Depth Perception - Deciphering Hindu Iconography

The iconography of the Hindu culture and religion canas four-dimensional-to being able to discern the fourth
be pretty bizarre and terrifying. Having grown up indimension, i.e. time-to be able to view the space-time
India, I have found parts of it to be downright confusing,continuum as a continuum.
personally. Take, for example, the concept of the "thirdBasically, it seems to me to refer to foresight and
eye." In Hinduism, supposedly, the "third eye" isinsight-not necessarily to clairvoyance but, rather, to the
considered to be a symbol of clairvoyance,ability to see through and beyond the illusory surfaces
enlightenment or a higher level of consciousness orof the world-to see beyond superficiality-and to discern
awareness. In the Vedic Indian tradition, ascetics werehidden trends and deeper meaning. So maybe we're
supposed to spend years of solitude in the wildernessnot talking about something as esoteric as
meditating in silence, until they achieved this so-calledclairvoyance or mysticism so much as a heightened
"heightened consciousness" or "heightenedability for interpretive, deductive reasoning-to be able to
awareness." In fact, some scholars read this asdiscern clues and patterns in the world around us and,
referring to the "mind-expanding" or "mind-altering"thereby, to extrapolate into the future and see beyond
effect of hallucinogens and narcotics such as soma,the immediacy of present experience (which is
whose use is referred to in the Hindu text, the Riginherently illusory and transient).
Veda.In A. Conan Doyle's novel A Study in Scarlet, Sherlock
In the Hindu tradition, as a matter of fact, manyHolmes is described as having an almost intuitive ability
devoted Hindus wear a mark on the forehead called ato arrive instantaneously at deductions based on the
tilak to symbolize the "third eye"-and this is especiallyevidence presented to him-viewing a set of clues
true of weatherbeaten Hindu ascetics, who wear anholistically and almost instantaneously arriving at a
especially pronounced tilak on the forehead. Here is anconclusion. His abilities are described as being almost
image of actor Harrison Ford wearing a tilak on hisclairvoyant or supernatural to the casual observer. In
forehead in the 1984 film Indiana Jones and the Templeone sequence in the novel, Dr. Watson reads a
of Doom, a film which, incidentally, distorts Indian culturenewspaper article written, unknown to him, by Sherlock
to the point of caricaturing, parodying and demonizing itHolmes:
pretty severely.The writer claimed by a momentary expression, a
Now these interpretations of the concept of the "thirdtwitch of a muscle or a glance of an eye, to fathom a
eye" may well be true-I don't consider myself to be aman's inmost thoughts. Deceit, according to him, was
scholar of Sanskrit texts or an expert on the Hinduan impossibility in the case of one trained to
tradition. I guess my understanding of the culture andobservation and analysis. His conclusions were as
tradition of my homeland is, in that sense, pretty limitedinfallible as so many propositions of Euclid. So startling
and superficial. Having been educated primarily in thewould his results appear to the uninitiated that until they
western tradition, I guess my thinking is far morelearned the processes by which he had arrived at
pragmatic. I personally see that as a good thing inthem they might well consider him as a necromancer.
some ways because it enables me to view the"From a drop of water," said the writer, "a logician
iconography of the culture with a more holistic,could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara
dispassionate eye rather than get lost in its symbolism,without having seen or heard of one or the other. So
which is only too easy to do. This can lead toall life is a great chain, the nature of which is known
confusion and misinterpretation and even, ultimately, towhenever we are shown a single link of it. Like all
confused hostility towards the culture and tradition.other arts, the Science of Deduction and Analysis is
So thinking about it pragmatically, what does theone which can only be acquired by long and patient
iconography of the "third eye" refer to? I wasstudy nor is life long enough to allow any mortal to
reflecting on this concept recently, along with theattain the highest possible perfection in it.
concept of the illusory and transient nature of reality asIn the Rudolph Valentino film, The Young Rajah, in a
described in the epic poem, the Mahabharata, with andramatization of the battle of Kurukshetra, the film
eye towards demythologizing and clarifying thesedepicts Krishna applying a mark on Arjuna's forehead,
ideas so as to try to get to the core of what theywhich supposedly gives Arjuna the power of "second
represent.sight." This power is carried down to his descendant,
Then it occurred to me that in his epic poem, theAmos Judd (Valentino's character), who carries a
Odyssey, Homer relates a sequence whereinbirthmark on his forehead and possesses the uncanny
Odysseus (or Ulysses, in Latin) lands upon an island inability to see into the future-to foresee events. This
the course of his voyages and is taken hostage, alongties in neatly with Hindu tradition-the mark or "tilak" on
with many of his men, by a gigantic cannibalisticthe forehead worn by Hindus as a symbol or iconic
Cyclops named Polyphemus. They are only able torepresentation of the mysterious "third eye."
escape with their lives secretly by blinding theBut far from the esoteric, mystical connotations of this
one-eyed creature-which is to say, rendering theiconography, I think it is far more valuable and
creature completely blind, whereas previously, its visioninformative to think of this as representing simple
was already pretty limited, as it had only one eye.foresight-being a visionary thinker-being able to see
So it got me thinking-what was Homer talking aboutbeyond surfaces and superficiality and discern hidden
here, in the metaphorical language of mythology?meaning from clues through interpretive, deductive
What does it mean to have only one eye as opposedreasoning. I think it makes much more sense, from a
to two eyes? The answer is pretty obvious when youpurely pragmatic standpoint, to interpret this
think about it-if you have only one eye, you have noiconography as such, especially in the context of the
depth perception. You see the world as flat andepic poem, the Mahabharata. Perhaps if more people
two-dimensional. We have depth perception becausein our world had foresight and the ability to see beyond
we have stereoscopic vision-two eyes. It is thesurfaces and the immediate present, our world might
difference between watching a movie on a flat screenbe a happier place to live in and we might be wiser as
and watching the same movie in 3D-a huge difference.individuals and collectively.
So, with no eyes, we are completely blind and cannotPerhaps this ability could be developed through training
see the world at all. With one eye, we see the worldand exercise until it achieved the level of clarity and
as two-dimensional. With a second eye, we cansophistication demonstrated by Sherlock Holmes in the
perceive three dimensions-we have depth perception.literary works by Conan Doyle-approaching a level
So what about the metaphorical, figurative "third eye"that, to the untutored eye, might appear to be mystical
of Hindu mythology? If we go strictly by the logic ofclairvoyance.
progression, it must mean being able to see the world