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