Starting off on the far side of the room, he sees me as a full-length man-with-a-head. But as he approaches he finds half a man, then a head, ten a blurred cheek or eye or nose; then a mere blur and finally (at the point of contact) nothing at all. Alternatively, if he happens to be equipped with the necessary scientific instruments; he reports that the blur resolves itself into tissues, then cell groups, then a single cell, a cell-nucleus, giant molecules … and so on, till he comes to a place where nothing is to be seen, to space which is empty of all solid or material objects. In either case, the observer who comes here to see what it’s really like finds what I find here—vacancy. And if, having discovered and shared my nonentity here, he were to turn round (looking out with me instead of in at me) he would again find what I find—that this vacancy is filled to capacity with everything imaginable. He, too, would find this central Point exploding into an Infinite Volume, this Nothing into the All, this Here into Everywhere.
And if my skeptical observer still doubts his senses, he may try his camera instead—a device which, lacking memory and anticipation, can register only what is contained in the place where it happens to be. It records the same picture of me. Over there, it takes a man, midway, bits and pieces of a man; here, no man and nothing—or else, when pointed the other way round, the universe.
So this head is not a head, but a wrong-headed idea. If I can still find it here, I am “seeing things,” and ought to hurry off to the doctor. It makes little difference whether I find a human head, or an ass’s head, a fried egg, or a beautiful bunch of flowers: to have any topknot at all is to suffer from delusions.
During my lucid intervals, however, I am clearly headless here. Over there, on the other hand, I am clearly far from headless: indeed, I have more heads than I know what to do with. Concealed in my human observers and in cameras, on display in picture frames, pulling faces behind shaving mirrors, peering out of door knobs and spoons and coffeepots and anything which will take a high polish, my heads are always turning up—though more-or-less shrunken and distorted, twisted back-to-front, often the wrong way up, and multiplied to infinity.
But there is one place where no head of mine can ever turn up, and that is here “on my shoulders,” where it would blot out this Central Void which is my very life-source: fortunately nothing is able to do that. In fact, these loose heads can never amount to more than impermanent and unprivileged accidents of that “outer” or phenomenal world which though altogether one with the central essence, fails to affect it in the slightest degree. So unprivileged, indeed, is my head in the mirror, that I don’t necessarily recognize myself in the glass, and neither do I see the man over there, the too-familiar fellow who lives in that other room behind the looking-glass and seemingly spends all his time staring into this room—that small, dull, circumscribed, particularized, ageing, and oh-so-vulnerable gazer—as the opposite to every way of my real Self ere. I have never been anything but this ageless, adamantine, measureless, lucid, and altogether immaculate Void: it is unthinkable that I could ever have been confused that staring wraith over there with what I plainly perceive myself to be here and now and forever.
Film directors… are practical people, much more interested in the telling re-creation of experience than in discerning the nature of the experience; but in fact the one involves some of the other. Certainly these experts are well aware (for example) how feeble my reaction is to a film of a vehicle obviously driven by someone else, compared with my reaction to a film of a vehicle apparently driven by myself. In the first instance I am a spectator on the pavement, observing two similar cars swiftly approaching, colliding, killing the drivers, bursting into flames—and I am mildly interested. In the second, I am the driver—headless of course, like all first-person drivers, and my car (what little there is of it) is stationary. Here are my swaying knees, my foot hard down on the accelerator, my hands struggling with the steering wheel, the long bonnet sloping away in front, telegraph poles whizzing by, the road snaking this way and that, the other cars, tiny at first, but looming larger and larger, coming straight at me, and then the crash, a great flash of light, and an empty silence… I sink back onto my seat and get my breath back. I have been taken for a ride.
How are they filmed, these first person experiences? Two ways are possible: either a headless dummy is photographed, with the camera in place of the head, or else a real man is photographed, with his head held far back, or to one side to make room for the camera. In other words, to ensure that I shall identify myself with the actor, his head is got out of the way; he must be my kind of man. For a picture of me-with-a-head is no likeness at all, it is the portrait of a complete stranger, a case of mistaken identity.
It is curious that anyone should go to the advertising man for a glimpse into the deepest—and simplest—truths about himself; odd also that an elaborate modern invention like the cinema should help rid anyone of an illusion which very young children and animals are free of. But human capacity for self-deception has surely never been complete. A profound though dim awareness of the human condition may well explain the popularity of many old cults and legends of loose and flying heads, of one eyed or headless monsters and apparitions, of human bodies with non-human heads and martyrs who (like King Charles in the ill-punctuated sentence) walked and talked after their heads were cut off —
Fantastic pictures, no doubt, but nearer than common sense ever gets to a true portrait of this man.
But if I have no head or face or eyes here (protests common sense) how on Earth do I see you, and what are eyes for, anyway? The truth is that the verb to see has two quite opposite meanings. When we observe a couple conversing, we say they see each other, though their faces remain intact and some feet apart, but when I see you your face is all, mine nothing. You are the end of me. Yet (so Enlightenment-preventing is the language of common sense) we use the same little word for both operations: and of course, the same word has to mean the same thing! What actually goes on between third persons as such is visual communication—that continuous and self-contained chain of physical processes (involving light waves, eye-lenses, retinas, the visual area of the cortex, and so on) in which the scientist can find no chink where “mind” or “seeing” could be slipped in, or (if it could) would make any difference. True seeing, by contrast, is first person and so eyeless. In the language of the sages, only the Buddha Nature, or Brahman, or Allah, or God, sees or hears or experiences anything at all.
Reflections
We have been presented with a charmingly childish and solipsistic view of the human condition. It is something that, at an intellectual level, offends and appalls us; can anyone sincerely entertain such notions without embarrassment? Yet to some primitive level in us it speaks clearly. That is the level at which we cannot accept the notion of our own death. In many of use, that level has been submerged and concealed for so long that we forget how incomprehensible is the concept of personal nonexistence. We can so easily—it seems—extrapolate from the nonexistence of others to the potential nonexistence, one day, of ourselves. Yet how can it be a day when I die? After all, a day is a time with light and sounds; when I die, there will be none of those. “Oh, yes, there will be,” protests an inner voice. “Just because I won’t be there to experience them doesn’t mean they won’t exist! That’s so solipsistic!” My inner voice, coerced by the power of a simple syllogism, has reluctantly overridden the notion that I am a necessary ingredient of the universe. That syllogism is, roughly, this: