First Saturday
“Music – everybody listens to music these days. Is there anything surprising in that? If we look backwards in time, we will see that it was not always so. Music then was music – not the good music-bad music, rock music-classical music, this music and that music. Music can only be music – neither good nor bad, whatever else there is, is non-music. Music in the past was not merely a form of entertainment but something more. Moreover, only the few used to listen to music, as was the case with all art. There were few pretences in this regard and it was not a means of achieving fame or success. It was life for some, means of worship for some, and for some it was a means of great expression, beyond words and images. The tones, the sounds employed, the instruments were all a very personal medium for the musician to reach into himself and go beyond it,” I said to my friend Virendra, one day after listening to Bach.
It had been a year since I started taking music seriously and found great pleasure in doing so. Earlier, all I used to listen to was some Hindi film music and some of the latest, most popular English and Hindi pop music. It was always a means of entertainment for me, a means of passing time, a means of having some activity in the background while doing something else so that I didn’t get bored. I had never actually paid attention to it before.
Virenda said, “Like all other arts, music has declined in the last 30 or so years. Music has now become associated with images, ideas and for entertainment, partying and all the rest. Most so-called music these days is nothing but empty sounds, put together by a lot of people, using all kinds of artificial means to manipulate the sounds to achieve one end – popularity. That is what popular music is. Moreover, a division has been created, probably on the basis of outward form – between classical and popular music. But if one listens, actually listens, what one hears is only music. If one simply listens, without comparing what one hears to his or her idea of music, only then one can see what music is.”
I was new to Mumbai and Virendra was my only friend here, so usually on weekends and whenever I had a day off, I went to his place to stay over. He was an old friend of mine, from the time when I was in Delhi. We used to stay together at a paying guest hostel. Our rooms were close by and we often used to spend time together.
I said, “In India, only classical forms of music have survived, probably because it has been not popular and most of its exponents have not succumbed to the motives of personal ambition or fame. In the West, the same is the case with classical music, though there the quality depends upon the interpretation of the performer or the conductor. In popular music, several good attempts were made, in rock, punk, and jazz in the years before the 80s. Since then, there has been a gradual decline in popular music. In India, Bollywood music, except in a few cases, has been melodramatic, sensational and mediocre. The decades of the 60s and 70s were especially productive for music in many ways – there was a regeneration, a breaking from the traditional forms, but soon afterwards, it collapsed again.”
I had been finding myself becoming more and more intimate with music lately. I saw the beauty, the importance of music as a part of human existence. At first, I used to resist anything new, since it was not already known to me. I used to remain content with what was familiar since it gave me a certain degree of comfort. Now I was realizing how small my world was and how vast were the unexplored territories. Music was what helped me realize this more than anything else. I started listening to it openly, afresh, with no expectations whatsoever and found that by listening without an idea, I could listen so well. Music was teaching me how to listen.
“One can’t define what music is – any attempt to define music physically does not suffice. One has to hear, with clear senses, untainted by expectation or comparison to see the beauty of music,” he said, as if reading my thoughts. “Music is always out of time. If you are actually, attentively listening, there will be no sense of time. It is this quality of music that has made so many of the great composers exalt it as a divine virtue. Music has an effect on the body and the mind – not as two distinct effects but as one total effect. It affects the senses in various ways, and when one is in harmony with the music, then it ceases to be something separate, something outside of oneself – you become the music. Music is harmony and music is beauty. Music has the quality of expressing the inexpressible. One can’t approach music with one’s own peculiar likes or dislikes and tastes, which are all a part of one’s own conditioning. Music is something both extraordinarily complex and simple at the same time. We are not used to listening to anything except our own thoughts, therefore we can’t sense the beauty of music. Because we are always trying to do things according to our own peculiar tastes and likes and dislikes that we have built up, we become deaf to all other sounds. But when we drop all that and simply listen, then sound becomes a most wonderful thing – the complexity of it, the depth, the clearness, the penetration, the opening of many doors it leads towards, is inexpressible and beyond words.”
How well he could put it all into words! The things that I had faintly realized and which were not so clear to me became clear as light on hearing him.
Second Saturday
Next weekend, as usual, I went to Virendra’s place. We were listening to Bob Dylan. I told him about a recent discussion I had with some people in my office. He was, as always, ready and receptive to hear whatever I had to say. He would hear it out completely, then either comment or sit silently, as if the act of listening in itself was his comment. He never said anything just for the sake of saying something.
I told him that I had been discussing the relationship between music and intelligence and most people couldn’t believe what I said. He said it is quite obvious that music has a relationship with intelligence; and classical music, especially, can increase intelligence. I said that I told them that there has been scientific research in recent times to discover this relationship. Even though it seems fairly obvious that music has an effect on the brain cells themselves and that listening to some forms of music, especially Western and Indian classical, can increase intelligence, science, as always, has been trying to prove this. I told Virendra that science was something infallible and very authoritative for most people and he said that science is and always will be limited, since it is based on knowledge, which is also always limited. I said that most people consider the limits of their understanding to be the limits of the human mind. Nevertheless, what I had to say about music and intelligence did have some interest and credibility for them because some scientists also thought so.
I had told my colleagues about the Mozart effect. I told them, “In the University of California, Irvine, 36 people took standardized intelligence tests after three 10 minute periods of Mozart. Those who listened to Mozart’s Sonata for Two Pianos (K448) scored an average 119 – eight points higher than those who listened to a relaxation tape and nine points higher than those who listened to silence. Mozart’s music is quite complex and very patterned. This is what was reported in the findings in a journal.”
They were quite impressed but I could see they didn’t quite understand what I was talking about, so I went on. “One might recall how classical music appears to be tedious, boring or may also give one a headache. I have especially noticed how people just can’t stand listening to Bach – it just gets too much for them to take. Why does this happen? The first reason might be because one is not used to listening to it; therefore, there is no identification with it as such. Secondly, this might be because the mind needs to be very attentive and swift to follow music – the sounds, the notes, the complexity of the musical architecture – and when one is listening without paying attention there is bound to be a conflict, resistance of some kind. Thirdly, probably because one is accustomed to treating music as something separate, outside of oneself.”
This seemed to have offended them somehow, so I tried to quote some authorities, as that is always somewhat more convincing and accessible for most people. I said, “According to Steven Gillman, a brain researcher, listening to and participating in music creates new neural pathways in the brain that stimulate creativity. Studies have shown that music actually trains the brain for higher forms of thinking. Music stimulates the mind, encourages creativity and helps to lay a foundation for learning that leads to higher intelligence and aptitude. Also, GJ Whitrow quoted Einstein: ‘He often told me that one of the most important things in his life was music. Whenever he felt that he had come to the end of the road or into a difficult situation in his work he would take refuge in music and that would usually resolve all his difficulties.’ Einstein is also thought to have said about his theory of relativity: ‘It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the rest of musical perception.’”
Quoting authorities and well-known people certainly did have an effect. Seeing this, I continued with the figures and quotes. “According to Plato: ‘...music is a more potent instrument than any other for education...’ Now scientists know why. Music, they believe, trains the brain for higher forms of thinking. After eight months of musical training, three-year-olds were expert puzzle masters, scoring 80% higher than their playmates did in spatial intelligence – the ability to visualize the world accurately. This skill later translates into mathematical/conceptual and engineering skills. Also, I’ve heard that the very best engineers and technical designers in the Silicon Valley industry are, nearly without exception, practicing musicians.”
If I had said the same thing simply, I’m sure nobody would’ve paid attention to it. Now it seemed to me that at least they were interested and may have understood what I was trying to point out. Someone said, “That is very insightful and thought-provoking. Such ‘serious’ discussions are rare; intellectual ones, rarer. Yours is both.” Another said, “That’s a good theory. Sounds interesting.” Theory! Well, it’s not a theory. It’s something pretty simple and straightforward. Scientists theorize, not ordinary laymen such as ourselves. We were discussing facts, not theories. I can become pretty aggressive at times like these and I think I can consider this to be my flaw. I set about proving it.
I said, “Look, researchers believe that certain types of music actually create new neural pathways in the brain. That means that the brain can function in a different field than that of memory alone. After listening to classical music, adults can do certain spatial tasks more quickly, such as putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Why does this happen? The classical music pathways in our brain are similar to the pathways we use for spatial reasoning. When we listen to classical music, the spatial pathways are turned on and ready to be used. The music most people call classical – works by composers such as Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart – is different from other kinds of music as it has a more complex musical structure. Researchers think the complexity of classical music is what primes the brain to solve spatial problems more quickly. So listening to classical music may have different effects on the brain than listening to other types of music.”
I wanted to tell them about my favorite composer and also give an example which might seem a little accessible to them. So I told them about Bach. “One of the oldest and most highly reputed classical composers is Johann Sebastian Bach. Bach’s contributions to music, or, to borrow a term popularized by his student Lorenz Christoph Mizler, his ‘musical science,’ are frequently bracketed with the contributions of William Shakespeare in English literature and Isaac Newton in physics. Someone suggested that Bach’s music is what the people of Earth should use to communicate with the universe. Bach is the also the most represented artist on the Voyager Golden Record, a phonograph record included in two Voyager (Spaceship) missions. Bach’s compositions are three of the 27 recordings chosen. Also, several notable composers such as Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann and Mendelssohn began writing in a more contrapuntal style after being introduced to Bach’s music.”
I told them that Bach’s music, revered for its intellectual and technical beauty, was not always appreciated during his own lifetime, and he was considered to be “old-fashioned” by his contemporaries. Nevertheless, Bach is now considered one of the most famous and influential composers of all time. Today the “Bach style” continues to influence musical composition, from hymns and religious works to pop and rock. Many of Bach’s themes – particularly the theme from Toccata and Fugue in D minor – have been used in rock songs repeatedly and have achieved notable popularity.
Someone commented, “If the theory is based on the complexity of music (I approach it from the mathematical perspective), then it is not limited to orchestral music. An extreme example would be Math Rock.”
Theory again! I really dislike these words: theory, idea, opinion, point of view! They were the most illogical words to me. I said, “Firstly, it’s not a theory – it’s an actuality, as anybody can observe for himself. Secondly, classical music is not limited to orchestral music. Also, though the musical structure might be complex, the actual music is really very simple. Because it is simple, it can operate in the most complex fields. Like Bach’s music; when they map it, they see all the complex structures and all the intricate details, but when you listen to it, it’s the simplest form of music ever written. It’s like nature.
“The type of music labeled as rock was at its best in the 60s and the 70s. Some of the best music in categories such as rock, punk and jazz was created then. It was created by people who wanted to break from the tradition and structure of classical music, since tradition is always a limitation, and wanted to create something new. There were some great musicians in this period who have been highly influential. Examples would be Bob Dylan, The Velvet Underground and John Coltrane. However, through time, even that became a tradition, a genre, which others followed, remaining within the same field, so it became repetitive.
“Math Rock, as I understand, is based on conscious and deliberate effort towards creating music within a particular frame, according to certain pre-formulations. Since it uses mathematics, it is based on measurement, which means comparison, which also means time. Since there is a framework defined already, it remains within the field of the known. Therefore, the spontaneity, the timeless factor, is missing. Since they try to manipulate, twist and syncopate to confuse, to delay, to create something that is a twist on rock, punk, or pop, it simply remains a modification of the existing structures.”
Nobody said anything after that. I guess they were either bored or had had too much of this. There was nothing more said and we left for our respective tasks.
“Anurag, you certainly did try to prove something there,” said Virendra. “I doubt whether it was for yourself or for them. It’s not something you can propagate through words. It is enough that you understand. You don’t have to show it to others too, you don’t have to convince them.”
Third Saturday
On the following Saturday, I went to Virendra’s place somewhat earlier than usual. I had gotten up early in the morning and reached his place by 9 a.m. One of his friends had come to visit him from Bihar.
We hardly ever had breakfast. At his place, there were only two meals a day, with no fixed time, as and when we fell hungry. The first meal of the day typically happened around noon. We sat silently for about an hour and a half. Then I told him about another discussion related to music that we had in my office. He didn’t react. I went on.
I said, “The other day, the people in my office were discussing poetry. I mentioned Bob Dylan. I told them that his songwriting is really good and he has also been nominated several times for the Nobel Prize for literature. I mentioned that Mr. Tambourine Man is one of his best songs and is a good example of his songwriting. Though most of them agreed, some of them said that drug use is one of the major contributing factors to the quality of his music. This irked me a lot and I tried to explain why it isn’t so. However, some of them defended it.”
“One can defend anything,” said Virendra. “Obviously drugs don’t put a chip in one’s head that means they will start creating good music. There have been many who’ve done this. If one is at all sane, one will see the truth of this.”
“Yes, that’s exactly what I said, but then the view of some was that to think differently or to create good music, one shouldn’t think sane. I don’t know what ‘sane’ means for most people.”
He didn’t say anything more but I went on to tell the whole story. I said, “When I had told them about this, most of the people agreed with what I had said. There were more than two people, so I’ll call them A, B, C and D.”
A said, “Truly a great artist. One of my favorite tracks!!
Take me on a trip upon your magic swirlin’ ship,
My senses have been stripped, my hands can’t feel to grip,
My toes too numb to step, wait only for my boot heels
To be wanderin’.
I’m ready to go anywhere, I’m ready for to fade
Into my own parade, cast your dancing spell my way,
I promise to go under it.”
“The song (in its complete version) is widely recognized as one of Dylan’s most evocative and poetic songs. There have been many theories about the meaning of the song. One interpretation is that the song allusively recounts Dylan’s early experiences with LSD, and this is supported by the prominent use of the word ‘trip’ in the first line of the second verse.”
B said, “Excellent. One of my favorite artists. Just like Every Grain of Sand, Visions of Johanna, Like a Rolling Stone, and many others, this is another great track.”
I said, “Yes, he’s the only man that stands out in what is called popular music. He’s been consistently creating good music, in many different forms, always reinventing himself, never remaining in any fixed category, never labeling himself, throughout the last five decades. He has also been highly influential in all forms of music.”
B said, “Certainly. His surrealistic style of writing, excellent musicianship, and usage of mind-expanding drugs can really create that kind of magic. Let me go on a bit more. This is something I really like:
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth,
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth.
“You have brought back my teenage memories. So on that note, let me dedicate his Desolation Row entirely to you.”
I said, “I don’t agree with the drug part. I don’t think there is any such thing as a mind-expanding drug. Any movement of mind away from its usual state is not expansion. It may temporarily stimulate or dull the brain and one might become aware of one’s thinking process momentarily; but it affects the capacity to reason, to pursue a logical sequence of thought, sense of responsibility. It destroys the brain. There have been many others who’ve taken drugs and created music but they have really been quite mediocre and have died at a very young age. Clearly, that’s not the case with Bob Dylan. That quality of mind doesn’t come from any drug – it comes from observation and choiceless awareness of one’s environment.”
B said, “Well, well, I don’t mean to promote any sort of psychotropic substance here publicly. Nor do I mean to spread any negative message. I know psychotropic substances are bad; but I was only talking about the surrealistic movement. And the music of the 60s, the time when drugs were more freely sold, and commoner than today – I am only talking about that. What is mind-expanding to most drug users is technically known as hallucination.
“And the people who died young were actually inspired by Nietzsche’s Nihilism. Examples are Morrison, Sid Vicious, etc.
“Much of the surrealism in music can be attributed to the usage of psychotropic substances. Speaking of psychotropic substances, Blake once said, ‘If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern.’
“Huxley later explained the meaning of this in his short essay, The Doors of Perception, in which he took peyote (mescaline) and described his experience in writing.
“Of Huxley’s book, Wikipedia says, ‘Psychedelic drugs are thought to disable filters which block or suppress signals related to mundane functions from reaching the conscious mind. In The Doors of Perception, Huxley explores the idea that the human mind filters reality, partly because handling the details of all of the impressions and images coming in would be unbearable, and partly because it has been taught to do so. He believes that psychotropic drugs can remove this filter (to an extent), or “open these doors of perception.”’
“I say it again, I do not intend to promote any sort of psychotropic substances; I am only reiterating what a few great men have said based on what I’ve read and based on my knowledge of music.
“For abstract ideas to come, the mind should not think sanely, that’s all I mean by it.”
I said, “Sorry, I’m not trying to contradict what you have said or trying to protest against anything. You don’t have to accept what I’m saying. What I’m trying to put forward are the facts. It’s easy to escape through any drug and invent any form of so-called surrealistic experience, which is nothing but the projection of the content of one’s own consciousness. It is very easy to deceive oneself through these experiences and at the same time have a marvelous escape. Even the many so-called spiritual people have such experiences, which each translates according to his own particular conditioning. It is simply another invention of thought. This is a fact. Experience, be it of any kind, is always limited. Therefore, knowledge born of that experience is also limited. That knowledge is stored in the brain as memory. From that memory, you think. So, all thought is based on knowledge, on what one has already known. You can’t think of something that you don’t know. It is impossible. Therefore, it is never new. It’s a fact.
“I’ve read Huxley’s book and I know about these musicians. As to any of them being influenced by Nietzsche, I doubt it. Quoting someone else doesn’t mean anything. What someone else has said or thought is not real unless one critically examines it for oneself. Simply being able to understand a verbal statement or arrive at an intellectual conclusion about the same doesn’t make that thing real. I think we would agree on this.
“If by ‘sane’ you mean operating from memory alone, from knowledge, previous experiences, from conflict, from prejudices, beliefs, ideas and ideals, not being aware of one’s own sensory responses and thought process – which is the usual state of mind – then I would agree with it. But sane really means the opposite of this. It certainly does include logic and reasoning.
“Drugs don’t cleanse the doors of perception – attention and observation do; and ‘narrow chinks of cavern’ means your knowledge (not the technical knowledge, of course), your fixed ideas, beliefs, authorities which you set up in your mind, including your own authority.”
B said, “Ah, what to say now! I have neither the strength nor the energy to speak any further; nor can I disagree with any of what you have said, because all that you have said is absolutely correct.
“However, I can say this: almost every musician in the 60s took depressants such as marijuana, LSD, or other similar drugs, or at least experimented with some form of drug. Another thing is that some of the artists mentioned above have created very good music even after taking drugs. Not to forget, David Gilmour is from Pink Floyd, and all members of the band were notorious drug users. So were Jimi Hendrix (and it was after listening to Hendrix’s version of All Along the Watchtower that people actually started to like the song) and Keith Richards.
“Also from a philosophical standpoint, experimenting, without getting addicted, with psychotropic substances is good because it broadens one’s knowledge and experience; but it’s even better not to experiment at all, because once one falls into the dark, odorous cesspool of drug abuse, safe return is always doubtful. And life is beautiful. Sometimes.
“If one is not an existentialist.”
I said, “Yes, what you have stated about these musicians is a fact and sure, some of them have created some good music too.
“But I think I haven’t made myself clear. What I am questioning is whether experimenting or using these things broadens ones knowledge and experience. I doubt it. As I mentioned, knowledge and experience are limited because they can always be added to. And if there is a thing which one comes upon, even temporarily, by using these things, some so-called state that these things simulate, what is the nature of that? Does it only depend on artificial stimulants? Is it something separate, outside of oneself? I’m simply questioning it. Must one not be attentive to the workings of one’s own mind? What is actually meant by cleansing the doors of perception, not verbally or intellectually or as an idea, but actually? Because if the stimulant is not there, the thing is also not there. So, either that thing was projected by thought itself or it never existed in the first place. I don’t know if I’m making myself clear. Does using any of these things do anything more than bring about chemically a certain state of mind which is totally different from the understanding of oneself?
“And these terms, like existentialism, are just words, right? The word is not the actual and before you know it, totally conditions your mind. It’s just a label. It may mean something for one and another thing for someone else. Labels and terms are restrictive, limiting. If one is an existentialist, he will see things from his point of view, the scientist will see it from his, the philosopher and the religious man will see it from their own. So, who is actually looking? Are so many different realities possible? I’m sure if anybody was to go and tell Dostoevsky or Nietzsche that he was an existentialist, they would be very embarrassed, might even feel offended. All these terms have been invented by people who got some kind of artificial stimulation by reading them and created these terms to glorify their mistaken idea that they have also reached the same level of understanding.”
B said, “Would love to answer this. Got work right now. Tomorrow morning probably. This talk has started to make sense now.”
I said, “You don’t have to answer this. It’s not some kind of a battle of wits or a form of intellectual amusement. If you would like to discuss it further, please feel free to email me and we can talk as two friends exploring something together. If it is merely opposing one conclusion to another then it does not lead us very far.”
B said, “I am sorry. I didn’t mean to cause any offense. Answering is the wrong word. I thought you were asking me a question. I apologize. I should have used the word ‘discuss.’ Please pardon my wrong use of the word, kind sir. I wish to stop this right here.”
C said, “No, don’t stop. This is a fascinating debate and you’re both doing so well. And Anurag makes some excellent points there.”
D said, “Yes. I agree with C. What started out as a comment on a song has expanded into a debate providing insights into so much startlingly wonderful ground. Don’t stop now. We want more.”
B said, “Thanks C. Thanks D. I’ll continue with my part of the discussion with my dear friend tomorrow. Until now, I had been afraid that I would have to disclose my deepest secrets if I spoke too much, but something tells me to go ahead. I can only say this for the time being: ‘A good philosopher is one who never jumps to a conclusion, but suspects all possibilities.’”
I said, “Please, there is no question of offense or anything of that sort. I just wanted to point out that the intention here has not been to inform one about something one would like to be talked about, theoretical, superstitious, imaginary, a fixation, as it were. For my part, this has not been a theoretical discussion; this is not just a lot of words.”
B said, “I would myself like to conclude by saying this. I think the word experience had led to some confusion here. I have understood experience as knowledge accumulated by participating in an event. An example would be taking drugs for a short period, experiencing them first-hand, stopping using them, and getting rehabilitated again. When I say drugs broaden our experience, I’m talking about the rational knowledge that we acquire after this entire process is completed.
“Experience, to me, is only limited to what the observer has observed. A human can observe things in two ways: one, merely with the help of his sensory organs (observing gravity); second, by actually participating in the event (taking a drug). This observation is also called initial observation and this initial observation provides a base for gaining rational knowledge. We observe things, we collect information, and then we use our reason to process it. This leads to the logical conclusion, which we call knowledge.
“Observation acts as the initial raw material in the process of obtaining knowledge. Let me try to give an example. A guitarist named John Frusciante took drugs for many years. Because of it he fell into severe depression. He stopped playing music for a long time. His knowledge became disorganized. Eventually, he stopped taking drugs and became successful in rehabilitating himself and getting all his knowledge back. Today, John doesn’t do drugs, but he certainly knows drugs better than a non-user. He says his experiences were all hallucinations, but he has learned something from them. He has seen a different side of life which is spiritual and beautiful. That’s what I mean by experience.
“I agree, reason gives us proper knowledge, but how can we say that only proper knowledge is required for creating music? Or art? Reason can give us a logical view, but reason cannot always give us an artistic view. In my opinion, in art, while creating something, sometimes one must see things differently. One doesn’t have to be right.
“Musicians, when doped, see things in a nondescriptive way. They feel things in a distorted way. And they try to bring those feelings, those images, into their music. If one was not bitten by a snake, one wouldn’t know how it feels. If one has not taken a drug, one wouldn’t know what it actually does to the brain; one would never have a first-hand experience. One would remain completely unaware of that part of life. One can only read about it which doesn’t give the exact idea.
“Another belief I have is that humans are still in the process of evolution; they are not completely evolved. Their ancestors were apes, and who knows what they are going to become 100,000 years from now. Their bodies are limited, their sensory organs have limited abilities, and their knowledge is very limited and only reliable in their own world. Therefore, I keep a skeptical view about human knowledge too. I think it is imperfect. I don’t say it is imperfect, but I like to think it is so.
“I still think life is a strange thing. Though Freud explained dreams, I’m not sure I know what dreams are. I have read both the Newtonian and the Kantian explanations of time, but still I am unsure I know what it is. I see myself aging every day, living in time, and keep wondering why I grow old. Similarly, I don’t know if the knowledge acquired with the help of our underdeveloped sensory organs is true. I’m not saying it’s false, I’m only saying I keep myself open to know more – more than just what my reason and sensory organs can tell me. We all know a ball thrown up in the air will ultimately come down due to gravity. So we, as humans, can only say that we have seen it coming down thus far, but we cannot say for sure if it actually comes down. So one day if it doesn’t come down, we’d all be less surprised. The universe is very big and unfathomable. And we are mere tiny points; tinier still is our so-called knowledge.
“I hold:
“If one does more things, one will know more.
“Knowledge is reliable only to an extent.
“One should suspect all possibilities.”
I said, “I think I’d like to make myself clear once more. Please don’t accept what I’m saying but see the truth of it. Try to listen without interpreting or translating it according to what you already know; then there is a possibility of sharing our understanding. What is true cannot be different for everyone. A thing can only be seen and rightly understood for itself and not by comparing it with something else. Also, let us put aside what others have said or discovered, be it anybody, however ‘great.’ We have to look at things simply and not come to them with various conclusions, most of which we have gathered from books and what others have said. Let us try to see the thing for ourselves rather than seeing it through someone else. Let us look at it directly and simply.”
“What you mention is something I’ve been thinking about lately. This word – ‘experience.’ I think it is usually used in two ways: the active present and the past. One is that you are experiencing something, which means to go through it. The other means to have gone through. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Either way, your point that experience helps in increasing one’s understanding does not seem to be correct. It may add to one’s knowledge, which is a different thing since knowledge is always in the past and is always limited because it can always be added to. I think that in neither way does experience help in understanding – be it through taking a drug, or something spiritual or whatever – for the following reasons:
“Experience as the active present – ‘experiencing.’ When you are actually experiencing something – anger, sex, etc. – at that moment there is no experience at all. Have you noticed this? Only a little later comes the experiencer, saying, ‘I have been angry.’
“Experience as the past. When one says, ‘I have experienced. I know,’ one knows something which is already over. Right? When I say ‘I have had an experience’ I only know the image of that experience and that image is the past, dead, over, finished. Because to experience implies not only going through, but to experience something you must be able to recognize it. Otherwise you cannot experience. To recognize implies that you have already known. So, there is no such thing as a new experience.
“So, the point I’m trying to make is that experience doesn’t help in understanding at all. Because what is called experience is nothing but a residue in memory and from that memory, that residue, which is the past, one looks at the present. So, there is always this conflict between the observer and the observed. When you go through something, it is over. And what you experience then is the past. So, there is nothing new in that at all. So, there is no learning, merely an accumulation of something which has already been known, in modified form. As I said, it’s the content of consciousness that reaches out and simply experiences itself, because it wants to recognize itself in everything, every form. There is no learning, nothing new in that. One can test this out for oneself.
“Taking drugs to experience something marvelous is an old trick which has existed from time immemorial: to bring about a temporary alteration in the brain cells, a greater sensitivity and heightened perception which give a semblance of reality. I think we have gathered so much knowledge that we just can’t look at anything simply any more.
“My point is simple: a conditioned mind has no basis for right understanding. No matter how much it seeks, searches, makes effort to understand, it will remain exactly where it was. Only an awake mind, a mind that is aware of itself – its own reactions, thought process – can have right understanding. Without self-knowledge, rather self-knowing, which is in the active present, there is no basis for right thought. Repetition, drugs, control, conforming to a pattern, various forms of entertainment – including intellectual and spiritual entertainment – dull the mind. And this dullness of mind one may call silence, abstract, seeing things differently, etc. Well that’s it I guess. End of discussion.”
C said, “I disagree. ‘To experience’ does not necessarily imply recognition. A baby who knows nothing of the world experiences new things every day. Regardless of whether or not he recognizes it. This is why it is a NEW experience. In this instance, you do not understand what you are thinking, seeing, feeling; you are simply ‘experiencing.’ Once the experience is over, should he come across the same thing once more, he will draw upon past experience in order to INTERPRET it and attempt to understand it in that light. Should he wish to describe this new experience to someone who has not had the same experience, he would only be able to draw a comparison with experiences that the other person recognizes. Therefore, unless you have experienced something first-hand, you do not truly understand every nuance of it. While one does not need to drink poison to know that it’s deadly, one would not understand exactly what kind of pain one goes through should one drink it.
“Are you able to know what pregnancy feels like to a woman? To have a life growing inside your body? Simply because you have witnessed it or know it exists does not mean that you understand the experience. You have to experience it yourself to truly understand. Listening to someone describe a beautiful landscape is vastly different from being there and seeing it for yourself.
“If there was no night, there would be no such thing as day. It would always be ‘day’ or it would always be ‘night.’ One often recognizes things by comparing them against other things. You know that good exists because you recognize evil. You know that people love you when you compare them against those who don’t.
“We carry the influences of teachings from everyone around us...until we are exposed to conflicting influences and opinions (which do exist and yet both may be valid) which force us to re-examine our understanding of those things. And hence, we come up with our own version of ‘truth,’ diverging (sometimes imperceptibly, sometimes by a wide margin) from what we originally held as truth.
“Case in point, since all that you have said is so well stated, by your logic, you would expect me to agree with it. Whereas it is obvious by now that isn't the case. Simply because as an individual with my own mind, I can differentiate between fact and opinion and draw my own conclusions about them.
“While my comments are open for all to agree or disagree with, they are directed at you solely in pursuit of knowledge and understanding and not with the intention of being offensive. Since you have very rightly said that we should not simply accept another's beliefs at face value, I hope you will take my disagreement with your opinions in the same spirit.
“I have no doubt that you will disagree with much of what I have said, which should not be a cause for concern since it is nothing more than a difference of opinion.
I said, “It’s a good thing to think on your own. It’s also a good thing that you do not accept anything I say. I am not disputing any of that. You are very much entitled to your opinions and there is no question of offence of any sort. But I am afraid that you have thoroughly misunderstood me. And that is all right.”
I told Virendra, “That’s where it ended. Quite an abrupt end, I must say. I wanted to say more, add more, clarify more, make them understand. I wanted to explain it in the best way possible, describing it, using words as close as possible to the actual thing to convey the meaning, so they can have a glimpse of it, so that it can at least trigger some kind of insight into the whole thing. It was so simple, so apparent. Why didn’t they see? The whole thing moved like a boat sailing on a windy night, taking no fixed direction. I don’t know where we reached. I don’t think anybody moved at all. I think they remained exactly where they started from. It is always surprising to me how people don’t want to move from their fixed bases.”
I looked at Virendra. I was expecting a response. But he said nothing. Then it occurred to me. I had learned nothing since the last Saturday.
“Music – everybody listens to music these days. Is there anything surprising in that? If we look backwards in time, we will see that it was not always so. Music then was music – not the good music-bad music, rock music-classical music, this music and that music. Music can only be music – neither good nor bad, whatever else there is, is non-music. Music in the past was not merely a form of entertainment but something more. Moreover, only the few used to listen to music, as was the case with all art. There were few pretences in this regard and it was not a means of achieving fame or success. It was life for some, means of worship for some, and for some it was a means of great expression, beyond words and images. The tones, the sounds employed, the instruments were all a very personal medium for the musician to reach into himself and go beyond it,” I said to my friend Virendra, one day after listening to Bach.
It had been a year since I started taking music seriously and found great pleasure in doing so. Earlier, all I used to listen to was some Hindi film music and some of the latest, most popular English and Hindi pop music. It was always a means of entertainment for me, a means of passing time, a means of having some activity in the background while doing something else so that I didn’t get bored. I had never actually paid attention to it before.
Virenda said, “Like all other arts, music has declined in the last 30 or so years. Music has now become associated with images, ideas and for entertainment, partying and all the rest. Most so-called music these days is nothing but empty sounds, put together by a lot of people, using all kinds of artificial means to manipulate the sounds to achieve one end – popularity. That is what popular music is. Moreover, a division has been created, probably on the basis of outward form – between classical and popular music. But if one listens, actually listens, what one hears is only music. If one simply listens, without comparing what one hears to his or her idea of music, only then one can see what music is.”
I was new to Mumbai and Virendra was my only friend here, so usually on weekends and whenever I had a day off, I went to his place to stay over. He was an old friend of mine, from the time when I was in Delhi. We used to stay together at a paying guest hostel. Our rooms were close by and we often used to spend time together.
I said, “In India, only classical forms of music have survived, probably because it has been not popular and most of its exponents have not succumbed to the motives of personal ambition or fame. In the West, the same is the case with classical music, though there the quality depends upon the interpretation of the performer or the conductor. In popular music, several good attempts were made, in rock, punk, and jazz in the years before the 80s. Since then, there has been a gradual decline in popular music. In India, Bollywood music, except in a few cases, has been melodramatic, sensational and mediocre. The decades of the 60s and 70s were especially productive for music in many ways – there was a regeneration, a breaking from the traditional forms, but soon afterwards, it collapsed again.”
I had been finding myself becoming more and more intimate with music lately. I saw the beauty, the importance of music as a part of human existence. At first, I used to resist anything new, since it was not already known to me. I used to remain content with what was familiar since it gave me a certain degree of comfort. Now I was realizing how small my world was and how vast were the unexplored territories. Music was what helped me realize this more than anything else. I started listening to it openly, afresh, with no expectations whatsoever and found that by listening without an idea, I could listen so well. Music was teaching me how to listen.
“One can’t define what music is – any attempt to define music physically does not suffice. One has to hear, with clear senses, untainted by expectation or comparison to see the beauty of music,” he said, as if reading my thoughts. “Music is always out of time. If you are actually, attentively listening, there will be no sense of time. It is this quality of music that has made so many of the great composers exalt it as a divine virtue. Music has an effect on the body and the mind – not as two distinct effects but as one total effect. It affects the senses in various ways, and when one is in harmony with the music, then it ceases to be something separate, something outside of oneself – you become the music. Music is harmony and music is beauty. Music has the quality of expressing the inexpressible. One can’t approach music with one’s own peculiar likes or dislikes and tastes, which are all a part of one’s own conditioning. Music is something both extraordinarily complex and simple at the same time. We are not used to listening to anything except our own thoughts, therefore we can’t sense the beauty of music. Because we are always trying to do things according to our own peculiar tastes and likes and dislikes that we have built up, we become deaf to all other sounds. But when we drop all that and simply listen, then sound becomes a most wonderful thing – the complexity of it, the depth, the clearness, the penetration, the opening of many doors it leads towards, is inexpressible and beyond words.”
How well he could put it all into words! The things that I had faintly realized and which were not so clear to me became clear as light on hearing him.
Second Saturday
Next weekend, as usual, I went to Virendra’s place. We were listening to Bob Dylan. I told him about a recent discussion I had with some people in my office. He was, as always, ready and receptive to hear whatever I had to say. He would hear it out completely, then either comment or sit silently, as if the act of listening in itself was his comment. He never said anything just for the sake of saying something.
I told him that I had been discussing the relationship between music and intelligence and most people couldn’t believe what I said. He said it is quite obvious that music has a relationship with intelligence; and classical music, especially, can increase intelligence. I said that I told them that there has been scientific research in recent times to discover this relationship. Even though it seems fairly obvious that music has an effect on the brain cells themselves and that listening to some forms of music, especially Western and Indian classical, can increase intelligence, science, as always, has been trying to prove this. I told Virendra that science was something infallible and very authoritative for most people and he said that science is and always will be limited, since it is based on knowledge, which is also always limited. I said that most people consider the limits of their understanding to be the limits of the human mind. Nevertheless, what I had to say about music and intelligence did have some interest and credibility for them because some scientists also thought so.
I had told my colleagues about the Mozart effect. I told them, “In the University of California, Irvine, 36 people took standardized intelligence tests after three 10 minute periods of Mozart. Those who listened to Mozart’s Sonata for Two Pianos (K448) scored an average 119 – eight points higher than those who listened to a relaxation tape and nine points higher than those who listened to silence. Mozart’s music is quite complex and very patterned. This is what was reported in the findings in a journal.”
They were quite impressed but I could see they didn’t quite understand what I was talking about, so I went on. “One might recall how classical music appears to be tedious, boring or may also give one a headache. I have especially noticed how people just can’t stand listening to Bach – it just gets too much for them to take. Why does this happen? The first reason might be because one is not used to listening to it; therefore, there is no identification with it as such. Secondly, this might be because the mind needs to be very attentive and swift to follow music – the sounds, the notes, the complexity of the musical architecture – and when one is listening without paying attention there is bound to be a conflict, resistance of some kind. Thirdly, probably because one is accustomed to treating music as something separate, outside of oneself.”
This seemed to have offended them somehow, so I tried to quote some authorities, as that is always somewhat more convincing and accessible for most people. I said, “According to Steven Gillman, a brain researcher, listening to and participating in music creates new neural pathways in the brain that stimulate creativity. Studies have shown that music actually trains the brain for higher forms of thinking. Music stimulates the mind, encourages creativity and helps to lay a foundation for learning that leads to higher intelligence and aptitude. Also, GJ Whitrow quoted Einstein: ‘He often told me that one of the most important things in his life was music. Whenever he felt that he had come to the end of the road or into a difficult situation in his work he would take refuge in music and that would usually resolve all his difficulties.’ Einstein is also thought to have said about his theory of relativity: ‘It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the rest of musical perception.’”
Quoting authorities and well-known people certainly did have an effect. Seeing this, I continued with the figures and quotes. “According to Plato: ‘...music is a more potent instrument than any other for education...’ Now scientists know why. Music, they believe, trains the brain for higher forms of thinking. After eight months of musical training, three-year-olds were expert puzzle masters, scoring 80% higher than their playmates did in spatial intelligence – the ability to visualize the world accurately. This skill later translates into mathematical/conceptual and engineering skills. Also, I’ve heard that the very best engineers and technical designers in the Silicon Valley industry are, nearly without exception, practicing musicians.”
If I had said the same thing simply, I’m sure nobody would’ve paid attention to it. Now it seemed to me that at least they were interested and may have understood what I was trying to point out. Someone said, “That is very insightful and thought-provoking. Such ‘serious’ discussions are rare; intellectual ones, rarer. Yours is both.” Another said, “That’s a good theory. Sounds interesting.” Theory! Well, it’s not a theory. It’s something pretty simple and straightforward. Scientists theorize, not ordinary laymen such as ourselves. We were discussing facts, not theories. I can become pretty aggressive at times like these and I think I can consider this to be my flaw. I set about proving it.
I said, “Look, researchers believe that certain types of music actually create new neural pathways in the brain. That means that the brain can function in a different field than that of memory alone. After listening to classical music, adults can do certain spatial tasks more quickly, such as putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Why does this happen? The classical music pathways in our brain are similar to the pathways we use for spatial reasoning. When we listen to classical music, the spatial pathways are turned on and ready to be used. The music most people call classical – works by composers such as Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart – is different from other kinds of music as it has a more complex musical structure. Researchers think the complexity of classical music is what primes the brain to solve spatial problems more quickly. So listening to classical music may have different effects on the brain than listening to other types of music.”
I wanted to tell them about my favorite composer and also give an example which might seem a little accessible to them. So I told them about Bach. “One of the oldest and most highly reputed classical composers is Johann Sebastian Bach. Bach’s contributions to music, or, to borrow a term popularized by his student Lorenz Christoph Mizler, his ‘musical science,’ are frequently bracketed with the contributions of William Shakespeare in English literature and Isaac Newton in physics. Someone suggested that Bach’s music is what the people of Earth should use to communicate with the universe. Bach is the also the most represented artist on the Voyager Golden Record, a phonograph record included in two Voyager (Spaceship) missions. Bach’s compositions are three of the 27 recordings chosen. Also, several notable composers such as Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann and Mendelssohn began writing in a more contrapuntal style after being introduced to Bach’s music.”
I told them that Bach’s music, revered for its intellectual and technical beauty, was not always appreciated during his own lifetime, and he was considered to be “old-fashioned” by his contemporaries. Nevertheless, Bach is now considered one of the most famous and influential composers of all time. Today the “Bach style” continues to influence musical composition, from hymns and religious works to pop and rock. Many of Bach’s themes – particularly the theme from Toccata and Fugue in D minor – have been used in rock songs repeatedly and have achieved notable popularity.
Someone commented, “If the theory is based on the complexity of music (I approach it from the mathematical perspective), then it is not limited to orchestral music. An extreme example would be Math Rock.”
Theory again! I really dislike these words: theory, idea, opinion, point of view! They were the most illogical words to me. I said, “Firstly, it’s not a theory – it’s an actuality, as anybody can observe for himself. Secondly, classical music is not limited to orchestral music. Also, though the musical structure might be complex, the actual music is really very simple. Because it is simple, it can operate in the most complex fields. Like Bach’s music; when they map it, they see all the complex structures and all the intricate details, but when you listen to it, it’s the simplest form of music ever written. It’s like nature.
“The type of music labeled as rock was at its best in the 60s and the 70s. Some of the best music in categories such as rock, punk and jazz was created then. It was created by people who wanted to break from the tradition and structure of classical music, since tradition is always a limitation, and wanted to create something new. There were some great musicians in this period who have been highly influential. Examples would be Bob Dylan, The Velvet Underground and John Coltrane. However, through time, even that became a tradition, a genre, which others followed, remaining within the same field, so it became repetitive.
“Math Rock, as I understand, is based on conscious and deliberate effort towards creating music within a particular frame, according to certain pre-formulations. Since it uses mathematics, it is based on measurement, which means comparison, which also means time. Since there is a framework defined already, it remains within the field of the known. Therefore, the spontaneity, the timeless factor, is missing. Since they try to manipulate, twist and syncopate to confuse, to delay, to create something that is a twist on rock, punk, or pop, it simply remains a modification of the existing structures.”
Nobody said anything after that. I guess they were either bored or had had too much of this. There was nothing more said and we left for our respective tasks.
“Anurag, you certainly did try to prove something there,” said Virendra. “I doubt whether it was for yourself or for them. It’s not something you can propagate through words. It is enough that you understand. You don’t have to show it to others too, you don’t have to convince them.”
Third Saturday
On the following Saturday, I went to Virendra’s place somewhat earlier than usual. I had gotten up early in the morning and reached his place by 9 a.m. One of his friends had come to visit him from Bihar.
We hardly ever had breakfast. At his place, there were only two meals a day, with no fixed time, as and when we fell hungry. The first meal of the day typically happened around noon. We sat silently for about an hour and a half. Then I told him about another discussion related to music that we had in my office. He didn’t react. I went on.
I said, “The other day, the people in my office were discussing poetry. I mentioned Bob Dylan. I told them that his songwriting is really good and he has also been nominated several times for the Nobel Prize for literature. I mentioned that Mr. Tambourine Man is one of his best songs and is a good example of his songwriting. Though most of them agreed, some of them said that drug use is one of the major contributing factors to the quality of his music. This irked me a lot and I tried to explain why it isn’t so. However, some of them defended it.”
“One can defend anything,” said Virendra. “Obviously drugs don’t put a chip in one’s head that means they will start creating good music. There have been many who’ve done this. If one is at all sane, one will see the truth of this.”
“Yes, that’s exactly what I said, but then the view of some was that to think differently or to create good music, one shouldn’t think sane. I don’t know what ‘sane’ means for most people.”
He didn’t say anything more but I went on to tell the whole story. I said, “When I had told them about this, most of the people agreed with what I had said. There were more than two people, so I’ll call them A, B, C and D.”
A said, “Truly a great artist. One of my favorite tracks!!
Take me on a trip upon your magic swirlin’ ship,
My senses have been stripped, my hands can’t feel to grip,
My toes too numb to step, wait only for my boot heels
To be wanderin’.
I’m ready to go anywhere, I’m ready for to fade
Into my own parade, cast your dancing spell my way,
I promise to go under it.”
“The song (in its complete version) is widely recognized as one of Dylan’s most evocative and poetic songs. There have been many theories about the meaning of the song. One interpretation is that the song allusively recounts Dylan’s early experiences with LSD, and this is supported by the prominent use of the word ‘trip’ in the first line of the second verse.”
B said, “Excellent. One of my favorite artists. Just like Every Grain of Sand, Visions of Johanna, Like a Rolling Stone, and many others, this is another great track.”
I said, “Yes, he’s the only man that stands out in what is called popular music. He’s been consistently creating good music, in many different forms, always reinventing himself, never remaining in any fixed category, never labeling himself, throughout the last five decades. He has also been highly influential in all forms of music.”
B said, “Certainly. His surrealistic style of writing, excellent musicianship, and usage of mind-expanding drugs can really create that kind of magic. Let me go on a bit more. This is something I really like:
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth,
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth.
“You have brought back my teenage memories. So on that note, let me dedicate his Desolation Row entirely to you.”
I said, “I don’t agree with the drug part. I don’t think there is any such thing as a mind-expanding drug. Any movement of mind away from its usual state is not expansion. It may temporarily stimulate or dull the brain and one might become aware of one’s thinking process momentarily; but it affects the capacity to reason, to pursue a logical sequence of thought, sense of responsibility. It destroys the brain. There have been many others who’ve taken drugs and created music but they have really been quite mediocre and have died at a very young age. Clearly, that’s not the case with Bob Dylan. That quality of mind doesn’t come from any drug – it comes from observation and choiceless awareness of one’s environment.”
B said, “Well, well, I don’t mean to promote any sort of psychotropic substance here publicly. Nor do I mean to spread any negative message. I know psychotropic substances are bad; but I was only talking about the surrealistic movement. And the music of the 60s, the time when drugs were more freely sold, and commoner than today – I am only talking about that. What is mind-expanding to most drug users is technically known as hallucination.
“And the people who died young were actually inspired by Nietzsche’s Nihilism. Examples are Morrison, Sid Vicious, etc.
“Much of the surrealism in music can be attributed to the usage of psychotropic substances. Speaking of psychotropic substances, Blake once said, ‘If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern.’
“Huxley later explained the meaning of this in his short essay, The Doors of Perception, in which he took peyote (mescaline) and described his experience in writing.
“Of Huxley’s book, Wikipedia says, ‘Psychedelic drugs are thought to disable filters which block or suppress signals related to mundane functions from reaching the conscious mind. In The Doors of Perception, Huxley explores the idea that the human mind filters reality, partly because handling the details of all of the impressions and images coming in would be unbearable, and partly because it has been taught to do so. He believes that psychotropic drugs can remove this filter (to an extent), or “open these doors of perception.”’
“I say it again, I do not intend to promote any sort of psychotropic substances; I am only reiterating what a few great men have said based on what I’ve read and based on my knowledge of music.
“For abstract ideas to come, the mind should not think sanely, that’s all I mean by it.”
I said, “Sorry, I’m not trying to contradict what you have said or trying to protest against anything. You don’t have to accept what I’m saying. What I’m trying to put forward are the facts. It’s easy to escape through any drug and invent any form of so-called surrealistic experience, which is nothing but the projection of the content of one’s own consciousness. It is very easy to deceive oneself through these experiences and at the same time have a marvelous escape. Even the many so-called spiritual people have such experiences, which each translates according to his own particular conditioning. It is simply another invention of thought. This is a fact. Experience, be it of any kind, is always limited. Therefore, knowledge born of that experience is also limited. That knowledge is stored in the brain as memory. From that memory, you think. So, all thought is based on knowledge, on what one has already known. You can’t think of something that you don’t know. It is impossible. Therefore, it is never new. It’s a fact.
“I’ve read Huxley’s book and I know about these musicians. As to any of them being influenced by Nietzsche, I doubt it. Quoting someone else doesn’t mean anything. What someone else has said or thought is not real unless one critically examines it for oneself. Simply being able to understand a verbal statement or arrive at an intellectual conclusion about the same doesn’t make that thing real. I think we would agree on this.
“If by ‘sane’ you mean operating from memory alone, from knowledge, previous experiences, from conflict, from prejudices, beliefs, ideas and ideals, not being aware of one’s own sensory responses and thought process – which is the usual state of mind – then I would agree with it. But sane really means the opposite of this. It certainly does include logic and reasoning.
“Drugs don’t cleanse the doors of perception – attention and observation do; and ‘narrow chinks of cavern’ means your knowledge (not the technical knowledge, of course), your fixed ideas, beliefs, authorities which you set up in your mind, including your own authority.”
B said, “Ah, what to say now! I have neither the strength nor the energy to speak any further; nor can I disagree with any of what you have said, because all that you have said is absolutely correct.
“However, I can say this: almost every musician in the 60s took depressants such as marijuana, LSD, or other similar drugs, or at least experimented with some form of drug. Another thing is that some of the artists mentioned above have created very good music even after taking drugs. Not to forget, David Gilmour is from Pink Floyd, and all members of the band were notorious drug users. So were Jimi Hendrix (and it was after listening to Hendrix’s version of All Along the Watchtower that people actually started to like the song) and Keith Richards.
“Also from a philosophical standpoint, experimenting, without getting addicted, with psychotropic substances is good because it broadens one’s knowledge and experience; but it’s even better not to experiment at all, because once one falls into the dark, odorous cesspool of drug abuse, safe return is always doubtful. And life is beautiful. Sometimes.
“If one is not an existentialist.”
I said, “Yes, what you have stated about these musicians is a fact and sure, some of them have created some good music too.
“But I think I haven’t made myself clear. What I am questioning is whether experimenting or using these things broadens ones knowledge and experience. I doubt it. As I mentioned, knowledge and experience are limited because they can always be added to. And if there is a thing which one comes upon, even temporarily, by using these things, some so-called state that these things simulate, what is the nature of that? Does it only depend on artificial stimulants? Is it something separate, outside of oneself? I’m simply questioning it. Must one not be attentive to the workings of one’s own mind? What is actually meant by cleansing the doors of perception, not verbally or intellectually or as an idea, but actually? Because if the stimulant is not there, the thing is also not there. So, either that thing was projected by thought itself or it never existed in the first place. I don’t know if I’m making myself clear. Does using any of these things do anything more than bring about chemically a certain state of mind which is totally different from the understanding of oneself?
“And these terms, like existentialism, are just words, right? The word is not the actual and before you know it, totally conditions your mind. It’s just a label. It may mean something for one and another thing for someone else. Labels and terms are restrictive, limiting. If one is an existentialist, he will see things from his point of view, the scientist will see it from his, the philosopher and the religious man will see it from their own. So, who is actually looking? Are so many different realities possible? I’m sure if anybody was to go and tell Dostoevsky or Nietzsche that he was an existentialist, they would be very embarrassed, might even feel offended. All these terms have been invented by people who got some kind of artificial stimulation by reading them and created these terms to glorify their mistaken idea that they have also reached the same level of understanding.”
B said, “Would love to answer this. Got work right now. Tomorrow morning probably. This talk has started to make sense now.”
I said, “You don’t have to answer this. It’s not some kind of a battle of wits or a form of intellectual amusement. If you would like to discuss it further, please feel free to email me and we can talk as two friends exploring something together. If it is merely opposing one conclusion to another then it does not lead us very far.”
B said, “I am sorry. I didn’t mean to cause any offense. Answering is the wrong word. I thought you were asking me a question. I apologize. I should have used the word ‘discuss.’ Please pardon my wrong use of the word, kind sir. I wish to stop this right here.”
C said, “No, don’t stop. This is a fascinating debate and you’re both doing so well. And Anurag makes some excellent points there.”
D said, “Yes. I agree with C. What started out as a comment on a song has expanded into a debate providing insights into so much startlingly wonderful ground. Don’t stop now. We want more.”
B said, “Thanks C. Thanks D. I’ll continue with my part of the discussion with my dear friend tomorrow. Until now, I had been afraid that I would have to disclose my deepest secrets if I spoke too much, but something tells me to go ahead. I can only say this for the time being: ‘A good philosopher is one who never jumps to a conclusion, but suspects all possibilities.’”
I said, “Please, there is no question of offense or anything of that sort. I just wanted to point out that the intention here has not been to inform one about something one would like to be talked about, theoretical, superstitious, imaginary, a fixation, as it were. For my part, this has not been a theoretical discussion; this is not just a lot of words.”
B said, “I would myself like to conclude by saying this. I think the word experience had led to some confusion here. I have understood experience as knowledge accumulated by participating in an event. An example would be taking drugs for a short period, experiencing them first-hand, stopping using them, and getting rehabilitated again. When I say drugs broaden our experience, I’m talking about the rational knowledge that we acquire after this entire process is completed.
“Experience, to me, is only limited to what the observer has observed. A human can observe things in two ways: one, merely with the help of his sensory organs (observing gravity); second, by actually participating in the event (taking a drug). This observation is also called initial observation and this initial observation provides a base for gaining rational knowledge. We observe things, we collect information, and then we use our reason to process it. This leads to the logical conclusion, which we call knowledge.
“Observation acts as the initial raw material in the process of obtaining knowledge. Let me try to give an example. A guitarist named John Frusciante took drugs for many years. Because of it he fell into severe depression. He stopped playing music for a long time. His knowledge became disorganized. Eventually, he stopped taking drugs and became successful in rehabilitating himself and getting all his knowledge back. Today, John doesn’t do drugs, but he certainly knows drugs better than a non-user. He says his experiences were all hallucinations, but he has learned something from them. He has seen a different side of life which is spiritual and beautiful. That’s what I mean by experience.
“I agree, reason gives us proper knowledge, but how can we say that only proper knowledge is required for creating music? Or art? Reason can give us a logical view, but reason cannot always give us an artistic view. In my opinion, in art, while creating something, sometimes one must see things differently. One doesn’t have to be right.
“Musicians, when doped, see things in a nondescriptive way. They feel things in a distorted way. And they try to bring those feelings, those images, into their music. If one was not bitten by a snake, one wouldn’t know how it feels. If one has not taken a drug, one wouldn’t know what it actually does to the brain; one would never have a first-hand experience. One would remain completely unaware of that part of life. One can only read about it which doesn’t give the exact idea.
“Another belief I have is that humans are still in the process of evolution; they are not completely evolved. Their ancestors were apes, and who knows what they are going to become 100,000 years from now. Their bodies are limited, their sensory organs have limited abilities, and their knowledge is very limited and only reliable in their own world. Therefore, I keep a skeptical view about human knowledge too. I think it is imperfect. I don’t say it is imperfect, but I like to think it is so.
“I still think life is a strange thing. Though Freud explained dreams, I’m not sure I know what dreams are. I have read both the Newtonian and the Kantian explanations of time, but still I am unsure I know what it is. I see myself aging every day, living in time, and keep wondering why I grow old. Similarly, I don’t know if the knowledge acquired with the help of our underdeveloped sensory organs is true. I’m not saying it’s false, I’m only saying I keep myself open to know more – more than just what my reason and sensory organs can tell me. We all know a ball thrown up in the air will ultimately come down due to gravity. So we, as humans, can only say that we have seen it coming down thus far, but we cannot say for sure if it actually comes down. So one day if it doesn’t come down, we’d all be less surprised. The universe is very big and unfathomable. And we are mere tiny points; tinier still is our so-called knowledge.
“I hold:
“If one does more things, one will know more.
“Knowledge is reliable only to an extent.
“One should suspect all possibilities.”
I said, “I think I’d like to make myself clear once more. Please don’t accept what I’m saying but see the truth of it. Try to listen without interpreting or translating it according to what you already know; then there is a possibility of sharing our understanding. What is true cannot be different for everyone. A thing can only be seen and rightly understood for itself and not by comparing it with something else. Also, let us put aside what others have said or discovered, be it anybody, however ‘great.’ We have to look at things simply and not come to them with various conclusions, most of which we have gathered from books and what others have said. Let us try to see the thing for ourselves rather than seeing it through someone else. Let us look at it directly and simply.”
“What you mention is something I’ve been thinking about lately. This word – ‘experience.’ I think it is usually used in two ways: the active present and the past. One is that you are experiencing something, which means to go through it. The other means to have gone through. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Either way, your point that experience helps in increasing one’s understanding does not seem to be correct. It may add to one’s knowledge, which is a different thing since knowledge is always in the past and is always limited because it can always be added to. I think that in neither way does experience help in understanding – be it through taking a drug, or something spiritual or whatever – for the following reasons:
“Experience as the active present – ‘experiencing.’ When you are actually experiencing something – anger, sex, etc. – at that moment there is no experience at all. Have you noticed this? Only a little later comes the experiencer, saying, ‘I have been angry.’
“Experience as the past. When one says, ‘I have experienced. I know,’ one knows something which is already over. Right? When I say ‘I have had an experience’ I only know the image of that experience and that image is the past, dead, over, finished. Because to experience implies not only going through, but to experience something you must be able to recognize it. Otherwise you cannot experience. To recognize implies that you have already known. So, there is no such thing as a new experience.
“So, the point I’m trying to make is that experience doesn’t help in understanding at all. Because what is called experience is nothing but a residue in memory and from that memory, that residue, which is the past, one looks at the present. So, there is always this conflict between the observer and the observed. When you go through something, it is over. And what you experience then is the past. So, there is nothing new in that at all. So, there is no learning, merely an accumulation of something which has already been known, in modified form. As I said, it’s the content of consciousness that reaches out and simply experiences itself, because it wants to recognize itself in everything, every form. There is no learning, nothing new in that. One can test this out for oneself.
“Taking drugs to experience something marvelous is an old trick which has existed from time immemorial: to bring about a temporary alteration in the brain cells, a greater sensitivity and heightened perception which give a semblance of reality. I think we have gathered so much knowledge that we just can’t look at anything simply any more.
“My point is simple: a conditioned mind has no basis for right understanding. No matter how much it seeks, searches, makes effort to understand, it will remain exactly where it was. Only an awake mind, a mind that is aware of itself – its own reactions, thought process – can have right understanding. Without self-knowledge, rather self-knowing, which is in the active present, there is no basis for right thought. Repetition, drugs, control, conforming to a pattern, various forms of entertainment – including intellectual and spiritual entertainment – dull the mind. And this dullness of mind one may call silence, abstract, seeing things differently, etc. Well that’s it I guess. End of discussion.”
C said, “I disagree. ‘To experience’ does not necessarily imply recognition. A baby who knows nothing of the world experiences new things every day. Regardless of whether or not he recognizes it. This is why it is a NEW experience. In this instance, you do not understand what you are thinking, seeing, feeling; you are simply ‘experiencing.’ Once the experience is over, should he come across the same thing once more, he will draw upon past experience in order to INTERPRET it and attempt to understand it in that light. Should he wish to describe this new experience to someone who has not had the same experience, he would only be able to draw a comparison with experiences that the other person recognizes. Therefore, unless you have experienced something first-hand, you do not truly understand every nuance of it. While one does not need to drink poison to know that it’s deadly, one would not understand exactly what kind of pain one goes through should one drink it.
“Are you able to know what pregnancy feels like to a woman? To have a life growing inside your body? Simply because you have witnessed it or know it exists does not mean that you understand the experience. You have to experience it yourself to truly understand. Listening to someone describe a beautiful landscape is vastly different from being there and seeing it for yourself.
“If there was no night, there would be no such thing as day. It would always be ‘day’ or it would always be ‘night.’ One often recognizes things by comparing them against other things. You know that good exists because you recognize evil. You know that people love you when you compare them against those who don’t.
“We carry the influences of teachings from everyone around us...until we are exposed to conflicting influences and opinions (which do exist and yet both may be valid) which force us to re-examine our understanding of those things. And hence, we come up with our own version of ‘truth,’ diverging (sometimes imperceptibly, sometimes by a wide margin) from what we originally held as truth.
“Case in point, since all that you have said is so well stated, by your logic, you would expect me to agree with it. Whereas it is obvious by now that isn't the case. Simply because as an individual with my own mind, I can differentiate between fact and opinion and draw my own conclusions about them.
“While my comments are open for all to agree or disagree with, they are directed at you solely in pursuit of knowledge and understanding and not with the intention of being offensive. Since you have very rightly said that we should not simply accept another's beliefs at face value, I hope you will take my disagreement with your opinions in the same spirit.
“I have no doubt that you will disagree with much of what I have said, which should not be a cause for concern since it is nothing more than a difference of opinion.
I said, “It’s a good thing to think on your own. It’s also a good thing that you do not accept anything I say. I am not disputing any of that. You are very much entitled to your opinions and there is no question of offence of any sort. But I am afraid that you have thoroughly misunderstood me. And that is all right.”
I told Virendra, “That’s where it ended. Quite an abrupt end, I must say. I wanted to say more, add more, clarify more, make them understand. I wanted to explain it in the best way possible, describing it, using words as close as possible to the actual thing to convey the meaning, so they can have a glimpse of it, so that it can at least trigger some kind of insight into the whole thing. It was so simple, so apparent. Why didn’t they see? The whole thing moved like a boat sailing on a windy night, taking no fixed direction. I don’t know where we reached. I don’t think anybody moved at all. I think they remained exactly where they started from. It is always surprising to me how people don’t want to move from their fixed bases.”
I looked at Virendra. I was expecting a response. But he said nothing. Then it occurred to me. I had learned nothing since the last Saturday.
