On Having No Body

April 15th, 2006 Fred McVittie

In 1961 Douglas Harding published ‘On Having No Head’, an essay bringing together elements of Buddhist and Zen teaching with certain observations about the nature of seeing. A key theme within the process of enlightenment described in the essay is the realisation that, in purely experiential terms, a human being (the self) does not have a head. Whilst we may look around and see other people with heads we do not experience our own self in that way. Rather, when we try to consider the form or nature of ‘the place we are looking from’ we are confronted with a void. Our bodies also may be ‘out there in the world’ but our heads, or more specifically our minds, are empty space. In Harding’s writing this apparently whimsical observation is developed into a comprehensive holistic metaphysics in which this void, this empty space, is ‘the void in which the world appears’.

A weakness in Harding’s analogy is that it relies very heavily on our apprehension of the world through our sense of sight. Vision is paralleled with being to an extent which some readers may find too much of a stretch, particularly when the visual sense, whilst clearly very important in organising our sense of reality, is not necessarily the strongest sense we possess which provides this orientation. This paper will attempt to reinforce this weakness in Harding’s analogy by considering the unusual case of Miss L. ; a young woman who, after recovering from a severe viral infection, lost her ability to access her proprioceptive sense, the sense that gives us information about where our bodies and limbs are in space. This woman, who prior to her disease had no religious or unusual philosophical interests, on losing her proprioception, reported regular feelings of satori or ‘divine illumination’ (sic) accompanied, or possibly produced by, a sense of her body being ’simultaneously everywhere and nowhere’, or ‘empty and full’. This presentation will be illustrated with writings and images produced by Miss L in her attempt to describe her experiences.

Posted in Buddhism, Conference Abstract, Embodiment, Enlightenment, Harding, Douglas, Sense | No Comments »

Douglas Harding RIP

May 10th, 2007 Fred McVittie


Douglas Harding died on January 11th, and somehow I didn’t hear about it. I am imagining he and Ivor Cutler sitting together, maybe with John Peel, Robert Anton Wilson and Stanislaw Lem, talking about the view from wherever they are now.

Posted in Cutler, Ivor, Harding, Douglas, Lem, Stanislaw, Wilson, Robert Anton | No Comments »

On the Evidence of the Senses Alone

May 16th, 2007 Fred McVittie

One of the phrases that one finds frequently in the writing of D.E. Harding is ‘on the evidence of the senses alone’ When he uses this phrase he is making an appeal to the reader that there is benefit to be gained by giving close attention to the actual experiences provided by the sense, a benefit which is lost when such experience is ignored. The alternative to attending to the evidence of the senses alone is only pay conscious attention to the interpretation of those experiences, interpretations which are usually objective, 3rd person, and theoretical.

An example which Harding uses extensively, and which at first reading can seem absurd, is the suggestion that, experientially, we are all ‘headless’. On the evidence of our senses alone, particularly the sense of sight, he notes that whilst we can see the world around us and see our own bodies, we cannot see our own head. From an ultra-naive perspective, when we look down at ourselves we find that our bodies fade somewhere around the upper torso. The interesting, and illuminating observation (sic) that Harding makes, and encourages us to repeat, is that if we continue to look upwards from the blur of our upper bodies we find that this blur does not end in darkness and emptiness, but merges into the field of vision itself. Above the chest, on the evidence of the senses alone, we become the entirety of the world. This bizarre but transformative way of seeing oneself is rarely noted because, as noted above, we tend not to pay attention to the direct sensory evidence but only to its objective, 3rd person, theoretical interpretation. We other people around us, all of whom seem to have ‘fleshy protruberances’ on their shoulders and assume that we must have one also. Effectively, we view ourselves, and our relationship to the world, from outside of ourselves, giving ourselves a head we cannot see and denying, or at least diminishing in status, the view from within.

Given that we are social beings apparently with a cognitive imperative to create objective interpersonal facts, theories, and explanatory structures, it is perhaps unsurprising that we have this eccentric tendency to view the world from the place where we are not. However, there may also be advantages to taking the first person view and, as Michael Stipe puts it, ‘Stand in the place where you live’.

Posted in Consciousness, Harding, Douglas, Naive, Perception, Sense | No Comments »

z View in. View out.

August 17th, 2007 Fred McVittie

Mind is the view out from the centre.
Body is the view in to the centre.
Mind is the experience of a place that We are looking from.
Body is the experience of a place that We are looking toward.

(D.E. Harding)

Posted in Centre, Harding, Douglas, Seeing | No Comments »

This is how you remind me, (of what I really am)

August 17th, 2007 Fred McVittie

Descartes’ logic of embodiment and cognition as essentially separate is based on the metaphor KNOWING IS SEEING together with a number of folk theories relating to essences and ideas.

The so-called Cartesian Body/Mind Split is partly a product of the spatialising metaphors employed in articulating the philosophy and the apparently inevitable here/there binary logic of spatial organisation. Harding’s formulation of centrality and viewpoint overlay this Cartesian divide with a subjective/objective layer in which Res Cogitans is associated with directionality of vision from here to there, inside to outside, centre to periphery, while Res Extensa is associated with the complementary trajectory of visuality, from there to here, outside to inside, periphery to centre. When I look at you I see your body and experience myself as the location of mind, but this difference is a functionality of the direction of vision, from in to out, rather than of a particular quality of the fixed point at this end of the perceiving path. This is evidenced when the direction of travel is reversed; when you look at me along the very same line of sight I become a body travelling toward you at the speed of light, whilst your looking out from the place where you are becomes an experience of mind.

Because I have consciousness I am able to report on the state of mind that is the looking from here to there. I can say what I feel(s) like, or what you (all of you) look like. Yet even if I did not choose to use this reportability, this would not deny the presence of mind in the directionality of my looking. I can speculate about a set of circumstances in which such reportability was completely lost to me, and in which my consciousness was made radically different, perhaps through accident, illness, or education, but even in that reduced/enhanced state the directionality of ‘looking’ that is inherent in being somewhere somewhen, exactly here, precisely now, implies the existence of mind in that trajectory. (Of course mind is not ‘in’ that line of sight as a thumb might be in a pie, or a coin in a pocket; the trajectory is the mind, wherever I happen to be).

Without the burden of a responsible, self-reflective consciousness holding down my understanding of mind I can extend my definition of ‘that thing my brain does’ and bring back Descartes. For every view in there must always be a corresponding view out. This is the case even if the trajectory of mind embodies an inanimate object: a rock, a tree, a star, a corpse. The existence of a line of sight from here to there, from this centre to that centre, demands that the polarity of this line is dual, and has a complementary trajectory from there to here, from that centre to this centre. Within the logic of this line I am embodied by my status as view in and the object whose non-consciousness lies at the origin of that line is ‘reminded’ by being the source and centre of the view out. When I look at you, you look at me. as myself, at the centre of my little world, I look out into you and yours, and in doing so I embody you and you in turn remind me of what I really am. From you point of view the favour is returned and I am embodied and you are reminded. Hello friend, wherever you are.

Posted in Centre, Descartes, Rene, Harding, Douglas, Knowledge, Seeing | No Comments »

Unweaving Harding’s Rainbow

August 18th, 2007 Fred McVittie

The accumulation of knowledge concerning objective facts cannot have an ultimate effect upon the experiencing of those facts, (knowledge about the physics of the rainbow does not unweave its beauty). It is possible to banish, or significantly alter, the experience of facts which are subsequently shown to be incorrect however. The ‘fact’ that rocks fall to the ground because of their desire to return to their natural place produces the convincing experience of a rock ’straining’ downward when held in the hand, almost like a small animal pulling on a lead. The replacement of this incorrect theory of why rocks fall with other explanations, the gravitational attraction of the Earth for example, causes this illusion of downward agency to completely vanish, replacing it with an equally convincing impression of a force pulling the rock toward the greater mass of the planet.

The experimental exercises of Douglas Harding show a similar effect, and are prey to the same hazards presented by contrafactual knowledge. Many of the exercises depend upon an explanation of vision (’seeing’ is the key metaphor in Harding’s system) which is scientifically incorrect but which allows the ’seer’ to have experiences that support the metaphysical aims of the practice. Since vision does not operate in ways that is routinely referred to in Harding’s writing, and which is embodied in the experiments, to continue to have these experiences the seer must maintain ‘belief’ in these incorrect explanations. Knowledge of more accurate explanations of how seeing functions can have the effect of dismissing the desired experience as effectively as knowledge of gravity dismisses the illusion of agency in the stone. There is a distinct possibility that, unless alternative appropriate theories are available which also support the desired experience, the acquisition of knowledge may well unweave Harding’s rainbow.

Posted in Harding, Douglas, Perception | No Comments »

The Great Chain of Being

August 18th, 2007 Fred McVittie

The snake of the Cosmic Ouroborus offered by history and legend represents the scales at which the universe operates, from the smallest meaningful measurement, the Planck length, at one end (the tail) and the largest meaningful measure, the entire visible universe, at the other, the all consuming head. In the model developed by Premack and Abrams these scales are wrapped around into a serpentine loop with the suggestion that these is some physical force or property which unites the smallest and the largest. No such force has been discovered yet in physics, although superstring theory is suggested as a possibility. Without this connection between the smallest and the largest, this understanding of the Ouroborus is little different from the traditional way of understanding the Cosmos generally referred to as the ‘Great Chain of Being’.

The Chain of Being idea is found in many theological and philosophical traditions and is part of the ‘Perennial Philosophy’ of Huxley, Aurobindo etc. It is a way of understanding the universe by configuring it conceptually as a hierarchy with all entities: living, non-living, ‘divine’, and ‘profane’ having a particular place on this hierarchy. Medieval Christian illustrations of the Great Chain inevitably place God at the top of the hierarchy, with angels, archangels, cherabim and seraphim stacked below Him. Somewhere beneath the angels we find humanity, and below the humans are animals, primates only slightly lower, insects well down the chain. In some illustrations the chain is continued downward to include inanimate material below the level of living creatures.

D.E. Harding’s reworking of this hierarchy replaces the personification of the spiritual that denotes the upper levels with the equally unfathomable and awe-inspiring image of the large-scale universe. Beyond the human scale of medium sized objects Harding indicates levels at the scale of the planet, the solar system, the galaxy, and the ultimate scale, unmatched in grandeur, the totality of the universe. Harding also extends the scale downwards in scale (although the sense of ‘down’ is replaced by ‘in’) beyond the level of inanimate material occupying the lowest levels in Medieval illustrations, and includes in the hierarchy the levels of atoms, subatomic particles, and ultimately, the incomprehensibly infinitesimal space which lies at the heart of all matter. A space which is reduced to a dimensionless point. Exactly here.

A striking aspect of both these images of the hierarchy or Great Chain is that there is an implied direction to the flow of ‘energy’ (for want of a better word, causality? Responsibility?) within the chain. In the Medieval image of the Chain, the direction of power and creative energy is downward, and God, at the top of the hierarchy, is responsible for the origin and maintenance of that which is below Him. “And without him was not anything made” as the Gospel of John would have it. All is seen as an emanation descending from on high. At the point of the hierarchy at which human beings are found there is an assumed responsibility for all lower levels; we have ‘dominion’ over the creatures of the Earth, and even those of us who are not Christian, or profess no faith at all, may still feel that we are responsible for the Earth and its safe-keeping in a way which transcends simple self-interest.

A more detailed look at the Great Chain at the point where humans are shows us that humanity itself is divided hierarchically, with kings and aristocrats placed on a slightly higher level than the mass of common humanity, and whilst we may reject this caste system today it is still embedded in our cultural, legal, and political systems. The Sovereign of England rules by divine right and that right is hereditory. When I was a child, when we sang hymns in school assembly, our rendition of ‘All Things Bright and Beautiful’ still included the second verse.

The rich man at his castle
The poor man at his gate
He made them high and lowly
And ordered their estate

The re-imagined Great Chain of Being which Harding indicates, and which is also found in Ken Wilbur’s writings for example, is superficially similar but significantly different. As noted above, the levels in the hierarchy above the human, which in the Medieval Great Chain were populated by spiritual beings, in the physical Great Chain are larger orders of scale, with an acknowledgment that different laws operate at these different scales. God is replaced by the totality of the universe (or the visible universe at any rate), the Angels become galaxies and the Cherabim and Seraphim are the Solar system and the planets. The levels below human, or rather below (or inside) human scale, are the levels of molecules, atoms, quarks, bosons, and the rest of the subatomic menagerie.
Absent from this model is the implication of greater value associated with higher levels of the chain, so the model cannot be used to prop up an aristocracy or justify the existence of a caste system (although there is a scent of just that kind of value difference is some of Wilbur’s writing.) A distinct difference between this model and the Medieval one is that the direction of creative power is reversed. There is no assumption that divine creative force operates from the far reaches of the universe, working through smaller and smaller circles of influence until, ultimately, it is conferred upon the human being. Instead the flow is imaged as originating from the ’source’, which is the void at the centre of the most infinitesimal

This distinction, which difference in which responsibility and ultimate understanding is not seen as lying at the top of the hierarchy, with the equivalent of God, but at the bottom, mirrors the modern understanding within the physical sciences. The quest for the most effective description of how the physical universe operates is a journey downwards, towards the most essential particle, the fundamental building block of the entire edifice. In place of emanation we have emergence, and the flow of creative energy is upward, with the higher levels, the higher orders of being, emerging from the behaviour and properties of the entities populating lower levels. So the behaviour of a material is understood as emerging from the properties of its constituent elements. A block of iron is hard because the atoms of iron which compose it have strong bonds between them, and these atoms have strong bonds because the electrons and protons which make them up have the particular configuration they have, etc etc. As responsibility and explanatory power is deferred downwards, so the creative energy is routed such that it flows upwards.

Both these images of a hierarchy of Being also therefore contain a heirarchy of power and creativity, and whether the movement of this power is seen as descending from on high or bubbling up from below it is still imagined as originating elsewhere. We, as humans located as we are somewhere in the middle of the Great Chain, medium sized objects half-way between angels and rocks, between the everything of the universe and the nothing at the heart of the atom, are not near either of these putative origins. In the hierarchy of the chain we are the middle link, a conduit for an energy or power that moves us and then moves on.

This image of a hierarchy is not without its uses, particularly if we imagine the potential for both upward and downward motion. The image serves more purpose however if it is wrapped into a circle such that the smallest is connected to the largest. In terms of the Medieval Chain this means equating Divinity with the essential quality possessed by all entities, something like a soul perhaps. In physical and non-theological terms that means finding a physics for the unification of the largest with the smallest. As noted above, some suggestions point to superstring theory for this connection.

When the bottom of the chain is connected to the top a Cosmic Ouroborus is formed, the tail of the snake entering the mouth and the universe is simultanously consumed and consuming, creating and destroying.

Posted in Harding, Douglas, Hierarchy, Ouroborus, Perennialism, Re-entry, Symbol | No Comments »

Unweaving Harding’s Rainbow

August 18th, 2007 Fred McVittie

The accumulation of knowledge concerning objective facts cannot have an ultimate effect upon the experiencing of those facts, (knowledge about the physics of the rainbow does not unweave its beauty). It is possible to banish, or significantly alter, the experience of facts which are subsequently shown to be incorrect however. The ‘fact’ that rocks fall to the ground because of their desire to return to their natural place produces the convincing experience of a rock ’straining’ downward when held in the hand, almost like a small animal pulling on a lead. The replacement of this incorrect theory of why rocks fall with other explanations, the gravitational attraction of the Earth for example, causes this illusion of downward agency to completely vanish, replacing it with an equally convincing impression of a force pulling the rock toward the greater mass of the planet.

The experimental exercises of Douglas Harding show a similar effect, and are prey to the same hazards presented by contrafactual knowledge. Many of the exercises depend upon an explanation of vision (’seeing’ is the key metaphor in Harding’s system) which is scientifically incorrect but which allows the ’seer’ to have experiences that support the metaphysical aims of the practice. Since vision does not operate in ways that is routinely referred to in Harding’s writing, and which is embodied in the experiments, to continue to have these experiences the seer must maintain ‘belief’ in these incorrect explanations. Knowledge of more accurate explanations of how seeing functions can have the effect of dismissing the desired experience as effectively as knowledge of gravity dismisses the illusion of agency in the stone. There is a distinct possibility that, unless alternative appropriate theories are available which also support the desired experience, the acquisition of knowledge may well unweave Harding’s rainbow.

Posted in Harding, Douglas, Perception, Rock | No Comments »

Harding’s Trompe L’oeil Space

August 20th, 2007 Fred McVittie

Douglas Harding’s ‘naïve’ seeing requires, or at least significantly benefits from, a Western paradigm of looking which is passive and camera-like. This is possibly promoted by a familiarity with experiences which respond to this paradigm, particular repeated exposure to 2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional spaces. Such images utilise those mechanisms of the visual system which are the most passive. In looking at a 2D image and seeing it as 3D one is relying on the perceptual cues of perspective, blurring with distance, overlapping of objects such that nearer objects obscure those objects which are further away. Facilities of depth perception which are not used are parallax vision, which uses the binocular system of the eyes to judge distance, and the ‘enactive’ vision technique in which the movements of the eyes, head, and body provide depth information. These latter techniques are both active and require an understanding of perception which is very dissimilar to camera-vision. Both these latter techniques are necessarily suppressed when carrying out the experiments which form the core of Harding’s work, in favour of a kind of seeing which is more akin to looking at a trope l’oeil painting of the world than at the world itself.

Posted in Harding, Douglas, Naive, Perception, Seeing, Space | No Comments »

The Scaly Eyes of Children

August 20th, 2007 Fred McVittie

It is slightly unfortunate that Douglas Harding uses the word ‘true’ when referring to the self which appears when using the technique of ‘Seeing’. This terminology follows in the footsteps of other mystical traditions which stress the truth of their claimed version of reality, and invokes a claim for authenticity of being based on an apparent transparency to the act of visual perception. The status of truth is underwritten by the assumption that seeing is believing. In Harding this base is reinforced by an appeal to the ‘naturalness’ or naivety of children’s perception which, it is suggested, is unclouded by the kind of conceptualisation which marks adult seeing. To look through the eyes of an adult, it is suggested, is to look in a way which is contaminated with knowledge that blinds us to the way things really are, and so when we look at ourselves this entity too is shrouded with the fog of conceptualisation. When we look through the unsullied eyes of a child however, there is no such contamination and things appear as they really are. Children’s eyes, it is claimed, have no scales of knowledge over them and they access the world directly, as ‘true’. Self-perception, using this putative childlike version of seeing, is considered to be similarly ‘true’.

Posted in Harding, Douglas, Knowledge, Naive, Perception | No Comments »

Harding’s OOBE

September 17th, 2007 Fred McVittie

The ‘Headless’ technique developed by Douglas Harding as a means of cultivating non-duality quite possibly works in similar ways as practices which produce ‘out of body experiences’. Such techniques, whether embedded in spiritual or religious practice, or discovered more informally in secular situations, (during pharmaceutical use, at times of great stress or danger, etc) give the impression that the material body can be separated from a seemingly non-physical mind, allowing this mind to function extra-corporeally. During an ‘OOBE’ one experiences oneself as existing not ‘within’ the body but as a detached, remote viewpoint outside of that body, thinking and being see to be taking place without the usual support apparatus of physical embodiment.

The significant difference that Harding brings to the effecting of this experience is that, instead of attempting the deeply counter-intuitive trick of ‘moving’ consciousness out of its apparent location in the head, he uses naïve self-observation strategies that allow one to disbelieve in the existence of one’s own head, the usual seat of consciousness. This results in a feeling that one’s consciousness is located in a space where not matter exists, a feeling of self-awareness which is experiences as hovering uncontained just above the torso. When the containing substantive entity, head or body to which consciousness is attached, is no longer present, the boundaries of the self become fuzzy, permeable, and extensible.

“The true getting up is not bodily but from the body; in any movement that takes the body with it there is no more than a passage from sleep to sleep, from bed to bed; the veritable waking is from corporeal things.”
Turnbull (ed) – The Essence of Plotinus. O.U.P. New York, 1948. in Harding 1961.

Posted in Boundary, Consciousness, Harding, Douglas, Non-duality, Out of body experience, Self, Turnbull, Grace H. | No Comments »

OOBE Paradox

October 24th, 2007 Fred McVittie

How can the apparently obvious dualism suggested by ‘out of body experiences’ (OOBEs), in which the res extensa seems at its most separate from res cogitans, nevertheless lead to the experience of a form of awareness characterised by a feeling of ‘non-duality’? A similar paradox appears in the exercises of Douglas Harding in which the sense of self or consciousness is not dissolved (or at least not initially) but is dissociated from its habitual site within the head.

Posted in Consciousness, Enlightenment, Harding, Douglas, Non-duality, Out of body experience, Self | No Comments »

Seeing the Void. Listening to the Silence

October 27th, 2007 Fred McVittie

‘Seeing’ is particularly effective as a means of experiencing non-duality if the finger pointing exercise is preceded by a number of other ‘pointings’, at a distant object, an object nearby, at one’s own foot, thigh, stomach, chest, and only then culminating in the ‘pointing at self’ gesture in which the finger points at the head or eyes. This may be because the visual systems of the brain are prepared for the act of seeing by this procedure and the intentionality raised by this procedure continues to be present and active even when there is no ‘object’ indicated by the pointing finger and the intention is itself ultimately ‘pointless’. This mechanism, in which the active processes of looking are directed toward a space which is both ‘possessed’ by the pointer and also empty, may parallel the exercise of ‘listening to the silence’ which Krishnamurti and others write about. A significant and necessary difference between these two exercises is that, whereas listening is immersive, with little or no separation between the sound and the listener, seeing does (usually) create such separation, placing the seen object ‘out there’ in objective space. To listen to the silence one effectively listens to one’s self, but to see the void, and to see it in oneself, one has to turn the gaze around. In theory one should be able to see the void around us in everything, and perhaps that is an achievable ideal attainable by some adepts, but the separation of self and other reinforced by vision makes it difficult to identify with the void ‘out there’ so one must seek the void within. The Seeing technique directs the body and the brain to carry out this peculiar act of non-vision.

Posted in Harding, Douglas, Krishnamurti, Siddu, Non-duality, Self, Sense, Void | No Comments »