The inner and the outer

[forestofclarity]

Actually, I would suggest that we experience a subtle world of thoughts, feelings, and so forth, and a denser, gross world of so-called physical objects. But to locate the thoughts "inside" and dense objects "outside" is imposing on direct experience a split that is actually not there.

 

Again, where is the boundary between inner and outer? Where does the one cease, and the other begin? Dense objects can give rise to subtle objects, such as when some one makes you mad. Subtle objects can impel changes to dense objects, such as thoughts/feelings lead to actions.

 

So far, if I press into my experience, I see a continuum.

 

 

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.

 

How does that grab everybody?

[Apech]

Actually, I would suggest that we experience a subtle world of thoughts, feelings, and so forth, and a denser, gross world of so-called physical objects. But to locate the thoughts "inside" and dense objects "outside" is imposing on direct experience a split that is actually not there.

 

Again, where is the boundary between inner and outer? Where does the one cease, and the other begin? Dense objects can give rise to subtle objects, such as when some one makes you mad. Subtle objects can impel changes to dense objects, such as thoughts/feelings lead to actions.

 

So far, if I press into my experience, I see a continuum.

 

 

 

 

A thought is a thought and a thing is a thing - are they the same to you?

[Birch]

"in the outer world time is inexorable, we have no choice about that."

 

What kind of time do you mean?

 

- Clock time?

- Felt time?

- Linear process-y time?

- Linguistic time?

 

(disclaimer: possibly arbitrary categories)

 

On the other thing, seems those "Shaman" (oh to take one term and apply it to all, the irony) can "tunnel" in some way between streams of consciousness. I don't know a great deal about it and I would like to.

 

I'm thinking it's infintely easier to "do" if you are in the same space as those you wish to impress your tunneling capacity on, oh, plus double if they believe you can do it. Double plus double if you've provided same with ritual and consciousness-altering substance (doesn't have to be heavy.) Double down again if you also have "killed" using such techniques (whether this be animals for food or enemies).

 

And if you can do weirdo stuff like slow your heartbeat and enter different states of consciousness at will, well even better!

 

I thought I did it once or twice without really wanting to, suddenly I was looking through the dog's eyes as he plunged around in the park, another time I was the rolling bird in the air, for a split second.

 

So maybe you're on to something with this subconsciousness thing.

[Mark Foote]

What about awareness of awareness?

 

I read in Doug Ward's "The Great Dragon's Fleas" that a lama advised him to spy on the mind, follow the mind.

 

For me the sense of place as consciousness occurs is the agency, is the doer, if I can relax and follow. Except it's not like following a deer through the countryside, unless the deer and its surroundings appear simultaneously and not entirely with continuity, kind of jumping about. Crazy horse.

 

Aren't there some native American languages where there are no verbs, just place words?

[forestofclarity]

It depends on what you mean by thing. If by thing, you mean something with definite form, then thoughts are things: they have a specific shape, color, tone, etc.

 

If by thing you mean a dense, physical thing, then no.

 

A thought is a thought and a thing is a thing - are they the same to you?

[Mark Foote]

 

Aren't there some native American languages where there are no verbs, just place words?

 

A quick google reveals that I probably had this backwards, there are Native American languages that have a noun-verb ratio of 1-17 (Mohawk- contrast that with English, where the ratio is 1-1), but not the other way around.

 

I myself find it useful to regard consciousness as only existing in connection with sense and sense object. I find that useful because I can accept discontinuities in my awareness more readily when I accept that consciousness is a fire that only burns in connection with fuel. I give myself permission to experience where I am as I am, in effect.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Mark Foote

[S-Curve]

It depends on what you mean by thing. If by thing, you mean something with definite form, then thoughts are things: they have a specific shape, color, tone, etc.

 

If by thing you mean a dense, physical thing, then no.

 

I don't want to be a dick but that's a bit disingenuous don't you think?

 

If the internal and external are in fact the same thing, than "thoughts" and "things" are essentially the same. Of course, given these circumstances a thought would be less dense than a wooden chair, but still essentially the same.

 

 

On the other hand, if the internal and external are different, than thoughts and things are not the same.

 

 

I'd like to throw something out to the discussion concerning this:

In the physical world, nothing is really "solid" and boundaries are not easy to define. If modern physics is leading us in the right direction, for example quantum physics, than it would seem that the physical (external) world shares similar attributes to the internal world, where things are difficult to define and boundaries are quite fluid...

[buddhasbellybuttonfluff]

Hi mikaelz,

 

If I'm being irritatingly pedantic, please just ignore my ranting.

 

Awareness is always OF phenomena;

Makes sense.

 

since there is no awareness separate from phenomena...

Sorry, I don't follow. Am I to understand that with the absence of phenomena awareness is lost or somehow changed?

 

Is the Moon aware of the Earth and fitting its course accordingly, or is the heavenly body unwittingly passing through the firmanent by a random walk? Interaction, thus observable phenomena, presupposes a faculty or process that dispenses the necessary knowledge for proper changes. If awareness is not a permanent non-local faculty, then how is information exchanged in the universe? If it's not the awareness, then how is the universal continuum retained?

 

Which word do you think describes awareness better: process or state? Only the latter is subject to change, and isn't by that definition awareness merely the total aggregate of all the skandhas? Would that be any different from consciousness that living beings have?

 

awareness is constantly changing moment to moment.

I'm not sure about this. Phenomena are by definition mutable, thus having a sense quality; but are you able to measure a pound of awareness? Can awareness be falsified by scientific inquiries? Can you put any limit on the process of awareness other than a vague description of how we acquire knowledge?

 

Being is not separate from constantly changing awareness/phenomena. What awareness is there separate from being?

Can you define an existence without first giving it a phenomenal limit and thus stable identity?

 

Might I kindly suggest that you inspect the problem with language and definitions once more in my previous post? If you contemplate on it a while, I think it might provide you with some neat insights.

 

If we were wild people without language, then could we concoct an ego? Consciousness would still processes pleasure and pain as we do now, but without the baggage of holding to the false premises of language. What I'm proposing is not a denial of reality and its happenings, but the very contrary: If we define limits, we create identity/existence which is by definition static. Every time we use the verb 'to be', we define a box that limits something, thus creating both something and its complement. Was the goal of unexcelled Enlightenment the obsession with boxes or forgetting about them?

 

At the root we have the problem of defining a tree. First we have a seed, some time passes and the sown seed grows into a tree which dies some further time later. The spatio-temporal limits of the tree are constantly changing and even these apparent borders have a degree of fuzziness when we scale down to the quantum realm. So where do the objects begin and stop? I'm not seeing discrete existence with limits, but rather a continous space-time filled with interlapping wave gradients. You see, at the heart of quantum theory is not discrete particles, but discrete energies! Sometimes these energies even display non-local interaction, so what's the point with the rigid spatio-temporal binding that we call existence? Nevertheless, with these discrete energies we might also represent distinct waveforms of consciousness, so even if we in a sense are "one" in the continuum, there must be an effort before the consciousness is elevated to higher frequencies. Something to ponder about.

 

Anyways, I don't want anyone to get too caught up with this, since we didn't carefully agree on the definitions of the words "being," "consciousness," and "awareness" when we began. I think there are valid distinctions to be made, but I'm uncertain if anyone here would benefit from this kind of discussion right now. Further I must apologize for the lack of polish in my writing.

 

Blessings

[Apech]

"in the outer world time is inexorable, we have no choice about that."

 

What kind of time do you mean?

 

- Clock time?

- Felt time?

- Linear process-y time?

- Linguistic time?

 

(disclaimer: possibly arbitrary categories)

 

 

 

I meant objective clock/linear processy time I suppose - and particularly its direction - it is unstoppable. Felt time - that's subjective and I'm not sure what linguistic time is.

 

I suppose what I am getting to generally is that the inner and the outer are experiential and valid. I don't really get those who say inner and outer are the same - to me they are different and have different qualities (like the experience of time).

 

I don't get this consciousness is always linked to phenomena because I believe you can enter the void and still be conscious - that is there are formless states of consciousness where there are no phenomena - but it might be that we are using the word slightly differently.

 

On the thing/thought business ... we could call it thing/think I experience the world as if there is a difference between say, the idea of a tree and an actual tree - for instance I can go and touch the actual tree and if I go away it will still be there if I come back (I know it will have changed depending on how long I go away for but it will still be there).

 

John

 

 

Buddhasbellybuttonfluff,

 

Great post and I like that linked website.

 

Edited May 3, 2010 by apepch7

[hagar]

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.

 

Funny, but if I am completely honest, there is nothing essentially human to my beingness. So the "me-ness" is really a "what-ness". And its completely independent of the content of our minds.

 

If I let things be, the effort contained in carrying around ideas about reality becomes appartent. Problem is that there is no way of knowing what this What-ness is, because it's the same as not knowing, not having any place to stand.

 

I remember that ever since I was young boy I have had moments or even minutes where I feel like there is this "alien" awareness that just looks out through my eyes and sees this life situation that "I" experience, and its kinda here all the time, but tapping into it scares the shit out of me. Its a feeling of falling out into space, and its bye-bye to what I think I "am". Little Anders who has so and so feelings, history, and situation. Its really a death.

 

I don't know if what I just wrote makes any sense at all. Just a reflection to what you wrote.

 

h

[Apech]

 

I remember that ever since I was young boy I have had moments or even minutes where I feel like there is this "alien" awareness that just looks out through my eyes and sees this life situation that "I" experience, and its kinda here all the time, but tapping into it scares the shit out of me. Its a feeling of falling out into space, and its bye-bye to what I think I "am". Little Anders who has so and so feelings, history, and situation. Its really a death.

 

I don't know if what I just wrote makes any sense at all. Just a reflection to what you wrote.

 

h

 

Made sense to me ... I would say, and its easy to say, don't be scared of it Hagar its something special and sacred.

 

John

[EagleShen]

Wow, just read all 4 pages and many thoughts arising, i love thinking about this kind of thing, some great posts, so thank you!

 

Lately i've been taking the attitude that anything i can possibly conceive of is only, at best, a 'map' of what is actually going on, as my perception is operating within a 4D framework - and as far as i can make out 'reality' is at least 11D - and this conception because i can conceive of it is likely only a very distorted reflection of the actual thing. It's like only having the shadow that something casts to be able to understand that which is causing the shadow.

 

Hence saying that there is a difference between the inner and outer (as this often accords to our experience/perceptions) and saying that there is no difference between the inner and outer (as this often accords to our experience/perceptions) may not be in any way contradictory statements - they may only appear contradictory from our limited perception. I've become quite suspect of either/or statements these days.

 

So re the Buddhist illusion thing, sure it's all an illusion, but as i can perceive it is not an illusion, it isn't an illusion. Both are true. Possibly the problem is in understanding what was trying to be communicated by using the word illusion. It's like trying to explain a cloud to someone who hasn't seen one, it's very difficult and they probably won't 'get it', but once you've both seen one you can use the word quite easily and you have a shared understanding to refer to - the word itself contains nothing.

 

Our Western way of thinking is very... hmmm... logical exclusive, very either/or, i think as a culture we find it difficult to embrace contradiction, just because two things appear contradictory doesn't mean there is a problem. Possibly quite the opposite.

 

Going back to the Jesus quote from page 1, i suspect there are whole dimensions of meaning in the word 'make' (as in make the inner like the outer, etc...) that include both acceptance and doing.

[Birch]

Oh I just write stuff that seems to want to be written sometimes. Other times I write stuff I want to write (for a variety of reasons, some of them to show off;-) plus I like you guys, you're smart!

 

"Unconsciousness" - still looking at that one. Who made it up? Can we describe it before we give it a name? I'm taking a leaf from Apech's book about applying the term to the situation, rather than the other way around. Oh, of course, there's a biggy of a problem with that idea, but it might be worth doing?

 

This stuff sucks.

[Z3N]

[Birch]

Alright. The word exists, yes. I keep mistaking words for things (and many ideas are in fact just words).

 

The stepping out thing, yup. Not entirely there (yet).

[forestofclarity]

I had exactly the same feeling when I was a kid, but I didn't understand (then) the value.

 

I remember that ever since I was young boy I have had moments or even minutes where I feel like there is this "alien" awareness that just looks out through my eyes and sees this life situation that "I" experience, and its kinda here all the time.

[forestofclarity]

Yes, there is a different between a tree in thought and a physical tree. But this doesn't (in my mind) mean that a thought is not a thing--- it is a different kind of thing (more subtle, more rapidly changing). I used to think that thoughts weren't valid objects at all. There was a time I was actually surprised to discover my thoughts, and how random and uncontrolled they were. Now, they just seem like a part of the landscape.

 

On the thing/thought business ... we could call it thing/think I experience the world as if there is a difference between say, the idea of a tree and an actual tree - for instance I can go and touch the actual tree and if I go away it will still be there if I come back (I know it will have changed depending on how long I go away for but it will still be there).

[Z3N]

I had exactly the same feeling when I was a kid, but I didn't understand (then) the value.

 

 

Yes this is more like it. But what has happed? And where does your understanding start and finish?

[Mark Foote]

...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?

 

two guys up in an airplane, one parachute- the plane engines sputter, stop. Both guys look at the parachute. First guy says to second, "here, you take it"- "but what about you?" queries the second. First guy picks up 100' extension cord and says to second, "don't worry about me, it's bound to hang up somewhere before I hit the ground."

 

(can't write this morning!)

Edited May 4, 2010 by Mark Foote

[Apech]

two guys up in an airplane, one parachute- the plane engines sputter, stop. Both guys look at the parachute. First guy says to second, "here, you take it"- "but what about you?" queries the second. First guy picks up 100' extension cord and says to second, "don't worry about me, it's bound to hang up somewhere before I hit the ground."

 

(can't write this morning!)

 

:lol:

[Apech]

[Mark Foote]

[hagar]

Made sense to me ... I would say, and its easy to say, don't be scared of it Hagar its something special and sacred.

 

John

 

My own experience is; if it wasn't the truth, it wouldn't be scary.

Our ego's fear whatever does not confirm what is allready known.

 

h

[C T]

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...

[Lucky7Strikes]

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...

Great post.

 

Most 'insights' we produce come from attachment. I believe that our existence is already self-knowing, all the fog just hinders it from shining, insight reveals itself the more we are willing to observe with...

 

Humility and courage...

 

Habits, including this worlds, are just so hard to see through and let go of.