The best answer i've come across, is the vast space in which everything arises. Nothing any of us have ever experienced has been outside of our consciousness. No way we can ever know the world ever will be. I've been reflecting on the idea that: 'you are not part of the world, the world is part of you' for many months now. This is the closest i've got.
The world exists with in your consciousness.
Every emotion, every thought, every sensation, every sight, every sound, every smell, every memory exists within in something that can't be seen.
It makes me feel very different when i contemplate this. Check it out.
This definition works for the 'internal' world (not necessarily a Wilberism but possibly...) but, just to be devil's advocate amongst the pigeons, what about regular, good ol' common-sense external reality. Sure we can't directly experience reality, but our perceptions, sensations etc line up so consistently with those of others (with the help of mediation by language etc) that it seems incontrovertible that there actually is shit out there. and it is at least worthwhile to hypothesise that this shit actually does 'exist' in some real sense. We can't live without constantly inferring it's existence. My question is, is this inferred external world within consciousness as well?
WAs it you chris who was once listening to somebody speaking about the division between internal and external and how that is a western creation?
The idea that we can somehow define what is internal and what is external is interesting...
In terms of christianity, if you look at the idea of sinning, which is important in that a "sin" is something that distances you from god, which you can read as something that distances you from your community (because arguably christianity is about responsibility to other humans-- which is why there is a relationship between christianity and secular humanism), anyway, in a catholic (with a small c) understanding of sin, even the thought of adultery or murder or anything is a sin. If you think about it, that makes sense, because when you think of killing somebody or "sexing" them it affects your relationship with them and other people... the idea isnt that these things are "bad" but that they increase selfish behaviour and you need to be concious of them and honest about them to have a more "real" or shared experience.
Im flying all over the place here, but Alan Watts talked about focusing on the internal experience (our own thoughts) as a feedback loop, the idea that it causes noise and distortion because you become focused on the thing you cannot see. He also talks about how everything we see is internal... I guess the idea of shared experience is what communication is about, and also what "faith" is about... we are all stumbling around blind but the more we understand each other's experience and the more we seek out different understandings of that experience the clearer the shared or "real" experience becomes.
This is why I personally have an issue with monastic cultures. However, maybe meditation (which I have little experience with outside of prayer and "alone time") is important in understanding your own place in that dark mess that is what is...
In response to Chris' last question, it does seem to be the experience of people that meditate/contemplate this for a very long time, and in a very deep way. That the entire manifest realm exists within an awareness that stands outside of time. That is not subject to time.
Another way i've heard it put is that"
"Consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown."
Eric Schroedinger wrote that, the quantum mechanics guy with the hard equation named after him.
Nearly all the great mystics seem to confer an experience of oneness, of non-separation. Non-duality of consciousness. For some reason this makes sense to me.
7 comments:
don't you guys like me anymore?
what do you mean anymore?
I like you
oh thanks chief.
The best answer i've come across, is the vast space in which everything arises. Nothing any of us have ever experienced has been outside of our consciousness. No way we can ever know the world ever will be. I've been reflecting on the idea that:
'you are not part of the world, the world is part of you' for many months now. This is the closest i've got.
The world exists with in your consciousness.
Every emotion, every thought, every sensation, every sight, every sound, every smell, every memory exists within in something that can't be seen.
It makes me feel very different when i contemplate this. Check it out.
This definition works for the 'internal' world (not necessarily a Wilberism but possibly...) but, just to be devil's advocate amongst the pigeons, what about regular, good ol' common-sense external reality. Sure we can't directly experience reality, but our perceptions, sensations etc line up so consistently with those of others (with the help of mediation by language etc) that it seems incontrovertible that there actually is shit out there. and it is at least worthwhile to hypothesise that this shit actually does 'exist' in some real sense. We can't live without constantly inferring it's existence. My question is, is this inferred external world within consciousness as well?
WAs it you chris who was once listening to somebody speaking about the division between internal and external and how that is a western creation?
The idea that we can somehow define what is internal and what is external is interesting...
In terms of christianity, if you look at the idea of sinning, which is important in that a "sin" is something that distances you from god, which you can read as something that distances you from your community (because arguably christianity is about responsibility to other humans-- which is why there is a relationship between christianity and secular humanism), anyway, in a catholic (with a small c) understanding of sin, even the thought of adultery or murder or anything is a sin. If you think about it, that makes sense, because when you think of killing somebody or "sexing" them it affects your relationship with them and other people... the idea isnt that these things are "bad" but that they increase selfish behaviour and you need to be concious of them and honest about them to have a more "real" or shared experience.
Im flying all over the place here, but Alan Watts talked about focusing on the internal experience (our own thoughts) as a feedback loop, the idea that it causes noise and distortion because you become focused on the thing you cannot see. He also talks about how everything we see is internal... I guess the idea of shared experience is what communication is about, and also what "faith" is about... we are all stumbling around blind but the more we understand each other's experience and the more we seek out different understandings of that experience the clearer the shared or "real" experience becomes.
This is why I personally have an issue with monastic cultures. However, maybe meditation (which I have little experience with outside of prayer and "alone time") is important in understanding your own place in that dark mess that is what is...
Have I rambled enough?
In response to Chris' last question, it does seem to be the experience of people that meditate/contemplate this for a very long time, and in a very deep way. That the entire manifest realm exists within an awareness that stands outside of time. That is not subject to time.
Another way i've heard it put is that"
"Consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown."
Eric Schroedinger wrote that, the quantum mechanics guy with the hard equation named after him.
Nearly all the great mystics seem to confer an experience of oneness, of non-separation. Non-duality of consciousness. For some reason this makes sense to me.
Post a Comment