The inner and the outer

[Cueball]

Dude! it just fell upon me that MAYBE Jesus actually said (and fie upon me in the past life if I got it wrong- just sinning;-))

 

"When you accept the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner"

 

However I'm starting to dig that he probably did mean "make" but to me that seems further away than our present discussion, so maybe we can leave that part till later?

 

Sure, let's save it for a rainy day.

 

I can relate to the points you made earlier. Personally I'm not at all sure that acceptance doesn't go hand in hand with being able to reject things, but it seems to require a lot to really develop trust in such a view.

 

So the outer becomes more of a problem for me also..... although in itself that's not a problem..... but then really it is.....

 

This is an interesting topic.

 

Thanks.

[Mark Foote]

Dude! it just fell upon me that MAYBE Jesus actually said (and fie upon me in the past life if I got it wrong- just sinning;-))

 

"When you accept the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner"

 

However I'm starting to dig that he probably did mean "make" but to me that seems further away than our present discussion, so maybe we can leave that part till later?

 

I think he did mean "make", but in this sense: contact between a sense organ and a sense object results in consciousness, the occurrence of consciousness affects balance and impacts the fascial stretch in existence as consciousness takes place, the stretch of fascia generates activity that opens feeling; to make the inner like the outer is to experience feeling generated through the impact of consciousness when the object of sense is within, just as we experience feeling generated through the impact of consciousness when the object of sense is outside. To make a hand in the place of a hand is to realize feeling in the hand as consciousness of the hand impacts the stretch in existence at the moment.

 

That our consciousness of the inner affects our awareness of the outer, and vice-versa, has to do with the station of consciousness, as the Gautamid described it. If we ignore stretch proximal to painful overextension, we lose the action generated involuntarily out of stretch; our fear of losing our balance, losing our control of our balance, is important to notice. My fear, my anxiety, important right now for me to notice. Calm helps me accept that the involuntary activity that my consciousness generates as it moves is the heart of the matter, as far as opening feeling, and I can't help moving toward more ability to feel. My breath will take me there, my spine will take me there, my consciousness is there without trying. We lose the stretch when we sleep, to some extent, can't be helped I suppose.

 

ruminations from cow pastures in northern california, on a beautiful spring night! (Kate, hope you forgive me that I follow that out, even though you asked to postpone)

Edited April 30, 2010 by Mark Foote

[Unconditioned]

To me there is litterally no division. How can you have one without the other? You can't. What we experience from the outside completely affects our thoughts and body. Everything we think completely affects our actions. And the circle goes round and round.

[C T]

What we experience from the outside completely affects our thoughts and body. Everything we think completely affects our actions. And the circle goes round and round.

Is this an implication that human beings are mere puppets, dangling haplessly, tossed about by the winds of change, with no control nor power to design their own destiny? Yes i agree that generally most of us are puppets to our thoughts, hence the possibility that outer conditions often determine feelings, emotions, compounded thoughts and actions. I am just wondering if this possibility will diminish as one become more attuned, or more aware of these 'strings' that are pulling at us? In other words, do you think we have the capability and transcendent spiritual intelligence to step out, or break out (whichever is applicable) of this circle? I am also wondering if this circle is nothing more than self-imposed limitations that is the sum total of the past?

 

Can someone just suddenly determine that he/she no longer want to be a puppet, to sever all ties with the past and hopes for the future? What happens when this decision is taken?

 

Or does this require, as the old books say, years of patient cultivation?

 

Maybe its a bit like looking for happiness. Would you say that things outside of oneself can be manipulated, or cultivated, so as to create a state of happiness?

 

What is preventing most people from breaking these seemingly unbreakable strings that are self-created, binding them to this circle of outer and inner dualistic perceptions?

 

Edited May 1, 2010 by CowTao

[Birch]

"To make a hand in the place of a hand is to realize feeling in the hand as consciousness of the hand impacts the stretch in existence at the moment."

 

Thanks Mark. It's an almost awesome transition to another (at least 2) threads I wanted to open:

 

- There is a feeling of "me-ness" even when thoughts are gone. WTF is up with that?

 

- Ok, I start to understand that "no thought" does not = "no-mind" But "no-mind" is only something I have read about. Apart from Daniel Ingram (sp?) can anyone more or less point one what "no-mind" means and why no-me ought to go there? Will it help "i"? If so, how?

 

Still on topic, earlier on today I tried to explain some of this stuff by drawing some stuff. I think it helps. Even if many TTB's don't "get" Chinese (or other) characters, I sometimes wonder if we're not often missing out on opportunities to share because of the language constraint? I know there's a Chinese forum here but I can't understand Chinese.

[Birch]

Hello mr Cow!

 

You said "I am just wondering if this possibility will diminish as one become more attuned, or more aware of these 'strings' that are pulling at us?"

 

I am so unsure but I believe at one point there is a growing sensation of free will as I feel the pull and go against it. Very much earlier, i recall Todd writing he "leaned in" (or similar) and I can figure a person riding a motorcycle (Mal?) as an explanation.

 

And so I continue, my further understanding of "free will" is that it is so rare. I suspect often it just doesn't matter as such, that what I take it for is often simply a strain against myself, an enforcing of duality . "I want this", "I am like that", "Not like this", "Here we are"

 

I don't consider this bad at all. But knowing you have free will, when it matters. I would suggest this is a good definition and use of it.

[forestofclarity]

Let me take a stab, because I've been there:

 

Re: feeling of "me-ness": you say this is a feeling. Does it come and go? Also, if it is a feeling, then it is not you because you cannot be what you experience. What experiences the feeling is not the me-ness.

 

No-mind: the mind without form is No-mind. You should go there because it is freedom.

 

It's like Hui Neng said: Freedom from form means non-attachment from forms in the midst of forms. Freedom from thought means having no thoughts in the midst of thought.

 

 

 

- There is a feeling of "me-ness" even when thoughts are gone. WTF is up with that?

 

- Ok, I start to understand that "no thought" does not = "no-mind" But "no-mind" is only something I have read about. Apart from Daniel Ingram (sp?) can anyone more or less point one what "no-mind" means and why no-me ought to go there? Will it help "i"? If so, how?

 

Still on topic, earlier on today I tried to explain some of this stuff by drawing some stuff. I think it helps. Even if many TTB's don't "get" Chinese (or other) characters, I sometimes wonder if we're not often missing out on opportunities to share because of the language constraint? I know there's a Chinese forum here but I can't understand Chinese.

[Apech]

This thread is full of great ideas and insights ... I keep re-reading different posts ... my thanks to all who have posted so far.

 

I finally got the going forward seems like retreat thing ... that's a good one. I was thinking about the qualities of the external world and things like how things so often go 'wrong' - although you could argue that is not a good way of putting it. For instance, and this might be a silly example, when I go away somewhere I put all the leads for my laptop, phone charger and so on in a bag. When I put them in they are all separate and ok - when I come to get them out they are always tangled and knotted together ... how does that happen? Reality has a tangle factor! I told you it would be silly (ha) ... but perhaps the serious point and it goes back to that 'testing' thing is that ok you can think perfect thoughts and come up with perfect solutions but when someone says OK put that into practice - well it is never easy. Maybe its entropy that idea in physics about the the increasing degree of disorder.

 

I wonder also if the no-mind - the freedom might be where the duality of inside and outside disappears.

 

Maybe the Jesus quote ... about inside outside ... like 'as above, so below' has two levels of meaning. One is how you balance and harmonize the two ... the other is about when the two become 'not-two' when you 'become enlightened'???

 

John

[S-Curve]

A big questions i have is how this all relates to synchronicity. I mean, isn't synchronicity basically like this mystical connection between the inner and the outer?

 

 

I tend to notice "communication" with the divine quite easily in the inner world.

 

And sometimes i go through periods of massive synchronicty bombardment in the outer world, but i can't always understand it.

 

Its like, there's just a constant barrage of synchronistic events and symbols, so many that at times its just ridiculous. But then, i don't always grok/dig/understand completely, whereas with the inner i feel like i get a pretty good intuitive analysis immediately.

 

What the hell is that about? Maybe i'm just bonkers

[C T]

Hello mr Cow!

 

You said "I am just wondering if this possibility will diminish as one become more attuned, or more aware of these 'strings' that are pulling at us?"

 

I am so unsure but I believe at one point there is a growing sensation of free will as I feel the pull and go against it. Very much earlier, i recall Todd writing he "leaned in" (or similar) and I can figure a person riding a motorcycle (Mal?) as an explanation.

 

And so I continue, my further understanding of "free will" is that it is so rare. I suspect often it just doesn't matter as such, that what I take it for is often simply a strain against myself, an enforcing of duality . "I want this", "I am like that", "Not like this", "Here we are"

 

I don't consider this bad at all. But knowing you have free will, when it matters. I would suggest this is a good definition and use of it.

Hi Kate,

 

Absolutely probable that when the strings/chains begin to tug, there arises ripples of discontent, whereby habitual reflexes kick in and the tendencies of not wanting to dance to the puppeteer's tune become suddenly more apparent. Perhaps it is this natural rebelliousness that throws me/us off the resting centre, following which the outer, in the words of S-curve, then appears out of sync? Just wondering...

 

So those who become more spiritually sensitive, either thru working hard at it, spending years trying to create a seamless connection between the outer and inner world, could it be that these individuals have, in the process, learnt to become more adept at adapting to the constant flux and flow of conflict?

 

I think conflict arises when we fail to recognize that ultimately the puppeteer is none other than our very own selves. If one can learn to fully accept this truth, then in actual fact, a lot of grief and hair-pulling can be discounted, and those that see it will save themselves years of hard spiritual labor. I contend that maturity(or leaning in?) allows for the acceptance of the perpetual duel between the puppet and its master/mistress, and this acceptance, IMO is the key towards the realization of no-mind. For as long as one refuses this acknowledgement, no matter how subtle the degree of this refusal, it creates the conditions/causes for the ripples of discontent to arise, and sadly, this is what leads to duality, and the perpetuation of 'suffering'.

 

I am contemplating that perhaps in actuality there is no inner and outer. Could this false distinction be a creation of sorts to compensate for my own ignorance and silly whims, and also from the dire need to sometimes obsessively analyze the world, which then compounds this idiosyncratic view of separateness? More meditation fuel here - ha!

 

Forgive if this makes no sense... maybe i too, am going bonkers!

 

... ... ...

 

 

thanks to A7, i think this is a gem of a topic! Wonderful insights from contributors thus far! I can feel it gathering momentum... really looking forward enthusiastically to hear the views, thoughts and insights of more members.

[forestofclarity]

Yes, where is the boundary?

 

I am contemplating that perhaps in actuality there is no i

[buddhasbellybuttonfluff]

Our sense of existence arises and subsides with the cognitive definition of limits; there cannot be any being without an identity that separates this from that and the 10,000 others.

 

Think about it. What function remains when all the limitations come crumbling down and existence is relinquished?

 

Blessings

[Sunya]

I haven't been here for a while and coincidentally, or perhaps not, this thread is at the top and I just finished writing a lengthy post elsewhere pertaining to the subject; though its not exactly the crux of this subject but rather my argument against science as the basis for truth. One of my main arguments is that there is no such thing as an inside and an outside world. I'll post it here, though I admit its probably a bit wordy.

 

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/the-great-afterlife-debate/#comment-1786

 

Chopra makes great points. It’s been pointed out by some people here that he’s too emotional; that may be the case but it doesn’t take away from his good points. Shermer has a materialist bias as many modern skeptics, atheists, and scientists have as well. This is a belief system. If you understand the nature of beliefs then you will see that a conviction in a theory is a conviction in a theory, whether or not that conviction is in a materialist world or a God created waiting-room for an everlasting heaven in the sky. Both are beliefs. We as humans perhaps have an innate propensity for beliefs; I think this comes from an underlying sense of needing beliefs to make us emotionally equipped to deal with the unknown. It’s much easier to search for data if you know what you’re looking for i.e. already have preconceived notions about what’s going on.

 

Unfortunately, beliefs hinder progress in understanding the nature of existence. Beliefs not only shape our experience but the provide the direction in which we proceed. The biggest and best example is this belief about the external world. We believe that there is this independently existing reality ‘out there’ and that whatever is ‘in here’ is just a strange by-product. For the last 200 years we have attempted to figure out the nature of the ‘out there’ using the ‘in here’. Here’s the problem: first of all the distinction between ‘in here’ vs. ‘out there’ is begging the question; consciousness is always of something, therefore there is certainly no such thing as ‘in’ and ‘out’ when the two are interconnected. The common theory is that the subjective pole is a tainted reflection of the objective pole, but an equally plausible theory is that the objective is but a reflection of the tainted subjective pole.

 

Furthermore the belief that there is a true reality BEHIND appearances presented in experience has created extremely fanciful explanations, whether metaphysical or scientific. All of these explanations are contingent upon the belief that thoughts/intellect carry some divine propensity for gathering and concluding ‘truths’ (remnants of Descartes who asserted that the intellect is divine because of God’s creation of it).

 

Huang Po, an ancient Chinese teacher, one said that “the ignorant reject what they see, not what they think. The wise reject what they think, not what they see.” This quote says so much. It points to the nature of thoughts and their nature of imposition onto reality. As rational beings we naturally side with thoughts; all of these theories of life, death, after-life, being, non-being, objective, subjective, etc. are just thoughts. We have so many explanations, and trust them, because we believe that thoughts are hierarchically ‘more trustworthy’ and thus better than the other appearances (sensations) within experience. There is a nagging need to always see appearances through the filter superimposed upon them with the theories created through the intellect. We trust thoughts, but why? If we can be skeptical about the senses why can’t we be skeptical about thoughts as well?

 

The nature of all experience is awareness. Awareness is the base and cannot be denied. The very fact that you are asserting, or denying, awareness is proof that there is awareness. The contents of awareness can be subject to intellectual inquiry but only if that inquiry is empirically sound. Since there is no way to empirically verify an external reality outside of mind, without of course believing in the divine nature of the intellect, the whole theory should be thrown out.

 

Being and non-being are interdependent terms. To assert non-being (extinction) is to pretend to know what non-being and being mean. Do we know what being means? What being is? We pretend but we don’t. All we have is being (awareness). Is there a lack of being? Some may argue that going to sleep is non-being, but that is false. Falling asleep is forgetting to keep remembering. Since there are no memories that does not mean that there is no being in that state. Seasoned meditators are conscious 24 hours a day with no break. Being does not depend upon memory. Being is simply what is, what always was, and what always will be. Time, space, objects, are all phenomena within, and as, Being or Awareness. There is no theory, no object, no thing that can exist outside of awareness. Awareness is the base. Try to prove me wrong, you can’t. You will assume. Give it up! Be empirical in the truest sense and investigate the nature of awareness, consciousness, not through intellect but through sheer will power. Where is mind? Where are objects? Create a great desire in yourself to know and experience the truth as an insight of direct experience, and a great doubt about all the beliefs and explanations that have been conditioning you to stop being curious and to pretend that we have it all figured out.

Edited May 2, 2010 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

I am contemplating that perhaps in actuality there is no inner and outer. Could this false distinction be a creation of sorts to compensate for my own ignorance and silly whims, and also from the dire need to sometimes obsessively analyze the world, which then compounds this idiosyncratic view of separateness? More meditation fuel here - ha!

 

Forgive if this makes no sense... maybe i too, am going bonkers!

 

You said it better than I. Bonkers or not, you're making a lot of sense to me! Where is the line, the distinction, between 'inner' and 'outer' ? Is this line a thought? Is this line a sensation (maybe its located in the face, eyes, skin of the body)? Whatever it is for you, and it may be totally different for me, the distinction will simply be an impermanent sensation/appearance that is always backed up by a constantly recurring underlying thought relating to the sensation. This is complicated... but try to be aware of the sensation of separateness in the body. It's there when you search for it. Now if you stop and relax it might disappear and you'll forget about it -- but the underlying thought pertaining to that sensation continues to exist. Its constantly occurring as an underlying thought-form. Now since that thought-form depends upon the sensation of separateness, which is itself impermanent, why is that underlying thought of separateness trusted? Why is it continually reinforced and why does resistance, and oh such strong resistance!, arise when that thoughtform is questioned? Or maybe the sensation of separateness depends upon the underlying thought-form of separateness, which seems more fundamental. I believe this is more correct as it represents my experience. In Buddhism this thoughtform is called karmic propensity and it lies very deep. Perhaps this explains why there's so much resistance when this propensity is questioned...

[buddhasbellybuttonfluff]

Hi mikaelz,

 

I would define being as phenomenal interaction that has no permanence. Without perceived interaction, how could you assert the existence of an object?

 

However, I think it's a mistake to say that awareness equals being, since it implies that awareness is subject to change.

 

All the abstractions, laws, limits, forms, categories, etc. that can be represented as Platonic Ideas lack mutability by their definition. However, this definition also guarantees that it is an error of logic to assert that Ideas have:

1) being

2) non-being

3) being or non-being

4) neither being nor non-being

 

What we call the certain laws of continuity that govern the universe will always remain beyond both scientific and intellectual probing. Indeed, it would even be an error to assert them being transcendent because it would assert an ontological quality, and any kind of quality implies impermanence... What a delightful mess, and I guarantee that there's more to it!

 

Consciousness, energy, and knowledge equivalently imply the change without fixing it with static presence. It's a mispresentation of reality to draw mechanical pendulum without the force vectors; it's the dumbing down of life to draw a tree without its vital spirit and all the potential it could be. The concept of existence is so fleeting and barely even able to describe anything. Yet I wouldn't call the language and logic defunct, since they simply represent the definitions we have input: They were not necessary in the first place, so they will never be sufficient enough to replace an unison of spirit.

 

The Tao remains unnamed, although mathematical analysis and I Ching are good for getting a clue.

 

Blessings

[Apech]

 

I think conflict arises when we fail to recognize that ultimately the puppeteer is none other than our very own selves. If one can learn to fully accept this truth, then in actual fact, a lot of grief and hair-pulling can be discounted, and those that see it will save themselves years of hard spiritual labor. I contend that maturity(or leaning in?) allows for the acceptance of the perpetual duel between the puppet and its master/mistress, and this acceptance, IMO is the key towards the realization of no-mind. For as long as one refuses this acknowledgement, no matter how subtle the degree of this refusal, it creates the conditions/causes for the ripples of discontent to arise, and sadly, this is what leads to duality, and the perpetuation of 'suffering'.

 

I am contemplating that perhaps in actuality there is no inner and outer. Could this false distinction be a creation of sorts to compensate for my own ignorance and silly whims, and also from the dire need to sometimes obsessively analyze the world, which then compounds this idiosyncratic view of separateness? More meditation fuel here - ha!

 

Forgive if this makes no sense... maybe i too, am going bonkers!

 

 

 

You are wise Mr. Cow and in a full cream way also not semi-skimmed!

 

Is there an inside and outside? Maybe ultimately we can transcend this duality but in every practical and experiential sense there are two worlds and we experience the two worlds differently. Spinoza talked about the one substance (God = reality) with two attributes (extension = space and intellect = mind) - we could say there is one reality which we experience in two different ways - in the way that we have two eyes. Descartes talked about the ontological gap - that we only know we exist because we think and yet we 'know' there is a real objective reality.

 

I don't go for the 'its all illusion' sub-Buddhist stuff which although it might be ultimately true doesn't actually help me. What helps me is working from how I actually experience life and myself and trying to understand it. For instance the uncanny way in which the two worlds link through things like synchronicity (as S-Curve pointed out) also I suspect deja-vu and other feelings of 'strangeness' when our awareness points out to us the extraordinary fact that we actually exist ... I could go on.

 

John

[Birch]

"our awareness points out to us the extraordinary fact that we actually exist"

 

Ever see that Matrix movie where the lead suddenly starts "flexing" and the space around him flexes and sort of distorts and ripples out? This is the thing I consider the me-ness, it's the me-ness that spins my orbits (I know because I can stop doing it) and writes these lines.

Saying it is "not me" seems bizarre. It's just a delay in cognition as far as I can tell.

 

I suggest "ego" is a misunderstanding of the delay.

[Sunya]

Hi mikaelz,

 

I would define being as phenomenal interaction that has no permanence. Without perceived interaction, how could you assert the existence of an object?

 

However, I think it's a mistake to say that awareness equals being, since it implies that awareness is subject to change.

 

Awareness is always OF phenomena; since there is no awareness separate from phenomena... awareness is constantly changing moment to moment. Being is not separate from constantly changing awareness/phenomena. What awareness is there separate from being?

[Apech]

Awareness is always OF phenomena; since there is no awareness separate from phenomena... awareness is constantly changing moment to moment. Being is not separate from constantly changing awareness/phenomena. What awareness is there separate from being?

 

What about awareness of awareness?

[Sunya]

What about awareness of awareness?

 

well, since awareness and phenomena are not two, awareness is always of awareness [or rather, there is only awareness] since there is no separation. But this is a high realization and I haven't attained it yet. To achieve this you have to realize that phenomena (appearances) are awareness since there is no separate perceiver.

 

But perhaps you are asking about self-inquiry, taking consciousness as an object. When consciousness is taken as an object, Awareness is of consciousness and consciousness is seen to be a phenomena appearing with no inherence. Awareness cannot be of awareness itself because awareness is what is aware-ing.

 

By consciousness I mean the senses (touch, smell, taste, see, hear, thoughts + feelings). Since you can be aware of consciousness, consciousness is not awareness, but if you try to look for awareness (where is mind?) you cannot find it. At least... I haven't.

Edited May 2, 2010 by mikaelz

[Birch]

So I'm basically making all this up? The me-ness as well? It sounds to me like another case of human vanity to attribute awareness and consciousness to everything. I'm looking at the global results right now and it's hardly pretty.

 

I'm not making the trees up, nor do I make the oceans up, nor do I make anyone else up. Certainly I will make up ideas about all of these things. Sometimes my ideas are strong enough that other people will believe me. Sometimes they're strong enough I believe them myself;-)

 

To some extent, I feel I need to make up ideas about things to be able to function. It's an application and doesn't imply necessity to believe it's more (or less) than that. If necessary, I will adopt new applicative techniques when I can see they're useful (and alright, maybe also some just for fun and out of curiosity and the desire for virtuosity ;-))

 

Which is another reason IMO and IME that discussing "high attainments" when one doesn't have them (yet?) is problematic. It confuses the hell out of me.

 

Especially if the intent is to effect a new belief or system of such on those who are IMO somewhat courageously attempting to eliminate the old ones from themselves and haven't quite digested the after effects yet. That would be highly unethical IMO.

[S-Curve]

You are wise Mr. Cow and in a full cream way also not semi-skimmed!

 

Is there an inside and outside? Maybe ultimately we can transcend this duality but in every practical and experiential sense there are two worlds and we experience the two worlds differently. Spinoza talked about the one substance (God = reality) with two attributes (extension = space and intellect = mind) - we could say there is one reality which we experience in two different ways - in the way that we have two eyes. Descartes talked about the ontological gap - that we only know we exist because we think and yet we 'know' there is a real objective reality.

 

I don't go for the 'its all illusion' sub-Buddhist stuff which although it might be ultimately true doesn't actually help me. What helps me is working from how I actually experience life and myself and trying to understand it. For instance the uncanny way in which the two worlds link through things like synchronicity (as S-Curve pointed out) also I suspect deja-vu and other feelings of 'strangeness' when our awareness points out to us the extraordinary fact that we actually exist ... I could go on.

 

John

 

I'm starting to wonder the same thing; is there actually an inside and an outside? Hmmmmm...

 

I think that inner experience and outer experience are complimentary. We are always experiencing some inner and some outer (at least while we are alive), and they are not mutually exclusive, because we always have some aspect of each. This leads me to believe that, possibly, we in fact create the distinction in our minds, and no distinction actually exists (outside of our minds).

 

An interesting thing here is: given John and I have both stated that the External world can be difficult to understand.... and given that there are signs and syncrhonicities offered through the External world... what is it that we are missing to understand these messages? Are we missing out on the explanations through the external? Or should we further seek in the internal to find the answers? Hmmmmmm (again )

 

I'd like to contribute more to the discussion today but my brain feels like a ball of yarn.

[Apech]

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.

 

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. 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.

 

What I would like to suggest about the inner world is that the psychologists and psychiatrists have made a mistake about the sub-conscious. Whereas they treat it as a finite (if large) kind of basement of the mind, full of hidden images and emotions and so on, actually it is infinite and not only infinite but infinitely connected between us. Its just that most of us only scrape the surface. Mystics look into it to see the truth and shamans journey through it to achieve their goals.

 

How does that grab everybody?

 

 

 

Kate,

 

Exactly with the matrix analogy, I'm with you on that one.

 

John

[Cloudhand]

Its like doing tai chi, some people do it right and receive the great benifits others dont receive the rewards. Kundi is the energy of the universe take what you will. Cloudhand

[Stigweard]