Notes on What's
What, and What It Might be
Reasonableto do about What's What
[Page 35/295, or .12]
Nobody needs to go
anywhere else. We are all, if we only knew it, already there.
If I only knew who
in fact I am, I should cease to behave as what I think I am; and if I stopped behaving as
what I think I am, I should know who I am.
What in fact I am,
if only the Manichee I think I am would allow me to know it, is the reconciliation of yes
and no lived out in total acceptance and the blessed experience of Not-Two.
In religion all
words are dirty words. Anyone who gets eloquent about Buddha, or God, or Christ, ought to
have his mouth washed out with carbolic soap.
aspiration to perpetuate only the "yes" in every pair of opposites can never, in
the nature of things, be realized, the insulated Manichee I think I am condemns himself to
endlessly repeated frustration, endlessly repeated conflicts with other aspiring and
and frustrations---the theme of all history and almost all biography. "I show you
sorrow," said the Buddha realistically. But he also showed the ending of
sorrow---self-knowledge, total acceptance, the blessed experience of Not-Two.
Knowing who in fact
we are results in Good Being, and Good Being results in the most appropriate kind of good
doing. But good doing does not of itself result in Good Being. We can be virtuous without
knowing who in fact we are. The beings who are merely good are not Good Beings; they are
just pillars of society.
pillars are their own Samsons. They hold up, but sooner or later they pull down. There has
never been a society in which most good doing was the product of Good Being and therefore
constantly appropriate. This does not mean that there will never be such a society or that
we in Pala are fools for trying to call it into existence.
The Yogin and the
Stoic---two righteous egos who achieve their very considerable results by pretending,
systematically, to be somebody else. But it is not by pretending to be somebody else, even
somebody supremely good and wise, that we can pass from insulated Manichee-hood to Good
Good Being is
knowing who in fact we are; and in order to know who in fact we are, we must first know,
moment by moment, who we think we are and what that bad habit of thought compels us to
feel and do. A moment of clear and complete knowledge of what we think we are, but in fact
are not, puts a stop, for the moment, to the Manichean charade. If we renew, until they
become a continuity, these moments of the knowledge of what we are not, we may find
ourselves, all of a sudden, knowing who in fact we are.
abstract thinking, spiritual exercises---systematic exclusions in the realm of thought.
Asceticism and hedonism---systematic exclusions in the realms of sensation, feeling and
action. But Good Being is in the knowledge of who in fact is in relation to all
experiences. So be aware---aware in every context, at all times and whatever, creditable
or discreditable, pleasant or unpleasant, you may be doing or suffering. This is the only
genuine yoga, the only spiritual exercise worth practicing.
The more a man
knows about individual objects, the more he knows about God. Translating Spinoza's
language into ours, we can say: The more a man knows about himself in relation to every
kind of experience, the greater his chance of suddenly, one fine morning, realizing who in
fact he is---or rather Who (capital W) in Fact (capital F) "he" (between
quotation marks) Is (capital I).
St. John was right.
In a blessedly speechless universe, the Word was not only with God; it was
God. As a something to be believed in. God is a projected symbol, a reified name. God =
Faith is something
very different from belief. Belief is the systematic taking of unanalyzed words much too
seriously. Paul's words, Mohammed's words, Marx's words, Hitler's words---people take them
too seriously, and what happens? What happens is the senseless ambivalence of
history---sadism versus duty, or (incomparably worse) sadism as duty; devotion
counterbalanced by organized paranoia; sisters of charity selflessly tending the victims
of their own church's inquisitors and crusaders. Faith, on the contrary, can never be
taken too seriously. For Faith is the empirically justified confidence in our capacity to
know who in fact we are, to forget the belief-intoxicated Manichee in Good Being. Give us
this day our daily Faith, but deliver us, dear God, from Belief.
85/295, or .29, section IV is apparently misnumbered by Huxley. He calls the next section
"the fifth." I added the "V" heading though I think it shouldreally be
Me as I think I am
and me as I am in fact---sorrow, in other words, and the ending of sorrow. One third, more
or less, of all the sorrow that the person I think I am must endure is unavoidable. it is
the sorrow inherent in the human condition, the price we pay for being sentient and
self-conscious organisms, aspirants to liberation, but subject to the laws of nature and
under orders to keep on marching, through irreversible time, through a world entirely
indifferent to our well-being, toward decrepitude and the certainty of death. The
remaining two-thirds of sorrow is homemade and, so far as the universe is concerned,
not enough." But neither is anything else. Science is not enough, religion is not
enough, art is not enough, politics and economics are not enough, nor is love, nor is
duty, nor is action however disinterested, nor, however sublime, is contemplation. Nothing
short of everything will really do.
We cannot reason
ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being
irrational in a reasonable way. In Pala, after three generations of Reform, there are no
sheeplike flocks and no ecclesiastical Good Shepherds to shear and castrate; there are no
bovine or swinish herds and no licensed drovers, royal or military, capitalistic or
revolutionary, to brand, confine and butcher. There are only voluntary associations of men
and women on the road to full humanity.
Tunes or pebbles,
processes or substantial things? "Tunes," answers Buddhism and modern science.
"Pebbles," say the classical philosophers of the West. Buddhism and modern
science think of the world in terms of music. The image that comes to mind when one reads
the philosophers of the West is a Byzantine mosaic, rigid, symmetrical, made up of
millions of little squares of some stony material and firmly cemented to the walls of a
The dancer's grace
and, forty years on, her arthritis---both are functions of the skeleton. It is thanks to
an inflexible framework of bones that the girl is able to do her pirouettes, thanks to the
same bones, grown a little rusty, that the grandmother is condemned to a wheelchair.
Analogously, the firm support of a culture is the prime-condition of all individual
originality and creativeness; it is also their principal enemy. The thing in whose absence
we cannot possibly grow into a complete human being is, all too often, the thing that
prevents us from growing.
A century of
research on the moksha-medicine has clearly shown that quite ordinary people are
perfectly capable of having visionary or even fully liberating experiences. In this
respect the men and women who make and enjoy high culture are no better off than the low
brows. High experience is perfectly compatible with low symbolic expression.
symbols created by Palanese artists are no better than the expressive symbols created by
artists elsewhere. Being the products of happiness and a sense of fulfillment, they are
probably less moving, perhaps less satisfying aesthetically, than the tragic or
compensatory symbols created by victims of frustration and ignorance, of tyranny, war and
guilt-fostering, crime-inciting superstitions. Palanese superiority does not lie in
symbolic expression but in art which, though higher and far more valuable than all the
rest, can yet be practiced by everyone--the art of adequately experiencing, the art of
being more intimately acquainted with all the worlds that, as human beings, we find
ourselves inhabiting. Palanese culture is not be judged as (for lack of any better
criterion) we judge other cultures. It is not to be judged by the accomplishments of a few
gifted manipulators of artistic or philosophic symbols. No, it is to be judged by what all
the members of the community, the ordinary as well as the extraordinary, can and do
experience in every contingency and at each successive intersection of time and eternity.
Dualism. . .
Without it there can hardly be good literature. With it, there most certainly can be no
affirms a separate and abiding me-substance; "am" denies the fact that all
existence is relationship and change. "I am." Two tiny words, but what an
enormity of untruth! The religiously-minded dualist calls homemade spirits from the vasty
deep; the nondualist calls the vasty deep into his spirit or, to be more accurate, he
finds that the vasty deep is already there.
Page last modified: December 20, 1996