HOW YOU CAN USE MINDFULNESS TO MEMORISE A SPEECH, POEM OR PLAY

Over the years I have been called upon to commit to memory a speech, poem or monologue from a play. On a couple of occasions I have acted in plays where I needed to learn whole lines of variable length and complexity. I have never found this an easy task, and I must confess that I find the task even more difficult as I get older.

I used to learn the material off by rote. That method sometimes worked, but it failed me on one memorable occasion that I can recall. I had to learn a very long portion of a piece of Masonic ritual. The piece was in three parts. I spent months learning the material line by line, obviously beginning with the first line, and when I had committed that to memory, I went on to the second line, and then the third, and so on. In my mind, the second sentence had become ‘attached’ to the first, and the third ‘attached’ to the second, and so on, right to the very last line. 

Now, on the night I was to deliver the speech, I was told that three people would share the delivery of the speech, and that I would deliver only the final third part of the speech. Well, I didn’t know where to begin. Not being able to start with the first line, I stumbled on almost every line and had to be prompted. It was most embarrassing. So much for learning one line after the other by rote. However, if that method works well for you, use it.

Here’s some philosophy that, in my opinion, is worth its weight in gold. It says much about life as well as linguistics. Now, David Hume (1711-1776) [pictured left] was a Scottish philosopher of very great renown. He was an empiricist who saw the world as a continuum -- actually, more of a drift -- of ideas. Think of your speech, poem or play lines as a drift of ideas, one after the other, for such is the workings of the human mind – one thought, feeling or sensation after another. After all, the primary purpose of words is to convey ideas. Get into the ‘look’, ‘feel’ and ‘sound’ of the idea—and make the idea your own. Pay attention to the idea above all else. Once the idea has been committed to memory, then you can direct your attention to the words themselves.

Now, no matter how tenuous the connection, there is always some sort of connection (‘association’) between one idea and the next. This is what Hume had to say about the matter:

It is evident that there is a principle of connection between the different thoughts or ideas of the mind, and that in their appearance to the memory or imagination, they introduce each other with a certain degree of method and regularity. (An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1784), I:I:3.)

The author of the material has given some thought to the connections between one idea and the next. This is not a matter of chance but rather deliberate determination. Says Hume, ‘Were ideas entirely loose and unconnected, chance alone would join them’ (A Treatise of Human Nature, I:I:4). One or more lines of your material encapsulate an idea -- perhaps more than one idea -- so commit the idea to your memory. Then proceed to note, and then commit to memory, the connection between one idea and the next, and the one thereafter, and so on. 

According to Hume, ‘the same simple ideas … fall regularly into complex ones’, for such is life. Life is simply the continuum of one moment after another. For the public speaker or actor, the important thing, insofar as the succession of ideas is concerned, is to decipher, and then commit to memory, the ‘bond of union among them, some associating quality by which one idea naturally introduces another’ (Treatise, I:I:4). Association is the uniting principle, but it ‘is not to be considered as an inseparable connection ... Nor yet are we to conclude that without it the mind cannot join two ideas ... But we are only to regard it as a gentle force, which commonly prevails’ (Treatise, I:I:4). So, for Hume association is in the nature of a ‘gentle force’ which develops from what he termed ‘original qualities of human nature’ and which ‘point[s] out to everyone those simple ideas which are most proper to be united into a complex one’ (Treatise, I:I:4).

Let's now apply the above mentioned ideas to the task of learning a speech, poem or play. First, read, then re-read, then re-read again, the material to be learned. Get a ‘feel’ for the material as a whole. The ‘secret’ is to get into the mind of the author … and to think, feel and act from there. When it comes to a play, you need to do more, that is, to get into the mind of the character you’re playing such that the ideas -- in terms of the lines spoken -- become your ideas. Become, at least for a time, the character you’re playing. Their thoughts become your thoughts (but not necessarily in ‘real’ life). In time, as you come to identify more and more with the character you’re playing, the ideas, and the associations between one idea and another, will become almost automatic, natural and spontaneous. Get interested in the writer of the material (in the case of, say, a poem) and the character you’re playing (in the case of a play). The more you are interested, the easier it becomes to maintain attention, awareness and concentration … and the easier it becomes to remember.

Never forget this. First, the idea -- that is, the form of the words – then the substance, that is, the words themselves. Not only is there an association between one idea and the next idea, there is also an association between an idea itself and the words that the author has chosen to give expression to that idea. The last mentioned association is especially useful for you, the speaker or actor, for it serves as your mnemonic. (A mnemonic is any learning technique that aids information retention in the human memory.) So, learn the ideas as opposed to the words. This is the good advice of the internationally renowned Australian theatrical and opera director Gale Edwards [pictured right]. When it comes to your lines, look for what are known as ‘key lines’ – the lines that are most central to the idea or image being communicated. The key lines will serve as an anchor in your mind to which the other lines in your material are attached.

Where does mindfulness come into all this? Well, it already has, for mindfulness is the watchful, receptive, deliberate, and purposeful presence of bare attention to, and choiceless awareness of, the content of the action (both internal and external) of the present moment ... from one moment to the next. The word ‘presence’ refers to both physical and psychological presence -- of you, your body, and your mind. 'Watchful' presence means that there you are very much aware that you're aware---or not aware as the case may be---of what is going on in and about you, and this alert and open awareness, attention and ongoing observation makes use of all your senses as well as your mind and proceeds deliberately, purposefully, intentionally and receptively on your part.

I use the word ‘content’ because it is ‘content’ -- of ideas, images, words and actions, all of which are occurrences in time and space -- of which the speaker or actor must be aware, and to which they must give clear, focused and single-minded attention and concentration. The content of the speaker or actor’s awareness will be both internal (eg thoughts, feelings, mental images, as well as bodily sensations and the like) and external (sounds, sights, actions, etc).

Now, what do we mean by ‘bare attention’? Well, bare attention falls short of naming, labelling, judging, analysing, interpreting, approving, condemning, and so forth. In his book The Heart of Buddhist Meditation (San Francisco CA: Weiser Books, [1954] 1965, p 30) -- a truly wonderful book on insight meditation (mindfulness) -- the monk and teacher Nyanaponika Thera [pictured left] defines, or rather describes, bare attention in these words:

Bare attention is the clear and single-minded awareness of what actually happens to us and in us, at the successive moments of perception. It is called ‘bare’, because it attends just to the bare facts of a perception as presented either through the five physical senses or through the mind which, for Buddhist thought, constitutes the sixth sense. When attending to that sixfold sense impression, attention or mindfulness is kept to a bare registering of the facts observed, without reacting to them by deed, speech or by mental comment which may be one of self-reference (like, dislike, etc), judgement or reflection. … [original emphasis]

Bare attention does not mean minimal attention. On the contrary, it means total and unadulterated attention to the action of the moment – without allowing yourself to be deflected by extraneous matters. Bare attention is needed not only when learning one’s lines but also in delivering them. If you are an actor, you also need to have the same level of attention to the action of the play as it unfolds. And the phrase ‘choiceless awareness’? Well, awareness is ‘choiceless’ when there is no preference, and no prejudice -- that is, no judgment or selectiveness -- as respects the content of one’s awareness. Ordinarily, we tend to be aware of some things but not others.

Lucille Ball in a touring production of the play Dream Girl, 1947-48

Now, take these lines from the play Dream Girl (New York: Dramatists Play Service, 1945, pp 69-70) by Elmer Rice. I have used different colours to highlight various connections -- groupings and chains of thought of like character, rhythm, mood and feeling -- in the drift of ideas and images as well as some connections within a single idea or image.

CLARK. Because dreaming is easy and life is hard. Because when you dream, you make your own rules, but when you try to do something, the rules are made for you by the limitations of your own nature and the shape of the world you live in. Because no matter how much you win in your dreams, your gains are illusory, and you always come away empty-handed. But in life, whether you win or lose, you’ve always got something to show for it—even if it’s only a scar or a painful memory.

GEORGINA. Scars are ugly and pain hurts.

CLARK. Without ugliness, there would be no beauty. And if you’re afraid to know pain, you’ll never know the value of pleasure.

GEORGINA. You’re a tough guy aren’t you?

CLARK. Well, I’ve had to fight my own way through life, ever since I can remember. You either get tough, or else you go under.

GEORGINA. It’s not the way I was brought up. I always had people to protect me.

CLARK. If you bandage a muscle long enough, it withers. And that goes for your emotions, too. If you keep smothering them with dreams, they’ll die after a while.

Of course, as any actor knows, you need to know your cues, a cue being the last bit of the previous actor’s line or the event leading to yours. Once again, I find it helps to think not just in terms of the actual word or words but also the ideas expressed. In the above exchange between the extroverted newspaperman Clark Redfield and the daydreaming bookshop owner Georgina Allerton, it is easy to see how the real cues lie in the ideas expressed (dreaming versus life, wins and gains, ugliness and beauty, pain and pleasure, toughness and fighting versus protection, bandaging, withering and smothering).

In summary, make the ‘law’ of association work for you. Think of your speech, poem or play lines as a drift of ideas, one after the other, and learn to give those images visible and audible expression. Act, react, and project. Get into the ‘look’, ‘feel’ and ‘sound’ of the idea, focusing especially on your key lines. Pay attention to the idea above all else, for it is ideas which, first and foremost, you are to communicate to your listeners or audience. Once the idea has been committed to memory, then pay attention to the words. It will then be that much easier. Look for and commit to memory the association between one idea and the next, as well as the association between an idea itself and the words giving expression to that idea. Also, look for and commit to memory any connections within a single idea.  

Finally, practise mindfulness, which as Dr Jon Kabat-Zinn has said, means – ‘Paying attention in a particular way; on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally.’ Give bare (that is, clear, focused and unadulterated) attention. Maintain choiceless awareness. In other words, be both physically and psychologically present at all times -- and generate and maintain interest and enthusiasm in what you are doing.

Acknowledgments. Dream Girl (New York: Dramatists Play Service, Inc) by Elmer Rice. Copyright © 1945, 1946, by Elmer Rice. Copyrights reserved, 1972, 1973, by Barbara Rice, Robert Rice, John A Rice, Margaret Cooper, Judith Rice and Paul Rice. All rights reserved. The Heart of Buddhist Meditation (San Francisco CA: Weiser Books) by Nyanaponika Thera. Copyright © 1954, 1962, 1996 Buddhist Publication Society. All rights reserved.

RELATED POSTS

ARE YOU A DREAM GIRL?

MINDFULNESS AND METHOD ACTING

ALL THINGS ARE NOT ONE

We often read or are told that all life and all things, including all people, are one. It’s a nice, comforting, New-Agey idea … but it’s not true. Not at all.

Now, look. Nothing in this world is simple. Whatever exists in this universe is complex and has internal differentiation, involving numerous differences and relations. Each thing is ‘a multum in parvo plurally related,’ to borrow a phrase from William James [pictured left]. ‘Things are with one another in many ways,’ wrote James, ‘but nothing includes everything, or dominates over everything.’ 

Not only that, whatever exists does, however, do so in situations. Those situations are themselves complex and are also in complex relationship to other complex situations, and all these complex situations exist in the one space-time, belong to the one order of being, and exist under certain invariably complex conditions. For example, a table consists of wood, nails, glue, etc, not to mention the carpenter with his tools who ‘made’ the table. The table sits on the floor of the room. The floor is supported by the foundations of the building, and so on. Yes, whatever exists does so in situations which are in complex relationship to other situations.

In realist philosophy this state of affairs is known as ‘situationality.’ Yes, everything that exists has some relation with some other thing that exists, but it is not true to say that everything is related to everything else nor is everything one in some overall monistic sense, and nothing in quantum physics proves otherwise. Co-existing situations often comprise or constitute a system, and some systems are very much connected to other such situations. However, while some situations have connections with other systems, not all systems are connected to all other systems. We know all this to be the case.

Traditional Buddhism, for the most part, is empirical and realist in its overall thrust and content (even though you will find in many places a considerable amount of superadded superstitious nonsense). A cardinal, perhaps the core, teaching of Buddhism---arguably the only thing that holds all Buddhist teachings together---is this: all phenomena are arising together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect. This is known as the teaching or principle of interdependent relations. 

Perhaps even more importantly, this teaching more accurately states that things arise dependent on conditions and cease when those same conditions cease. Buddhism sees causation as a complex phenomenon going far beyond mere constant conjunction in the nature of some ‘regularity’ theory. The emphasis is on causal connections, or the relationship, between two events that are separated in space-time. (Note. At the sub-atomic level phenomena such as quantum entanglement show that connections can at times survive even physical separation, but it remains the fact that those connections exist under certain conditions even if we don’t fully understand the nature, extent and scope of those conditions.)

Causation is never a simple thing. Invariably, multiple factors are necessary to produce any given effect. In light of this complexity and plurality, it is never as simple as selecting one such factor from a set of jointly and severally sufficient conditions and taking that factor to be the cause of the particular effect, for we are dealing with a complex system whose parts, as previously mentioned, are at least to some extent interdependent.

Buddhism goes further and seeks to distinguish causes and conditions In that regard, the English word ‘conditionality’ encapsulates essence of the Buddha’s teaching of (in Pāli) paţicca-samuppāda (in Sanskrit, pratītya-samutpāda), or ‘dependent arising’. Now, conditionality and causality are not the exact same thing. Conditionality is a much broader concept of causality. When we speak of the ‘cause’ of some event we are referring to something that is directly and immediately responsible for the occurrence of the event, whereas the word ‘condition’ is wide enough to embrace supporting and contributing factors as well. Buddha Shakyamuni is reported to have said on many occasions, ‘This being, that becomes.’ In other words, the most general quality or a thing is that it is the condition for another. More fully, the Buddha would say:

This being, that becomes; from the arising of this, that arises;

This not being, that does not become; from the ceasing of this, that ceases.

This conditionality---that is, all things are ‘conditioned things’---was said by the Buddha to be universal, underlying all of reality, irrespective and quite independently of anyone noticing it.

Now, there is a sense in which all life is one. I am not advocating monism or pantheism. When I say that life is one, I am trying to say a couple of things. First, a single logic applies to all things and how they are related. Secondly, all things exist in the same order or level of reality, and on the same ‘plane’ of observability. If these two things were not the case, it would be impossible for us to be attentive to, and otherwise aware of, what happens from one moment to the next, let alone speak meaningfully about things. Just think about that for a few seconds, and it should be obvious to you that such is indeed the case.

Call it the ‘interconnectedness of all life’ or, if you like, ‘InterBeing.’ The latter wonderful term comes from the Vietnamese Zen Buddhist monk and teacher Thich Nhat Hanh [pictured right]. I love that word ‘InterBeing.’

The bottom line is this. Although all things are not one, there nevertheless is only one life manifesting itself in all things and as all things. And if that be the case, we owe each other certain ethical duties. Those ethical duties (for example, the golden rule) do not depend for their existence on any religion---not even Buddhism, for which I have the greatest respect. They flow naturally and inevitably from the very nature of existence itself.

RELATED POSTS

MINDFULNESS AND THE LIVINGNESS OF LIFE

MINDFULNESS, PROFESSOR JOHN ANDERSON AND THE FACTICITY OF THINGS

BUDDHISM AND THE PLURALITY OF ALL THINGS

MINDFULNESS AND THE TOTALITY OF ALL THINGS

THERE WAS NO FIRST CAUSE---AND NO NEED FOR ONE

InterBeing

LEADING ATHEIST SAM HARRIS ENDORSES MINDFULNESS AS RATIONAL SPIRITUALITY

Leading ‘new atheist’ and neuroscientist Sam Harris’ latest book Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion presents what the author [pictured left] describes as a ‘rational approach to spirituality.’ 

Not only that, this man, who is so opposed to conventional religious faith and expression, wants us to lead ‘rich, spiritual lives.’ He says that is quite possible without religion. And there's more---indeed, much more. Harris encourages us to meditate and, especially, to practise mindfulness. 

Confused? Well, you shouldn’t be. Spirituality does not require religion.

Waking Up is a rare and unexpected find, and a real treasure. Drawing upon neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and empirical philosophy Dr Harris (The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, The Moral Landscape) demonstrates that there is no separate, permanent ‘self’ at the centre of our being. This is perhaps the central thesis of the book. Consciousness is real. The person that you are is real. But your sense of 'self' is illusory.

There's more. Harris says we suffer because ‘we are all prisoners of our thoughts,’ and that includes our beliefs, prejudices, biases, opinions, views, ideas, memories, and all other attachments and aversions. We have a ‘habit of being distracted by thoughts,’ says Harris, and we fail to see things-as-they-really-are, and for most of us our experience of both internal and external reality is filtered through, and distorted by, our thoughts and the other things mentioned above.

Now back to the so-called 'self.' Harris writes that our illusory sense of self can be altered and, wait for it, even ‘extinguished’ by the regular practice of mindfulness, which in Harris’ words is ‘simply a state of clear, nonjudgmental, and undistracted attention to the contents of consciousness, whether pleasant or unpleasant.’

The book describes Harris’ own meditative practices and spiritual experiences, and also has much to say about the nature of consciousness which, says Harris, gives our lives a moral dimension. 

There are some helpful exercises and instructions in sidebars throughout the book. You can also find two audio guided meditations on the blog of Harris’ website including one titled ‘Looking for the Self.’

Waking Up is a gem. It’s also a most important contribution to naturalistic, non-religious spirituality. 

I heartily endorse the book.

RELATED POSTS

YOU’RE AN ATHEIST? THAT’S GOOD!

MINDFULNESS, THE ‘SELF’ AND SERENITY

FROM A SENSE OF SELF TO A SENSE OF BEING

A SPIRITUAL GUIDE TO MINDFUL LIVING

WHY NOT EXPERIENCE REALITY WITHOUT THINKING? NOW, THAT’S A GOOD IDEA!

‘Well, what are you, Ian? A realist or an idealist?’ a philosopher colleague of mind asked of me recently.

My reply, which I thought would phase him at least a little … except that it didn’t … was as follows: ‘I am both.’

This reminds me of something the American pastor Dr Norman Vincent Peale [pictured left] once said in a sermon in his church in New York City. He said, ‘I have been accused of belonging to both the fundamentalists and the modernists and that is a fact, I do.’

As I see it now, realism and idealism need each other, and involve each other. Each is made complete by the other. Indeed, there is, as I see it, no fundamental difference between them, strange as that may seem. Idealism is essentially a philosophy of becoming and coming-into-being whereas realism proceeds on the assumption that things have already come into being. Each of the two schools of thought complements the other in an overall philosophy. However, all that is for another day.

When it comes to teaching the law I use realism and empiricism, and stress to my students the principle of non-constitutive relations, that is, nothing is constituted by or is dependent upon, nor can it be defined or explained by reference to, the relations it has to other things. So, we have the person who holds the book in his hand, we have the thing held (viz the book), and we have something else as well---the act of holding. However, when it comes to explaining the workings of the human mind, and matters pertaining to the human spirit (eg faith, hope, and love), I tend to be an idealist.

Now, the realist or empiricist---well, at least some of them---will say that when it comes to the mental function we call cognition, we are talking about a relation between a subject and an object term, namely, a relation between the mind and its objects. So, we have the person who knows (or believes, thinks, remembers, or perceives) and the thing known (or believed, thought, remembered, or perceived), the latter existing independently of the knower (or mind). Well, I think all that is true as far as it goes, and I also think it’s very helpful---indeed, essential for a true understanding of what we are---to separate the person each one of us is from objects and creations of the mind. The latter include, most importantly, all of those hundreds of ‘selves’ that we create in our mind and which we mistakenly take to be the real person we are. (For a further explanation of that matter please see this recent post of mine.) However, I don’t think this realist account tells the whole story. Worse still, I think it is quite misleading and in some ways untrue. Let me explain.

Let’s focus on what actually happens in the human mind itself. You know, we don’t really understand thought or consciousness and what’s involved. There are various ideas on the matter, and some important discoveries have been made on the subject in recent years, but much that pertains to thought and consciousness remains a mystery. Be that as it may, this is how I see it---at least as respects thought and thinking. The idea in our mind that there is some ‘thinker’ or ‘thinking self’ within the mind is fallacious. There is no such thinker or thinking self---at least there is no thinker apart from the thoughts. There are only thoughts, and thinking, and it is the thinking that creates the mental construct, so to speak, of a notional (but not actual) thinker. The latter is, well, illusory in the sense that it has no separate, independent, and permanent existence apart from our thoughts or the person each one of us is. Yes, the thoughts come first, not the thinker. It is the thoughts, or more exactly the process of thinking, that creates the thinker. Actually, the thinker (that is, ‘thinking self’ in our mind) and the thinking are a ‘joint phenomenon,’ as the Indian spiritual philosopher J. Krishnamurti [pictured above right] used to say. They are not two separate processes or entities. Indeed, the so-called thinker/thinking self is not an entity at all in any real sense.

Now, some of you will say to me, ‘Well, Ellis-Jones, assuming for the moment that is the case, so what?’

My response is this. If the thinker in our mind is created by the process of thinking in our mind, a separation in thinking has taken place in our mind. We have the thinker---note, I am not talking about you, the person, being the thinker, but rather ‘something’ supposedly existent in your mind---and the thinking or thoughts. Yes, a separation has taken place in our mind, and it is an artificial one. This separation, although illusory in the sense outlined above, is nevertheless a division in our mind and thinking which is regrettable in a couple of respects. First, the separation or division is perhaps the major cause of our losing immediacy and directness in our moment-to-moment experience of life, Secondly, the separation or division is a cause of our developing what can only be described as a false or artificial personality---a personality that prevents us from seeing ourselves as we really are, and others as they really are. This separation or division has a momentum all of its own and spills over into our society and world at large. As I say, it is all most regrettable.

The bottom line is that there is no ‘watcher/watching self’ or ‘perceiver/perceiving self’ in your mind. There is just the thing watched or perceived together with our sensory perceptions of that object, with the object being the objective or causal condition (that is, ‘cause’). Well, is there anything we can do about this? There certainly is. First, try to understand that what I’ve described above---although seemingly counter-intuitive to perhaps many of you---is actually the case. The understanding and insight gained will help to free you from the bondage of separation or duality in our cognitive processes, and that will assist you in being able to see things as-they-really-are with directness and immediacy. You will then be able to penetrate the core of reality, and that is a wonderful thing. Krishnamurti wrote:

‘When you look at a flower, when you just see it, at that moment is there an entity who sees? Or is there only seeing? Seeing the flower makes you say [i.e. think], “How nice it is! I want it.’ So the “I” comes into being through desire, fear, ambition [all thought], which follow in the wake of seeing. It is these that create the “I” and the “I” is non-existent without them.’

In truth, there are only the following three ‘relational’ elements in order for a stimulus to be perceived: first, the sense-object (or simply the object in question); secondly, a sense organ; and thirdly, attention or consciousness. (It is more-or-less the same with our thoughts and thinking, except we have no sense-object and sense-organ involved as such.) Now, in order for there to be an immediacy and directness about our moment-to-moment experience of life, those three occurrences need to occur more-or-less simultaneously---that is, no separation. If those three events are not simultaneously experienced---and that will happen if we engage in thinking, analysis, comparison, interpretation, or judgment in connection with the object in question (be it external or internal)---then the chances are that what will be experienced will be nothing but ... the past! Yes, the reality of the immediate experience will subside. Indeed, it will die! Any consciousness of it will be in the form of an after-thought or memory, as we glance back to re-experience, and (sadly, yes) evaluate, a past experience.

There is, of course, a time for thinking, introspection, analysis, comparison, interpretation, and judgment. I certainly affirm the need for rationality. The trouble is, we think far too much, and we end up forfeiting our otherwise direct and immediate connection with the flow of life.

Now, go out there and look---really look, and just look, doing nothing but look---at a rose or some other flower. Don’t start thinking about the flower. Don’t start comparing the flower with other flowers you have seen. Don’t judge or otherwise assess the beauty of the flower. Just look at it---without there being any separation. Perceive the flower here and now. See it as it really is---as a new moment. That moment will never come again. Yes, this presence—indeed, omnipresence---of life is the whole of reality. It is all here and now, and it is all that there is. Life, you see, is not cumulative. It is from moment to moment---both being as well as becoming. Don’t let your experience of life die on you---not even for a moment. ‘Accept the offer of newness in the now,’ to borrow a wonderful line from the American spiritual teacher and writer Vernon Howard.

None of this will come easily to many of you, but may I suggest---only suggest---that you start to live this way … if only as an experiment. You may be pleasantly surprised at the change … as you come to see---really see---things as-they-really-are ... perhaps for the very first time.

The photos of flowers were taken by the author.

RELATED POSTS

‘WHAT AM I TO DO WITHMYSELF?’

PIERCING THE MOMENT WITH MINDFULNESS

MINDFULNESS ACCORDING TO HERACLITUS

In an earlier post I discussed the ideas and teachings of the enigmatic Presocratic philosopher Heraclitus (c535--c475 BCE) [pictured], and sought to show how those ideas and teachings relate to the practice of mindfulness.

The Scottish-Australian philosopher John Anderson wrote of Heraclitus’ ‘wide awake approach to problems’, by which he meant that Heraclitus adopted and advocated a rigorously empirical and logical methodology in the pursuit of truth (that is, reality, or what is). Heraclitus was known as the ‘flux and fire’ philosopher. He wrote, ‘All things are flowing’, ‘There is nothing permanent except change,’ ‘No person ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and they're not the same person,’ and ‘The sun is new each day.’

Heraclitus also famously said, ‘Let us not conjecture at random about the greatest things. We must follow the common.’ In other words, if we would know the conditions of existence we must look for that which is ‘common’ to all things. This means, among other things, that we should reject supernatural, occult and all other unobservable explanations of the otherwise observable conditions of existence. ‘The things that can be seen, heard and learned are what I prize most,’ he writes. Indeed, Heraclitus eschewed all notions of the occult and the supernatural. He wrote, ‘this world [or world-order] did none of the gods or humans make; but it always was and is and shall be: an ever-living fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures.’ Note, especially, those words 'was and is and shall be.' The world is, was, and ever will be what is is now. There is only the now. That is why it is often referred to as being the 'eternal now.' That is the logos of Heraclitus. And what of time? 'Time is a child playing draughts; the kingdom is a child's.'

Such is the cosmology of Heraclitus and the other exalted thinkers of his day. How ancient, and yet how very modern! Everything---and I mean literally every thing---is in a constant state of flux. ‘A thing rests by changing,’ he wrote. ‘Everything flows and nothing abides, everything yields and nothing remains permanent.’ Whatever lives does so by the destruction of something else. Things wax and wane, and come and go. We, too. We come, and in a very short time we vanish from view. We go. Only life itself, in the form of change and the eternal now, remains. In the words of Heraclitus, 'all things are steered through all things.'

Here’s another gem from Heraclitus in the form of some not-so-new New Thought. It highlights the importance of keeping your thoughts pure and noble, for as you think so you are:

The soul is dyed the colour of its thoughts. Think only on those things that are in line with your principles and can bear the light of day. The content of your character is your choice. Day by day, what you do is who you become. Your integrity is your destiny---it is the light that guides your way.

Heraclitus also wrote that most people are ‘asleep,’ so to speak. Even in their waking moments most people are far from ‘awake,’ that is, mindfulness. Yes, many people ‘live’ their whole lives that way. One may as well be dead. There is little difference between the two states. Here’s what Heraclitus wrote:

Men are as forgetful and heedless

in their waking moments

of what is going on around them

as they are during their sleep.

Fools, although they hear,

are like deaf;

to them the adage applies

that whenever they are present

they are absent.

One should not act or speak

as if he were asleep.

The waking have one world in common;

sleepers have each a private world of his own.

Whatever we see when awake is death,

when asleep, dreams.

How true all that is! All too often we go through the day ‘forgetful’ and ‘heedless,’ unaware of what is happening and going on around us. It is as if we were asleep---or worse, dead. Heraclitus calls such people ‘fools,’ for ‘whenever you are present / you are absent.’ In truth, we can hardly be said to be ‘present,’ for that requires an awareness of awareness---that is, an awareness or mindfulness of the content of one’s consciousness from one moment to the next. 

Here's some more good advice from Heraclitus on the subject of mindfulness, which Heraclitus refers to as the 'ground of being' ('God' according to the 20th century Christian existentialist theologian Paul Tillich):

Since mindfulness, of all things,

is the ground of being,
to speak one's true mind,
and to keep things known
in common, serves all being,
just as laws made clear
uphold the city,
yet with greater strength.
Of all pronouncements of the law
the one source is the Word
whereby we choose what helps
true mindfulness prevail. 

When we do not practise mindfulness in our daily lives we are, ‘whatever we see when awake is death,’ writes Heraclitus. Yes, death! Because whatever was the action---internal or external---of the then present but now gone moment has died on us. Yes, died on us. It is like watching a motion picture film; the picture is moving, but what is being screened is not happening now. It’s in the past.

Heraclitus also wrote that we do not learn what we should, largely because we go through life mindlessly. ‘Many do not understand such things as they encounter, nor do they learn by their experience, but they think they do.’ So, how are we to learn? Certainly not from books. ‘Knowing many things doesn’t teach insight,’ wrote Heraclitus. Insight comes only from awareness and observation---that is, mindfulness. That’s why it’s called ‘insight meditation.’ Heraclitus also urged people to ‘look within,’ saying, ‘I searched into myself,’ and ‘Those who love wisdom must investigate many things.’

Don’t spend your whole life as if you were asleep---or dead. Wake up! Live with awareness. Live with attention. Watch. Observe. Learn by your experience. Live!

RELATED POSTS

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHERS AND MINDFULNESS [PART 4]

MINDFULNESS ACCORDING TO EPICTETUS

THE AWARENESS OF AWARENESS

BE NOT DETAINED: DON’T LET YOUR MIND STOP

PIERCING THE MOMENT WITH MINDFULNESS

MINDFULNESS AS SOFT FOCUS AWARENESS