Notes
on Effectiveness of the Headless Experiments—Why the variable outcomes?
This is the third draft of
the responses to my survey of ‘Why the Harding experiments don’t work’. That
is, why do they work for some of us but not for others. The aim of the exercise
is to try to identify any perceived flaws in the experiments and flush out
misunderstandings and assumptions that might be interfering with the outcome.
So far, I have been able to include only one sceptic but I am hoping to add
others as a result of enquiries at forthcoming workshops. Additional
contributions are welcome as I propose to update this document regularly on the
Harding page of the www.capacitie.org website.
The Question
Art Ticknor
Janice Hamer
Dave Knowles
John Hawkins
Appendix – The original discussion note
The Question
The experiments are not
everybody’s cup of tea and I am frequently reminded that even well disposed
people who share my interest in these matters do not attach the same degree of importance
to the Harding experiments as I do. Following a recent meeting, I was talking
to Shane Keher about this and he suggested a workshop of a somewhat different
kind, one in which we could explore more carefully and try to get to the bottom
of what gives rise to this difference in response. The aim would be to address
both sides of the issue, not to impose the affirmative position on the negative
view or vice–versa, but to explore in a way that might help representatives of
both sides. At the same meeting, Beryl lent me book by Alan Watts. I picked it
up after everyone had gone home and the second paragraph of the opening chapter
provided a commentary on the transition from observer to participant, the
principal consequence of the experiments, we had talked about at the meeting:
One ordinarily feels that one is a separate individual in confrontation with a world that is foreign to one’s self, that is “not me”. In the mystical kind of experience, though, that separate individual finds itself to be one and the same nature or identity as the outside world. In other words, the individual suddenly no longer feels like a stranger in the world; rather, the external world feels as if it were his or her own body.
This is relevant to the
question of effectiveness as Watts seemed to be a distinguished representative
of people who have an intuitive grasp of what the experiments point to but did
not appreciate their effectiveness in delivering what he eloquently expresses
in the above quotation. It has been suggested I make too much of this question,
people either get it or they don’t, what’s the fuss? Well, in thinking about an
answer I realized that my opening statement about it not being everybody’s cup
of tea is quite the opposite of what I believe to be the case. So, why do some
drink and others refuse?
The Responses:
The first responses came back in April-May 2008 and are included here. I expect further contributions and invite feedback from NOWletter readers. Future input will be added as updates to the archive copy on the website. I have recorded the responses in the order in which they arrived except to combine multiple responses from the same person.
Anne Seward (Response 1)
My response arises from analogous
situations I have encountered occasionally when I have been enthusing about
something in the interests of improving someone else's physical health, and
having that person respond with a certain lack of interest if not outright
rejection of my suggestion(s).
Sometimes I have experienced disappointment and genuine puzzlement, being
convinced that whatever it is I have discovered to be valuable for me is at
least worth the person themselves trying. After all, it makes so much sense!
Alas (though I'm sure not so in the long run), one's own absolute conviction
may not have the effect one expects, at which point awareness of the essential
dignity and uniqueness of the person ideally comes into play. In such a case
recently I noticed my disappointment was a reflection of my investment in
ending the other person's suffering (the kind of insight only disinterested
spiritual awareness affords). I realised that what needed healing first and
foremost was my own identification with their dis-ease – my own suffering
regarding it.
I have also found myself on the other end of the equation, rejecting the
suggestion of someone else's cure for physical problems I was experiencing,
which presents a different kind of opportunity for spiritually creative
engagement. For example, my sister was trying to share a healing strategy which
is not at all my style. I had just noticed the temptation to cast aspersions on
the route she was suggesting (which simply doesn't make sense – to me)
when suddenly, suspension of knowing anything at all, and respect for
everything just as it was presenting itself replaced the reason-based focus I
had adopted – and what do you know? Reason was immediately enabled to play a
useful part in restoring communication.
I suppose this is just saying that unconscious motives distort things whatever
the context.
An unintentionally apposite remark from my sister on another occasion when we
were discussing different 'cures' would seem to sum up both aspects of the
subject: "Nothing suits everyone"!
Anne Seward (Response 2)
A few more thoughts on the current topic:
Alan says in his notes "…I realized that my opening statement about (the
experiments) not being everyone's cup of tea is quite the opposite of what I
believe to be the case." This expresses something that is true of me also
but in here somewhere I think may be a confusion of levels.
This that I AM is indeed "everyone's cup of tea" in the sense there
is only One in reality, but the way in which the workshop seeks to direct
attention to this One involves human levels of communication: the adoption of certain
angles and interpretations (out of any number of possibilities), appeals to
truth, etc., etc.. Above all, it involves "Seeing", a concept
inseparable from the act so long as this human (necessarily conceptual) context
is playing its part. (Try Seeing now without seeing…) Our empirical approach
may trap people into agreeing but does not thereby ensure they are ready to
release the facts which any particular experiment highlights along with every
other thought and drop into free-fall.
It seems to me, as an occasional workshop facilitator, that that final step is
not God's to take. Now there's a surprise! What I mean is, "I" have
created free and self-willed individuals and have to live with that. I must
honour my creations for I discover in the end they will not be manipulated
however brilliant or direct or obvious or contemporary or unarguable my
presentation.
To return to your metaphor Alan: cups all have their shapely limitations, there
being many different types for many different kinds of people. As my sister
might have said, only the tea itSelf suits every One.
I wrote to Anne
with a couple of questions about her third response and added the footnotes
which appear below this contribution.
Anne Seward (Response 3)
Judith Wright's wonderful lines [1] speak to me of my first (childhood) subjective experience of spirituality, of an inadvertent letting go, which provided me with a glimpse of what my religion demanded of me if I was to experience its rewards. But I was horror-struck by the all-or-nothing nature of it and the realisation that there could be no compromising - and promptly turned down all thought of pursuing further this gift of grace.
Fifty four years on and I am telling a Seeing friend that rather than vision-awareness, my spiritual life is actually more oriented around the challenge: "Can you let it go?"[2] He asked me if I had had an experience of Reality prior to Seeing, and how I would sum it up. The word "Surrender" and the memory of that childhood experience immediately sprung to mind. Strangely, I had never before made the connection.
Recalling this makes me wonder to what extent first glimpses explain propensities for different approaches. Maybe it would be helpful to arrange workshops where there was time to explore people's first spiritual experiences (if any) and encourage them to contribute in their own terms. This of course would risk diffusing the special contribution which is our approach. On the other hand, the facilitator would be demonstrating the multidimensional nature of the larger, infinite context which the experiments themselves seek to make conscious.
I'm not sure actually
whether the experiments might not end up being superfluous! No bad thing
necessarily if the Context of all contexts
has become clear to everyone in the process. If this happened, however,
it would have been via a broader approach than our strictly empirical one: it
would have been a different kind of workshop.
Back to top
Art Ticknor
This is not a response to my
enquiry but an extract from the synchronous appearance of an article by Art in
the most recent TAT Forum online magazine. The full article, Why Do Seekers
of Truth Fail?, can be read at http://tatfoundation.org/forum2008-04.htm , and the answers
Art provide as follows:
1. Failure to feel their
deepest desire consciously. (We all feel it, but we're afraid of the
implications, so we distract ourselves from it.)
2. Failure to find and work with a teacher. (It isn't absolutely necessary to
find a self-realized teacher, but it's immensely helpful. The Guru is always
with us, but many of us fail to recognize him when he appears. Ramana Maharshi
related a humorous story about this condition from the Ribhu Gita about the
sage Ribhu and his disciple Nidagha that you can find on the Internet and is
well worth reading.)
3. Failure to find and work with fellow seekers.
Alan: The point about joining with others
echoes Douglas’s oft repeated advice. In his article, Art points to success of
the collective enquiry pursued at the Richard Rose inspired TAT Foundation some
of whose members have visited Douglas at Nacton and are, consequently, very
well disposed to the Headless way.
On receiving the first draft of the survey
Art replied:
I think this is a good project you're
working on. We end up with a broader perspective when we attempt to understand
the other fellow ... the ultimate goal of which is to love our neighbor as our
self.
As one of the contributors mentioned, once
something becomes obvious to us it's often hard to put ourselves back in the
"before" shoes. And as with something like algebra, some people get
the concept of x = the unknown the first time they hear about it,
others struggle for a long while before they get the aha! experience, and
others never do catch on.
There's a natural resistance to
seeing the truth about the self built into the mental structure, and the
unfolding of the resistance is different for each person. The teacher or the
friend has to keep trying to stumble on what may help. I'm sure that's why
Douglas continued coming up with new variations on the look-for-yourself
exercises. Not knowing the self results from a state of hypnosis ... and
his exercises employ an element of counter-suggestion. (He knew that and said
as much to me during one of my visits with him; his words were along the lines
of "I'm not against using hypnosis to overcome hypnosis.")
Recognizing our true state of being is an awakening from hypnotic sleep.
Michael Ireland
Hi
Alan, Thank you for the email. I am not sure how clear I am on what you are
asking and I am more than happy to help but I am not sure I will be able to
provide you with much. For example, the relevance of Headlessness to my life and
professional activities is as one prong in a multiple-pronged approach to
awakening and dissolving the illusion of self/other. I love the headless
experiments because they are so simple and straight forward. I use them as a
top-up or as to supplement to my daily practice of Shikantaza meditation and
atma-vicharya practices. I also use Ghempo Roshi’s Big Mind for this but less
frequently.
I guess the question you are asking
in your paper is drilling down to the phenomenological core of the practice. It
poses the question: what is the immediate and ongoing experiential and
phenomenological effect of the practices? This question is fundamental to any
medical/psychosocial/spiritual practice and speaks to the core of their
efficacy and effectiveness for achieving the desired/stated goal. However, this
question is more commonly asked in medical, pharmacological and psychological
research and is less common in spiritual circles. I guess this is most likely
due to do a fundamental (and often times appropriate) scepticism of the dogma
of the scientific method and also due to a lack of resources to carry out the
necessary research to answer this question.
As you have observed, the impact of the experiments
differs markedly between people. This is a given no matter what you are looking
at. If there is one thing you can be certain of in this world it is that
different people will have different responses to almost any physical,
psychological, or spiritual stimulus. People vary on almost everything possible
dimension in life and particularly in clinical practices (i.e., the effect of
drugs like alcohol, coffee, and other chemicals – the bane of pharmacological
research, the effect of psychotherapy and meditation – the bane of
psychological research, the list is endless).
So the second
question is: what accounts for the variance in response to the first question?
The answer to this is more complex. There are likely multiple interacting
variables that can account for this variance. You have listed a large number of possible
variables that could account for the varying response of people to the
experiments (prior experience, attitude, expectations, level of experience,
etc). And I guess the task is to attempt to explore and gather reliable
evidence on these variables and their level of influence. It sounds like a very
interesting topic and quite related to my PhD work on meditation.
Back to top
Richard Lang
Hi Alan, It's a bit of a mystery to me why some
people go for Seeing and others don't. Whenever I try and guess if someone will
get turned on by Seeing, say in a workshop, I'm usually proved wrong.
I don't think any amount of argument,
persuasion, reason, good sense...
will interest someone who is not interested. It will just put them more
off.
I'm reminded of something Douglas once
said to me - you can't talk
people's heads off, you can only love them off.
Alan
to Richard.
Dear Richard, Yes, it is a mystery. I know
I have a bee in my bonnet about it and I am aware of the danger of antagonising
people with my enthusiasm. However, there are types who intuit the
significance without letting it happen for one reason or other and they, the
well disposed but mystified, are my concern. I usually think I haven't been
clear in leading the experiment or maybe talked too much. Douglas's comment is
particularly interesting as I have recently been talking to a Canberra poet,
Alan Gould, who agreed to me posting an article he wrote about Traherne on the
website. He quoted a poem Judith Wright wrote about Traherne:
…the man who knew
how simply truth may come:
who saw the depth of darkness
shake, part and move,
and from death's centre the light's ladder
go up from love to Love.
("Reading Thomas Traherne")
The shift from lower case to upper case is
particularly relevant to us I think. That is, if we can talk of third person
love as lower case and first person love as upper case, then it is not so much
a matter of anyone getting it but of IT embracing them.
Robert Penny
Robert replied by pointing out
that Douglas has addressed my questions comprehensively in his writings and
referred me in particular to Section 4 of Chapter 4 in On Having No Head. I take the point and the issue is very comprehensively
dealt with by Douglas but, as Robert realizes, this exercise is a “what sayest thou!” event. (George Fox’s
famous challenge when castigating a congregation for constantly quoting the
scriptures instead of seeing and saying for themselves.) I found it a
refreshing experience to go back to Douglas again even though his eloquent
coverage of the question made me wonder for a moment or two whether this
enterprise is really necessary. (But only for a moment!)
Back to top
Sam Blight (message 1)
Hi Alan, That an
excellent wrap on the most common "objections" to Seeing and accords
strongly with my own experience in attempting (and occasionally succeeding) in
sharing it.
I would add one more factor that I've come across that can be an serious
impediment and that is a lack of genuine curiosity about Who one really is. The
experiments seem to only "work" in a deep and useful way in the
context of real enquiry. Whether or not the its subject is formulated
consciously as "who am I really?" the enquiry in some form seems to
be a prerequisite. I notice in several of the presentations on video by
Douglas I've seen that he tackles this issue up front: i.e., "Why should I
be interested in who I really am?" He generally goes on to list a few
reasons towards invoking a sense of (at least) curiosity about it in the
audience.
It's important to note that seeing "Who am I?" as a kind of
"technique" or means to enlightenment also misses the point.
One actually has to want to know in a fairly bad way. People can be quite keen
to "get enlightened" (I know I was) without realising that being
"unenlightened" is nothing more that mistaking what you look like for
what you are. There's a current crop of excellent and popular teachers
including Tolle, Adyashanti, Byron Katie and Gangaji who all place this
identity issue squarely at the heart of their teaching so hopefully this is
helping to increase the general susceptibility to noticing the Bleeding Obvious. Cheers,
Sam
Sam Blight (message 2)
Hi Alan, Thanks for
including me in the loop. It really is
important to take Seeing (and the sharing of it) and run with it for ourselves
in my view. A very important part of that is looking at how to make more
effective and inclusive the marvelous and unique means of sharing Seeing that
we've inherited from Douglas and that in turn must entail going into why the
Experiments often don't "work".
One factor that can make this difficult for us for whom the penny is dropping
is the obviousness of Seeing once it's noticed. It seems really
hard, post wake-up (or whatever you want to call it) to remember just how
impenetrable we made the whole matter prior to noticing What we're looking out
of as well as what we're looking at. As Adyashanti often points out,
enlightenment is no big deal and is seen as quite inevitable once
"got" -- it's the protracted period of unenlightenment that's
impressive. How did we manage it?
Incidentally I strongly agree with you about the usefulness of Seeing in
conjunction with other approaches to Self-Realisation. While the Headless Way
is a stand-alone path, it can certainly enrich and be enriched by other
traditions as well as contemporary methods -- with the caveat that Douglas
appends in one of his essays to the effect that any such approaches must accept
from the outset that we already are what we're seeking.
Sam Blight (message 3)
Hi Alan, The profoundly non-transactional
aspect of Seeing does seem to be a deal-breaker for many. Just looking to see
what's actually there (whatever it might be) and not in order to attain
some preconceived spiritual or psychological advantage seems to be devoid of
value for many, perhaps most.
Nearly all so-called spiritual practice seems to be in the form of
"Do/believe/put up with this in order to get that". People will do
any cockamamy thing as long as "that" is considered desirable enough,
all the way to flying airliners into buildings and worse. As Rajneeshees, for
instance, we kept rationalising the most appalling behaviour in the leadership
(including in Rajneesh himself) as the whole movement descended into madness,
degradation and criminality because (certainly in my own case) we didn't want
to risk "missing" enlightenment by severing our connection with the
"Living Buddha". Almost unbelievably there are still to this day
followers, who were present and well placed to observe the entire debacle, who
refuse to acknowledge that Rajneesh might actually fall some way short of being
the gold standard for Realisation. These people tend to be scandalised by any
former "sannyasin" having the gall and sheer disloyalty to get the
point for him/herself.
When I pointed out to such a friend recently that Buddhahood can only be a
First Person experience ("If you meet the Buddha in the road, kill
him") he gave me a frightened look and suddenly remembered a previous
appointment.
It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Actually it's pretty hilarious
anyway .…
I'm sure you will have had similar exchanges while attempting to share Seeing.
Jim Clatfelter
Hello Friends, This is just a
story. It's about seeing, and it's based on a few thinks that Douglas said and
on some things George has said about history and seeing. I'm just putting it
out for reactions. It's meant as much as a question as a statement. I'm
wondering where we are going with headless seeing, what we really think of it.
Part 1. Douglas said that everybody is doing it right. The headless
design of awareness is always on view even though it's not noticed consciously.
If it is consciously noticed, a natural reaction could be fear. I base this on
my own reaction to seeing the headless plan when I was eight years old. I
realized that I would never see myself as others saw me. I would never know
directly how I came across to others. Maybe the reaction wasn't fear as much as
disappointment. One could adjust one's behavior if one could see and react to
oneself as one sees and reacts to others. I suspect that seeing a movie of
oneself would provide this kind of feedback that is missing in the headless
design of the first person. In any case, I know that the design itself didn't
ever mean much to me until I read On Having No Head. I was 33 years old by
then. For 25 years I had surely been aware of the design subconsciously.
I bring up the personal story because I think it may be true of everyone to
some extent. As children we must all have moments where we see the headless
design. This must have been true for all peoples from the beginning of human
time. Before mirrors, did people even reflect on their own appearances? Was
there a primitive headless age? I think it's possible that there was. In any
case, even after humans were aware of, and became identified with, their
reflections, they were at least subconsciously aware of their headless design.
Each one had assumed an identity as a human appearance. They thought of
themselves as identical to the other humans in their group. They assumed the
appearance they found in their reflections. Appearance trumped essence. But
essence was still essence. Everybody was still doing it right, yet there was
deep dissonance between their conscious identity as a headed human and their
true headless essence.
Part 2. This dissonance must have been troubling. I think of my own
rather extended period of 'growing up.' There must have been questioning that
unconsciously centered around this puzzle. Words arose to account for what was
no longer obvious and consciously seen. People searched for solutions to the
fracture that false identification brought upon them. I certainly did that. So
what words and ideas arose in the search? Here's where George could contribute
a lot more to the story than I can. I know little about most of the history of
Western religion and philosophy. But here's what I think in very broad terms.
God arose in the West. Void arose in India. Tao arose in China. These three
words refer to the inner dimension that was no longer consciously lived. They
are three different flavors of the attempt, as Alan Mann once put it, to add
the missing ground back into our being. Our lives are not whole when the
infinite-eternal and empty yet living center is not counted. We feel cheated,
fractured, and diminished.
Could this account for the rise of religious and spiritual thinking? I don't
mean that this is the sole origin of philosophical speculation. But could it be
the primary reason? George has written that the purpose and true end of history
was reached with Douglas and the experiments. The advent of the experiments,
and the ability to share seeing with everyone, marks a tidal change in human
existence. I think, in some sense at least, we might all say that the discovery
of seeing was central to our lives, the big event in our thinking and
perception. Of course we all have experienced other important events that we
cherish. I don't mean to diminish any of them. They all have made us what we
are. But seeing is what corrected the old reversal of fortune that has made us
less than whole consciously.
Part 3. So are we living at the very beginning of a new headless
age? Is the new headless seeing a true turning point in our personal and
collective lives? Does seeing replace speculation once and for all? If it does,
can we say, as George has said, about the old religions and philosophies:
"Close, but no cigar." Does seeing itself heal the wound and make us
whole? Is seeing enough in itself? Should we take it absolutely seriously? I
think we should. But I don't see us doing that. Why not?
As Douglas said, all the religions refer to seeing at their heart. But they go
way beyond that. Can we cut to the heart and drop the rest? I think we have
done this in the religious quotations we have chosen to illustrate seeing.
These come from all the traditions. But it seems like most people want to blend
seeing with one tradition or another, as an aid to that tradition. Seeing isn't
an aid or a helper. It's the core.
Does God or Tao or the Void trump the invisible core we all see? Or does seeing
explain God and Tao and the Void? I choose the latter.
Alan again:
I queried Jim about
attributing the quote to me, thinking it might have been from Alan Rowlands, as
it completely slipped my memory. His reply underlines what I think is an
important but easy to forget aspect, which my apparent forgetfulness
demonstrates on this occasion.
Jim replied, “Many years ago
you announced a workshop in Sydney (that Richard was going to give) by saying
that it would add the infinite and eternal back into awareness. I just remember
thinking that this was exactly what headless seeing does”.
Jim’s reminder came as a
refreshing insight. I had forgotten I had ever said this but it explains why I
find George’s work so important in revealing the underlying context of
time/history as eternity and how the experiments open a window on this insight.
And how true the Krishnamurti claim that, in this field, there is no continuity
to understanding—(that which stands under) it is ever fresh or not at all; the
attempt to capture it at third person level being one of the likely obstacles
to effective outcome of the experiments.
Back to top
Janice Hamer
This diagram was
originally offered as a way of exploring our reactions to any stimuli that evoke
emotions. It explores the difference between the most common response, on the
right side of the diagram (instant reaction, development of "story,"
establishing connections between stimulus and past and future) and a background
response, not usually sought or accessible, on the left side of the diagram (a
pause for observation of bodily sensations, emotional feeling in the present,
and their source.)
I am using the diagram here as a possible
explanation of different responses to the experiments.
The response
stimulated by one of the experiments might follow the right-hand side of the
diagram and thereby reinforce ‘my story’. If that happens, the experiment
becomes just something else I have done and the meaning could be completely
lost.
But if, in a moment of consciousness, one allows oneself to proceed with the
left-hand column instead—first the brief pause, or maybe quite a long pause--to
check what is actually going on here in the present--the bodily sensations, the
label of the emotions attached to them, the question of to whom or to what they
are happening, then meaning has a chance to unfold.
Alan Mann
And as far as going back to the scriptures
(Earlier reference to George Fox above) is concerned, the heart of what I
believe this to be about is Douglas’ challenge:
“To
realize this instantaneous Now, to live in the present moment, taking no
thought for to-morrow or yesterday must be my first concern. And my second must
be to find in this Now all my to-morrows and yesterdays”.
I think the experiments do a
great job of opening me to the first concern, the revelation of headlessness.
However, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the second concern is met as an
automatic consequence of this revelation. There can be a revelation of
headlessness without dealing with time. That, I think, might be the greatest
stumbling block, as step two involves a total dismantling of the consensus
framework, a world view which embeds me
firmly in a context of time past and future.
So perhaps the revolutionary aspect
is too daunting, we are confronted with a new paradigm in the true sense of the
word. Third person Alan shrinks back
from timelessness into the embrace of the familiar. I recently had to write a
review for George’s The Language of
Silence which I think might help explain what I think is going on. This is
an extract:
In these letters and essays we are shaken out of the
habitual, and our world is turned inside out. It is not a matter of acquiring
yet more knowledge but a way of seeing which transforms the usual relationship
of observer and observed, replacing it with a participative integration with
that ‘in which we live and move’ or, perhaps more accurately as we live and move. My sense of
existing as an entity in time is suddenly supplanted by a sense that past and
future exist, not exactly in me, but in a wholeness from which, whatever I am,
I am not separate. The revelation of a first person perspective is made plain
by the Harding experiments. That is the ‘end’ which George Schloss constantly affirms
and demonstrates and, when the full implications become apparent to our third
person perspective, the present blockages to progress dissolve revealing a
first-person perspective on meaning, not the meaning we ascribe to things and
events but the meaning which gives rise to things and events. Due to the
difficulty of going beyond thought, this field, formerly regarded as the
province of the mystic—remote and inaccessible to ‘normal’ consciousness—is now
directly apprehended.
In meeting Douglas’s second
concern, ‘Now’ is no longer understood as a fleeting moment in time but as
eternity’s ever-present unfolding. I
feel this whole business is more about changing the world than changing the
‘me’. That might sound grandiose but
isn’t that the experience of the experiments, a dissolving into what is and,
thereby, completing the picture?
I was wondering about a time
experiment to cater for this aspect. I was never very happy with Douglas
getting me to poke my wrist-watch into this aware space here. It seemed to me
to be a very effective disposal of the timepiece but not of time itself.
What about:
Ask: What time
is it? Friends check their watches or the position of sun and respond.
Discuss the answers and note that the answer, i.e.,
correct time, assumes a time and place. If it is noon, for example, it is noon
for this body here in Sydney or wherever I happen to be. It is my corporeal
time.
Time has put me in my place.
But what about
my earth body, my earth time.
Well, that covers the full 24 hour range.
And my planetary time?
Then my solar time?
And finally, my universal time.
Through this progress the result is reversed
through the increasing obviousness of the relativity of time and, whereas time at
first put me in my place, I now discover time in its
proper place, in this aware space here.
Does it work? I think it is similar to Douglas’ “Where
am I?” question. What do you all think? The difficulty with this approach is
the danger of it becoming a thought experiment rather than a direct perception
exercise. I asked George about this and he commented as follows:
George Schloss
Briefly, beginning with that marvelous
quote from the Hierarchy which in effect says it all ("To realize this
instantaneous Now"....etc.), followed by the necessary distinction you
make between the revelation of the experiments vis-a-vis their significance—in
effect the distinction we make and must make between the experience and their
meaning—couldn't be explicated more clearly. All of which leads by extension of
course - and as you touch upon - to the differences we have to draw between
Time past, Time future, and Time present, this last mistaken for millennia as
the be-all and end-all till the experiments come along and establish the
ultimate and decisive distinction of Time as Presence, of the 1st Person
Revelation in which we move and have our being as distinct from 3rd Person
Observation.
It's as if to ask the Question in
light of the experiments is to answer It and your claim that "due to the
difficulty of going beyond thought, this field, formerly regarded as the
province of the mystic - remote and inaccesible to 'normal' consciousness - is
now directly apprehended." How could it be said better?
I would certainly encourage you to
further explore earth time, planetary time, solar time but with the sneaking
suspicion that they're all going to end up at the same ‘place’.
Dave Knowles
I know you have
asked me to comment on "why the experiments don't work for me" many
times before, My delay is largely due to my difficulty in expressing clearly in
what the difficulties reside.
One of the first things to come to mind is
the near equivalence for me of coming to grips with both Headlessness and
Phenomenology. In both I can glimpse the great potential of Seeing with fresh
vision in a way that sets aside the common way of seeing the world and exposes
the "real thing" so to speak. In both however the method leaves me in
the lurch, phenomenology because it is nowhere clearly specified, headlessness
because of its insistence on terms which seem to refute reality, not least the
name "headlessness" itself - as I've said before the use of a term
that during the French Revolution meant a bloody truncated neck for a way of
describing a changed perspective seems perverse and self-defeating and, I
admit, annoys me so that it is this I think that undermines my acceptance of
other experiments. My years of looking critically at New Age claims and taking
issue with ordinary words used in "secret, special" ways, like
"energy" have honed my readiness to take issue with what I see as
loose descriptions. And yet I see the problem, when I try and describe an
epiphany, it is so hard to choose words that give the flavour without dropping
into mumbo-jumbo.
And so I have an essential sympathy with
Harding - I know he wants to try and communicate something important and so
easy to overlook, but when he asks something like how many heads are here,
wanting a response 1 less than the world would give, I'm with the world in
scientific revolt. I want a mysticism that sits with science and accurate
description much as Joyce's descriptions are another layer on the
"ordinary" perceptions of the world.
So, this is an unsatisfactory struggle with
expressing my difficulty but I'll try and answer any questions that it may
raise with you.
John Hawkins (Response 1)
To me, headlessness (i.e. existence) is, by
nature, playful. So the idea of varying a standard workshop, and finding out
what happens, instinctively gets my vote. After all, this is how the
experiments were evolved – by trial and error at open-house week-ends at
Nacton. I remember rocking up one time in the 70’s. The previous ‘shift’ had
had an hilarious time attempting to convert the banquet scene in ‘Macbeth’ into a workshop activity (Macbeth
being the only one who can see the ghost, while the rest see an empty chair,
must have had something to do with it.) Of course I was madly jealous at having
missed out on the fun. However, those who were left from the session were
unanimously agreed that, as a workshop activity, it was rubbish. Any newcomer
would have been thoroughly confused, it just didn’t make the point clearly
enough, if at all.
Any
workshop must fulfil the needs of its participants. For newcomers, or a mix of
newcomers and a few ‘old hands’, the standard workshop does the business. If
the majority are experienced, then variants can be refreshing. At the annual
Gathering in Salisbury, which lasts several days, optional, headless-related
activities have become an accepted fixture. Straying from ‘the point’ isn’t a
problem in this setting, when all the best loved experiments always get an
airing. It’s also worth noting, uniquely, that this is the one occasion in life
when ‘new’ and ‘experienced’ has no meaning – given that headlessness can only
be experienced now and, as such, it is always for the first time.
John
Hawkins (Response 2)
The headless insight is replete with
paradoxes, so we shouldn’t be surprised at the ease of its sharability and the
paradoxical rarity of its take-up. Despite decades of Douglas’ erudite
enthusiasm and the continued efforts of friends linked through the ‘world wide
window’ by a fabulous and highly popular website, headlessness remains a
minority sport.
I can’t surf.
I didn’t learn to swim until I was eighteen
and am tall, thin and not very buoyant. I’d never be a strong enough swimmer to
be one of those stand-up surfers who everyone admires on the beach. I can,
however, body-board.
It’s easy.
You just stand almost waist-deep in the
tide with your back to the ocean. You clutch a thick, wide, polystyrene float
to your front and when the right wave wells up behind you, you tip forward.
There’s a moment of elation if you catch one right. Instead of being buffeted
by passing swells and staggering for footholds, your world is suddenly in
motion as you are propelled forward, swept along as if by a previously unseen
horizontal escalator. In between these peak moments, to be fair, there’s a lot
of ungainly blundering about: the buoyant board flipping about in the water,
the long trudge-wade back out to sea, and the countless times when the wave
just isn’t right.
Once caught, there’s a skill in staying
with a wave. You’re on a tipping point. Get the balance slightly out and the
force is no longer with you, the world’s un-motioned and you flounder in the
wave’s eddy.
Headlessness is very like body-boarding (I
am certainly equipped, glancing down now, with a handy body-board!). All the
action, of course, happens up here in this world-filled openness.
In the supported attention of a headless
workshop, it’s self-evident that this openness contains (for example) the
carpet, furniture and other people; and that sensations (tickles, aches),
thoughts and feelings are also present. It makes sense that each of us has a
unique mix of content which serves to highlight the universality of our shared,
‘glassy essence’.
Outside of a workshop, daily activities:
filling in a tax-form, putting off filling in a tax form, picking up a note of alarm in the voice of a loved-one in conversation
with who? on the phone and guess-dreading from the bits you can pick up, what
life-detonating news might be seconds away……can tend to keep us more in the ‘unique mix’ and less in the glassy
essence.
None-the-less, if you’re kitted up and
ready, the right waves do come along - expanding doorways; the faces of others
addressing this-way nothingness with benign idiocy; emails from headless
buddies in Australia. The singer Sting wrote a number, the refrain of which is
‘love is the seventh wave’. Amongst expert surfers there’s a belief,
apparently, that the seventh wave to come along is often exceptionally
powerful. Occasionally the experience of headlessness is exceptionally powerful.
One’s absence is utter, there’s a physical falling away to alert limpness and
all things are suffused with generosity. As with the experience of suddenly
being wave-borne, there’s a deep awareness that this Ocean is ever-present; and
that one has only to let go and ride the tipping point to be of its nature.
There may be only a few of us practising
headlessness, but expert surfers are also pretty rare. The cause of the
scarcity is the same – it’s a really challenging skill. In both cases, years of
practise elevates it to an art form – certainly for headlessness, riding out
the ripples of meaning never stops.
Our opening paradox can only be resolved by
clashing it up with another. Next time you’re on a beach noticing your
world-full openness (don’t expect gasps of admiration from on-lookers, it’s not
that kind of skill), do a no-head count. It’s quicker than a head count and
there’s less chance of going wrong and having to start again. Paradoxically,
it’s comforting to know that the total will never expand beyond the single
digit required to do the count; and that its reliability holds true from Bondi
to Brighton.
Alan
again
There are associated issues arising from
this enquiry; the perennial issue of sudden and gradual. My approach to what I
call revelation 1 of the experiments was very gradual yet the realization
sudden. I now find that apprehension of what I am calling revelation 2 is also
very gradual. And there is the matter of ‘backsliding’, the desire to retain
and maintain the ‘seeing’ revealed by the experiments, which I view as an
attempt to squeeze eternity into time. However, as this is starting entirely
new subject, I’ll defer.
Joanna Malinowska
I've just read the
survey. Very sophisticated responses, so many words…
It just occurred
to me that what is really needed is just a simple curiosity and openness, just
a childish way of grasping. The child just opens eyes and sees what is to see,
and we try to see what we are SUPPOSED to see, and we are frustrated that we do
not see it. It is even worse for people who are trying to get enlightened and
are already "spiritual". Because they have expectations, they want to
GET something, they are already very sophisticated. With the head full of
quotes and gurus, and spiritual studies it is very easy to skip the obvious,
simple picture. And you would not like to be Headless, perhaps...
And this picture
and seeing is only a beginning anyway. Perhaps we at one point we answer
another question – WHY it is so important that we realize who we are? And
perhaps I am asking about the full realization… We are what we are already…
Isn't most important just to BE, just to LIVE from it?
Brian Kay
Fascinating questions about Seeing. I've come to the conclusion that seeing has 2 very real 'pitfalls' associated with it - the tendency towards nihilism (I am nothing), and/or the tendency towards grandiosity (I am everything).
The meaning of Seeing, in my view, is equally, if not more important, than the experience (pointing a finger inward and seeing one's emptiness/fullness).
Who am I? is the first of several important questions in one's life, but it is NOT the only question to be answered.
Why am I here, and how shall I live are equally valid and important questions in my view. These are distinctly *human* questions. Human beings are a paradox - BOTH spirit and matter. This is the *meaning* bit that is essential to work out. While Consciousness is not located INSIDE the body, it is expressed, embodied and lived through individual bodies and forms. The spirit hath become flesh. That, for me, is what is meant by the term 'soul'. Human beings consist of body, mind, soul, and Spirit - balance is maintained by developing the *whole* human being, not just an aspect of who we really are.
Seeing points out the most overLOOKED aspect of our True Nature, but we are also individual bodies, minds and souls, and our mortality must be honored too. I am the son of BOTH God and man - it's a paradox. Most of history is replete with science or religion feeling the need to choose a side - we are either mortal or eternal, spirit or flesh. It's not an either/or choice in my view. BOTH/AND is the resolution to this paradox. Both Observer and individual participant with a special role to play. Every single life matters, and life's highest purpose is not to transcend the 'human illusion' in my view. Or, in the immortal words of Abraham Joshua Heschel, "Man is a messenger who forgot the message". We are here to learn, grow, experience, and participate in our Divine and earthly nature.
This is how the One becomes Many in a very real sense. I am immersed in Spirit, connected inextricably to the Source of all that is, as well as every-one and every-thing through this indivisible Spirit, but I am NOT the Source in a transcendent sense ("I" am NOT God, yet God is my 'me'). I am a wave immersed within the ocean, but I am NOT the Ocean. This is where the invaluable and sometimes painful lessons of humility, gratitude, relationship, service, and reverence come into play in my experience.
Seeing, for me, is a wonderful living meditation. In the deepest sense, it's 'cleaving to God', and directly experiencing unity with every living being. This, in my experience, is a beginning not an ending - it's the end of the formal search, but the beginning of living a mortal life inspired by/from one's True Center.
The question is no longer, 'Who am I?', but 'For what purpose was I created?', and 'How shall I live in light of my True Nature.' For me, it was a recognition that Earth is Heaven in potentia. We act in partnership with our Source by consciously manifesting and participating in the act of creation, and embodying the ineffable qualities of love, compassion, kindness, tolerance, justice, and faith in our limited, mortal, and timebound lives.
This, in my experience, is the real work of not only Seeing, but
living from/as who you really are....embodying the spiritual qualities of our
True Nature in our mortal, everyday human lives....
Back to top
Appendix – The original
discussion note
NOTES FOR ‘A DIFFERENT KIND
OF WORKSHOP’
If, as I believe, everybody sees what is to be seen,
or gets what is to be got or apprehended—why do so few people consider what the
experiments reveal to be highly significant?
It must be a matter of interpretation.
Can we experiment with one or two of the experiments
and thereby explore the response of a person doesn’t ‘get it’? Maybe this has
been tried. Has it, and has it been written up. If so, where? Anybody know?
Example:
POINTING FINGER EXPERIMENT
Do the standard experiment.
Discuss results.
Then return to the pointing position and focus on what
they, the experimenters, are experiencing, not on what the presenter
is seeing.
Is
it really a matter of interpretation:
·
What
then, are the various interpretations?
·
What
significance does the experimenter attach to what they are seeing?
·
Have
the experimenters done any homework? Does what the experiment reveals have any
relevance to the path that brought them here? Is their homework getting in the
way? (See John Hawkins comment below)
·
Have
they asked the right question? Not what am I going to learn here or get out of
all this but ‘what am I’?
Objections to the process
·
I
already know I can’t see my head; you don’t have to tell me.
·
So
what, I always see like this?
·
Fear.
It seems empty, pointless, the window on nihilism rather than a window of
eternity.
Explanations of different responses
·
Simply
not interested.
·
People
want something new not something they already have.
·
Some
prefer a teaching rather than an experience.
·
It
is an answer to a question they have not asked themselves.
·
Holding
fast to the observer position and resisting dissolving into participation.
(maybe the resistance is quite unconscious)
Preparation—things that can prepare the ground.
·
Spontaneous
openings
·
Meditation
·
Psychedelics
·
Teachings
·
Other
experiential methods, e.g., Big Mind,
·
Are
Emily and Eliot right about too much reality?
Why worry about this, why make a problem of it? Two
reasons:
‘They either get it or they don’t’ response has never
appealed to me. It strikes me as very unheadless. Headlessness is about
sharing, it’s very foundation is what we share. If this foundation of what we
share is not showing through as a
result of the experiments I think we should consider why not. And why make a
problem of it. Well, maybe a question rather than a problem, then at least we
might find an answer.
We met John Hawkins on his recent, swift passage
through Sydney and talked about this matter. He made the comment that perhaps Headlessness
is wasted on the spiritually inclined, this was offered in the spirit of ‘youth
is wasted on the young’.
Finally, is this so-called enquiry into the reasons
for not ‘getting it’ simply evidence of the fact that I want everybody to see
things my way?
Back to top