Insight & Ecstacy

I was listening with very great interest

to a recent book review broadcast by Kenneth Rexroth

on KPFA

in which he was discussing a recent book of poems

by the San Francisco poet Philip Lamontier

and he was pointing out

how the poems were of a decidedly ecstatic character

and was making a number of very interesting observations

upon what might almost be called a cult of ecstasy

a cult of ecstasy expressing itself

in the current interest

in unusual states of consciousness

whether they be the result of mysticism

or of drugs

or of anything of this kind

and he was saying

that you have to make a very clear distinction indeed

between ecstasy and sanctity

I'm not quite sure that this is

the happiest pair of opposites one could produce

because after all sanctity has special overtones

of a person who has perfected himself

in a certain morality or rule of life

and perhaps it didn't originally mean that

holy for example

does not originally mean good

holy means whole, complete

and thus

you might say

God is not holy

unless God also somehow includes the devil

which is as it were

the other face of God

but

I think it's terribly important to understand

that if you're interested

in eastern philosophy

if you're studying Hinduism or Buddhism

or something of that kind

with the object of attaining ecstasy

at this point

Kenneth Rexroth was perfectly right

in saying

that this is a complete misunderstanding

he was also saying

that

he was making a kind of

contrast of beat and square

he was saying

how all the

New York and San Francisco

beat people

are just fascinated with ecstasy

but that on the contrary

genuine mysticism

is much more likely to be found

among

humble and

devoted adherents

of such great traditions

as Roman Catholicism

or

perhaps Buddhism

or Hinduism

as it's actually practiced in Asia

because these are not people

looking for ecstasy

they're people simply

devotedly following

a way of life

which is often very hard indeed

and

he was of course

particularly

irate

about the people

who think that they can get anything

of this kind

by taking certain drugs

and even went so far

as to call Aldous Huxley

the

Los Angeles idiot

well I think that's really

very unfair

because it should be said

that although ecstasy

will not of itself

however induced

produce

a creative activity

whether it be moral

or whether it be artistic

it won't

do it for you

but if a person

has a great deal

of intelligence

or

artistic ability

anyhow

then

an ecstatic experience

may give him

something to express

after all

if I'm incapable

of describing things

if I'm

if I was so poor

a writer

that I couldn't even

describe a cloud

I

shouldn't be able

to communicate

much

as a result

of having had

some ecstasy

but on the other hand

if a person

can communicate

and Aldous Huxley

is an absolutely

superb writer

then as a result

of having an ecstasy

he's got something

to say

and

after all

this is actually

a man of

very great

intelligence

and learning

and the point

is not

at all

that one could

somehow

transform

a sow's ear

into a silk purse

with a dose

of mescaline

but that

certain experiences

of this kind

might be valuable

to people

able to profit

from them

but this is not

the main point

that I think

is of great

importance here

is that

there must be

between

ecstasy

that is to say

the thrill

the kick

the delight

the joy

of

a mystical

experience

and the experience

itself

because the

experience itself

may or may not

have ecstasy

as a consequence

that is simply

a byproduct

the experience

itself is always

a matter of

insight

and the

insight

the understanding

of

the way

things are

what you are

what life is

may indeed

produce ecstasy

because sometimes

this understanding

is an enormous

relief

and

that is

the reason

when one has

been battling

say with some

tremendous problem

and suddenly

finds the whole

thing disappears

when you've been

terrified at

something or

anxious about

something and

all the grounds

for anxiety

vanish

then very

naturally you

feel enormously

happy and

joyous

and also I

would add

that

the kind

of insight

which is

the essence

or the

core

of this

sort

of experience

has a way

of making

the ordinary

everyday world

seem extraordinarily

beautiful

and that again

is a byproduct

whereas things

before seemed

rather dim

and depressive

you know how

even on a fine

day if you're

feeling sad

or depressed

the actual

landscape

somehow looks

dimmer

whereas on the

other hand

if you're feeling

wonderful

the landscape

itself looks

wonderful

and so in the

same way

if one

has had

certain insights

which bring

about an

extraordinary

sense of

relief

from the

oppression

of certain

problems

then very

naturally

everything in

the world

looks a lot

better

even go so

far as to

say it seems

transfused

with a divine

light

before saying

anything about

the nature

of insight

to point out

that I've

long been

convinced

that a

mystical

experience

that is to

say when it

doesn't involve

visions

when it

doesn't involve

seeing Jesus

or the Buddha

or Krishna

or something

of this kind

when we have

what I would

call a non

imagistic type

of experience

is pretty much

the same thing

all over the

world

and in whatever

tradition it

happens to

arise

but

because it is

an extraordinarily

difficult thing

to describe

people use

images

and figures

of speech

which lie

ready to

them

a person

who is a

believer in

God

will

almost inevitably

draw in

his idea

of God

to interpret

this experience

whereas on the

other hand

a person

who is not

a believer

in God

will not

use that

way of

describing it

and the

types of

description

the imagery

used

is so

diverse

that very

naturally

students of

comparative

religion

and comparative

mysticism

are sometimes

led to believe

that there are

completely

different kinds

of insight

and that

for example

the

nirvana

experience

of a

buddhist

is something

totally

different

in its

epistemological

or psychological

character

from the

christians

vision of

god

but i don't

think that

this necessarily

follows at

all

and

perhaps we

can see

why

if we go

back

to the

subject of

the original

insight

itself

and try to

see

wherein

that

consists

and we

shall see

not only

how it

differs

from

ecstasy

but also

how

it is

it could

be understood

as being

the same

thing

that underlies

types of

mystical

experience

that are

expressed

in very

different

sorts of

imagery

speaking

first of

all

from

say

a buddhist

standpoint

there's no

doubt in

my mind

that

the insight

in question

that constitutes

what is

called

satori

in zen

or in

more general

buddhism

boti

which means

awakening

this is

not

the vision

of

something

like

a god

underlying

the world

although

buddhist

philosophy

occasionally

uses expressions

like

the great

void

or

suchness

or

the

dharmakaya

the

absolute

reality

and thus

gives the

impression

that

it has

a belief

in some

sort

of

continuum

underlying

the world

in rather

the same

way that

water

is the

continuum

in which

fish move

and air

is the

continuum

in which

men

move

there are

many

texts

in the

literature

of

mahayana

buddhism

which

explicitly

deny

that

this is

the meaning

it would

be much

more

correct

to describe

what they

call the

void

as a

state of

complete

mental

clarity

in which

one

ceases

entirely to

be bothered

by

false

problems

because

the

basic

thesis

of

buddhist

philosophy

is that

the

sufferings

the

agonies

of

mankind

especially

the

psychological

ones

derive

almost

entirely

from

false

problems

from

bothering

our heads

over

questions

that are

not real

questions

at all

and when

these

problems

are

solved

when it

is seen

that we

were asking

the wrong

question

then

one gets

this astonishing

sensation

of seeing

that

problems

exist only

as it

were

in a

mental

sphere

they

exist

as a

result

of

thought

whereas

the

world

which

is not

thought

the

world

which

simply

is

entirely

free

from

problems

now

of course

that

is

something

extraordinarily

contrary

to our

general

common

sense

we

think

the

physical

world

is full

of

problems

and

we

have

thought

as a

valuable

instrument

to

enable

us

to

solve

them

and

it's

true

thought

is

a

valuable

instrument

but

valuable

we might

ask

for whom

valuable

for those

who can

use it

but

not so

valuable

for those

who are

used

by it

those

who in

other

words

are

hoodwinked

by

thinking

into

problems

which

would

not

exist

otherwise

and

which

really

have

no

reason

to

exist

now

let

us

take

as a

simple

example

the

common

philosophical

problem

with

which

we've

been

obsessed

in the

West

for

centuries

the

problems

which

are

called

ontology

or

the

study

of

being

and

the

problems

of

epistemology

the

study

of

knowledge

these

problems

very

largely

have

to

do

with

the

inquiry

as

to

who

or

what

I

am

that's

epistemology

and

who

or

what

the

whole

universe

is

that

is

ontology

and

they

derive

from

what

appears

to

be

the

common

sense

feeling

that

processes

of any

kind

actions

of any

kind

have

to

have

behind

them

an

agent

in

other

words

if

we

know

we

ask

very

naturally

the

question

who

or

what

knows

if

we

see

a

movement

or

an

action

we

ask

who

or

what

moves

and

underlying

the

whole

history

of

scientific

inquiry

until

quite

recent

times

there

has

to

know

what

ultimately

underlies

the

process

of

the

universe

and

you

see

this

has

its

roots

in

the

historic

division

of

life

into

two

categories

the

category

of

substance

and

that

of

function

we

always

seem

to

feel

that

wherever

we

see

activity

operation

movement

energy

that

there

must

be

some

thing

which

does

it

now

many

of

you

who've

read

the

writings

of that

extraordinarily

interesting

American

linguist

Benjamin

Lee

Wharf

will

remember

how he

pointed

out

the

arbitrariness

of this

distinction

between

events

and

things

how

for

example

he

showed

that

very

often

in our

language

phenomena

which are

clearly

events

are

masquerading

in

words

which

seem

to

suggest

that

they

are

things

and

he

made

some

most

interesting

discussions

in his

book

Language

Thought

and

Reality

about

what

we

really

mean

by

the

distinction

between

these

two

classes

to

which

we

assign

in

our

language

nouns

for

things

and

verbs

for

events

and

he

pointed

out

for

example

that

the

word

fist

looks

like

a

noun

and

so

you

could

raise

the

little

conundrum

what

happens

to

my

fist

when

I

a

noun

a

thing

totally

vanished

but

of course

the

answer

is

that

when

I

open

my

hand

I

stop

fisting

showing

that

the

noun

was

really

an

event

masquerading

as a

thing

but

of course

in

recent

philosophy

it's

become

more and

more

almost

anything

we

want

any

natural

phenomenon

can

be

described

as

doing

rather

than

being

and

in

general

this

is

a

very

useful

way

of

talking

about

things

we

in

other

words

dispense

with

an

unnecessary

duality

in

language

an

unnecessary

distinction

between

process

and

entity

and

what

appear

to be

entities

can

always

be

described

in

terms

of

perhaps

a

slower

type

of

process

than

the

things

we've

normally

described

by

verbs

and

if

we

consider

this

then

and

start

talking

about

everything

that

happens

in

process

language

in

operational

language

we

suddenly

see

that

things

or

entities

that

is

to

say

the

who

or

what

that

does

something

the

agent

behind

the

act

these

things

completely

disappear

a famous

instance

which

wharf

gave

of

this

was

in

the

Hopi

language

that

when we

say

a light

flashed

the

Hopis

just

say

flashed

and he

pointed out

that's

much more

accurate

because the

flashing is

of course

the light

unless

you mean

lantern

or flashlight

but

in this

way

we have

created

a

thing

behind

the

act

which

is

a

sort

of

ghost

and

the

objective

of

Buddhist

discipline

is

as one

old

Zen

master

put it

to

beat

the

ghosts

out

of

you

now

in

the

same

way

you

see

when

we

know

something

or

we

act

it's

a

very

basic

common

sense

supposition

that we

are the

agent

behind

the

actor

that in

other

words

behind

thought

there's

a

thinker

behind

experience

an

experiencer

behind

perception

a

perceiver

and we

are all

of us

you see

tremendously

concerned

with

this

image

the

doer

the

agent

which

has

become

our

image

of

ourselves

you might

call it

our

self

image

if you

speak

in a

psychological

jargon

and this

is the

thing

we're

all

concerned

about

its

future

its

history

its

destiny

what's

going to

become

of it

and so

on and so

forth

but through

clarity

it can

turn out

that this

thing that

we fancy

ourselves

to be

simply is

a figure

of thought

or a

figure

of speech

and is

not there

at all

and the

only reason

why this

makes us

feel

astounded

and bothered

and

unbelieving

is the

momentum

of a

habit

of

thought

we

although

it may

become

sort of

intellectually

clear to

us that

this is

so

we still

have

deep

in us

the

habit

of

attributing

all

actions

to an

agent

and

it's

difficult

for us

to

realize

to

become

really

clear

that

this

is

only

figurative

that

there

is

no

as it

were

distinct

order

of

being

that

is

the

doer

as

distinct

from

the

deed

then

you

might

say

what

is

the

relationship

between

the

doer

and

the

deed

does

one

process

do

another

process

does

one

process

cause

another

process

well

no

that's

simply

a matter

of

description

as

Wittgenstein

pointed

out

there

is

no

necessity

in

nature

necessity

is

only

logical

that

is

to

say

if

you

see

say

a

sunflower

now

sunflowers

have

a way

of

turning

as

the

sun

moves

and

at

one

time

people

might

say

that

the

sunflower

turned

in

order

to

keep

its

face

to

the

sun

attributing

purpose

to

a

flower

nowadays

no

botanist

would

say

that

they

would

say

simply

that

the

structure

of

a

sunflower

is

such

that

when

the

sun

moves

it

turns

and

so

one

might

say

well

that's

simply

a

the

sun

and the

structure

of the

sunflower

together

make

the

flower

turn

but I

wonder what

that really

means

does it

mean

that the

sunflower

must

turn

I don't

think it

does at

all

because if

the

sunflower

didn't

turn

it might

be dead

but if it

was a

live

sunflower

and if it

didn't

turn as

the sun

moved

it

wouldn't

be a

sunflower

in other

words

the

same

situation

would

exist

if

the

thing

had

blue

petals

and

fern

like

leaves

then it

wouldn't

be a

sunflower

in the

same

way

if

an

unsupported

rock

didn't

fall

it

wouldn't

be a

rock

it

would

describing

it

the

unsupported

rock

from

the

process

of

falling

and

you

take

you

look

first

at

one

thing

and

then

at

the

other

one

aspect

then

at

the

other

aspect

then

you

can

say

necessarily

with

the

unsupported

state

of the

rock

goes

falling

but

of

course

actually

the

falling

of

the

rock

in

this

condition

is

as

much

a

part

of

the

definition

of

a

rock

as

the

fact

that

it's

so

one

is

then

confronted

when

one

realizes

this

vividly

with

the

astonishing

realization

that

one

is

not

this

entity

that

one

supposed

oneself

to

be

that

one

is

not

being

pushed

around

by

laws

of

physical

necessity

the

difficulty

is

you

see

that

thought

is

as

it

were

a

system

of

symbols

that

stands

apart

from

things

and

represent

them

they

don't

really

stand

apart

from

them

words

and

noises

and

thoughts

are

sensations

or

images

and

they

only

apparently

stand

apart

well

as

we

identify

ourselves

to so

large

an

extent

with

our

thinking

process

we

naturally

come

to

feel

that

of

emptiness

of

having

no

time

of

being

very

well

just

being

evaporating

histories

but

of course

if you

stand

apart

from

life

you're

dead

but

we

don't

really

stand

apart

but

we

think

we

do

and

therefore

when

one

recovers

from

that

illusion

and

the

sense

of

one's

separateness

of

one's

being

a

thing

an

agent

simply

disappears

it's

not a

kind

of

fatalistic

situation

because

the

feeling

of

fatalism

is that

one

is

the

agent

but

one

is

being

pushed

around

and

so

this

disappearance

and

this

loss

of

the

sense

of

separation

between

the

subject

and

the

object

the

thinker

and

thought

and

in

turn

thought

and

life

could

be

called

you see

a

sense

of

unity

to

which

one

might

if

one

were

a

Christian

give

the

sense

of

union

with

God

but

a

Buddhist

doesn't

give it

that

sense

and

since

it

involves

release

from

the

problem

of

oneself

the

lifting

of

a

colossal

burden

from

one's

shoulders

there

may

ensue

ecstasy

but

the

ecstasy

itself

has

nothing

to do

with

it

it's

simply

a

by-product

of

the

insight

of

living

in

a

physical

world

that

all

the

thought

problems

about

which

we

continuously

beat

our

bodies

and

our

brains

this

is

KPFK

Los

Angeles

and

that

was

Alan

Watts

with

a

program

from

the

Way

Beyond

the

West

series

entitled

Insight

and