Glenn, Rick, Erin,
I have been following your discussion on the Dharmakaya light with vague
interest and increasing annoyance. Rick sets the scene in these words
RICK: Dharmakaya is extra light let in by over dilated pupils, but all
>extra light let in by over dilated pupils isn't Dharmakaya. Remember, to
>Pirsig the D-light is the objective physical manifestation of a "dynamic
>intrusion upon a static situation (p 389)." Your experience with the eye
>drops had nothing to do with Dynamic Quality. It did make you see extra
>light, but by a different sort of cause. In other words, there are lots of
>ways to see the light, but it's only Dharmakaya if the way was Dynamic
>Quality.
GLENN: ", I think you mean that "Dharmakaya is extra light let in by over
dilated pupils, but not all extra light let in by over dilated pupils is
Dharmakaya".
"Of course, it may be that Pirsig hadn't thought through the issue enough
himself and left some lose ends, or didn't want to confront the
troublesome physical/mystical interface like I am."
JOHN B: I have never experienced the Dharmakaya light as such, and do not
have an opinion on its existence as Pirsig describes it. However the source
of my annoyance is that once again I sense that the debate has taken the
form of trying to derive an ought from an is, and it cannot be done. In this
case, Pirsig both suggests that the light is indicative of some "dynamic
intrusion", and is also " NOTHING MORE than involuntary widening of the iris
of the eyes of the observer..." [emphasis added]. This is a familiar pattern
in Pirsig's writing, to want to acknowledge the dynamic while still
explaining it in language and thought patterns that are thoroughly static,
to use his terminology. Hence his fascination with science, evolution, and
the Church of Reason, all of which are completely inadequate vehicles for
the discussion of dynamic quality.
I am currently reading 'Quantum Questions', edited by Ken Wilber, in which
the leading physicists of the last century examine the world and the place
of science in it. Almost to a man, their message is the same. Reality as
they experience it is unable to be caught in the language of physics.
Heisenberg says "Science tries to give its concepts an objective meaning.
But religious language must avoid this very cleavage of the world into its
objective and its subjective sides; for who would dare claim the objective
side to be more real than the subjective? Thus we ought not to intermingle
the two languages; we should think more subtly than we have hitherto been
accustomed to do." (p43) Schroedinger repeats this when he says "I cannot
believe that [for example] the deep philosophical enquiry into the relation
between subject and object and into the true meaning of the distinction
between them depends on the quantitive results of physical and chemical
measurements..." (p79) Einstein says "knowledge of what is does not open the
door directly to what should be." (p 108) Jeans further argues "the
outstanding achievement of twentieth-century physics is ... the general
recognition that we are not yet in contact with ultimate reality." (p 135)
"The making of models or pictures to explain mathematical formulae and the
phenomena they describe is not a step towards, but a step away from reality
... in brief, a mathematical formula can never tell us what a thing is, but
only how it behaves" (p 149) "The final harvest [of science] will always be
a sheaf of mathematical formulae. These will never describe nature itself
... [Thus] our studies can never put us into contact with reality." (p 6)
In contrast, Wilber states "The central mystical experience may be fairly
(if somewhat poetically) described as follows: in the mystical
consciousness, Reality is apprehended directly and immediately, meaning
without any mediation, any symbolic elaboration, any conceptualization, or
any abstractions; subject and object become one in a timeless and spaceless
act that is beyond any and all forms of mediation." (p5) "Physics can be
learned by the study of facts and mathematics, but mysticism can only be
learned by a profound change in consciousness. To confuse these two is to
misunderstand and distort both science and spirituality." (p ix)
It is this distortion that Pirsig's attempt to couch dynamic experience in
the objective language of modern scientific understanding (or a
metaphysics)inevitably produces. Therefore I thoroughly endorse Glenn's
critique of Pirsig above.
I am not a very 'mystical' person in the sense that I have had very few
experiences that are not explicable in terms of the generally accepted
scientific worldview. The most vivid and clear occurred some years ago. On a
moonlit night, my wife and I walked up the road to a little hill, where we
sat, as is our custom, looking out on the surrounding hills and mountains,
lit by moonlight. We were having some sort of rather unhappy and contentious
discussion at the time, so my mind was far from serene. I became aware that
the quality of the light and dark of the moonlit forest in the middle ground
was changing as I observed it. The contrasts appeared more sharp, and the
shapes more defined and abstract. As I watched, still involved in my
discussion with Ruth, the effect spread outwards, taking in more of the
scene. There was a sense of increased spaciousness, and a sense that only
what was in the field of view was real, so it became something remarkable
that the power lines that cross the road at that point were suspended above
my head without evident support. Though I 'knew' that they were supported by
another power pole behind me, this academic knowledge seemed irrelevant to
the sense that they reached out from the pole in view and 'ended' above me
at the edge of my visual field. The patterns of light and dark on the mown
grass in the foreground now emerged as more vividly real than before.
Indeed, it was as if I was now seeing them, as abstract patterns rather than
as grass, for the first time. I commented that this change in my perception
was occurring, and we shortly left and walked home, the effects persisting
for a total of several minutes. Walking down the hill, familiar trees
'loomed' out of the field in a way that emphasised their 'isness', and my
reaction was 'wow', a sort of mild amazement at their clarity and
'objectivity', within an altered sense of spaciousness and depth in the
whole scene.
I have often wanted to see this way again, but merely returning to the hill
in the moonlight has never resulted in the repetition of this experience.
Sometimes I sense a hint of the same effects, but I am always unsure whether
I am attempting to force the image through a sort of squinting, or whether
it is real. Occasionally, as happened only yesterday while out walking in
the late afternoon, I look up at a familiar scene and see it as though for
the first time, and at these moments something of the impact of the more
extended moonlit experience returns, but briefly. I suspect that one reason
why many people enjoy a holiday, or even a sunday afternoon drive, is that
in viewing scenes for the first time, we are enabled to see them more
literally, and enjoy a slight taste of the more objective seeing that I
describe above.
I am reminded of James' remark that there exist forms of consciousness
separated from our ordinary states by the thinnest of veils. Part of the
learning of mysticism that Wilber refers to is no doubt learning to see, or
rather, experience, with something of this immediacy. In other words, to
really attend to here and now reality. When I was experimenting with theta
states using biofeedback techniques, I found that I could remain in theta
while still indulging in a sort of 'slow' thought, but immediately I became
focussed on describing my experience, for example, I would slip out of
theta. Opening my eyes had the same effect, and my friend who was allowing
me the use of his neuro-processing equipment suggested that it was not
possible to remain in theta with open eyes. Yet my experience in the
moonlight had something of the character of a theta state, with eyes wide
open.
I do not want to repeat Pirsig's error and attempt to reduce lived
experience to scientific concepts. Rather, I am interested in expanding my
understanding and awareness of experience, including those unusual and rare
states which perhaps would be more commonplace if I could turn off my busy
cognitive brain. I would be interested to hear if others have had similar
experiences.
John B
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:56 BST