Rupert Sheldrake's book The Sense of Being Stared At and Other Unexplained Powers of Human Minds is a very interesting glimpse into how humans and animals are able to pick up the stare of another being that is out of visual range. The book abounds with examples of anecdotal accounts, explaining why and how this is possible, including theories that relate to evolution. According to evolutionary theory, all animals would have been naturally selected to be able to 'sense' a predator's gaze. Without that ability to pick up on another's gaze or look, many animals and humans would have arguably died out. But as I am reading Sheldrake's explanation, I am led to wonder if this is the only explanation for such phenomena. Is the sense of being stared at something that evolved over time, or is it a more basic condition of mind? I believe that from the perspective of Buddhism and Surangama Sutra in particular, it is the mind that sees and not the eyes. Therefore there would not necessarily be a visual organ required to see.
The two explanations (evolutionary and Buddhist) offer different ways of understanding the same phenomena. The difference, to me, is that evolutionary theory assumes that creatures are born with separate minds. Sheldrake, at one point, remarks:
Over 5 million years a short period in geological time, there was an unprecedented burst of evolutionary activity known as the Cambrian Explosion. The number of basic kinds of animals, or phyla, increased from three to thirty-eight, as revealed most clearly by the fossil deposits in the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies. What happened? The biologist Andrew Parker suggests that the key to all this was the evolution of eyes, leading to the birth of active predation. Suddenly there was enormous evolutionary pressure on prey animals to evolve defenses, and on predators to develop new means of capturing prey. Perhaps the sense of being stared at evolved along with eyes themselves. (p.65)
This view is common in scientific circles, and it makes sense if we look on the surface: animals kill other animals, so they must have evolved separate appendages to ward off predators or, conversely, consume prey. But this theory leads me to wonder: if animals behave separately, how are they able to communicate or even to sense other animals? Is there not something shared between all beings that allows them to connect with each other? The other related question is, if animals consume each other (as they do), where does one animal's consciousness begin and end? Can we say that there is one source of individuality in the animals' body, if it is constantly communicating with its environment to ward off dangers. I believe it was the biologist Gregory Bateson who had introduced me to the idea that organisms never live isolated but are in continuous feedback with systems of life. In a similar sense, there needs to be some background holding all this system into a cohesive form.
Is it possible, on the other hand, that all this sensing and knowing is perhaps an inherent aspect of having sentience, and that it is over-reliance on sense organs which has gotten people away from the sense of connection? I am thinking of the example Master Sheng Yen uses in discussing the illusory nature of seeing, in his book Until We Reach Buddhahood: Lectures on the Surangama Sutra:
You may believe what you see is real, but when you are tired, or if you stare at a certain point for a long period of time, your eyes tire and you may begin to see things. Your eyes see what really isn't there. Ordinary people will admit that what they see under these circumstances is probably unreal. But if they are awake, they take what is seen to be real. The sutra shows that what is seen brings forth innumerable feelings and emotions: anger, happiness, sadness, joy,. Your mind is directly affected by what you see. You may thing what you see is real, but your sight is really no different from that of a person with tired eyes (p.161-162)
The difference between evolutionary and Buddhist perspectives on seeing are quite striking. While evolution takes seeing as a survival tool that has developed over time, Buddhist perspective takes seeing itself to be an illusory by-product of over-reliance on sense organs and emotions. As long as there is attachment to a sense organ like the eyes, there is no true seeing, because the objects we see are treated as separate, fixed forms, rather than as impermanent impressions of mind.
These two explanations might offer different theories about the sense of being stared at. While evolutionary theory might see it as an 'add on' based on natural selection, I think the Buddhist view would see this sense as something original and inherent to mind that is not depending on senses at all.
Sheldrake, Rupert (2013) The Sense of Being Stared At and Other Unexplained Powers of Human Minds. Toronto: Park Street Press.
Sheng Yen (2015), Until We Reach Buddhahood: Lectures on the Surangama Sutra Volume 1. Elmhurst New York: Dharma Drum Publications
No comments:
Post a Comment