The inner and the outer

[Sunya]

Mikaelz,

 

That reads rather as straight Buddhist philosophy. While I have nothing against Buddhism, far from it, I would hesitate from transplanting terms like consciousness without clearly defining what we mean. Consciousness actually means 'with-knowing-ness' - i.e. that which has the capacity to know. As such I do not accept that it is the same as sense perception as the senses are necessarily limited to the narrow wavelengths (in the case of sight and light) which they are able physically to respond to. I can know a tree without a tree being present so I can be conscious of the form of tree or I can have consciousness with no object (as in no-mind). That is my view anyway.

 

I don't really care for your definition of consciousness. 'That which knows' suggests a putative subject.

Your explanation of how sense perception works is tied to a materialist framework. Have you actually experienced these wavelengths of this supposedly real and existing physical world existing out there which is full of them? Can you point to these wavelengths? How can you know a tree without a tree being present? Whether a tree is present in sensual appearance or as an idea or mental formation in the mind, it's still present or else there wouldn't be consciousness of tree.

 

Whatever the analysis we give to this we can still say without any doubt that we experience our existence in terms of both a subjective inner world and an objective outer world and that these two world have differing features and rules or laws with which they conform.

 

I don't think so. I have many doubts about this and so have philosophers and mystics for centuries who questioned the validity of such a naive claim.

 

For instance in a subjective dream time can flip back and forwards or stop - in the outer world time is inexorable, we have no choice about that.

 

You're not talking about time, you're talking about the perceived succession of events. If you dream about your dead grandmother are you traveling back in time? The succession of moments is experienced no matter which state you are in. The nature of the content, the mechanics of the show, may differ but that doesn't mean that they are two different worlds

Edited May 6, 2010 by mikaelz

[forestofemptiness]

I was reading a David Loy articlewhere he compares Advaita, Samkhya Yoga, and Buddhism. He suggests that Advaita is monistic, Samkhya dualistic, and Buddhism pluralistic. But what connects them is their emphasis on moral purification, meditation, and non-attachment.

 

 

Has anyone ever had the feeling that the perception of inner/outer, the gap so to speak, gets pretty apparent, even intensely apparent, when needs arise to stake claims on what we assume to be exclusively ours, and then set about proclaiming this, or worse, defending 'our property'? When this attitude is prevalent, it becomes a challenge to remain equanimous, almost impossible. My house, my land, my belongings, my curtains(??), my thoughts, my experience, blah blah... At the end of the day, what is truly ours anyway? Not a single of these assumed rights can be carried to the beyond.

 

Maybe there is wisdom in 'renunciation'... when all has been renounced, including and especially the attachments to this 'I and mine', i am just wondering here if outer/inner matter as much. I think the more one is willing to renounce, the closer we return to the center of the mandala, where separation does not exist, or better still, where existence itself does not exist. Is this the path that leads to non-dual abiding? I am aware what some diehard existentialists will think when they read this, but its ok. They will have plenty of time to catch up, if not this in this existence, perhaps the next one.

 

Of course there are so many levels in which we can learn to 'give up', or better still, to learn how to 'stand under' certain truths. This requires enormous humility and courage. It also demands a willingness to be vulnerable, alas a quality not many are able to integrate as a vital part of spiritual growth. But when the mind clings to nothing, and the body needs are few, then being vulnerable can actually be the very thing that makes one strong.

 

Just pondering...

[Apech]

I don't really care for your definition of consciousness. 'That which knows' suggests a putative subject.

 

I took that from the word itself ... con=with, scious = words meaning to know and ness= the ability or quality of that function. If you don't like that definition you could suggest your own.

 

Your explanation of how sense perception works is tied to a materialist framework. Have you actually experienced these wavelengths of this supposedly real and existing physical world existing out there which is full of them? Can you point to these wavelengths? How can you know a tree without a tree being present? Whether a tree is present in sensual appearance or as an idea or mental formation in the mind, it's still present or else there wouldn't be consciousness of tree.

 

How else can we understand sense perception? ... as to the wavelengths that's from physics (visible light spectrum) ... it is true of course that the perception of tree does not necessarily prove the existence of a thing 'tree' because the perception could be all there is. You can talk or think about trees without them being present, there is an idea of what a tree is but is that the same as a tree?

 

 

I don't think so. I have many doubts about this and so have philosophers and mystics for centuries who questioned the validity of such a naive claim.

 

Its not a claim its just a statement about how we experience the world. Are you saying for you there is no inner and outer, no subjective and objective?

 

You're not talking about time, you're talking about the perceived succession of events. If you dream about your dead grandmother are you traveling back in time? The succession of moments is experienced no matter which state you are in. The nature of the content, the mechanics of the show, may differ but that doesn't mean that they are two different worlds

 

That's exactly what I mean by subjective time ... I am talking about the experience of it. I am saying we experience two worlds - I am not saying this is fundamentally true.

[Birch]

The inner and the outer are one but the "ego" makes them not one. In other words, it "makes up" the distinction. Yes, sometimes through attaching to things or thoughts - in which case the "feeling" or movement that goes with it is pretty easy to spot. Often, I suggest it just happens just through pure conditioned pattern recognition - some of which might be sense-dependent, for example if you are colour-blind?

 

I think (yeah, ask who I am again;-)) that there might be a temptation to assume that because this movement happens, it happens ALL the time and so there must be a situation (idealized) in which it doesn't happen.

 

I think cultivation and insight practices help ask the question of what is in-between the arising and the attaching. What if an answer is "there doesn't have to be anything at all"!

 

Attributing some awesome "awareness" or "universal consciousness" or "god" or anything at all to it is still a creation of our minds. But then I haven't got further than my mind yet so I'll let you know when I do;-) Oh wait, apparently I wouldn't be able to let you know because even if I do I can't speak of it because that would be (you guessed it) mind-dependent again. That's kind of handy!

 

However, that we SHARE this "whatever is in-between" and the propensity to have things arise and the propensity to attach, well, I figure it must be a pretty "universal" human trait. But I could be wrong.

 

I think that better communication with animals would really help us to "get" whether such a trait is also one that is shared across animal species (and why not plants too?)

[forestofemptiness]

I think that is an excellent definition of consciousness. To me, consciousness is about "knowing".

 

We don't really experience wavelengths. We experience colorful images. Some of those colorful images (scientific equipment) have certain readout that combined with specific patterns of thought (mathematics) creates an idea about wavelengths. We then add this idea to our direct perceptions, and begin to create a split of sorts.

 

I took that from the word itself ... con=with, scious = words meaning to know and ness= the ability or quality of that function. If you don't like that definition you could suggest your own.

 

How else can we understand sense perception? ... as to the wavelengths that's from physics (visible light spectrum) ... it is true of course that the perception of tree does not necessarily prove the existence of a thing 'tree' because the perception could be all there is. You can talk or think about trees without them being present, there is an idea of what a tree is but is that the same as a tree?

[Apech]

 

 

However, that we SHARE this "whatever is in-between" and the propensity to have things arise and the propensity to attach, well, I figure it must be a pretty "universal" human trait. But I could be wrong.

 

 

 

Kate,

 

What you said here made me think of the definition of interest - both in the sense of what concerns us and what we gain from something, here is the etymology:

 

interest

early 15c., earlier interesse (late 14c.), from Anglo-Fr. interesse "what one has a legal concern in," from M.L. interesse "compensation for loss," from L. interresse "to concern, make a difference, be of importance," lit. "to be between," from inter- "between" + esse "to be." Form influenced 15c. by O.Fr. interest "damage," from L. interest "it is of importance, it makes a difference," third person singular present of interresse. Financial sense of "money paid for the use of money lent" (1520s) earlier was distinguished from usury (illegal under Church law) by being in reference to "compensation due from a defaulting debtor." Meaning "curiosity" is first attested 1771. Interest group is attested from 1908; interest rate by 1959.

 

It means between-ness and is I think to do with the fact that boundaries are what inform us. The edges between things tell us about form and shape ... they are interesting. We know about ourselves because of relationships between ourselves and other things and the outside world.

 

I agree (who am I?) that somehow our ego creates distinctions between worlds - while they might not be ultimately real they are real in every practical sense. Its more interesting to see and understand these distinctions than to just say they are illusory.

[C T]

It is not easy to distinguish a river without also acknowledging the banks on each side. While it looks as if there are 3 distinct 'things' at play, namely the left/right bank, and the water flowing in between, in essence there is only one whole. Take away any one of the 3 and it ceases to be a river. Having said that, even with a missing quality, its potential to be a river can never be denied.

 

Perhaps its not the distinctions themselves that are illusory... it only appears so when one denies the potential of each distinct organism/matter to merge and form into something else, creating new meanings along the way, yet retaining its individual identity.

[Birch]

Mr Cow,

 

The analogy is excellent. May I continue?

Ego would be the water saying "I am the river" without realizing (or wanting to?) the role the riverbanks or the source or the sea or the sky play in it's definition as a river. It is still of course water;-)

[C T]

Mr Cow,

 

The analogy is excellent. May I continue?

Ego would be the water saying "I am the river" without realizing (or wanting to?) the role the riverbanks or the source or the sea or the sky play in it's definition as a river. It is still of course water;-)

Yes thank you Ms Kate, for graciously adding the human touch to the analogy! Its great!

 

The river declares its independence with loud authority, until such time it merges with the ocean... and the ego is the same. If only while it flows as a river it also realizes its potential, then therein lies acceptance, which leads to truthful acknowledgement that it is indeed unseparated from its source. If the acknowledgement is made, it will still retain its identity yet at the same instant it recognizes that all the while, it is also transforming, yielding not to a greater power, or a separate, outer reality, but merely surrendering to itself. If i can fully tune in to my own words here, i believe the struggle between 'mine/inner' and 'not mine/outer' will diminish, and integration can happen - right this minute. When it does, do you believe that the dualistic notions of outer and inner will cease to have a relevance? I do.

 

Till then, keep flowing....

[Birch]

Thank you Mr Cow.

 

I am a river;-)

[Sunya]

[Sunya]

How else can we understand sense perception?

 

I don't know. it's difficult to understand sense perception without falling into materialism. If you believe that an object out there caused your perception then you can easily doubt your perception and believe in a 'true reality' which is impossible to experience. In reality all we have are sense perceptions and thoughts about sense perceptions.

 

... as to the wavelengths that's from physics (visible light spectrum) ... it is true of course that the perception of tree does not necessarily prove the existence of a thing 'tree' because the perception could be all there is. You can talk or think about trees without them being present, there is an idea of what a tree is but is that the same as a tree?

 

I see both as ideas, as mind. If you think about a tree and then go out and look at one, of course there is a qualitative difference, but both are experienced through the mind. If you get rid of concepts about 'I am looking at an object called tree' what do you really have? In your experience what is the difference between seeing a tree and thinking about a tree? If you look at a tree, think about a tree, imagine a tree, dream about a tree... is there a difference in terms of what the base of each experience is? I'm not saying that they are all the same -- though I have had some pretty powerful dreams which seem exactly like waking experience-- but instead I'm saying that there is simply a difference in quality. Looking at a tree, experientially, there is only the appearance of a certain form. Smell and touch also come in and add to the picture of what the phenomena 'tree' is. Without adding the thought 'out there,' all you have experientially is the appearance of tree within awareness. That's it. The mind will then come in and try to add various thoughts like 'object' and 'real' and 'made of wood,' various observations based on limited information. We take these thoughts and lump them into the bundle that is 'tree' but is that justified? Are these observations accurate and deserving? I think if you stop trusting those thoughts for a second, you'll see that 'tree' is simply an appearance. If you say that there is TRULY a tree out there.. then that is assuming something that cannot be. Tree only exists when you perceive it. Tree is mind.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Yes thank you Ms Kate, for graciously adding the human touch to the analogy! Its great!

 

The river declares its independence with loud authority, until such time it merges with the ocean... and the ego is the same. If only while it flows as a river it also realizes its potential, then therein lies acceptance, which leads to truthful acknowledgement that it is indeed unseparated from its source. If the acknowledgement is made, it will still retain its identity yet at the same instant it recognizes that all the while, it is also transforming, yielding not to a greater power, or a separate, outer reality, but merely surrendering to itself. If i can fully tune in to my own words here, i believe the struggle between 'mine/inner' and 'not mine/outer' will diminish, and integration can happen - right this minute. When it does, do you believe that the dualistic notions of outer and inner will cease to have a relevance? I do.

 

Till then, keep flowing....

I sometimes take issue to the kind of language that says: "one recognizes one has always been one with the source." It's very misleading in a way when we say source. Or when we say "one realizes reality," or "it is seen that it has always been so." It's also very misleading to say what has "always been so."

 

But it's really just a preference or labeling an experience. Inner, outer, self, no-self. I can say orange in several different languages.

 

I like to think in terms of being in tune with reality, being one with the Way (Daoists have a way with words!).

 

When someone denies gravity, we can say he is crazy but to him, in a weird sort of way, there is no "gravity." The more he acts in this delusion, the more he convinces himself of another world (in which there is no gravity). And his experience, which is nonetheless "real," arises from falsity. Yes, he will suffer because he will jump off bunch of buildings . But when he realizes that there is gravity and begins to act according to it, he doesn't suffer as much. We can't say that for this man there has always been "gravity" or that there has never been "gravity," he just experienced gravity in different ways. One with denial and other with acceptance, neither is truer or more real, it's just a preference of will.

 

Haha! Sorry, that was a stupid example.

[C T]

I sometimes take issue to the kind of language that says: "one recognizes one has always been one with the source." It's very misleading in a way when we say source. Or when we say "one realizes reality," or "it is seen that it has always been so." It's also very misleading to say what has "always been so."

 

But it's really just a preference or labeling an experience. Inner, outer, self, no-self. I can say orange in several different languages.

 

I like to think in terms of being in tune with reality, being one with the Way (Daoists have a way with words!).

 

When someone denies gravity, we can say he is crazy but to him, in a weird sort of way, there is no "gravity." The more he acts in this delusion, the more he convinces himself of another world (in which there is no gravity). And his experience, which is nonetheless "real," arises from falsity. Yes, he will suffer because he will jump off bunch of buildings . But when he realizes that there is gravity and begins to act according to it, he doesn't suffer as much. We can't say that for this man there has always been "gravity" or that there has never been "gravity," he just experienced gravity in different ways. One with denial and other with acceptance, neither is truer or more real, it's just a preference of will.

 

Haha! Sorry, that was a stupid example.

Yes 'source' may well be too broad a label, but one bears in mind this forum has a wide base, so many different layers of intelligence. For convention's sake, other labels could well be considered - for eg, Ground of Being, Nature of Mind, the Tao, the One, Supreme Intelligence, God, the Eternal Spring, the Fountain of Immortality, Brahman, the Full Void, and these do not even make up half of all the different terms that's out there. Just like you can say orange in several different languages... At the end of the day, descriptions are mere fingers.

 

The key point that i wanted to convey was the possibility of a lack of insight (ignorance) leading to the inability to accept that one is so much more than all the knowledge and intelligence that one possesses, which also then leads to a stifling of potential, or even stagnation. When this happens, it becomes rather difficult to recognize that one exists always in relationship, just like the river and its two opposing banks, or that which lies between the yin and the yang. When a choice is made to pick just one aspect as the main focus, it always bring the other two into play, i think. Focus on the Yin, and the Yang rises. Focus on the Empty middle, and the other two arises. (You used the term "Preference of Will", which is the same). What do we do then? Perhaps if we just let go of the focus altogether, maybe then we can see how there is really no outer and inner reality? I dont know... its worth a thought anyway.

[buddhasbellybuttonfluff]

Hi mikaelz,

 

I mean that the subject cannot be separate from phenomena. You seem to have studied philosophy so you must have read some Idealism or Phenomenological works. My view is similar, though the Idealists tend to reify mind as inherently existing (due to God of course). Sartre is quite different because he sees consciousness and world as a game of mirrors, each pointed toward each other; these mirrors then reflect each other and only exist within that reflection. You can then remove entirely the idea of mirrors as self entities and instead you have two poles that mutually exist together.

 

The Buddhists see subject as not separate from world like the quote from Dogen where he says "I came to realize clearly that Mind is no other than mountains and rivers and the great wide earth, the sun and the moon and the stars." That is to say, the pole of the subject does not exist separate from the pole of the world. Mind (subject) is not separate or different from Mountains (world). If you say mind is 'in here' then that is missing the point. There is no 'in here'.

Fundamentally I don't disagree with any of this: the consciousness represents a continuum including both the so-called "subject" and "object." However, my question still went unanswered. I will try to elucidate my position over the following quotes.

 

Are you saying that the moon is a subject? I don't see how you can make that claim. The only information that you have is that 'moon' is a white blob that appears within your experience at a certain time every night.

Can we conclude that the Moon has no consciousness? Can we call consciousness a falsifiable concept in the first place, so that we could even argue of its ontology? See, your position seems to me that there exists a definite ontological basis for consciousness, but I by no means propose a contrarian view: My argument stated that consciousness transcends the previously mentioned four categories of existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, and neither existence nor non-existence. In the light of this, it would not matter what we argued, and this seems consistent with the view that the ultimate reality remains beyond the petty dualism of falsehood and truth.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the rest of that paragraph.

Do you think that awareness provides a shared, universal procedure upon which the universal harmony rests? Science explains that the universe exchanges ontological information with "virtual particles," but what else would we call this process if not the actual awareness? As such, I find it an imperative that the awareness deals with the knowledge of change instead of static being, or otherwise it would necessitate the existence of consciousness for celestial bodies, so that they would figure out and estimate where to go next with their knowledge of static locations and keep up with the harmony...

 

I would call consciousness as the epiprocess of awareness. I wish I had an easier way of explaining this. Consciousness provided me with the means of forming a solid identity and intellectual cognition, but everything within it keeps changing according to some laws and rules that have no ontological basis. I can't affect whether I see red as red and blue as blue, nor can I alter sense desires when they arise without any previous solicitation. One may fight and resist this, but the way of going with the flow proved to be the optimal for both pleasure and balance. I stopped juggling around with the aggregates and trying to dodge the skandha rocks along the downstream of river. Sometimes I forget about myself and later realize that awareness had sustained the body and mental cohesion regardless of the apparent absence of the "being that watches over." With the death of the body the desires and inclinations may dissipate along with the consciousness, but the same undivided awareness still governs the world and gives the newly born fish the consciousness with typical duties and desires typical to that species. Still, I see no permanent substance, but a bundle of processes or skandhas that carry on without reason or shape, thus forming the totality we call consciousness. These processes go on like sometimes overlapping wave functions, and in no turn do they imply anything else than the inevitable change.

 

Think of happenings, not things! All wisdom begins and ends with understanding how changes weave a harmonious continuum, which we cannot realize if we fixate upon the illusion of static existence. You can tell "things" apart; can you also tell what connects "them" in the continuum?

 

Isn't process also something that changes?

If the process of causality changed, then it would become non-causality. If the law of gravitation changed, then it would become non-gravitation. If the process of awareness changed, then it would become non-awareness.

 

I will reiterate my point with the transcendence of non-ontological descriptions: They don't possess any sensory or measurable quality, thus they are not subject to limits and changes.

 

There can be states of dreaming, being awake, and the mystical experiences that many experience and all of these states are changing.

How can you differentiate a state without first contrasting it to something which you call not-state? By creating an identity you introduce the conditions of interdependency and impermanence. If you forget about existence, then you enter the timeless nothingness which both balances and endures.

 

Some really complex stuff on that site. Buddhist theory of mind is incredibly dense.

Apparent complexity often indicates a lack of careful analysis of the premises, so that you will have to represent reality with flawed concepts which add in ambiguity and confusion.

 

I don't think there has to be a phenomenal limit for a concept of existence. This very moment is proof of existence. Existence is the moment.

So the moment should be understood as an isolated and permanent virtue or being? I can see here a contradiction with the doctrines of interdependence and non-permanence, since the moment never stands apart of its idealized precession and succession. By the way, can you exactly tell these three successive movements apart when and where they begin and end? Define me them, and then I will surely believe in the concept of existence.

 

There is no stable identity within a moment because it's constantly succeeding to the next moment.

Please contrast this with the previous paragraph I wrote. Calling for an identity and telling the successive movements apart are equivalent conditions.

 

It's also in a sense limitless because there is no perceivable end to that succession.

Perhaps, but can you tell the three successions apart in the first place?

 

I agree that language is incredibly problematic, but is it language created identity or identity that created language? Perhaps it is the latter, language arose from an already in-place mental conception of identity which is present within animals and wild people.

I will grant that the complicated skandhas may form semi-stable feedback-looping which resembles self-awareness, but this impression cannot account for existence.

 

What a silly debate we have!

 

Blessings

[Apech]

I don't know. it's difficult to understand sense perception without falling into materialism. If you believe that an object out there caused your perception then you can easily doubt your perception and believe in a 'true reality' which is impossible to experience. In reality all we have are sense perceptions and thoughts about sense perceptions.

 

Well yes I suppose so ... very phenomenological ... but when you go out, drive a car, walk around, bump into things, eat, shit, talk and so on are you experiencing this as not having some reality? Life is immediately and intuitively real to us otherwise why do we get sad when someone dies and happy when we meet a knew friend? When I pick up this cup of coffee and drink it - I am not thinking (unless I make myself) this is just a phenomena with no intrinsic existence. I am just dealing with the world in a basic and practical way. No matter what our philosophy or science tells us - this is so. What this thread is about for me is that when we make spiritual changes in ourselves - like raising kundalini then things happen in our lives - sometimes 'bad' things and how are we going to deal with that - what can we make of it? Does philosophizing it out of existence really help? No ... it can give us perspective I guess but it doesn't really make it ok.

 

 

I see both as ideas, as mind. If you think about a tree and then go out and look at one, of course there is a qualitative difference, but both are experienced through the mind. If you get rid of concepts about 'I am looking at an object called tree' what do you really have? In your experience what is the difference between seeing a tree and thinking about a tree? If you look at a tree, think about a tree, imagine a tree, dream about a tree... is there a difference in terms of what the base of each experience is? I'm not saying that they are all the same -- though I have had some pretty powerful dreams which seem exactly like waking experience-- but instead I'm saying that there is simply a difference in quality. Looking at a tree, experientially, there is only the appearance of a certain form. Smell and touch also come in and add to the picture of what the phenomena 'tree' is. Without adding the thought 'out there,' all you have experientially is the appearance of tree within awareness. That's it. The mind will then come in and try to add various thoughts like 'object' and 'real' and 'made of wood,' various observations based on limited information. We take these thoughts and lump them into the bundle that is 'tree' but is that justified? Are these observations accurate and deserving? I think if you stop trusting those thoughts for a second, you'll see that 'tree' is simply an appearance. If you say that there is TRULY a tree out there.. then that is assuming something that cannot be. Tree only exists when you perceive it. Tree is mind.

 

yes but we all experience inner and outer ... why? especially if its not true? And how do we live or how should we live bearing all this in mind?

[xabir2005]

Well yes I suppose so ... very phenomenological ... but when you go out, drive a car, walk around, bump into things, eat, shit, talk and so on are you experiencing this as not having some reality? Life is immediately and intuitively real to us otherwise why do we get sad when someone dies and happy when we meet a knew friend? When I pick up this cup of coffee and drink it - I am not thinking (unless I make myself) this is just a phenomena with no intrinsic existence. I am just dealing with the world in a basic and practical way. No matter what our philosophy or science tells us - this is so. What this thread is about for me is that when we make spiritual changes in ourselves - like raising kundalini then things happen in our lives - sometimes 'bad' things and how are we going to deal with that - what can we make of it? Does philosophizing it out of existence really help? No ... it can give us perspective I guess but it doesn't really make it ok.

 

 

 

 

yes but we all experience inner and outer ... why? especially if its not true? And how do we live or how should we live bearing all this in mind?

Greg Goode, "Standing As Awareness":

 

How are objects a block?

Q:

 

You've written that the notion that physical objects are external is a block to nondual inquiry. Can you say more about that?

A:

 

Using objects in everyday activities does not block your inquiry. You can actually put on your clothes in the morning or drink a cup of coffee and do inquiry at the same time. But it is a block to take these objects literally as external, independent, solid chunks of reality separated from yourself. If you regard objects as separate, then you regard yourself as separate. This sense of separation is based on these unwarranted object-beliefs, and gains a false sense of proof from kinesthetic experiences and the feelings of bodily muscular contractions. In truth, however, the body is not separate. It is unlimited and infinitely light, as awareness. The body is not in space, it is infinitely more subtle than space. It is awareness itself.

 

But we tend to think in spatial, physicalist terms, and use these terms widely. The spatial concept of physical separation that serves as the paradigm for all our notions of separation and difference. We tend to experience "difference" as spatial. This makes us think of two aspects existing on opposite sides of unbridgeable spatial gaps. Examples include feeling cut off from reality (it's out there, we're in here), feeling cut off from other people, feeling separated from our goals and the objects of our desires, and feeling ourselves to be divided - heart from mind, mind from body, conscious from subconscious, worldly from spiritual, etc. We almost feel as though these things occupy different places. And all of these feelings make us experience ourselves as all alone, vulnerable, and perishable.

 

Q:

 

But isn't this the way things really are?

A:

 

No. You never experience spatial externality or independence. Instead, you merely accept a story about it. This can be demonstrated. Try this: Shut your eyes. Take a deep breath .... now let it out. Now try to just listen .... air-conditioning-sounds .... car sounds .... building creaking-sounds. There is no car, no building appearing as such. In fact, the sound is your only evidence of anything like an "air-conditioner" or a "car." In this moment, outside the sound, you don't have access to an air-conditioner or car.

 

But where is the sound itself located? The sound is not on the outside or inside. It's not on the left, right, north or south. There is no dividing line between the sound and you. Of course there might be a storyline that follows the sound, a storyline that says that the car is physically located "outside." But notice that this "outside" is not evident in the sound itself.

 

This is the same for all the senses. Try this with vision. Place two similar coffee cups on your desk. Now, attend to the visual evidence alone. Two cylindrical patches of white, with brown between them .... No line between the colors and you .... No evidence in the colors of being "out there" .... There is no evidence of ourself being an observer "in here." Nevertheless, based on these colors and their change over time, we conclude that there are objects external to us. We accept a story that these objects are separated from us. But there's no support for this story in the visual evidence itself.

 

Q:

 

OK, so are you saying there are no desks or people?

A:

 

Not independent from you there aren't. It just doesn't make sense to think of things as existing apart from experience. Think about the way you experience a cup. It is not apart from seeing or touching or thinking. Seeing, hearing, touching and thinking are never present without awareness within which they arise. It's all awareness all the time. And awareness is the nature of you.

 

You never experience an unexperienced cup. You might think you do experience a cup that is in itself an unexperienced object. That is what classical Western science has taught. Heisenberg began to show how experience itself conditions the supposed object of experience. Experience is always in the makeup of anything experienced. There's never experience of something existing apart from experience. So this whole notion of independent existence can be dropped as incoherent and productive of feelings of separation.

 

Q:

 

So, what's left?

A:

 

Experience, which is always whole and non-separate. And when it doesn’t seem like there's anything other than experience, then it won't seem like there's a real thing called experience either. Existence/nonexistence, being and non-being will stop making sense and will drop away, no longer serving as partitions. You'll never feel cut off from the world again.

 

Q:

 

Well, I sure seem to experience this chair, this pencil, this cup of coffee. What is it like not to have no experience of these things?

A:

 

Free, light, weightless, uncrowded, unburdened, sweet and peacefully present.

 

Q:

 

Like really connected....

A:

 

Ah! No, I don't mean like Dustin Hoffman demonstrated with his white towel in I Heart Huckabees -- "Everything's connected!" It's closer than that, much closer. There's neither a feeling of connection or disconnection with the chair and pencil. It's all present, here, now. There's not an impression of the pencil as something on the other side of some spatial relation.

 

Q:

 

No spatial relations. How is that possible in the physical world? I hear you ride a bike. How do you explain that?

A:

 

In fact, I ride a bike with no gears and no brakes, on city streets. It's called a track bike. The lightness I'm speaking of actually makes the track bike easier to ride than it would have been, even on city streets. By the way, there are many others who ride the same kind of brakeless bikes. I've spoken with many of them over the years. Even though they have no interest in these spiritual kinds of inquiries, they often report the same lightness, the sense that everything is hooked in together with the rider. Everything moves and flows together in a way that is light and free and connected.

 

Q:

 

This just doesn't make sense to me. How light is it if you get hit by a bus!?

A:

 

Same! I've had accidents, I've been hit by cars, other cyclists and skaters. I've crashed and had bleeding injuries. I've had sprains, damage to the ligaments, and was once not able to ride for 6 months. This is all lightness itself, having zero weight and zero external existence, just like ideas. Injury, damage to the body, pain - they're all lightness.

 

Q:

 

So it's all in the mind then?

A:

 

No, because without an outside, how can there be an inside? It's more that there's no border.

 

Q:

 

How can someone come to experience this?

A:

 

By coming to see that all experience is whole as it is, and not disconnected from you. Experience doesn't indicate objects outside of experience, so there's no gap. One key to this is not to associate unpleasantness or pain with disconnection. Allow these to be as they are without making symbols or metaphors out of them.

Edited May 9, 2010 by xabir2005

[Sunya]

Greg Goode, "Standing As Awareness":

 

Sweet! Thanks for posting that Xabir.

[Apech]

Sweet! Thanks for posting that Xabir.

 

Seconded ... I like the bit about the track bike and the lightness.

 

Very good.

[EagleShen]

Yes thank you Ms Kate, for graciously adding the human touch to the analogy! Its great!

 

The river declares its independence with loud authority, until such time it merges with the ocean... and the ego is the same. If only while it flows as a river it also realizes its potential, then therein lies acceptance, which leads to truthful acknowledgement that it is indeed unseparated from its source. If the acknowledgement is made, it will still retain its identity yet at the same instant it recognizes that all the while, it is also transforming, yielding not to a greater power, or a separate, outer reality, but merely surrendering to itself. If i can fully tune in to my own words here, i believe the struggle between 'mine/inner' and 'not mine/outer' will diminish, and integration can happen - right this minute. When it does, do you believe that the dualistic notions of outer and inner will cease to have a relevance? I do.

 

Till then, keep flowing....

 

Is the ego really the river?

 

I was talking with a friend of mine on the weekend, and he brought up the notion that the ego isn't actually a 'thing', and that our word for it is very deceptive - being so noun like. This led us to discuss the nature of the ego being more like a series of self-defining(/collection of related) processes that shape our perception of ourselves as having an inner as separate from an outer. Which is at times a useful function for getting around in the material world.

 

So if there is some truth in this, the ego would be more like the banks of the river, shaping the flow from source to end, and declaring itself to be the river, and the spiritual quest would be to see the banks, the sky, the river bottom, the water, the fish, etc as all part of the beautiful process of self-existence.

[Birch]

Well, it's not a "thing." I agree with you ES. The example I gave was the river declaring itself to be the "thing" when what it really is is everything, per your example.

[rain]

Is the ego really the river?

 

I was talking with a friend of mine on the weekend, and he brought up the notion that the ego isn't actually a 'thing', and that our word for it is very deceptive - being so noun like. This led us to discuss the nature of the ego being more like a series of self-defining(/collection of related) processes that shape our perception of ourselves as having an inner as separate from an outer. Which is at times a useful function for getting around in the material world.

 

So if there is some truth in this, the ego would be more like the banks of the river, shaping the flow from source to end, and declaring itself to be the river, and the spiritual quest would be to see the banks, the sky, the river bottom, the water, the fish, etc as all part of the beautiful process of self-existence.

 

very beautiful Eagle Shen very beautiful

 

but to see it ALL.. how would one ?

 

bows to question

 

this is a great thread

[Mark Foote]

 

What you said here made me think of the definition of interest - both in the sense of what concerns us and what we gain from something, here is the etymology:

 

 

 

It means between-ness and is I think to do with the fact that boundaries are what inform us. The edges between things tell us about form and shape ... they are interesting. We know about ourselves because of relationships between ourselves and other things and the outside world.

 

I agree (who am I?) that somehow our ego creates distinctions between worlds - while they might not be ultimately real they are real in every practical sense. Its more interesting to see and understand these distinctions than to just say they are illusory.

 

I find it striking that the phenomena of fractal imagery, which so closely resembles both the animate and inanimate shapes of our world and universe, mostly occurs on the boundary of the defining function. And as I have pointed out before, the Tai-Chi master Chen Man-Ch'ing described the fourth of the four stages in the development of chi as, "chi to the skin and hair" (or words to that effect), and the Gautamid described the fourth of the initial meditative states as "like a cloth wrapped around the head and the entire body".

 

I think it's a mistake to regard the teaching as about perception or perspective. The inside is as the outside, and the outside is as the inside, when action follows from the occurrence of consciousness, even if the action is as simple as sitting. There's a great video of Shunryu Suzuki describing how, when a person is reading a book, if they are not disturbed by the sound of a bluejay outside, the bluejay comes right into their heart, and the bluejay reads:

 

 

As to how this kind of experience carries over into daily life, I would guess that it's all about suffering. When I recognize that I suffer, then I am moved to escape that suffering; to witness how the occurrence of consciousness is conditioned by attachment, aversion, and ignorance, and how the spontaneous place of occurrence of consciousness acts beyond knowing.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Mark Foote

[EagleShen]

very beautiful Eagle Shen very beautiful

 

but to see it ALL.. how would one ?

 

bows to question

 

this is a great thread

 

That's the question rain, how would one? I sometimes think in reality there are at least 6 billion plus ways of seeing it ALL.

[Apech]

Hi all,

 

I want to revive my failing thread on the inner and the outer.

 

A week ago on Saturday something happened that made me think of this discussion. It was very hot weather (for England) and I had had trouble sleeping the night before cos it was so hot and humid - so I felt rotten. At lunchtime my girlfriend went to the shops to get a few supplies and left me on my own so I thought I'll do a bit of sitting to up my energy and for a bit of clear out. Theses days I favor a particular way of doing this which involves consciously removing attention from the body by exclusively focusing on the breath. When I do this all the channels open and I get a very powerful 'flush' which purges my body.

 

I was part way through this process when I heard some noise outside the house (I was upstairs). At this point I should explain that I live in a fairly rough neighborhood and my house opens onto a passageway and sometimes stuff happens outside. Usually I would go to see what was going on but because I was doing this exclusive breath watching I didn't bother. A few moments later there was a bump on the front door (which I thought might be the post) followed by an almighty bang. By this time I had given up my meditation.

 

I went downstairs to find the front door had been kicked open, the lock broken and the door split. I rushed outside to see two youths disappearing round the corner about 50m away. Obviously they were intent on breaking in but had run off when they heard me coming down. They only kicked the door in because I hadn't responded to the noise and the first knock - which were just a way of seeing if the house was empty.

 

Obviously I have some fairly shit karma but that aside ... after all the fuss had died down I thought about how ironic it was that at the very moment of my conscious withdrawal from external stimuli, the outside world had so brutally intruded. Indeed if this had been a dream then you could have taken the whole thing as symbolic ... the inner and the outer ... two worlds but linked in some way ...

 

anyway I thought I would share ....

 

Cheers

 

John