Path of No Path

8/13/2019 Path of No Path

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/path-of-no-path 1/22

http://www.peterrussell.com Spirit of Now

The Path of No Path

Spiritual teachers with non-dual leanings often say that there is no path toenlightenment. There is nowhere to get to; you are already enlightened, you just donot now it. There is no need for a techni!ue or practice; they will only eep yourmind trapped in the illusion of relati"e phenomena. #o not meditate; do nothing.

There certainly is a profound truth em$edded in such statements. %hen awa eningoccurs, there is the reali&ation that there really was nowhere else to get to, no higherstate of consciousness to achie"e. The world remains as it is, and your e'perienceremains as it is. %hat shifts is your relationship to e'perience, or rather your non-relationship to it. The identification with a constructed sense of self is no longerthere. ()ou( are not thin ing, seeing, $reathing; thin ing, seeing, and $reathing are

just occurring. *t is o$"ious that it always was this way; $ut all our wanting, stri"ing,clinging, a"oiding, and self-identification o$scured this simple fact.

*n this sense there is nothing to do. The "ery opposite: it is our doing that is thepro$lem. %hen we let go of all attachments as to how things should or could $e, wewa e up to the truth of what is. +"en the word enlightenment is misleading; it impliessome other, (higher(, state of consciousness. This is what ma es the statement (youare already enlightened( so confusing. ut to say you are already awa e, $ut notawa e to your own wa efullness, or you are already aware, $ut not fully aware ofawareness, ma es more sense.

rom the awa ened perspecti"e, it is true that there is nowhere to get to. This is whymany teachers say: #o nothing. Stop. #on t meditate. #on t try and get somewhereother than where you already are. There is nowhere to go. Nothing to do. There is nopath.

nd yet... 0any of these teachers did tread a path. Some spent years in"estigatingthe true nature of our apparent (*-ness(. 1thers followed a path of total surrender, ora deep deconstruction of e'perience. 0y own glimpses of the truth ha"e come inperiods of deep meditation, when the mind is totally rela'ed and still. Then * see soclearly that there is nothing to do and nowhere to go. nd yet, if had not followed apath that allowed me to drop into a deep stillness and let go of my ha$itual mode ofe'perience, * would not ha"e fully appreciated this truth.

So from the unawa e perspecti"e2which is where * am most the time, and pro$a$lymost of you are most the time2there are paths to follow. nd, until such time as theyare no longer needed, the paths that help the most are those that de"elop the s ill ofletting go, allowing the mind to rela', releasing all effort, all trying to get somewhere.So, do not meditate with an intent to reach some enlightened state of $eing. ut dota e time to let the (doing mind( die away, to sin into your own $eing. Ta e time tolearn to do nothing.

%hat is %isdom3

%hat is wisdom3 %e hear the word a lot these days2the need for wisdom, thewisdom traditions, wisdom schools. %e each would li e to ha"e more wisdom. nd forothers to ha"e it as well. Too much human hurt and suffering comes from lac ofwisdom. ut what is this !uality that we hold in such high regard3



0ost of us are familiar with the progression from data to information to nowledge:

#ata are the raw facts; the letters on a page, for e'ample.

*nformation comes from the patterns and structure of the data. 4andom letterspro"ide little *nformation; $ut if they spell words and the words create sentences,they carry information and meaning.

5nowledge comes from generali&ations in the information. %e $uild upunderstandings a$out the world, oursel"es, and other people.

%isdom concerns how we use our nowledge. *ts essence is discernment.#iscernment of right from wrong. 6elpful from harmful. Truth from delusion.

%e may, for e'ample, come to understand that deep down each of us wants to $elo"ed and appreciated. ut do we then use that nowledge to manipulate others forour own ends3 1r do we use it for the $enefit of all, considering how to respond to a

situation in ways that are truly caring3t present, humanity has "ast amounts of nowledge, $ut still "ery little wisdom.uc minster uller called this time our final e"olutionary e'am. *s our species fit to

sur"i"e3 #o we ha"e the wisdom that will allow us to use our prodigious powers forour own good, and for that of many generations to come3

*t is a common perception that wisdom comes with age. The wise ones ha"e learnedfrom e'perience that there is more to life than ac!uiring wealth and fame. They nowthat lo"e and friendship count for more than what others thin of them. They aregenerally ind, content in themsel"es. a$le to discern their true self-interest.

ut why wait until old age3 *n an ideal world we would finish school not only withsufficient nowledge for the life ahead, $ut also with the wisdom of how to use thatnowledge.

The !uestion then naturally arises: 6ow can we de"elop wisdom3 *t turns out that thewisdom we see is already there, at the heart of our $eing. #eep inside, we nowright from wrong; this discernment is an intrinsic part of $eing human. ut the !uiet"oice of this inner nowing is usually o$scured $y our $usy thin ing minds, fore"ertrying to help us get the things we $elie"e will $ring us peace and happiness anda"oid those that will $ring pain and suffering.

So the real !uestion is: 6ow can we allow the inner light of our innate wisdom toshine through into daily awareness and guide is in our decisions3 nd that, as manyha"e disco"ered time and again, comes not from doing more, $ut from doing less.

7etting 8o of #oing

7etting 8o of #oing is not a$out not doing things. *t is a$out letting go of the doingmode of consciousness - the attitude we $ring to our doing.

The (doing mode( tells us we ha"e to ma e a phone call, run an errand, respond to



an email, do the laundry, complete the $udget, prepare for the meeting. These maywell $e things that we ha"e to do. ut when we are stuc in the (doing mode( ourattention is caught in the (ha"ing to do them, dri"e to get them done.

%hen * am stuc in the doing mode, * mo"e from one tas to another, withoutpausing to sa"or the moment. * finish one tas , and immediately am deciding what to

do ne't. %hich of the many items on my (to do( list shall * focus on ne't3%hen * am caught in this mode my mind feels tight. 0y $ody adopts a $ac groundtension. 0y attention $ecomes tunnel "ision; * see only what * am doing, and filter outother aspects of the present moment. * miss the $eauty that surrounds me. * $ecomea human doing rather than a human $eing.

%hen * am caught in this state * am not usually aware of it. * am so caught in thedoing, there is not e"en space in my awareness to appreciate the fact * am caught init. 1nly when for one reason or other * step out of the mode do * appreciate how stuc* ha"e $een. Then it seems as if * ha"e $een in some ind of trance. )et while * am inthe doing trance, * am under the illusion that * am fully conscious.

So how can we wa e up, recogni&e we are caught in the doing mode, and stepoutside the trance3

Some things * ha"e found helpful are:

Pause $etween $efore ta ing on a new tas , and ta e a moment to sa"or the presentmoment, $ecome aware of your surroundings and how your $ody feels, ta e a fewdeep $reaths, and smell the roses,

Pause to notice how your mind feels when it is in the doing mode. *s there a faintstate of tension3 sense of pressure3 feeling of focussedness3 mental intensity3%hate"er there is, just notice it. #on t try to get rid of it - that will pro$a$ly only

$ecome another (doing( and eep you stuc . 8et to now the feeling of the (doingmode( as fully as you can. ccept it. 7et it $e. nd as you do, you ll pro$a$ly notice itslowly dissol"ing.

Set a random timer to remind you of the a$o"e. 94andom 4eminder

6a"e a short meditation. 9 minute meditation

t the start of each day, or wor period, ta e a few minutes to $e !uiet, and gi"eyourself the mental set that you will notice yourself in the doing mode and step outof it more often.

Pray for help. 9*t often wor s<

7ess caffeine

0a e lo"e, play music, and don t ta e things too seriously.

Three %ays to e Present



*n one sense we are always in the present. +"erything we e'perience is ane'perience in this moment.

1ur memories of the past are e'periences in the present. So are our thoughts a$outthe future.

%hen people tal a$out not $eing present, they are usually referring to the attentionnot $eing in the present moment. %hen our attention is caught up in our thoughtsa$out the past or the future, and we are no longer so aware of what is happeningnow.

=nfortunately, most of us spend too much of our time thin ing a$out past and futuree"ents. %e sa"or past delights, rejoice in past achie"ements, ponder whether or notwe did the right thing, grie"e o"er past losses and disappointments, get angry a$outthe way things turned out. 1r we anticipate future delights, plan our $est course ofaction, worry a$out what might go wrong, fear not $eing in control of a situation,anguish o"er how others might respond.

0ost of this thin ing is unnecessary; a waste of time and energy. 0oreo"er, it ma esthe mind tense, which is the "ery opposite of what all this thin ing is trying toachie"e2an easier, more peaceful state of mind.

This is why the wise ones ha"e repeatedly urged us to $e more in the present; to $ehere, now.

ut what does it mean to $e present3 There are three principal ways in which peopleuse the term.

>. 7i"ing for today. Not worrying a$out what happened yesterday; nor a$out whatmight come tomorrow.

This attitude definitely has its "alue. *t may help us ta e life as it comes, and not getso caught up in unnecessary fears and concerns. *t allows us to enjoy more of whatlife has to offer.

ut it does not necessarily lead to a fuller awareness of the present moment. 1nemay still $e as caught up in thoughts as $efore, e"en if they $e thoughts of todayrather than yesterday or tomorrow.

?. wareness of present e'perience. This is the starting point for a num$ermeditation practices.

%hereas most of our thoughts are a$out the past or the future, our sensorye'perience is always (now(. Thus many spiritual teachers ad"ocate placing theattention on $odily sensations2points of contact with the physical world, theheart$eat, or the $reath. The actual feelings in the $ody are in the present moment.

Then when the mind wanders off into some thought a$out the past or future2as itsurely will2gently return the attention to physical sensations, and so $ac to thepresent.

. eing at ease with e"erything. This often comes as the result of the long-termpractice of meditation.





out of that mode of thin ing2to loo at the world through a different lens, one lesstainted $y fear, insecurity and attachment.

This is a much easier and more effecti"e approach. %hen * notice myself caught up inegoic thin ing, rather than $erating myself 9or my imagined ego , * can notice what isgoing on and step $ac from it. This doesn t mean * ha"e eliminated that way of

thin ing. *t will surely return. nd when it does, * can choose to step out of it again. Transcending the ego thus $ecomes an ongoing practice rather than a far-off goal.

Three %ays to e Present

*n one sense we are always in the present. +"erything we e'perience is ane'perience in this moment.

1ur memories of the past are e'periences in the present. So are our thoughts a$outthe future.

%hen people tal a$out not $eing present, they are usually referring to the attentionnot $eing in the present moment. %hen our attention is caught up in our thoughtsa$out the past or the future, and we are no longer so aware of what is happeningnow.

=nfortunately, most of us spend too much of our time thin ing a$out past and futuree"ents. %e sa"or past delights, rejoice in past achie"ements, ponder whether or notwe did the right thing, grie"e o"er past losses and disappointments, get angry a$outthe way things turned out. 1r we anticipate future delights, plan our $est course ofaction, worry a$out what might go wrong, fear not $eing in control of a situation,anguish o"er how others might respond.

0ost of this thin ing is unnecessary; a waste of time and energy. 0oreo"er, it ma esthe mind tense, which is the "ery opposite of what all this thin ing is trying to

achie"e2an easier, more peaceful state of mind. This is why the wise ones ha"e repeatedly urged us to $e more in the present; to $ehere, now.

ut what does it mean to $e present3 There are three principal ways in which peopleuse the term.

>. 7i"ing for today. Not worrying a$out what happened yesterday; nor a$out whatmight come tomorrow.

This attitude definitely has its "alue. *t may help us ta e life as it comes, and not getso caught up in unnecessary fears and concerns. *t allows us to enjoy more of whatlife has to offer.

ut it does not necessarily lead to a fuller awareness of the present moment. 1nemay still $e as caught up in thoughts as $efore, e"en if they $e thoughts of todayrather than yesterday or tomorrow.

?. wareness of present e'perience. This is the starting point for a num$ermeditation practices.



%hereas most of our thoughts are a$out the past or the future, our sensorye'perience is always (now(. Thus many spiritual teachers ad"ocate placing theattention on $odily sensations2points of contact with the physical world, theheart$eat, or the $reath. The actual feelings in the $ody are in the present moment.

Then when the mind wanders off into some thought a$out the past or future2as it

surely will2gently return the attention to physical sensations, and so $ac to thepresent.

. eing at ease with e"erything. This often comes as the result of the long-termpractice of meditation.

There is no longer the need to eep the attention to sensory e'perience. 1ne ispresent to whate"er is2including the arising and passing of thoughts a$out the pastor future.

Some call this the witness mode. There is deep ease, and profound relief. There is aninner e!uanimity in each moment.

*t simply is as it is.

>. Science and @onsciousness

or those who $elie"e, no proof is necessary, or those who do not $elie"e, no proof is possi$le.

or centuries it has $een assumed that the material world is the real world , and thatworld of the mind somehow -- in ways we now not how -- arises from the world ofmatter. * $elie"e this world"iew is slowly, and ine"ita$ly, $eing turned inside out. %eare $eing forced to the conclusion that mind is as fundamental as matter -- in someways, more fundamental.

To most of us immersed in the contemporary world"iew this may seem a "ery $oldassertion; un$elie"a$le, possi$ly cra&y e"en. *t appears to contradict e"erything we

now, and run totally counter e"en to common-sense. ut remem$er that@opernicus s notions initially seemed un$elie"a$le and totally contrary to theesta$lished world"iew. %hat to us, today, seems, so o$"ious -- namely, that the +arthis or$iting the sun -- was unthin a$le only half a millennium ago. AThe @opernican4e"olutionB

The metaparadigm

The @opernican 4e"olution is the classic e'ample of what Thomas 5hun called aCparadigm shiftD. @urrent paradigms such as #arwin s theory of e"olution, !uantumtheory, ig ang cosmology, and the genetic code, are each dominating $eliefswithin a particular $ranch of science. ut $eneath these "arious world"iews lies ane"en deeper $elief. *t is the $elief that the material world is the real world, and thatspace, time, matter and energy constitute the fundamental framewor of reality.%hen we fully understand the functioning of this material world, we will, it is claimed,$e a$le to e'plain e"erything in the cosmos.

This is the $elief upon which all our other scientific paradigms are $ased. *t is,therefore, more than just another paradigm; it is, in effect, a (metaparadigm(.



So successful has this metaparadigm $een at e'plaining just a$out e"erything we seein the world around us, it is seldom, if e"er !uestioned. %hen it comes to the non-material world of the mind, howe"er, the model $egins to encounter difficulties. *thas "ery little to say a$out su$jecti"e e'perience, the thoughts that pass through ourminds, our feelings and intuitions, or human self-awareness. *t is simply assumed that

once we now e"erything there is to now a$out the functioning of the ner"oussystem, all these !uestions will $e answered.

0any see the paranormal, such as telepathy, clair"oyance, distant healing, andprecognition as the anomaliesthat will send the old paradigm crashing. ut they arenot truly anomalies -- not yet, at least. lthough there is mounting scientific e"idencetheir fa"or, they are still far from $eing uni"ersally accepted. s things stand, theparanormal is only a potential anomaly.

There is, howe"er, one "ery serious anomaly that e"eryone accepts, and that thecurrent metaparadigm is at a complete loss to e'plain -- namely, our ownconsciousness. +"en if we were a$le to account for paranormal phenomena withinthe current world"iew, and e"en if we were a$le to trace the neurophysiologicalcorrelates of e"ery conscious e'perience, there would still remain the thorny !uestionof consciousness itself.

There is nothing in the physical sciences that predicts li"ing systems should ha"e anyform of inner e'perience. urthermore, there is no easy way to e'plain howconsciousness can arise from inanimate matter. )et the e"idence for the e'istence ofconsciousness is irrefuta$le.

*f there is nothing we are more certain of than consciousness; there is also nothingthat is harder to e'plain. @onsciousness seems to ha"e no place at all in the space-time-matter-energy framewor of the contemporary science. This is the parado' ofconsciousness. Science e'ists only $ecause of consciousness, yet consciousness isnot to $e found anywhere in science. Scientists find themsel"es in the strangeposition of $eing confronted daily $y the indisputa$le fact of their own consciousness,yet with no means to account for it.

This has $een du$$ed the (hard !uestion(. 6ow does something as unconscious asmatter gi"e rise to something as immaterial as consciousness3 The two could not $emore fundamentally different.

s far as the materialist metaparadigm is concerned, consciousness is the greatanomaly.

#efending the metaparadigm

The ways in which western science has dealt with the pro$lem of consciousness arereminiscent of the ways the medie"al astronomers dealt with the pro$lem ofplanetary motion. or the most part it has ignored consciousness completely -- andwith apparently good reasons.

irst, consciousness cannot $e o$ser"ed in the way that material entities can *tcannot $e weighed, measured, or otherwise pinned down. Second, science hassought to arri"e at uni"ersal (o$jecti"e( truths, independent of any particularo$ser"er s "iewpoint or state of mind. So it has deli$erately a"oided su$jecti"e





?. @onsciousness and 4eality

%e don t now what matter is anymore than we now what mind is.

*f there is anything a$out which we feel sure, it is that the world we e'perience isreal. %e can see, touch and hear it. %e can lift hea"y and solid o$jects; hurtoursel"es, if we re not careful, against their unyielding immo$ility. *t seemsundenia$le that out there, around us, independent and apart from us, stands aphysical world, utterly real, solid and tangi$le.

ut all is not what it seems.

irst, the apparently solid ta$le in front me is, it turns out, far from solid.

nd second,we assume that we are directly e'periencing the world around; that thecolors we see and the sounds we hear are there, around us, just as we e'periencethem. ut e"en an elementary study of the processes of perception show that in this,too, we are much mista en.

ll that * see, hear, taste, touch, smell and feel has $een created from the data fed tome $y my sensory organs. ll * e"er now of the world around are the imagesproduced in the mind. * thin * am seeing the tree (out there(, in the world aroundme. ut all that * am actually e'periencing is the image created in the mind.

This simple fact is "ery hard to grasp. *t runs totally counter to all our e'perience. There seems nothing more certain than the fact that * am seeing the world as it is,around me. ut howe"er nonsensical it may sound, this is the conclusion we areforced to ma e.

#reaming the %orld

The world we e'perience around us is no more (out there( than are our dreams.

6owe"er real it may seem, it is, in the final analysis, all in the mind. %e ne"ere'perience the physical world directly; all we e"er now is the image of the worldgenerated in our awareness. nd that image is no more Cout thereD than are theimages of our dreams.

*llusory 4ealities

%e may find it hard to come to terms with the fact that our normal wa inge'perience of reality is a manifestation within the mind, $ut in many other instanceswe readily accept that we create our e'periences. A@reating *llusionsB

Eirtual 4eality

The entire concept of "irtual reality is founded on the understanding that the $rain isa reality generator as much as an information processor. AEirtual 4ealityB

*n all these instances of illusory or artificial realities we readily accept that theconfusing or a$normal perception stems from the way the $rain creates oure'perience of reality. )et when it comes to our normal wa ing e'perience, the $ase



state in which these so-called (illusions( occur, we adopt the opposite position. %efeel that we are e'periencing the world as it is, (out there( in front of us. ut howcould the illusory perception $e an image in our mind, yet the world in which theillusion occurs $e the physical world around us3

Seeing what isn t there

0any other creations of the mind we dismiss as hallucinations. These are typicallye'periences which occur under the influence of drugs, and during illness, e'tremefatigue or stress. or one reason or another the electro-chemical processes aremodified in some way, leading the $rain to generate a different different image ofreality. 1ne may percei"e unusual colors or patterns, percei"e time and spacedifferently, or e'perience some other (non-ordinary( manifestation in consciousness.

%e call such images (hallucinations( $ecause they do not concur with our normale'perience of reality, or with the reality that other people e'perience. %e say we areseeing things that are not really there. ut, surprising as it may at first seem, this iswhat we are doing all the time. +"en in normal, e"eryday perception, the ind we allagree upon, we are seeing things that are not really there. @olor, sound, smell, andall the other !ualities of e'perience are not !ualities of the physical world; they e'istonly in the mind.

The fact that we create our e'perience of reality does not imply that there is nounderlying reality. %hen a tree falls in the forest, there is a specific e"ent that ishappening in the physical world. There is something that gi"es rise to my perception,and to your perception -- and to the perception of a $ird sitting on one of its$ranches. ut we now nothing of that e"ent directly. ll we now are thee'periences created in our minds.

0aya

@on"ersely, it would $e wrong to relegate our e'perience to the world of illusion. *t is"ery real, the only reality we now. *f * ic a $oulder my foot hurts. The solidness ofthe stone is real in my e'perience; so is the pain.

The illusion comes when we confuse the image in our mind with the thing-in-itself. The Eedantic philosophers of ancient *ndia spo e of this as (maya(. 1ften translatedas (illusion(, the word is $etter understood as (delusion(. * suffer a delusion when *$elie"e that the manifestations in my mind are the e'ternal world. * decei"e myselfwhen * thin that the tree * see is the tree itself.

@omputer nalogy

s a contemporary analogy, we might li en the situation to the image created on a

comnputer screen. %ithin the central processor of the computer are numerous $its ofinformation, encoded as electronic states in the circuitary of the chips. Software inthe computer processes this data, putting it into a form that when sent to the monitorcauses it to light the screen in particular ways. The image that is created may $ederi"ed from the data in the central processor, $ut it is not the same as the data. Thecomputer is not producing some faithful imitation of an image held in memory. llthere is is code; microscopic electronic switches that are either Con ; or CoffD. There isno color or light in the computer code, and the spatial layout of the data on the chip$ears "ery little resem$lance to the layout of the final image.



A0ore parallels with the image on a computer screenB

The Two 4ealities

*t is important to distinguish $etween two ways in which we use the word (reality(. There is the reality we e'perience, our image of reality; and there is the underlyingreality that we ne"er now directly, $ut which is the source of our e'perience.

*n *ndian philosophy these two realities are sometimes referred to as the $soluteand the 4elati"e. The $solute is the underlying reality. *t does not change accordingto who is e'periencing it. *t is, as it is, an independent reality. The 4elati"e is thereality we o$ser"e, the reality generated in our minds. There is just one $solute; $utthere are numerous relati"e realities, each relati"e to a particular e'periencer at aparticular point in space and time.

1ther times they are spo en of as the unmanifest and manifest le"els of reality.

Species-Specific 4ealities6ow we construct our image of the world is determined $y our sensory organs andner"ous system. 0ost human $eings ha"e "ery similar sensory organs -- my eye, fore'ample, is "irtually identical to yours -- and the neural processing of the sensorydata follows "ery similar pathways. %e recei"e the same data, analy&e it in the sameway, and so create "ery similar pictures of reality -- unless, that is, a person is color-$lind, near-sighted, or tone deaf, in which case we ma e allowances for our differentperceptions

The fact that we seldom disagree on our e'perience of reality reinforces ourassumption that we are seeing reality as it is. ut if we could communicate with othercreatures we would find our nai"e assumption se"erely sha en. #ogs, for e'ample,

hear higher fre!uencies of sound than we do, and their noses detect a far widerrange of molecules. *f we could put oursel"es in a dog s mind we would find asomewhat different perception of reality.

A6ow other species e'perience reality.Brom Plato

The reali&ation that we do not e'perience reality as it is, $ut only a picture of realityconstructed in the mind, is not new. *n The 4epu$lic, Plato argued that the o$jects wepercei"e are not the ultimate reality, $ut more li e a shadow of reality. 6e illustratedthis with his analogy of (The @a"e(.

lthough Plato $elie"ed the real world was a world of ideas and eternal perfect forms,his story is still pertinent to our own e'perience. 0ost of us assume that the sightsand sounds we percei"e are the (real world(. %hen science inform us that we are notseeing reality as it is, $ut merely the images that manifests in our minds, we shrug indis$elief. 6ow can that $e3 6ow can the world that * e'perience so clearly as (outthere(, $e just an image in the mind3

To 5ant

The notion that reality is (all in the mind( resurfaces repeatedly in modern



philosophy. The person who is generally regarded has ha"ing made the greatestcontri$utions in this area was the eighteenth-century 8erman philosopher *mmanuel5ant. uilding on the wor of er eley and 7oc e, 5ant drew a clear distinction$etween our perception of reality and the actual o$ject of perception. 6is ey insightwas the reali&ation that all we e"er now are the structures generated in our minds;the world that gi"es rise to this perception, what he termed (the thing-in-itself(,

remains fore"er un nowa$le.ll we can e"er now, propsed 5ant, is how reality appears to us -- what he referred

to as the phenomenon of our e'perience, (that which appears to $e(. The underlyingreality he called the noumenon, a 8ree word meaning Cthat which is apprehended(,the thing percei"ed.

5ant s statement that the noumenon is fore"er un nowa$le should $e interpreted asfore"er ine'perienca$le. The mind is fore"er $arred from a direct nowing of thething-in-itself. This does not imply that we cannot understand it, or form conceptsa$out it, which is what modern science sets out to do.

ecause all we e"er now is the product of the mind operating on the raw sensorydata, 5ant reasoned thatour e'perience is as much a reflection of the nature of themind as it is of the physical world. This led him to one of his $oldest, and at that timemost astonishing, conclusions of all. Time and space, he argued, are not inherent!ualities of the physical world; they are a reflection of the way the mind operates, theperceptual framewor within which our entire e'perience of the world is constructed.

*t seems a$solutely o$"ious to us that time and space are real and fundamental!ualities of the physical world, entirely independent of my or your consciousness -- aso$"ious as it seemed to people fi"e hundred years ago that the sun mo"es round theearth. This, said 5ant, is only $ecause we cannot see the world any other way. Thehuman mind is so constituted that it is forced to impose the framewor of space andtime on the raw sensory data in order to ma e any sense of it all. %e are fore"erconstrained to construct our e'perience within these dimensions -- much as acomputer is fore"er constrained to present its data in the two-dimensional format ofthe monitor. *t is law of perception rather than a law of physics.

*t may ha"e $een an astonishing claim at the time -- and pro$a$ly still undenia$lethat the world we e'perience e'tends out there around us -- $ut we shall see shortlythat it is a reali&ation that contemporary physics is also coming round to accepting.

ut perhaps the most remar a$le aspect of 5ant s wor was that he came to theseconclusions without any of our contemporary scientific nowledge of the world, orany understanding of the physiology of of perception. 6ad he nown what we nownow, his conclusions would ha"e $een so o$"ious as to $e totally unremar a$le.

t the time, 5ant s arguments were a watershed in %estern thin ing. They were, as5ant himself saw, the e!ui"alent of a @opernican 4e"olution in philosophy. %hereas@opernicus had effecti"ely turned the physical uni"erse inside out, showing that themo"ements of the stars are determined $y the mo"ement of the earth, 5ant hadturned the epistemological world inside out. %e are not passi"e e'periencers of theworld; we are the creators of the world we e'perience. 6e had put the self firmly atthe center of things.

5nowing and Seeing



1ur tacit assumption that we percei"e the world as it is, has $ecome so deeplyingrained that it is "ery hard indeed to appreciate that our image of reality is aconstruction within our own mind. +"en when we intellectually accept the fact, ase"entually we must, it is still e'tremely difficult not to see the image we ha"e createdas (out there(.

*n fact, we will pro$a$ly always see it this way. ut that is not to say it is not possi$leto see it otherwise. *t may $e that spiritual adepts who ha"e made a deep personalin"estigation into the nature of the mind, e'plored the wor ings of their ownconsciousness, and witnessed the arising of e'perience, ha"e come to see it thatway. Throughout the mystical and spiritual literature of the world are e'amples ofindi"iduals who ha"e claimed that the whole world is within them rather thant aroundthem, as most of us e'perience.

The ardent materialist might assume that these are the ra"ings of a mind deranged$y too much meditation. *t is far more li ely that they are coming from people whoha"e e'perienced first-hand that the entire uni"erse -- e"erything we now from thecells in our $odies to the distant twin ling stars -- e'ists within the mind, not theother way around. ar from suffering from an illusion, a person in this state isnowing the phenomenal reality for what it is. *t is we who are under an illusion whenwe $elie"e that the world we see around us is Cout thereD around us, rather thanwithin us.

The 5ey

+"en though most of us are pro$a$ly far from such ad"anced states ofconsciousness, it is important that we do not $ecome seduced $y our dailye'perience into false $eliefs a$out the true nature of things. %e may still see the sungoing down, $ut we now reality is different, and ta e this into account in ourconsiderations of the cosmos.

The difference with the 5antian 4e"olution 9let s follow tradition and name it after oneits founding fathers is that the shift in metaparadigm is not yet complete. ll thepieces are in place -- just as all the rele"ant pieces of the @opernican 4e"olution werein place $y the early se"enteenth century -- $ut they ha"e not yet $een put togetherinto a coherent model, and the implications ha"e still to sin in.

The foundation stone of the emerging metaparadigm is the distinction $etween thephenomenon, the reality generated in the mind, and the un nowa$le reality, ornoumenon, that underlies it. %hen this distinction is clear, many anomalies andapparently intracta$le pro$lems across a $road spectrum of human endea"or eitherdissol"e or ta e on an entirely different nature.

The (hard pro$lem( of how consciousness arises from matter is turned inside out Sois the !uestion of the location of the self. The distinction throws new light on+instein s Special Theory of 4elati"ity and the wa"e-particle parado' in !uantummechanics. *t also offers a new perspecti"e on many spiritual teachings. 4eligion andscience may not $e as antithetically opposed as many $elie"e; the new modelsuggests an alternati"e, and far more enlightening, meaning to 8od.

ut the ramifications are not just academic or philosophical. They ha"e "ery practicalimplications for how we li"e our li"es. The current materialistic world"iew may ha"e



wor ed fairly well in the physical sciences, $ut is failing us a$ysmally in humanaffairs. 0any of the crises now facing humanity -- ecological, economic and social --$oil down to a crisis in world"iew.

Perception and 4eality

7et us ta e "ision as an e'ample. %hen * loo at a tree, light reflected from its lea"esis focused onto the retina of my eye, where it creates an image of the world (outthere(. Photo-sensiti"e cells in the retina a$sor$ the light s energy, triggering a seriesof chemical reactions that release electrons. Neurons connected to the cells amplifythese discharges and turn them into electrical impulses which are carried $y the opticner"e $ac to the $rain. 6ere the raw data undergoes a comple' array of processesthat e'tract from it shapes, patterns, colors, mo"ements and other features.@omparing these with past e'periences, e'pectations, and other information, theinformation is integrated into a single picture, and and an image of the tree appearsin my consciousness. Fust how this happens is the (hard !uestion( we touched onearlier, and we need not trou$le oursel"es with it anymore for the moment; $ut whatis undenia$le is that it does happen. There arises the conscious e'perience of seeingthe tree.

Similar processes happen with the other senses. Ei$rations in the air emanating froma "iolin trigger minute hairs in the ear, sending electrical impulses to the $rain wherethey undergo an e!ually comple' and unfathoma$le processing, which culminates inthe e'perience of a sound. Pressure sensiti"e cells in the s in relay messages $ac tothe $rain, that gi"e rise to the e'periences of touch, te'ture and mo"ement.4eceptors in the nose and tongue, sensiti"e to certain molecular structures li ewisesend data to the $rain where, in the same mysterious manner, they gi"e rise toe'periences of smell and taste.

0athematics and 4eality

The !uestion is sometimes raised as to how it is that mathematics, which is acreation of the human mind, without any empirical reference to e'ternal reality,should match reality so well. %hen we ma e the distinction $etween the reality wee'perience and the underlying reality, the correlation $etween mathematics andreality is not so surprising.

Science ta es our o$ser"ations of the e'ternal world and see s to understand howthey occur and to disco"er underlying patterns and principles. *n doing so, itine"ita$ly draws upon e'perience %hen atoms were first imagined, they werethought of as small solid $alls of matterGa model clearly drawn from e"erydaye'perience. Then, as physics reali&ed that atoms were composed of more elementary

particles 9e"en the word (particle( contains an implicit assumption as to their nature ,the model shifted to one of a central nucleus surrounded $y or$iting electronsGagain$ased on e'perience at the human le"el. Now, as we try to interpret !uantum theory,we ine"ita$ly draw upon other concepts deri"ed from our perception of reality. %einterpret them as wa"es or $undles of energy, possessing (spin( and mass. )et e"erymodel we come up with, fails in some way or another to capture the essence of theunderlying reality.

t first we might find it surprising that the conclusions of modern physics are so far



remo"ed from our e'perience or reality. ut it is not actually that surprising at all. llscientific models and theories ha"e their roots in human e'perience. They are all$ased on the way the human mind interprets the incoming sensory, which is itself$ased on our particular, and partial, perception of the world around. %hat would $efar more surprising would $e to find that the image of reality created in the humanmind was indeed a faithful representation of the thing-in-itself.

0athematics on the other hand is purely a creation of the mind. 0athematics is that$ody of nowledge that is arri"ed at $y pure reason, and does not rely upon anyo$ser"ations of the phenomenal world. *t is free from the limitations imposed $y theparticular way human minds create their e'perience of the underlying. s such itpro$a$ly the closest the human mind can come to understanding the thing-in-itself.

The only thing that pure mathematics depends upon anything is the notion ofdistinction. *f * e'perience two apples * am e'periencing two phenomena that candistinguished one from the other; * can eat one and eep the other. * can distinguish$etween the $lac in and the white paper of this page. +"en in the underlying realitythere is distinction; we may not now what the thing-in-itself is really li e, $ut we canmeasure its separation in the spacetime inter"al from another thing-in-itself. *f there

was no distinction in the cosmos, there would $e no difference of any ind. Noe'perience whatsoe"er. The e'istence of distinction is as undenia$le as the e'istenceof e'perience itself

*f there are distinctions, we can count them. The $ase of the counting may "ary. %euse ten 9pro$a$ly $ecause we ha"e ten fingers , computers use two, the a$yloniansused si'ty 9which is why we count si'ty seconds in a minute and si'ty minutes in anhour , other cultures ha"e used fi"e, twel"e or twenty as their $ase.

rom counting comes the concept of num$er, and all the integers. %e can addnum$ers together, leading to multiplication of num$ers, and the their opposites,su$traction and di"ision. rom this simple arithmetic come the concept of nothing,&ero; and $eyond &ero, the negati"e num$ersGnot part of our direct e'perience, $ut aconcept we readily accept and !uite happy to wor with. *n $etween the integers wedisco"er fractional num$ersGnum$ers such as a half, or two thirds, which can $ee'pressed as the ratio of two integers. 6ence their name, the rational num$ers.

@ounting all the num$ers we arri"e at the notion of infinity. nd $etween the rationalnum$ers we disco"er an infinity of irrational or transcendental num$ers that can $ee'pressed as the ration of two integers. Num$ers such as (pi(, the ratio of thecircumference of a circle to its diameter, or (e(, the $ase of natural logarithms. Theycan $e defined, $ut ne"er written down e'actly as a num$er for they go on fore"er,to an infinite num$er of decimal places. ll this from the notion of distinction.

nd there is more. ny positi"e num$er has a s!uare root, the num$er that whenmultiplied $y itself produces that num$er. The s!uare root of one is one; of four it istwo; and of eight it is ?.H?H... 9another irrational num$er that goes on fore"er . utwhat, as ed mathematicians of negati"e num$ers, what multiplied $y itself gi"esminus one3 Nothing in the range so far disco"eredGany num$er, positi"e or negati"ewhen multiplied $y itself results in a positi"e num$er. So they defined the s!uare rootof minus one to $e a totally new num$er, an (imaginary( num$er, not part of therange or (real( num$ers, and ga"e it the sym$ol (i(. rom this arose a new and e"enlarger set of num$ers, the so-called (comple'( num$ers, that were a com$ination ofreal and imaginary num$ers. nd these, it turned out were in"alua$le in helpingmathematicians sol"e e!uations that had no solution in the realm of real num$ers.



0oreo"er the solutions applied to the real world.

1ut of this panoply of num$ers a most remar a$le and intriguing relationshipappeared. The irrational num$er (pi(, the irrational num$er (e(, and the imaginarynum$er (i(, come together in one of simplest e!uations e"er; (e to the power of itimes pi I ->(.

0any mathematicians ha"e eulogi&ed o"er the significance and $eauty of thise!uation. 1ut on the "ery edge of num$er theory a relationship is disco"ered thatseems to show it is all in some way pre-ordained. 7ittle wonder that somemathematicians feel that 8od is to $e found in the $eauty and perfection ofmathematics.

That these three seemingly unconnected num$ers should $e related in such a simpleway was startling enough; $ut e"en more was in store. This simple e!uation is the$asic e!uation of any wa"e motion. +"ery wa"e from a wa"e on water, the air wa"escoming from a "iolin string, to light wa"es, can $e e'pressed as a com$ination ofsimple e!uations of this form. *t also e'presses the or$its of the planets, the swing ofa pendulum and the oscillation of an atom. *n fact, e"ery single motion in the cosmoscan ultimately $e reduced to an e!uation of this form. The whole of !uantum physicsdepends upon it. *f mathematicians had not disco"ered this most remar a$lerelationship, the strange story of the !uantum would ne"er ha"e $een told.

nd all of this without a single empirical o$ser"ation. No wonder then, that in the endall science comes down to mathematics. The "ery fact that it is not $ased uponphenomena, is why it is pro$a$ly the $est appro'imation to the underlying reality weha"e.

Spacetime

%hen we are under the illusion that my image of the world is the real world, we mayassume that many of the !ualities of the phenomena we o$ser"e are independentrealities e'isting in the noumena.

or a long time it was assumed that space and time were fundamental to theunderlying reality. +instein s Theory of Special 4elati"ity came as a great shoc to thisassumption. 6e showed that what we o$ser"e as space and what we o$ser"e as timeare $ut two aspects of a more fundamental spacetime continuum. %hat thiscontinuum is li e we ne"er now -- in this respect it sounds "ery much li e 5ant snoumena. ll we e"er now of it are the ways in which it manifests as the two "erydifferent !ualities of space and time. 0oreo"er, how much of the continuummanifests as space and how much manifests as time "aries according to the relati"emotion of the o$ser"er.

Space and time ha"e fallen from their a$solute status. They are $oth created throughthe act of perception, and so $elong to the relati"e world of e'perience. This is not toimply that they are not fundamental to our e'perience; they are the dimensionalframewor within which we structure our mental image of the world. ut we decei"eoursel"es when we assume that they are also fundamental to the underlying reality.

The 4eality of 7ight

*n proposing his theory +instein postulated that the speed of light was a uni"ersal



constant. 6owe"er fast you may $e mo"ing relati"e to a light $eam, you will alwaysmeasure the speed of light to $e the same -- >HJ,KKK miles per second. +"en if youare mo"ing at LLM the speed of light, a light will still appear to tra"el past you at>HJ,KKK miles per second.

lthough this is totally counter-intuiti"e, e'periments show that it does indeed seem

to $e the case. This raises two difficult !uestions: 6ow come the speed is always thesame3 nd why is light so special3 %hen we distinguish the image of reality from theunderlying reality, the apparent constancy of the speed of light ta es on a "erydifferent nature.

ccording to +instein s e!uations, as an o$ser"er s speed increases, time slows down,and space 9in the direction of motion contracts. t the speed of light, time hasslowed to a standstill and space contracted to a point. lthough no o$ject with masscan e"er attain the speed of light 9+instein s e!uations predict that it would thenha"e an infinite mass , light itself does 9$y definition tra"el at the speed of light.

rom light s point of "iew it has tra"eled no distance, and has ta en no time to do so.

This reflects a uni!ue property of light. *n the spacetime continuum there is noseparation $etween the emission of a light ray and its a$sorption. %hat +insteincalled the (spacetime inter"al( $ewtween the two ends of a light ray is always &ero.

6ow should we understand this3 The answer is that we pro$a$ly should not e"en tryto understand it. ny attempt to do so would once again fall into the mista e ofapplying concepts deri"ed from our image of reality to the underlying reality. ll weneed to recogni&e is that from light s perspecti"e it tra"erses no spacetime inter"al.

6owe"er, when we percei"e the world from our human frame of reference we doindeed o$ser"e a separation $etween the two ends of the light $eam -- the e'actamount of separation depending upon our speed. %e could say the act of perception(stretches out( the &ero inter"al, and di"ides it into a certain amount of space and acertain amount of time. Since the total inter"al remains &ero, the amount of spacecreated e'actly $alances the amount of time created. or e"ery >HJ,KKK miles ofspace, we create > second of time.

%hat we concei"e of as the speed of light is actually something completely different.rom light s point of "iew -- and this after all must $e the most appropriate

perspecti"e from which to consider the nature of light, not our matter-$ound mode ofe'perience -- light tra"els no distance in no time, and therefore has no need of speed.%hat we ta e to $e the speed of light is actually the ratio in which space and timeare created in our image of reality. *t is this ratio that is fi'ed -- and this is why in thephenomenal world the apparent (speed( of light is fi'ed.

%a"e-Particle #uality

%hen we recogni&e that in the real world light does not tra"el across space or time adifficult conundrum in !uantum physics $ecomes much easier to understand. *n ourimage of reality we o$ser"e energy tra"eling from one end of a light ray to the other.*t is only natural to as how the energy tra"els: *s it a wa"e3 1r is it a particle3 9Twomodels $oth drawn from our image of reality.

The answer, it appears, is $oth. *n some situations light $eha"es as a continuouswa"e spreading out in space -- $ut a wa"e without a medium. *n other situations it



$eha"es as a particle tra"eling through space -- $ut a particle without mass.Physicists ha"e accommodated these two strange and seemingly parado'icalconclusions $y deciding that light is a (wa"e-particle.( *n certain circumstances itappears as a wa"e; in others as a particle.

ut if we loo at things from light s point of "iew, it is neither. Since it did not tra"el

through space and time, it needed no "ehicle or mechanism of tra"el -- it has noneed to $e either a wa"e or a particle. s far as light itself is concerned, there is noduality, no parado'.

The physicist s conundrum appears only when we mista e our image of reality withthe (thing in itself(, and try to "isuali&e light in concepts and terms appropriate to ourimage of reality -- i.e., wa"es and particles.

The 0aterial %orld

second conclusion of +instein s Special Theory of 4elati"ity is that matter andenergy are related to each other in a similar way as are space and time. tomicphysics had already shown that solid matter did not really e'ist, our e'perience ofsolid su$stance $eing an appearance generated in the mind. +instein s wor wentfurther, showing that matter does not e'ist in the real world as an independentsu$stance. %hat appears to us as matter and energy are $ound together in hisfamous e!uation eImc?.

0ore fundamental than $oth matter and energy is action. Planc laid the foundationsof !uantum physics with his reali&ation that the indi"isi$le unit in the physical world,the (!uantum( as he called it, was action -- .

%hen we spea of the material world we usually thin we are referring to theunderlying reality -- the world that we are percei"ing (out there(. *n fact we are onlydescri$ing our image of reality. The materiality we e'perience, the solidness we feel,the whole of the (real world( that we now are all aspects of the image created in themind; they are part of our interpretation of reality. Parado'ical as it may sound,matter is something created in the mind.

%hen we reali&e that e"erything we now, including the whole material world that wee'perience (out there( is part of the phenomenon, the image constructed inconsciousness, we find the truth is a complete re"ersal of our e"eryday "iew. 0atter,as we now it, is a creation of consciousness. Not the other way around ascontemporary science presumes.

Thus the ultimate nature of reality -- the reality we e'perience that is, not the realityof of the noumena, of whose nature we ha"e no nowledge -- is consciousness.Space, time, matter, energy -- the whole su$stantial world $uilt up from our sense

perceptions -- is created within consciousness. The essence of this whole phenomenalworld is not matter $ut consciousness.

The a$ric of 4eality

+"erything we now is part of the picture of reality arising in consciousness. This istrue not only of the o$jects we e'perience in the world around; thoughts, feelings andideas are li ewise manifestations within consciousness, and so are the theories weconstruct a$out the nature of the world around. +"erything we now is structured in



consciousness.

@onsciousness is the fa$ric of reality. *t is the medium from which e"ery aspect of oure'perience manifests. @olor, sound, taste, smell, space, time, matter -- e"ery !ualitywe e"er e'perience in the world is a form or !uality within consciousness. 1ur entireimage of reality is generated in and from consciousness.

Similar claims ha"e sometimes $een made $y spiritual teachings -- pro$a$ly mostcoherently $y the Eedantic philosophy of ancient *ndia. The %estern scientific mindhas usually dismissed such suggestions, since they seem to ma e no sensewhatsoe"er. ut they are only nonsensical if we confuse the two realities and thinthese ancient philosophers were spea ing of the underlying reality 9of which wecannot, of necessity, now or spea . *f we consider the reality we e'perience, thenwe ha"e to accept that in the final analysis they are correct: @onsciousness is theessence of e"erything -- e"erything in the nown uni"erse.

The 6ard uestion

%hen we loo at the world, we do not see consciousness (out there(. ll we see arethe "arious forms and !ualities that consciousness has ta en on. To us the (materialworld( appears to $e de"oid of consciousness.

The reason we do not find consciousness in the world we o$ser"e is $ecauseconsciousness is not part of the picture generated in our minds. *t is the can"as onwhich the picture is painted. ut when we mista enly assume that the picture ofreality painted in our mind, is the underlying reality, we find oursel"es presented witha "ery difficult !uestion regarding consciousness: 6ow does conscious e'periencearise or emerge from matter3 This is the so-called (hard !uestion( to which manyscientists and philosophers are currently de"oting considera$le time and attention.

The hard !uestion that these people thin they are as ing is: (6ow does thenoumena gi"e rise to consciousness3( ut nowing "ery little of the noumena, we arenot really in any position e"en to as this !uestion.

The !uestion these people are actually as ing has more to do with our image ofreality than the fundamental reality. They are as ing how it is that a comple' networof neurons can gi"e rise to conscious e'perience. 6ow does something as immaterialas consciousness arise from something as unconscious as the material world3 *s it aresult of the comple' patterning of data across the neural net3 *s it due to !uantumcoherence effects in microtu$ules within the neurons3 1r is it something else3

%hat all these approaches ha"e in common is that they are trying to e'plainconsciousness in terms of phenomena that $elong to our image of reality, which isitself a manifestation within consciousness.

The so-called (hard !uestion( is actually a mista en !uestion. %hen we distinguish$etween the two realities, the !uestion disappears to $e replaced $y its opposite:6ow is it that matter, space, time, color, sound, form, and all the other !ualities wee'perience emerge in consciousness3 %hat is the process of manifestation within themind3

7ocating @onsciousness



nother recurrent !uestion concerns the seat of consciousness. %here is the self, oursense of (*-ness(, located3 *s it in the $rain3 *f so, where3 #espite much thought anddiscussion, no one has yet come up with clear answers to such !uestions.

s with some of the other pro$lematic issues we ha"e loo ed at, this one too stemsfrom confusing the two realities. The !uestion that is actually $eing as ed is (%here

is consciousness located in our image of reality3( There are two answers to this !uestion.

1n the one hand, consciousness is not located anywhere within the world; the wholeworld -- our entire image of reality, including our $odies and $rains -- is itself amanifestation within consciousness. @onsciousness is the container of our world; it isnot contained within it.

1n the other hand, we do clearly e'perience oursel"es to $e located somewherewithin that image. %e ha"e created this image of reality and ha"e !uite naturally putoursel"es at the center of this image. The whole world we ha"e constructed isconstructed around a central point, the center of our perception.

The central point of most of our sensory e'perience is somewhere in the middle ofthe head. %e see oursel"es to $e somewhere $ehind the eyes, and hear oursel"es to$e somewhere $etween the ears. This is where we !uite naturally place oursel"eswithin our image of reality. Since the $rain is also located in the middle of the head, itis easy to assume that consciousness is somehow located in the $rain. ut this neednot necessarily $e so at all.

*magine your $rain $eing located in your pel"is. This would not change youre'perience of $eing somewhere $ehind the eyes and $etween the ears.

*n short, consciousness is not located anywhere within the world, it is that within

which the world is located. ut we create a sense of location for oursel"es within ourimage of the world $y placing oursel"es at the center of our percei"ed world.

8od

%e are now in a $etter position to understand two recurrent themes in spirituale'perience. Throughout human history there ha"e $een mystics of one ind oranother who ha"e proclaimed that (* am 8od(, or words to that effect. To the ears ofesta$lished religion this has often sounded li e heresy; (6ow can this lowly indi"idualclaim that he 9or sometimes she is the almighty, eternal creator3( 6eresy enough toget one imprisoned, tortured, or e"en $urned at the sta e.

Such people are not necessarily deluded &ealots; they are usually people who ha"espent considera$le time e'ploring the depths of human consciousness, and theirreali&ations are not to $e lightly dismissed. *f we loo more closely at theirstatements, what they seem to $e saying is that the (*(, that innermost essence ofoursel"es, that pure consciousness that lies at our core, is a uni"ersal essence.%hate"er we may $e conscious of, the faculty of consciousness is something we allshare.

This consciousness is the one Truth we cannot deny. *t is the a$solute certainty of oure'istence. *t is eternal in that it is always there whate"er the contents of our



e'perience. *t is the essence of e"erything we now. *t is the creator of our world. This is the (8od( that we intuiti"ely new e'isted, $ut ne"er !uite found.

=nity

second recurrent theme in mystical literature is the nowledge of $eing one with allthings, the reali&ation that (* am the =ni"erse(, that all is me, and all is in me. s$efore, these are not necessarily the ra"ings of a deranged mind. *n most spiritualtraditions they signify a high state of consciousness, and generally come from adeptswith many years of inner e'ploration. *t is far more li ely that they represent peoplewho ha"e e'perienced first-hand that the entire uni"erse -- e"erything we now fromthe cells in our $odies to the distant twin ling stars -- e'ists within the mind, not theother way around.

ar from suffering from an illusion, a person in this state is nowing the phenomenalreality for what it is. *t is we who are under an illusion when we $elie"e that the worldwe see around us is actually around us, not within us. These inner e'plorers ha"edisco"ered that it truly is (all in the mind(.

Path of No Path

Documents