|
|
Easy, Hard and “the
Self” #2
Steven: One thing
“direct experience” could mean is
“experience of something.” The discussions
you and I often have instead emphasize what I call the full
dimensionality
of what is directly given or present, and only
that. Usually people ignore the “directly given,” or the directly “so”
… they
understand getting direct experience as getting something new, either a
different object of cognition or a
different type of cognition, or both.
An example would be to
focus strongly on thoughts,
sensations and feelings etc., in “the present.” This has been a common
misunderstanding of traditions like Zen, for instance … a
misunderstanding
because in such cases we would still be importing an “experiencing
self” and
related baggage, while trimming away other important facets of what is
always truly
present.
I think that when real
insight does arise, a deep
appreciation or understanding, it involves not picking up this limited
logic
and habit of structuring things in terms of either getting something
new, or
obsessively and narrowly focusing on the ordinary notion of the
present. This
may be true even in the practice of science. A theorist who is
struggling with some
cutting edge problem, trying to reach a better understanding, may
sometimes be stuck
in the approach I’m claiming to be limited, encumbered. But when s/he
actually does
enjoy understanding, especially if it's a really deep, beautiful,
economical,
maximally comprehensive insight, s/he has probably dropped some of that
restrictive
logic, perhaps without realizing it. Contemplation specializes in this
art of “dropping.”
Of course science and
contemplation may still not
seem the same, because in the science case the theoretical point being
considered is likely much more specific and technical than in the
contemplation
case, and further removed from any ordinary notion of what is
perceptibly “present.”
We can address that concern later. But I think there are common
features in the
basic character of insight in these two disciplines.
In both cases, there’s
an insight that isn't owned
by the putative self and is important not because it's merely a clever
way of
solving an abstract problem, but because it's an entry into something
of the
way things are. I’ve claimed more,
that it might even participate
in what is so. But leaving that aside, it's still more
than just getting an ordinary solution to a problem, something sought
by a
narrow form of “self,” with its typical expectations and blinkers.
Piet: Just picking up
on this last point, I really
don't know what the self is … actually from the beginning of reading
books
about contemplative practice and views, I liked some of them very much,
but one
of the things that puzzled me is this: I know this is an arm, and this
is a
head, but I don't know what the self is. So the whole question of the
self has been
this little thorn in my flesh from the beginning.
So you … when you …
both in writing of some of
those books and in the talks you give when you explain this, either in
your Ch'an
weekend retreats or to me in private, you sort of assume that there is
a self
or ego which I know, and then the issue is … how to get rid of it. But
I really
don't know! I can say a lot about objects, but I really don't know what
the
subject is, so I would rather start there before trying to get rid of
something.
I presume that I have bought into things, so other people tell me, but
do I
honestly know? I'm not sure. Let's be rigorous and really do research
with all
the elements of the situation.
Steven: so you were
talking about this triangle
with the three vertices … can you remind me again about that?
Piet: though they were
not so important … it was
just a picture to get started: there was intuition, and then a
theoretical
understanding of the simplicity of things, and finally a theoretical
understanding of the complexity of many different practices. So there
was an
intuition poles and two contrasting theory poles.
Steven: oh, I see … I
just ask because I thought
one of them was a sense of difficulty or at least a question about why
the
“easy” hadn’t turned out to be readily achievable. This was your
“complexity
vertex.”
Piet: yes. But for now,
my point is that whenever
I'm doing research, I put a few things on the table and then I'm like a
little
dog sniffing at a pole here and a pole there, so I walk from one to the
other
and I focus on different things, and while I'm doing that, I'm not
frustrated—there's
no difficulty, I don't know the answer but I know that a gestalt will
emerge …
it's like rubbing a crystal ball—something will come out. So here I put
intuition and simplicity and complexity on the table, just to start
somewhere.
Steven: OK. None of
those seem to have a “self” lurking
somewhere … but I still think there is one.
Piet: oh no, but …
Steven: I think there
is one, even if at first
glance that isn’t obvious. That’s one place I’d look for the complexity
or “difficulty”
side.
Piet: Well … I feel a
bit bad, pushing my model on
you. But my model of doing research is that I start with an empty
slate, and I
put a few things on there and I try to look at them and ask “who are
you?” repeatedly.
“Who are you? What are you? What do you imply?” And I walk from one to
the
other and maybe I put another in there, or maybe two or three or four,
and then
I see new things arising, and then again I ask “What is arising out of
you? What is
there? What is here?” And in this kind of conversation, things come
out.
I complete trust that
this works. I don't know
why, but it's the only way I could do research, and it’s the way I have
always
done it from the beginning. So I just threw out these three, because if
you
throw out only two, intuition and theory, that is too meager. Or the
theoretical idea of simplicity and the theoretical idea of complexity,
that's
too meager. If you have these three, then you start to have a more
interesting sample
… my playing field, I realize, has to be two-dimensional. If it's
one-dimensional, then you just get oppositions and fights and tensions.
A six-dimensional
thing I can't imagine. So if I were in a six dimensional space, I would
have to take
two dimensions at a time.
So the table surface,
either a blackboard or a
table, is my image of … it's funny to talk about this, it's very
interesting to
make this explicit because it has always been tacit, I now realize. So,
you
need minimally three points to span the plane, so I generally throw
out three
or four things, and then I can walk around. In the plane you can go in
circles,
in a line you cannot do that. In six dimensions you can also go in
circles, but
you only need two. So I want to go in circles, and go out and then go
back in
circles, and go at right angles, and all of that you can do perfectly
well in two
dimensions. Maybe that's why the complex numbers are so fundamental,
it's effectively a
two-dimensional system. Where you have winding numbers
etc.
So I start by seeing
that I have an intuition, and
I have an idea … of theory. And I know that intuition alone is not
enough, and
that theory alone is not enough. In that playing field I'm now going to
walk
around, like a dog who is being let out of the house and just makes his
way
through the world … of practice. So you say a few things about these
three
items, while I'm looking at them too, and one of the important points
you made
is that when we think about it, we use a self, and this and that, but
then I
think “well, but what is a self?” See that is my one tool … with
everything I
see on the table, I ask “what is it?”
Steven: okay thanks.
That’s a helpful
clarification, and that part at least is exactly the same in
contemplative
training. People need to emphasize it, rather than taking anything for
granted,
even from the previous day. So you say “what is it?” but then I’d want
to ask what
sort of answer would be provided in response to that question.
Piet: but that's more a
philosophers' question.
Steven: no, sorry. I
didn’t mean it in that way at
all. I mean it as a meditation question. So, you're asking a question
and I
want to know what kind of answer, just in the most fundamental sense,
what kind
of thing do you expect to come back?
Piet: it could be
anything, words are just …
Steven: Yes, I think
I’m agreeing with you! See my
point is that this “self” is an example of a
thing that won't be fully captured in an account—what
you’re calling a
philosopher’s approach. So if the question is “what is the self thing?”
and if
I provide some kind of definition or account, like people often do in
answering
questions, that's not going to help. The whole point of bringing up
this belief in a self is that it's important for us to see … only see.
So
our “answer” has to be something that aids or invites direct seeing.
Piet:umm hmm. And that
is exactly what I want. In
research … and I realize I have to say much more about that, it's
an extremely interesting area …