The more one thinks about it, the more difficult it becomes to believe in the existence of one and only truth. From an early age, however, we learn that there is an all-elusive transcendental truth, to which we have no access. Only, this is a myth.
I think that this myth was created by the various clergies who, eager to perpetuate their "authenticity", ended up dividing the world into initiates, experts, awakened (or whatever) and not.
Since we were taught the myth of one truth from childhood, it is hard to accept as adults that each and every person keeps and expresses parts of the truth equally – especially if we don't agree with theirs. This is the case, though: each one of us reflects the way in which the world looks from the level s/he is able to perceive and ALL levels are crucial ingredients of the world. There is no such thing as a "one and only" level of reality, with which every other level is to be compared and found naïve or inaccurate. By contrast, every level, every version is the precise expression of a higher or lower, in any event essentially significant, level of reality. What's more important, we cannot understand ourselves or the world without any of these levels.
Rupert Sheldrake has put it in different words, conveying the same meaning nonetheless: "I think that self-awareness comes about through mutual awareness. I don't think self-awareness arises within a kind of solipsistic world of navel gazing. "Consciousness" means, literally, con scire, to know with, or to know together. I think that the reason that we are conscious is because we are interconscious in relationship to other people. Consciousness is shared, and I don't think an individual human being, without language and without relationship with other people or any other thing, would be conscious. I think that consciousness has to be understood in relationship, not as a kind of isolated thing. […] And I think that if a galaxy is conscious, then its consciousness would depend on its relationship to the stars and solar systems within it, and also, probably, its relationship with other galaxies. There'd be a kind of intersubjectivity of galaxies, a communion or community of galaxies."
Fascinating, isn't it?
7 comments:
"I think that self-awareness comes about through mutual awareness. I don't think self-awareness arises within a kind of solipsistic world of navel gazing. "Consciousness" means, literally, con scire, to know with, or to know together."
To relate to others is certainly awareness, but self-awareness is slightly different. It is exactly the navel-gazing in solitude, after the waves of environment have subsided, when self-awareness can emerge. It is the relationship with oneself. As soon as the relationship with oneself a.k.a. the internal world becomes a tangible reality, self-awareness becomes necessarily distinct from mutual awareness.
This is not to emphasise a one-sided life in solitude. No matter how hard we may try in this life, relationships with others are not going to disappear. There are a few people I met who live on the other side of the globe or the continent, but even these relationships somehow refuse to go away. So, even if one might like navel gazing most, there are undeniable external factors to consider.
In truth, both of these aspects of life (internal and external) are equally important - adequacy of one aspect can be measured against the other. Otherwise we would have no standard to measure our values.
Then there is a way to unite and transcend these both aspects. It is a third thing altogether.
I think it's simply a matter of point of view and of how one interprets the word "awareness". I believe that Sheldrake said this (I took it from an interview of his) from a psychological point of view. The only way we can become aware of ourselves at the psychological level is through comparison and contrast with others, through "measuring" as you yourself say. At the same time, our individual truths are also formed in the same way: by comparing and contrasting them with others (some serve as models we want to imitate, some as models we want to avoid and so on). There is an unconscious dimension to this too: e.g. we integrate the truth of our parents into our behaviour without even noticing it. And there might be dimensions we have no clue about: e.g. what about the transfer of information through the DNA? Or what about interconnectedness with everything there is? It is at this point, you see, and not before that one starts whistling a metaphysical tune.
Therefore, I don’t think that the usefulness of navel gazing is cancelled out on account of the above. But the self-awareness that navel gazing and similar practices imply is a different concept altogether.
And what about the third vector that "unites and transcends"? What is that, in your opinion?
"And what about the third vector that "unites and transcends"? What is that, in your opinion?"
In the psychological landscape, there are four dimensions:
- out (external world)
- in (internal world)
- up (heaven)
- down (earth/hell)
Ideally, the internal world is a perfect reflection of the external. They are reflections of each other.
These two worlds together form the mystical earth, the "down" dimension. We identify with and are attached to parts of the "down" dimension, objects on the earth. This fractured partiality is our identity (ego) and cause of all the problems we are facing.
The sight should be turned up and, by a process of reidentification, one can ascend. Exactly like looking at a night sky one can feel oneself expand, to become one with the sky.
Logically, from up there, the earthly internal and external worlds will look like a single landscape. This is how these two worlds can be united and transcended, but that's wishful thinking for all regular mortals, including me. While still located on or identified with the earth, we are dealing with the reality of separate external and internal worlds.
***
Elsewhere here you have said wise words about mirror image. We are perfectly convinced that all the objects outside (in the external world) and inside (in dreams and meditation) are real or, to our peril, we violently try to deny their reality, even though they obviously refuse to leave imagination in peace.
A true mirror reflects everything that is, but the reflection occurs only on the surface. There is nothing deeper than the surface. There are no objects. In the mirror, everything is unreal.
Considering the internal and external worlds, we tend to think that one of them is real and the other is just a play of imagination which must be ignored. In fact, neither of them is real.* Instead, they both synthesised are a reflection of the heaven.
Reflections are unreal. You say beautifully: "I believe in the dazzling Light that did not create fallen worlds, but perfect images of Itself everywhere..." In this model, we are identified with (parts of) the reflections, ignoring the light and its source. In the final analysis, only the Light is real and everything else is unreal. This can be realised by the process of reidentification and disidentification (in Buddhism and Hinduism usually translated as discrimination and non-attachment).
* Naturally, as long as we can't be steady in this realisation, we must, for self-didactical purposes, also investigate the opposite view: Everything is real, including our ugliest thoughts and feelings.
"Logically, from up there, the earthly internal and external worlds will look like a single landscape. This is how these two worlds can be united and transcended…"
Which is exactly how they must look like also from the perspective of the Space I have been talking about.
"…but that's wishful thinking for all regular mortals, including me."
And me too. Although I understand the grandeur and freedom inherent in the concept of becoming Space and I can even so much as actually see how the world would look like from that perspective, I haven’t managed to actually be it thus far. Perhaps only in fleeting moments, if even those weren't just a simulation. Unfortunately, Space - even to me - is reduced to a beautiful but evasive "as if". At least for the time being. :)
**
"This fractured partiality is our identity (ego) and cause of all the problems we are facing."
This is exactly the very heart of my own theory about the world, but I'm not sure that people can grasp the vastness of its meaning fully. EVERYTHING in our everyday life, everything we have built, manufactured or created, even subtle things such as music and language, are an expression of the personality/identity/"I"ness. Anything that is not part of nature but part of the human's fabricated world has originated from the personality, which is a stagnant and small part of our essence.
The moment I realised that, was the moment I started losing hope. Our personalities are formed and completed in our early childhood (any psychology book will attest to that), so it seems that we are "condemned" to navigate ourselves through the world as little children forever. This is the way the human being is made up: it is something inherent and we can't do anything about it.
The only thing that can be done, at a much later stage, i.e. when one finally grasps the truth of it, is dis-identify, like you say. This dis-identification puts distance and creates space for more of the essence to manifest. Before that, the cup is too full to afford anything else enter it without running over…
Yes, me too. At each attempt to unify reality into one integral whole, I fall back to the same trinity of me, others, and relationships in between. But each singularly successful moment is worth all the energy to attempt again. Particularly when you show the light. I am extremely grateful for this opportunity and all the earlier too :)
Setting aside facts and truisms the truth of anything else is ambiguous at best. Opinion will change and interpretation will change to suit the need of the day. Interpretation of ancient manuscripts including some found in today's Christian bible, have changed depending on how somebody wishes to slant it. And the different denominations of Christianity are here because of interpretation differences. Finding the truth for one's self is to do soul searching.
"Finding the truth for one's self is to do soul searching."
The truth, therefore, cannot be but a personal issue (same as religion). How is it then that we make a leap into the concept of “one, universal” or “ultimate” truth, when in fact we are never interested in “the truth”, we were just looking for the reason why are we here? I honestly believe that the concept of “the Truth” was used (and abused) by people who wanted to gain power, alleging not only that it existed, but that it was theirs too…
Post a Comment