in a specific situation or place.
So we can arrive at the understanding that time and space are only relative conclusions.
If we now really inquire into where we are with depth and authenticity, the natural answer will be, 'I don't know'. We could say that silence is the answer. We could also say that there is no answer. Saying "I am here in Cambridge" and "I am speaking at such a date" is only a conclusion. We could also say that it is an escaping and observe this constant habit of escaping.
To try not to escape can also be an escape.
[ silence ]
Before being an image, the body is a sensation. If I am not mistaken, the main topic of this conference is 'Beyond the Brain'. Before going beyond the brain, we can explore the brain as a sensation. It is quite possible, for example, to feel the left part of the brain. You can feel it now, for instance. You can experience and let come to you the vibration of the left part of the brain, the waves, and after that to feel in the same way the right part of the brain, just feeling it.
So, if it is possible to feel the brain, it means that that which feels the brain is not in the brain. Here we exactly touch the topic of the conference which is, that which is beyond or before the brain, the brain as a sensation that emerges within a silent background, a sensitive silent background. When we try to localize that which perceives, you cannot localize it and say that it is here, or there. So fundamentally we are nowhere.
[ silence ]
But as we saw today in the film about this man suffering from an Alzheimer disease, this feeling or sense of the 'I' remained despite the dysfunctioning of memory.
There is a direct experience, a permanent experience of the 'I'. This experience of the 'I', which is not the same as 'I am something' but comes before its formulation, does not belong to time-space.
[ silence ]
It is possible to use both 'I am' and 'I am not', or to use 'I' and to listen to the silent echo which remains after the 'I', and to be one with it. A natural disidentification occurs, a clear vision of what we are not: the I-image.
This identification with the I-image is the main root of suffering. If there is no more a 'I' who is suffering, then suffering has no more place. It can no longer occur. Suffering is a reaction, it is not a necessity. But beyond this reaction, you are. And this 'you' who is free from suffering is not concerned with the reaction. It is sometimes designated as an ultimate witness.
[ silence ]
If you wish, we can now have a dialogue. Questions will help to clarify things and make them more precise.
Q: Different people have different uses for the words 'I', self, ego and so on. I don't know whether I've understood you correctly but I have the feeling that what you are referring to as the 'I' is what I would call the higher self, which is what one is in contact with in an altered state of consciousness, and the ego is simply the construct of this lifetime and so it doesn't have the same reality as the 'I' of the higher self. I wonder if I've understood you correctly.
J-M: When you say that the 'I' is part of the divine, of the cosmos, it means that it remains a conceptualization, because what you really are cannot be conceptualized. You are that which is before the conceptualization, before that thought 'I am part of the cosmos', before that thought 'I am'. It needs a great sensitivity of approach to shift the attention and to stay at the level of the non-formulated 'I'. At the same moment the thought 'I am this, I am something' appears, it is already a concept, it is already a defense in front of the total unknown.
Q: Could you tell us more about the vertical? Could you explain your understanding of it some more?
J-M: First of all you can experience the verticality in your body. For instance, you can feel it right now, touch with the sensitivity the space above the head, and let this feeling of verticality take your body, take your spine.
Q: I remember that two years ago we had a discussion about the 'I'. A chaplain from Claxton came to talk to us about it. My understanding is that in a way he sees the 'I' as always being in one of our outer layers, our personae, one of our masks that we present to the world - and that is all there is, that ultimately the 'I' resides in one or other of these masks and nowhere else. Now you are saying that that is not the case. You are saying the 'I' has an existence beyond and before the development of the personae. Is that right?
J-M: Yes.
Q: How do these personae come about? What brings them into being?
J-M: If you inquire into your memory, you can touch, you can be aware that there is something in your being that is there from when you were a child, that it is here now that you are an adult, and it will be here tomorrow. There is something in you that is beyond change and movement. It is this quality of 'I' that we are now exploring.
Q: I hesitate to ask a question because it seems one needs a special language to ask. The way you use the word 'I' as something is not the way we usually use the noun. The way you talk about it seems to describe a standing back, a verb rather than a noun. But my question is: this turning back, from back to back, if one stands back how does one relate normally to another person?
J-M: If you don't know who you are then how is it possible to know who he is or who she is?
[ laughter ]
So if we want to know the other we need to know what we are speaking about. First of all this exploration is necessary and then, afterwards, it will bring a better understanding. The question of the other arises only afterwards, or does not arise at all.
Q: So your personality, this persona, is, that is you must define yourself in relation to them, but first of all in relation to yourself and then to the other.
J-M: When you say 'you', when you say 'somebody', you are speaking about someone else. This someone else exists first of all as a perception. Would you not agree? First of all there is a perception. If there is no perception of the other, there is no other.
[ laughter ]
Yes, you have the perception of someone but this perception is in you, this perception is living in your own consciousness. This perception appears in your own space. So I can't say that you or I have a separate existence because the image you have of me exists at the right moment in your consciousness, in your own inner space.
Q: My idea of you might be completely mistaken.
J-M: When you let the perception flow freely in you, unfold in you, in you as seeing, you come to the direct experience that the other only exists as a perception at the right moment. If I say that you are a women, or that you are I don't know what, this is already a conclusion. I've put you in a box. If I don't say anything inside, then you are free. Here is the main problem in what we call a relationship. I have an image about myself and an image about yourself, and you have an image about yourself and an image about myself, so the contact, the relationship, is very poor.
[ laughter, applause ]
We can explore what remains when there is no more image about 'I', about 'you', without naming that which remains. At this moment you can experience contact. You can't say between what and what, but there is a presence. And it is this presence which gives meaning to what we call a relationship.
So the relationship is only the awakening of a living presence. With this perspective there is a new way of living with your surroundings, no more considered simply as your family or your friends. They are more than that. When you say "It is my family" or "It is my friend", it is already a fraction, a reduction.
And when you say "I am a charming woman", it is already a reduction. So you know you are not this.
[ laughter ]
Q: Life on the planet is more pinned down that that. It doesn't make it false or incorrect but it's the way things are.
J-M: Which planet ?
[ laughter ]
Q: If I understood you, there is no more question. But my question is this: has Jean-Marc been influenced by Zen?
J-M: About whom are you speaking ?
[ laughter ]
Q: I would have thought that you were more interested in, more influenced by Hinduism, rather than by Zen Buddhism. The Ultimate 'I', the only subject and this Great 'I' operate in the small 'I' of individual people. And this small 'I' is a device with which we can gather round our experiences, our memories, our image of ourselves. The 'I' which we would like to become is a transpersonal 'I' and a great 'I', the only subject. Am I right about that? About verticality, I would have thought that in Hinduism that is the highest point of the spiritual images which surround us and that we should release these energies to flow through all parts of our being, to the emotional, the instinctual. Am I right?
J-M: I would say again that this habit of putting perception and understanding into a box is an expression of fear. When we speak about the 'I' we can explore this question in our own way and we discover that there is no place for Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity. We speak about the direct experience of what we are. It is like a total and direct perception. It is an immediate experience which is not related to knowledge, second hand knowledge that we read about. That is the answer.
Of course, if you wish to put such an approach in a box, you can do it. But it can also be an escape from a direct exploration. What has been said here is not original. It has been spoken about many times, everywhere. It is a living exploration which brings a possibility of direct understanding. This quality of understanding is not related to the mind.
The mind can create a concept, but the concept is the expression of the reality which was before the birth of the concept. So when you explore what is before the birth of the 'I' thought, this exploration will bring a direct understanding which comes from the inner experience .
Q: If I understood it correctly I think one of the hardest things in a subject like this, is that we use words that are concrete to describe something that is abstract, just experience. When you were talking about a relationship between two people, and you stand before the 'I' and the other person is standing before you, you put them in a box, before you decide to do anything, according to whether they are male or female, before anything. For me, it was the first time that I've ever felt that I understood what it is like not to be separate from other people. I want to thank you for this experience, of just being without words, without the concepts.
[ applause ]
Q: I just wish to see if I have understood things properly, just to understand if what I thought about in terms of my experience is in accordance with what you were trying to say when you were talking about the silence behind the sound, and so on. Now I've had no experience of meditation and in fact I've wished to avoid it, but what I have had considerable experience of, over about fifty years, is making drawings. As you sat there, very still, you could have been the subject of a drawing I was making. I recall very well, I learned very early on to make drawings and I began to realize that as people learn to draw they become very concerned with the 'I am drawing something'. They become very conscious of the paper, of what ever instruments they have in their hands. You seem to be talking about pure observation and once one begins, first of all, to be able to separate the figure out from the background. In other words, to be able to see the figure in space, to be able to see the space between whatever is observed and what is observed, and also to see the space around what is observed. At this point one begins a completely conceptual-less operation of the hand. It is almost as if the physical eye is extended to touch what is there and the hand becomes almost like a seismic needle that is moving against the white paper, that this white paper is no longer a surface, it is a virtual space. This is what you called the mind: pure acts of observation in which, if you are really in contact in this way - and I suggest that you may have to alter the circumstances to get away from any feeling of drawing - then any feeling about 'I' vanishes.
When I come back and begin to think that what I have to do is to get the hair in, for example, then the drawing starts to go wrong. In other words, what I think you were saying, starting off from this notion of having to separate figure from background, was something like that kind of experience. The only other thing I could say is that I've had considerable experience in making radio programs, so not talking in this case about 'I', but observing by ear, I've had to make judgments about when to bring a sound out of the silence and when to return the sound back again into the silence in order to express a particular mode, perhaps not for me but for those doing the program. Are we at one on this?
J-M: During the drawing there is only drawing, only acting. When you say, "I am drawing", it is already an interpretation and it disturbs the natural flowing.
Q: I just want to say that our hearts have touched. Thank you! The second thing is, you have an Association for Spiritual Psychiatry. Is this an appropriate time to share what your goal is and what your projects are?
J-M: This is not the appropriate moment. Maybe later.
Q: Part of me was aware of the whole 'I' being inside and outside, observing the whole process and that was beautiful. When you mentioned 'her', well, I have a 'her'. Her name is Naomi and she is an animal, a cat. We are together without words, without signs, without space, in the garden early in the morning, and we are at one with the environment. The oneness that you describe, of being rather than necessary even observing, is something that 'her' certainly notices. Thank you very much for having described so beautifully and thank you also for the young lady at the front who gave us a very interesting interaction and exploration.
J-M: Thank you for your attention.