The illusion of separateness, part one
This post is part of some writing I’m doing for a book. It’s the first part of a chapter giving the background behind the Buddhist teachings of anatta (non-self) and sunyata (emptiness). Hopefully it’ll be followed soon by the second part of the chapter. Comments are welcome!
I became interested in Buddhist teachings because I was interested in meditation. At that time time I was still in high school, and experiencing some of the usual angst that teenagers experience, plus an extra dose because all of my best friends at school had moved away. Isolation, at that age, causes a pain that is piercing. I’d heard of meditation, and had the idea that it involved looking inside of yourself for your sources of happiness, well-being, and security. Since the outside world had proved to be very unreliable, that promise was alluring to an extraordinary degree.
Unfortunately I lived in a small town, the nearest meditation classes I saw advertised in the newspaper were a long way off, and I couldn’t drive. This was the 1970s, before the explosion of Buddhist publishing, and there were very few books available on the topic of Buddhism, and none on meditation — at least that I could find. So it wasn’t for a couple of years, until I went to Glasgow, in my native Scotland, to study veterinary medicine, that I was in a position to go to a meditation class. In fact it wasn’t until after two years of university, by which time I was living in an apartment rather than in student dorms, that I had the leisure to attend a class.
My second year final exams under my belt, I nervously climbed the stairs to a large, rather shabby apartment in Glasgow’s bohemian West End, and joined about 30 other people in a magnificent room with a huge, western Buddha statue, a mural of clouds and lotus flowers, and a dreadfully unfashionable dark brown shag-pile carpet. The air was filled with the heady scent of incense, and the atmosphere equally filled with the expectation of secrets to be learned. There I was encourages to focus on the breath, to notice when my mind had wandered, and to bring the mind back to the breath, over and over. The practice was in theory simple and although I found it challenging I also found it liberating, and I felt happier for having done it.
In the social period at the end of the class, when people were either drifting away or taking the opportunity to get into discussions, I gravitated shyly towards the people who had been practicing the longest. I didn’t gain a lot of insight into Buddhist philosophy through talking to them, but when one of the teachers learned I didn’t have any summer employment lined up he offered me a job with a Buddhist gardening cooperative that was raising funds to renovate a city center space and turn it into a proper Buddhist center. I said yes, and so it was that I ended up spending several weeks weeding, hoeing, and cutting lawns with a bunch of intense young men passionately interested in Buddhism.
As we tended gardens, we talked about the theory and practice of Buddhism. And we tried to practice mindfulness of our thoughts and bodily movements. The people I worked with readily invited me to other events being held in the apartment where I’d just learned meditation, and so it was that I was exposed to a late Buddhist teaching called The Heart Sutra.
The Heart Sutra is so-called because it represents the core, the heart, the essence of Gautama’s perspective on life. It is, to say, the least, not very accessible or even, on the first or second or even the fiftieth hearing, very heart-warming. But I ended up with its words rattling around in my mind that summer, challenging me, even taunting me, and demanding to be understood:
Form is no other than emptiness
Emptiness no other than form.
Form is only emptiness.
Emptiness only form.All things are by nature void;
They are not born or destroyed.
Nor are they stained or pure,
Nor do they wax or wane.
These are difficult words, but also intriguing ones. And I experienced the difficulty and allure of them day in, day out, for several weeks. These are words attempting to describe a different mode of perception from our normal way of seeing things. They suggest that the mind makes some fundamental mistakes in interpreting what we encounter in the world around us, and even in the world within us.
The drawing above is a famous optical illusion called a Necker Cube, after the Swiss crystallographer Louis Albert Necker, who first drew it in 1832. Necker’s Cube is an ambiguous wire-frame drawing of a cube in isometric perspective, meaning that parallel edges of the cube are drawn as parallel lines in the picture. The drawing is ambiguous because it contains no indication, where lines cross, of which is in front.
The mind immediately interprets the Necker Cube as having one particular orientation, but with continued viewing another version of the cube will suddenly present itself. We can see the cube from an apparent viewpoint that is slightly above and to the right of the cube, or we can see it from one that is slightly below and to the left. We are physiologically incapable of seeing both perspectives simultaneously, although with a little practice we can learn to flip rapidly from one to the other.
We inevitably start by seeing just one interpretation of the Necker Cube, but we don’t start by seeing it as an interpretation at all. We think that what we see is what’s actually there, and that there is therefore no other possible interpretation. We make one interpretation of reality and assume that we see reality. Then some shift in perspective takes place and we realize that there’s another way of seeing things.
The Heart Sutra suggests that all of our experience is like this. We don’t just see, we interpret. And, Buddhist teachings assert, we mis-interpret. With the Necker Cube there’s no suggestion that there’s a right way or a wrong way to interpret the cube. Both ways are equally valid. Or, given that there’s actually no cube on the paper at all but simply a two-dimensional shape, we could say that both are equally delusional.
Einstein talked about the “optical delusion of consciousness” that leads to us seeing ourselves as existing as separate entities, and that is the nature of the delusion that our mind presents us with. We see ourselves as being separate and enduring, and independent, when the opposite is the case. These are the two perspectives that the Necker Cube of life offers to us. Or it potentially offers those two perspectives, but we’re capable, at present of only seeing one of them. It doesn’t even occur to us that there is another way of seeing.
With the Necker Cube it doesn’t take long, and it doesn’t generally take any effort, before our initial (mis)perception gives way to a new way of seeing. But to move from the perspective of seeing ourselves as separate, enduring, and independent to a more realistic view of ourselves as interconnected, ever-changing, and contingent is the work of a lifetime (or, in certain Buddhist teachings, the work of more than one lifetime).
Unlike the Necker Cube illusion, the way we currently see things is mistaken, and there is, according to Gautama’s teaching, a more accurate way of interpreting our experience. The Heart Sutra seems to be pointing at a Necker Cube-like switching of perspectives: Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form. To the awakened mind — one that has seen through the delusions that we currently live with — two perspectives are possible, and just as we are able to switch from one perspective to another, so the awakened mind is able to see from two perspectives.
One day — and I can remember with vivid clarity exactly which patch of earth I was hoeing that day — my mind presented me with an image that helped me to understand, on a more experiential level, what the Heart Sutra was talking about. I spontaneously saw an image of an eddy in a river. I realized that the mind, as soon as it sees an eddy, creates an interpretation that includes the notion of separateness. The mind in some way sees the eddy as one thing, and the river as another. It’s as if the mind has drawn an arbitrary boundary around the eddy, separating it from the rest of the water in the river. And yet when we look closely, what do we see? Is there any separateness? Of course there isn’t. There is no boundary. The water that forms the eddy is constantly changing, so that in fact there is no “thing” there to be called “an eddy.” The mind merely imputes separateness. This is Einstein’s “optical delusion of consciousness” — the one
he said is like a “prison” from which we must free ourselves.
This insight, of course, doesn’t just apply to eddies and rivers, but to all things, ourselves and other beings included. All things exist, not separately, but as eddies within the stream of becoming, inseparable, with no fixity, and existing only in dependence upon other things.
This experience, I stress, was just a glimpse into reality. It wasn’t a full-fledged insight experience, in which we become able to flip through an act of will the Necker Cube of experience into a new form in the mind. It was the briefest hint that there was another perspective available to us. The forces in the mind that cause us to misperceive reality as formed of separate things, rather than appreciating the underlying continuity and wholeness of things, are very powerful. They can’t easily be overcome, and to do so takes an enormous amount of reflection. And those forces run very deep in the mind. They go right down into the deeper substrata of the brain’s assumptions of how things are. They go right down into the deepest roots of our language.
Seeing the distortions that language imposes on our interpretation of reality is our next task, but one that will have to wait for another article.
11 Responses to “The illusion of separateness, part one”
About this entry
You’re currently reading “The illusion of separateness, part one,” an entry on Bodhipaksa's blog, bodhi tree swaying
Published: Mar 24 2009
Tags and categories
Tags: anatta, buddhism, emptiness, heart sutra, sunyata
Category: Meditation & practice
Very nice. Reminds me of Reggie Ray’s writings on the work of seeing naked Reality. I especially like your idea of using an ambiguous optical illusion to illustrate your point (so to speak). However, I have to admit that I find the Necker Cube a bit dry for this example. It is, after all, a cube. Seeing the illusion only changes the way the cube is facing. What about using a different figure-ground illustration, such as the lamp & two faces, or the old woman/ young woman? To me, these examples are more startling when one ‘sees’ the 2nd interpretation, because the conceptual content of the drawing shifts so radically. Like seeing a snake that you realize is only a stick. There are my two cents — keep it up!
Wow, that was fast! I take your point about the Necker cube being dry. In fact my first thought was to use the old/young woman, but I thought it was getting a bit hackneyed. I wonder if there are other, less well known illusions out there?
Anyway, it’s food for thought. I think you might find the next instalment – on language – interesting.
Hi Bodhipaksa, – I found this most interesting and there were various aspects that I liked. As someone who is delving into Buddhism from a relatively new point, it made me think. I especially like the way you talked about the room and your student days which lead nicely into some deeper aspects to what you were talking about. For me, I can see why the Necker cube could be seen as dry but I liked it. This was because I had to really focus to see the second perspective. The womans’ face and the other traditional one (I can’t describe it very well like a shape that goes into steps) we see are too well known and don’t require much work. I like the reference to Einstein. I like your style of writing and found your vegetarian book an easy but informative read. The meditation room reminds me of one in Leeds that I attended a few years ago. I admire you, as I have been wanting to write a novel for years but don’t have the discipline. I’m looking forward to reading more. Do you approach any aspect in the book about those that haven’t been enlightened or have an awakened mind and the delusions ?
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your kind words. I’m thinking I might use another illusion, but this time a “natural” one involving this photograph:
which I’d seen a year or two ago on Digg but which Naganataka pointed me towards (via a site called Our Strange World).
One thing that would be an advantage is that this photograph isn’t well-known, like the others that have been mentioned. Another advantage is the fact that there’s clearly a “right” interpretation and a “wrong” one — but for many people the “wrong” one is more compelling and obvious. That’s what reality itself is like!
I wasn’t quite sure what you meant by “Do you approach any aspect in the book about those that haven’t been enlightened or have an awakened mind and the delusions?” Could you say more?
(I should have mentioned that in the photo above the “wrong” and “obvious” interpretation sees a large, Christ-like face hanging between the man and woman. It took me some time, when I first saw this picture, to work out what was really there.
You could try to seek out the hare-duck illusion, which actually can be used to determine the handedness of the brain. Depending if you left- or right handed, you’ll see a hare or a duck at first.
That one’s not very common and really pretty to boot.
Like the writing and the quote by Einstein – first time I have heard that one, actually.
Thanks, Carina. I’ve seen the duck/rabbit picture many times, and I imagine many others have too. I wonder if there is any actual data supporting a correlation between right/left brain dominance and which way people see the illusion?
When I think about it, I was at a class a few years ago where someone used the old/young woman illusion and many people hadn’t heard of it. But that was almost 10 years ago and with every passing year I suppose there are fewer and fewer people who haven’t been exposed to it.
What do you think of the photograph above?
“To the awakened mind — one that has seen through the delusions that we currently live with — two perspectives are possible, and just as we are able to switch from one perspective to another, so the awakened mind is able to see from two perspectives.” – I was wondering what the mind that has not be awakened would see in terms of perspectives. Possibly the same two if they looked deep enough. Is it that the awakened mind would see the two perspectives immediately. I didn’t and I certainly feel that I have an awakened mind with my meditation and beliefs. I suppose it is all open to interpretation. I like the photograph – very good. I will be the first on your order list for when the book comes out!
Ah, maybe that’s something I need to clarify, Mike. The Necker Cube (or photograph) is just an analogy. Awakened beings and unawakened beings have the same perceptual apparatus and visual cortex, so both would see the same physical forms, and I imagine the Buddha would be as likely to see a face that isn’t there, or to see cubes flipping one way or another. The difference in how we “see” things is more in the realms of interpretation of what we perceive. Unawakened beings (myself included!) tend to confuse the appearance of separation literally. Because we can name one “thing” as being separate from another (eddy/river, self/other) we tend to assume that there is an actual separation. There are all kinds of problems involved in this, especially with regard to the self/other distinction, but it’s going to take a fair bit of unpacking to highlight that.
I think I see what you mean. I hope you didn’t think that I was being over the top when I said I felt I was awakened. By saying this, I went through a change process in the last month. I started to meditate every day and amazingly at the same time (due to counselling) finally got to the route of a life problem that I had had nearly all my life. This lead to an amazing sense of freedom and a feeling that I had been awakened – literally. The meditation is amazing and with reading some buddhist materials, made me realise that in my opinion, the whole point of life is to minimise suffering. This may be my own or someone else’s. I was brought up a Christian and now feel I am a buddhist. Looking at your above comments, I am probably unawakened because I see and eddy/river and self/others. I am fascinated with this concept of being awakened and unawakened.
Hi Mike,
No, I’ve no reason to suppose that you would know exactly what Buddhism means when it talks about awakening.
All the best,
Bodhipaksa
Even the desire to be awakened or the desire to judge “awakedness” assumes an “I”… or self…. so the question begs… who is perceiving – even this question asks – who is asking?
Whether awakened or asleep – totality doesn’t even notice because they are both the same thing – nothing/emptiness/void/buddha