I recently read a bit about the Buddhist concept of “pratitya samutpada,” translated literally or liberally as “in dependence, things rise up,” “interdependent co-arising,” or simply “dependent rising” (Hahn 1998; Namgyel 2018). There seem to be two main aspects of the concept. The first is that what we perceive as separate entities are only so at a superficial level. In truth, they are part of a whole and, as part of that whole, they are connected, mutually affect each other, rather than one entity being the cause of the other or being independent of the other. The second aspect of the concept of pratitya samutpada is that those entities that we perceive as separate are constantly changing, morphing into other and new aspects of the whole. The consequence of this concept is that, if we focus on the separate entities that we perceive, we can fall into a kind of delusion, where we do not see the dynamic interdependence that governs the entities we perceive.
This concept seems to have similarities with other concepts in Asian philosophy such as that of yin and yang, where opposites are part of a whole, but also with common ideas in western science and philosophy: from Lavoisier’s formulation that in nature “nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed,” to Hegel’s dialectics and the concept of “aufheben,” often translated as “self-sublation,” a process that simultaneously negates and preserves forms or concepts that previously seemed well defined and stable (Maybee 2020; Wikipedia Contributors 2021)¹. How often and to what extent does this idea of a dynamic, interdependent world lead to conclusions about our capacity to see through the temporary, perhaps time and space specific formations, and grasp the whole of what is actually going on? How often are we “deluded” into thinking that the temporary and time-specific reality that we perceive is more permanent than it is or that it is all there is? How often does it matter?
The dictionary distinguishes between the terms illusion and delusion in subtle ways. Merriam-Websters definitions:
Illusion:
- something that looks or seems different from what it is : something that is false or not real but that seems to be true or real
- an incorrect idea : an idea that is based on something that is not true
[Merriam-Webster. Undated (a)]
Delusion:
- a belief that is not true : a false idea
- a false idea or belief that is caused by mental illness
[Merriam-Webster. Undated (b)]
The definitions above seem to suggest illusion happens in the realm of perception and ideas; delusion is closer to beliefs and mental illness. One of my Buddist references for this post distinguishes between illusion and delusion by stating that “illusion refers to seeing through appearances by recognizing their independent nature. Delusion, on the other hand, refers to misapprehending things to have an independent reality from their own side” (Namygel 2018, p. 25). In other words, illusions do not necessarily fool you into beliefs, delusions do.
Joni Mitchel’s beautifully mesmerizing song “Both sides now” uses the term illusion similarly, in the sense that the composer is aware that her recollections are illusions, whether they be about clouds, love or life, and concludes that she knows nothing about them at all. E.g.:
I've looked at life from both sides now From win and lose and still somehow It's life's illusions I recall I really don't know life at all
The distinction between illusion and delusion brings to mind (for me, at least) the challenge of translating social science modeling into public policy without losing sight of model limitations.
Social science models are often able to represent mathematically the two aspects of “pratitya samutpada:” interdependence and dynamics. But, as with all models, simplifications are needed for tractability and the consequences of the model will depend on those simplifications made, assumptions about what variables are more or less important, functional relationships, bounding of magnitudes, temporal lags. These assumptions can be informed or rejected by empirical work, to some extent. What exactly is that extent, how much certainty academics attribute to their models is, based on my humble experience, influenced early on by human flaws. Whether it is an overemphasis on quickly thinking within the confines of established methodological approaches that leads to a poor understanding of the limitations of those approaches themselves, or whether it is the difficulty of living with uncertainty, or perhaps just plain vanity, it is my impression that academics themselves often lose sight of the limitations of their models and fall into the temptation of making grand but unsupported statements about the world they live in.
When the next step is taken (whether by academics themselves. policy makers, or by mere practitioners like me) to translate conclusions of limited validity to policy that needs to be developed for a specific time and space, it seems like the assumptions, limitations and caveats of academic discourse are further forgotten. Before we know it, the illusion of general principles, guidelines, best practices and rules of thumb, that we would hope to be well understood as the illusions they are, morph into the delusion of ideological constructs, over-simplified, over-generalized, distorted by the influence of a kaleidoscope of interest groups, and imbued by a certainty they do not merit.
In a world of unmerited certainty, Joni Mitchell’s illusions, the awareness of them, seems something to strive for, to appreciate in its melancholic beauty, and to sing in a song.
Footnote:
- Antoine Lavoisier, French chemist, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, German philosopher, were contemporaries during the late 18th century.
References
Hanh, Thich Nhat. 1998. The Heart of Buddha’s Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peach, Joy, and Liberation. Harmony Books.
Maybee, Julie E., Hegel’s Dialectics. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Available: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/. Accessed: February 13, 2022
Merriam-Webster. Undated (a). Illusion. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Available: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illusion. Accessed: February 13, 2022
Merriam-Webster. Undated (b). Delusion. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Available: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion. Accessed: February 13, 2022
Namgyel, Elizabeth Mattis. 2018. The Logic of Faith: A Buddhist Approach to Finding Certainty Beyond Belief and Doubt. Shambhala Publications.
Wikipedia contributors. 2021. Aufheben. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aufheben&oldid=1050479001. Accessed: February 13, 2022