Cogito ergo sum

Cogito ergo sum.

This is what Descartes said many moons ago. “I think therefore I am.” It seemed to solve a problem for him. For the majority of people on this planet it is not even a problem – it is self-evident. I exist, because I can think. But does this really follow?

I am thinking my granddaughter has got in to the Grammar School – therefore I am.
I am wondering what to do today – I think therefore I am.
What a great six Kevin Pietersen hit – I think therefore I am.
I consider the last speaker I heard was inaudible – I criticise therefore I am.
A friend of mine has liked my writings! How perspicacious he is! Therefore I am.
Another has asked for definitions – I am thinking about that therefore I am.
We are planning to go to Rome – so it follows we are.
The word ‘worship’ always worried me – which proves that I am.
I am intrigued by the idea of six dimensions – therefore I am.
You know, Torquay United will never win the Cup – Ok, that shows I am.

So, does this function of thought prove that ‘I’ exist?

Actually as I am sitting here at my Word Processor, I was just recalling the random associations that have occurred to me. It is true that this morning I have been watching cricket, England versus India. It is also true that my son-in-law is a great fan of Torquay United. My granddaughter has just won a place at a Grammar. It is a beautiful day, so I was wondering if Eileen would like to go out to a Pub lunch. I have heard from Husayn and Rainier, and they have both set off trains of thought in my mind. The associative process is a sort of function of the mind. To Descartes and to the majority of mankind this function proves their existence.

That is OK by me, if they and Descartes want to think that way. Actually he might have gone further. Thought aside, what about feeling?

The sun is shining, I am feeling alive – therefore I am.
I have got a curious email, that I can’t understand – I am concerned, therefore I am.
Someone has praised me, I feel a glow – therefore I am.
Someone else has blamed me, I feel they are stupid – therefore I am.
I am watching the skating, the girls are stupendous – therefore I am.
I am feeling randy, no actually I am not feeling randy – perhaps I am NOT!
I want to be with everybody – therefore I am.
I want to be on my own for a bit – therefore I am.

Of course we all have feelings or emotions as well as thoughts. And these emotions are so quick, anything can trigger them. I am on top of the world, then a dear friend dies, so I begin to feel sad. Someone else desperately needs help – I hear their cry, but what should I do? One emotion succeeds another.


So that as well as the thinking process that is going along all the time, there is this gamut of emotions, delight, joy, sadness, depression, desire. So shall we say, shall we echo Descartes, and say I feel therefore I am?

That’s OK by me, if you feel that way, and if you think that way, because that is the way that Descartes thought and felt and the majority of humankind also thinks. Who am I to disagree?

But does the function of thought and the function of feelings prove that ‘I’ exist?

If thought and emotions were not enough, what about sensations?

I can’t get my hands warm – therefore I am.
I have a pain under my left rib which won’t go away – I feel pain therefore I am.
That steak last night tasted wonderful, which proves that I am.
The crocuses and the daffodils are out – I can see therefore I am.
I can hear the traffic pass by my window – I hear therefore I am.
I listened to the Marriage of Figaro – why, that proves that I am (to some people!)

So now I think therefore I am, I feel therefore I am and I sense therefore I am.
I am not going to argue the toss here, though I might have done when I was a younger man, and absolutely convinced that I was right and everybody else was wrong!!

But I ask you again, does the function of thought, the function of feeling and the function of sensation prove that ‘I’ am?

Actually if you agree with all the above, if you feel, think and sense that you and everybody else is an amalgam of all these separate associations, random feelings and sensations, that all these things together constitute what is ‘you’, what is your ‘I’, that is OK by me. Because you are absolutely agreeing with the thesis of Gurdjieff, you are agreeing with a fundamental Buddhist principle, because you are actually saying that these hundreds of ‘I’s that follow one another with great rapidity, and which compose your Persona are actually you. Well, if you are your Personality then that is OK? But that is the real question: Are you your Personality? Are you this kaleidoscope?

Now sleep is a funny thing. Now that I am older I fall asleep much more often. And when I go to bed I sleep exceptionally soundly. I very rarely dream, though there are those who insist that I must dream and that everybody does. Pak Subuh once asked me if I dreamt and he seemed surprised when I said No. When I fall asleep in bed I mostly go flat out. I do not think, I do not picture, I do not sense, I do not feel anything at all. To all intents and purposes I am dead.

I do not mean that I never dream, but those dreams that I have had I can still remember, they seemed to me then and now significant, and symbolic even. But those dreams have been but very rare occurrences. For the most part I am dead to the world.

What conclusion can we draw from that? Does it then follow that I don’t think, therefore I am NOT? I do not feel, therefore I am NOT? I experience no sensations, therefore I am Not? But how about when I awaken? Does that mean that suddenly I am?

It is quite an intriguing problem. Does it mean, did Descartes mean, that I am my functions? Did he mean that when I fall asleep I am more or less dead? Except of course that my body keeps breathing, my heart keeps pumping and my blood keeps circulating and my energies build up? That alone is something quite miraculous.

Quite recently I have had to undergo a sleep study. I had to go to my local Hospital and get wired up, and I had to go to sleep with a couple of plastic prongs up my nose. I was a bit concerned about this, as I thought I might die in my sleep, which goes to show that in spite of all my studies with Gurdjieff and with Bennett, in spite of my having done the latihan of Subud now for some 50 years, I am still, God forgive me! an absolute coward with about as much Faith in God as a dead matchstick! Be that as it may, and since I am still alive, perhaps I may still have time!

I believed that I had some sort of Sleep Apnoea. Well, I was wrong, but what interested me was that at least 10 times during the night I stopped breathing!!!

Now one of my aforesaid friends has written to me and asked my definition of the word ‘soul.’ Actually, people were always asking Pak Subuh to clarify the word ‘jiwa’, and in the Subud Journal the young lady Editor promptly decided that she would substitute the word ‘soul’ for ‘jiwa’. I took this up with Pak Haryono, who is Pak Subuh’s son. He merely said that soul was all right – but then you have to understand the Indonesians, particularly the Javanese and more particularly those who are in Subud. They are non-confrontational almost to a fault.

I don’t like the word ‘soul’ very much, precisely because I can’t define it, and nobody has ever done so satisfactorily to my knowledge. What I like least about it is that a lot of people seem to know what it is – it is sort of handed down. Now I prefer the word jiwa, for although I cannot define that either, at least I have a point of reference in the latihan ke-jiwa-an, that is to say the exercise of the jiwa. Since I, and everybody else in the Subud Brotherhood has had direct experience of its action, we don’t really need to define it, but only to experience it.

So perhaps we can say what soul or jiwa is not. We can say with great certainty that the Soul is not Function. And having said that I hope and pray that all of you may sleep well tonight.

Anthony Bright-Paul



June 2006