http://www.peterrussell.

com The Path of No Path

Spirit of Now

Spiritual teachers with non-dual leanings often say that there is no path to enlightenment. There is nowhere to get to; you are already enlightened, you just do not now it. There is no need for a techni!ue or practice; they will only eep your mind 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 ening occurs, there is the reali&ation that there really was nowhere else to get to, no higher state of consciousness to achie"e. The world remains as it is, and your e'perience remains as it is. %hat shifts is your relationship to e'perience, or rather your nonrelationship to it. The identification with a constructed sense of self is no longer there. ()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 the pro$lem. %hen we let go of all attachments as to how things should or could $e, we wa e up to the truth of what is. +"en the word enlightenment is misleading; it implies some other, (higher(, state of consciousness. This is what ma es the statement (you are already enlightened( so confusing. ,ut to say you are already awa e, $ut not awa e to your own wa efullness, or you are already aware, $ut not fully aware of awareness, ma es more sense. -rom the awa ened perspecti"e, it is true that there is nowhere to get to. This is why many teachers say: #o nothing. Stop. #on.t meditate. #on.t try and get somewhere other than where you already are. There is nowhere to go. Nothing to do. There is no path. /nd yet... 0any of these teachers did tread a path. Some spent years in"estigating the true nature of our apparent (*-ness(. 1thers followed a path of total surrender, or a deep deconstruction of e'perience. 0y own glimpses of the truth ha"e come in periods of deep meditation, when the mind is totally rela'ed and still. Then * see so clearly that there is nothing to do and nowhere to go. /nd yet, if had not followed a path that allowed me to drop into a deep stillness and let go of my ha$itual mode of e'perience, * would not ha"e fully appreciated this truth. So from the unawa e perspecti"e2which is where * am most the time, and pro$a$ly most of you are most the time2there are paths to follow. /nd, until such time as they are no longer needed, the paths that help the most are those that de"elop the s ill of letting 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 do ta e time to let the (doing mind( die away, to sin into your own $eing. Ta e time to learn to do nothing. %hat is %isdom3 %hat is wisdom3 %e hear the word a lot these days2the need for wisdom, the wisdom traditions, wisdom schools. %e each would li e to ha"e more wisdom. /nd for others to ha"e it as well. Too much human hurt and suffering comes from lac of wisdom. ,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 letters pro"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 $uild up understandings a$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 $e lo"ed and appreciated. ,ut do we then use that nowledge to manipulate others for our own ends3 1r do we use it for the $enefit of all, considering how to respond to a situation in ways that are truly caring3 /t present, humanity has "ast amounts of nowledge, $ut still "ery little wisdom. ,uc minster -uller called this time our final e"olutionary e'am. *s our species fit to sur"i"e3 #o we ha"e the wisdom that will allow us to use our prodigious powers for our own good, and for that of many generations to come3 *t is a common perception that wisdom comes with age. The wise ones ha"e learned from e'perience that there is more to life than ac!uiring wealth and fame. They now that lo"e and friendship count for more than what others thin of them. They are generally ind, content in themsel"es. a$le to discern their true self-interest. ,ut why wait until old age3 *n an ideal world we would finish school not only with sufficient nowledge for the life ahead, $ut also with the wisdom of how to use that nowledge. The !uestion then naturally arises: 6ow can we de"elop wisdom3 *t turns out that the wisdom we see is already there, at the heart of our $eing. #eep inside, we now right 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"er trying to help us get the things we $elie"e will $ring us peace and happiness and a"oid those that will $ring pain and suffering. So the real !uestion is: 6ow can we allow the inner light of our innate wisdom to shine through into daily awareness and guide is in our decisions3 /nd that, as many ha"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 doing mode 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 may well $e things that we ha"e to do. ,ut when we are stuc in the (doing mode( our attention 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, without pausing 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 ground tension. 0y attention $ecomes tunnel "ision; * see only what * am doing, and filter out other aspects of the present moment. * miss the $eauty that surrounds me. * $ecome a human doing rather than a human $eing. %hen * am caught in this state * am not usually aware of it. * am so caught in the doing, there is not e"en space in my awareness to appreciate the fact * am caught in it. 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 in the 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 step outside 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 present moment, $ecome aware of your surroundings and how your $ody feels, ta e a few deep $reaths, and smell the roses, Pause to notice how your mind feels when it is in the doing mode. *s there a faint state of tension3 / sense of pressure3 / feeling of focussedness3 / mental intensity3 %hate"er there is, just notice it. #on.t try to get rid of it - that will pro$a$ly only $ecome another (doing( and eep you stuc . 8et to now the feeling of the (doing mode( as fully as you can. /ccept it. 7et it $e. /nd as you do, you.ll pro$a$ly notice it slowly dissol"ing. Set a random timer to remind you of the a$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"e yourself the mental set that you will notice yourself in the doing mode and step out of 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 an e'perience in this moment. 1ur memories of the past are e'periences in the present. So are our thoughts a$out the future. %hen people tal a$out not $eing present, they are usually referring to the attention not $eing in the present moment. %hen our attention is caught up in our thoughts a$out the past or the future, and we are no longer so aware of what is happening now. =nfortunately, most of us spend too much of our time thin ing a$out past and future e"ents. %e sa"or past delights, rejoice in past achie"ements, ponder whether or not we did the right thing, grie"e o"er past losses and disappointments, get angry a$out the way things turned out. 1r we anticipate future delights, plan our $est course of action, worry a$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 es the 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 $e here, now. ,ut what does it mean to $e present3 There are three principal ways in which people use the term. >. 7i"ing for today. Not worrying a$out what happened yesterday; nor a$out what might come tomorrow. This attitude definitely has its "alue. *t may help us ta e life as it comes, and not get so caught up in unnecessary fears and concerns. *t allows us to enjoy more of what life has to offer. ,ut it does not necessarily lead to a fuller awareness of the present moment. 1ne may still $e as caught up in thoughts as $efore, e"en if they $e thoughts of today rather than yesterday or tomorrow. ?. /wareness of present e'perience. This is the starting point for a num$er meditation practices. %hereas most of our thoughts are a$out the past or the future, our sensory e'perience is always (now(. Thus many spiritual teachers ad"ocate placing the attention on $odily sensations2points of contact with the physical world, the heart$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 the present. ;. ,eing at ease with e"erything. This often comes as the result of the long-term practice of meditation.

There is no longer the need to eep the attention to sensory e'perience. 1ne is present to whate"er is2including the arising and passing of thoughts a$out the past or future. Some call this the witness mode. There is deep ease, and profound relief. There is an inner e!uanimity in each moment. *t simply is as it is. There.s No Such Thing as +go * don.t ha"e an ego. /nd nor do you. That doesn.t mean you and * don.t get caught up in egocentric thin ing and $eha"ior, $ut that we are mista en in thin ing of the ego as some separate indi"idual self. some (thing( in the mind. %hen * o$ser"e my own mind, * notice there is an e"er-present sense of (*-ness(. This has $een there all my life, and has not changed. The feeling of $eing (me( is the same feeling * had when * was ten years old. 0y thoughts, feelings, li es, disli es, attitude, character, personality, roles, desires, needs, and $eliefs may ha"e changed considera$ly o"er the years, $ut the sense of (*( has not. * do not find a separate ego, another (self( that sometimes ta es o"er. %hat * find instead are "arious patterns of thin ing that condition how * decide and act. /t times, * may feel fearful or judgmental, and * may $eha"e in ways that are manipulati"e or self-protecti"e. * may thin that if * could just ha"e things $e a particularly way * would $e happy. * may feel insecure and want attention from others, see ing to feel important. * may draw a sense of identity from my social status, the roles * play, my character, or my lifestyle. /nd when this is challenged in some way, * may try to defend and reinforce this constructed sense of identity. *n each case, past e'periences and conditioning create $eliefs, attitudes, needs, desires, and a"ersions. These $ecome the lens through which * see my world, affecting how * interpret my e'perience, the thoughts that arise in my mind, and a whole set of stories a$out what to say or do, in order to get what * thin will $ring ma e me feel $etter. 6owe"er, the (*( that is interpreting and thin ing is the same (*( that is always there. ,ut its attention has $ecome engrossed in some or other (egoic( pattern of thin ing, leading to correspondingly egocentric decisions and actions. %hat we call the ego is not another separate self. *t is as a mode of $eing that can dominate our thin ing, decisions, speech, and actions, leading us to $eha"e in ways that are uncaring, self-centered, or manipulati"e. 1ur e'ploration of ego would $e more fruitful if we stopped using the word as a noun, which immediately implies some (thing(, and instead thought of ego as a mental processes that can occupy our attention. -or this a "er$ is a more appropriate part of speech. * am (ego-ing(. The difference is su$tle, $ut "ery important. *f * see the ego as a separate self, some thing, then it is easy to fall into the $elief2common in many spiritual circles2that * must get rid of my ego, transcend it, or o"ercome it in some way. ,ut seeing ego as a mental process, a system of thin ing that * get caught in, suggests that * need to step

out of that mode of thin ing2to loo at the world through a different lens, one less tainted $y fear, insecurity and attachment. This is a much easier and more effecti"e approach. %hen * notice myself caught up in egoic thin ing, rather than $erating myself 9or my imagined ego:, * can notice what is going 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 $ecomes an ongoing practice rather than a far-off goal. Three %ays to ,e Present *n one sense we are always in the present. +"erything we e'perience is an e'perience in this moment. 1ur memories of the past are e'periences in the present. So are our thoughts a$out the future. %hen people tal a$out not $eing present, they are usually referring to the attention not $eing in the present moment. %hen our attention is caught up in our thoughts a$out the past or the future, and we are no longer so aware of what is happening now. =nfortunately, most of us spend too much of our time thin ing a$out past and future e"ents. %e sa"or past delights, rejoice in past achie"ements, ponder whether or not we did the right thing, grie"e o"er past losses and disappointments, get angry a$out the way things turned out. 1r we anticipate future delights, plan our $est course of action, worry a$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 es the 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 $e here, now. ,ut what does it mean to $e present3 There are three principal ways in which people use the term. >. 7i"ing for today. Not worrying a$out what happened yesterday; nor a$out what might come tomorrow. This attitude definitely has its "alue. *t may help us ta e life as it comes, and not get so caught up in unnecessary fears and concerns. *t allows us to enjoy more of what life has to offer. ,ut it does not necessarily lead to a fuller awareness of the present moment. 1ne may still $e as caught up in thoughts as $efore, e"en if they $e thoughts of today rather than yesterday or tomorrow. ?. /wareness of present e'perience. This is the starting point for a num$er meditation practices.

%hereas most of our thoughts are a$out the past or the future, our sensory e'perience is always (now(. Thus many spiritual teachers ad"ocate placing the attention on $odily sensations2points of contact with the physical world, the heart$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 $ac to the present. ;. ,eing at ease with e"erything. This often comes as the result of the long-term practice of meditation. There is no longer the need to eep the attention to sensory e'perience. 1ne is present to whate"er is2including the arising and passing of thoughts a$out the past or future. Some call this the witness mode. There is deep ease, and profound relief. There is an inner 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 that world of the mind somehow -- in ways we now not how -- arises from the world of matter. * $elie"e this world"iew is slowly, and ine"ita$ly, $eing turned inside out. %e are $eing forced to the conclusion that mind is as fundamental as matter -- in some ways, more fundamental. To most of us immersed in the contemporary world"iew this may seem a "ery $old assertion; un$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$le and totally contrary to the esta$lished world"iew. %hat to us, today, seems, so o$"ious -- namely, that the +arth is or$iting the sun -- was unthin a$le only half a millennium ago. AThe @opernican 4e"olutionB The metaparadigm The @opernican 4e"olution is the classic e'ample of what Thomas 5hun called a Cparadigm shiftD. @urrent paradigms such as #arwin.s theory of e"olution, !uantum theory, ,ig ,ang cosmology, and the genetic code, are each dominating $eliefs within a particular $ranch of science. ,ut $eneath these "arious world"iews lies an e"en deeper $elief. *t is the $elief that the material world is the real world, and that space, 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 see in the world around us, it is seldom, if e"er !uestioned. %hen it comes to the nonmaterial world of the mind, howe"er, the model $egins to encounter difficulties. *t has "ery little to say a$out su$jecti"e e'perience, the thoughts that pass through our minds, our feelings and intuitions, or human self-awareness. *t is simply assumed that once we now e"erything there is to now a$out the functioning of the ner"ous system, all these !uestions will $e answered. 0any see the paranormal, such as telepathy, clair"oyance, distant healing, and precognition as the anomaliesthat will send the old paradigm crashing. ,ut they are not truly anomalies -- not yet, at least. /lthough there is mounting scientific e"idence their fa"or, they are still far from $eing uni"ersally accepted. /s things stand, the paranormal is only a potential anomaly. There is, howe"er, one "ery serious anomaly that e"eryone accepts, and that the current metaparadigm is at a complete loss to e'plain -- namely, our own consciousness. +"en if we were a$le to account for paranormal phenomena within the current world"iew, and e"en if we were a$le to trace the neurophysiological correlates of e"ery conscious e'perience, there would still remain the thorny !uestion of consciousness itself. There is nothing in the physical sciences that predicts li"ing systems should ha"e any form of inner e'perience. -urthermore, there is no easy way to e'plain how consciousness can arise from inanimate matter. )et the e"idence for the e'istence of consciousness is irrefuta$le. *f there is nothing we are more certain of than consciousness; there is also nothing that is harder to e'plain. @onsciousness seems to ha"e no place at all in the spacetime-matter-energy framewor of the contemporary science. This is the parado' of consciousness. Science e'ists only $ecause of consciousness, yet consciousness is not to $e found anywhere in science. Scientists find themsel"es in the strange position 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 as matter gi"e rise to something as immaterial as consciousness3 The two could not $e more fundamentally different. /s far as the materialist metaparadigm is concerned, consciousness is the great anomaly. #efending the metaparadigm The ways in which western science has dealt with the pro$lem of consciousness are reminiscent of the ways the medie"al astronomers dealt with the pro$lem of planetary motion. -or the most part it has ignored consciousness completely -- and with apparently good reasons. -irst, consciousness cannot $e o$ser"ed in the way that material entities can *t cannot $e weighed, measured, or otherwise pinned down. Second, science has sought to arri"e at uni"ersal (o$jecti"e( truths, independent of any particular o$ser"er.s "iewpoint or state of mind. So it has deli$erately a"oided su$jecti"e

considerations. /nd third, matter seems to get on !uite well without consciousness. %e can, it is $elie"ed, come to a full understanding of the material uni"erse without ha"ing to e'plore this trou$lesome su$ject. *n recent years, as de"elopments in physics, psychology, neurophysiology and other sciences ha"e shown that consciousness cannot $e !uite so easily ignored or sidelined, the su$ject is $eginning to creep on to the scientific agenda, and "arious lines of approach are $eing e'plored to try to account for this perple'ing phenomenon. Some loo to !uantum physics. This is one area where there appears to $e a possi$le interplay of consciousness with material reality. Perhaps the minute microtu$ules recently disco"ered inside ner"e cells could act as wa"eguides, creating !uantum coherence in water molecules, which might somehow contri$ute to consciousness 9though e'actly how is unclear:. Some loo to computing theory and suggest that consciousness emerges from the comple'ity of the $rain.s information processing. 1thers find sources of hope in chaos theory. %hile many $elie"e that a deeper understanding of neurophysiology will yield up the secrets of the mind. ,ut whate"er model is put forward, the thorny !uestion still remains as to why any physical process, !uantum or otherwise, should gi"e rise to su$jecti"e e'perience. The really hard pro$lem remains unsol"ed. The continued failure of these "arious approaches to made any apprecia$le headway into the pro$lem of consciousness suggests that they may all $e on the wrong trac . They all assume that consciousness somehow arises from, or is dependent upon, the world of space-matter-time-energy. *n one way or another they are trying to accommodate the anomaly of consciousness within an intrinsically materialist world"iew. 7i e the mediae"al astronomers who ept on adding more and more epicycles, the underlying metaparadigm is seldom, if e"er, !uestioned. / Shifting metaparadigm Today we may $e on the threshold of a major shift in metaparadigm; a fundamental re"olution in world"iew that could well $e e"en more far-reaching than the @opernican 4e"olution, and one that promises to shatter all our $eliefs a$out the nature of reality. 6alf a millennium ago, the old model of the cosmos was turned inside-out, placing the sun, not the earth, at the center of things. Today it is our whole model of reality that is threatened with a complete in"ersion. *n the new model consciousness $ecomes as fundamental to the cosmos as space, time, energy and matter -- in some respects e"en more fundamental. Strange as this may sound to those of immersed in the current materialist world"iew, we should remem$er that it was not so "ery long ago that the notion that the earth was another planet spinning through space was regarded with similar misgi"ings. /ll the ey ingredients for the new model are already in place. %e are not waiting on new disco"eries /ll that we need is to put the "arious pieces together and loo at the new picture of reality that emerges. The foundation stone of the this new model is an understanding of how we percei"e and interpret reality. /d"ances in physics, psychology, and philosophy ha"e shown that we decei"e oursel"es in many ways. 4eality, we shall disco"er, is not what it seems.

?. @onsciousness and 4eality %e don.t now what matter is anymore than we now what mind is. *f there is anything a$out which we feel sure, it is that the world we e'perience is real. %e can see, touch and hear it. %e can lift hea"y and solid o$jects; hurt oursel"es, if we.re not careful, against their unyielding immo$ility. *t seems undenia$le that out there, around us, independent and apart from us, stands a physical 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 the colors we see and the sounds we hear are there, around us, just as we e'perience them. ,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 to me $y my sensory organs. /ll * e"er now of the world around are the images produced in the mind. * thin * am seeing the tree (out there(, in the world around me. ,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 are forced 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"er e'perience the physical world directly; all we e"er now is the image of the world generated in our awareness. /nd that image is no more Cout thereD than are the images of our dreams. *llusory 4ealities %e may find it hard to come to terms with the fact that our normal wa ing e'perience of reality is a manifestation within the mind, $ut in many other instances we 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 $rain is a reality generator as much as an information processor. AEirtual 4ealityB *n all these instances of illusory or artificial realities we readily accept that the confusing or a$normal perception stems from the way the $rain creates our e'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. %e feel that we are e'periencing the world as it is, (out there( in front of us. ,ut how could the illusory perception $e an image in our mind, yet the world in which the illusion occurs $e the physical world around us3 Seeing what isn.t there 0any other creations of the mind we dismiss as hallucinations. These are typically e'periences which occur under the influence of drugs, and during illness, e'treme fatigue or stress. -or one reason or another the electro-chemical processes are modified in some way, leading the $rain to generate a different different image of reality. 1ne may percei"e unusual colors or patterns, percei"e time and space differently, or e'perience some other (non-ordinary( manifestation in consciousness. %e call such images (hallucinations( $ecause they do not concur with our normal e'perience of reality, or with the reality that other people e'perience. %e say we are seeing things that are not really there. ,ut, surprising as it may at first seem, this is what we are doing all the time. +"en in normal, e"eryday perception, the ind we all agree upon, we are seeing things that are not really there. @olor, sound, smell, and all the other !ualities of e'perience are not !ualities of the physical world; they e'ist only in the mind. The fact that we create our e'perience of reality does not imply that there is no underlying reality. %hen a tree falls in the forest, there is a specific e"ent that is happening 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 the e'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 of the 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 translated as (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 myself when * 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 of information, encoded as electronic states in the circuitary of the chips. Software in the computer processes this data, putting it into a form that when sent to the monitor causes it to light the screen in particular ways. The image that is created may $e deri"ed from the data in the central processor, $ut it is not the same as the data. The computer is not producing some faithful imitation of an image held in memory. /ll there is is code; microscopic electronic switches that are either Con.; or CoffD. There is no 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 underlying reality that we ne"er now directly, $ut which is the source of our e'perience. *n *ndian philosophy these two realities are sometimes referred to as the /$solute and the 4elati"e. The /$solute is the underlying reality. *t does not change according to who is e'periencing it. *t is, as it is, an independent reality. The 4elati"e is the reality we o$ser"e, the reality generated in our minds. There is just one /$solute; $ut there are numerous relati"e realities, each relati"e to a particular e'periencer at a particular point in space and time. 1ther times they are spo en of as the unmanifest and manifest le"els of reality. Species-Specific 4ealities 6ow we construct our image of the world is determined $y our sensory organs and ner"ous system. 0ost human $eings ha"e "ery similar sensory organs -- my eye, for e'ample, is "irtually identical to yours -- and the neural processing of the sensory data follows "ery similar pathways. %e recei"e the same data, analy&e it in the same way, and so create "ery similar pictures of reality -- unless, that is, a person is color$lind, near-sighted, or tone deaf, in which case we ma e allowances for our different perceptions The fact that we seldom disagree on our e'perience of reality reinforces our assumption that we are seeing reality as it is. ,ut if we could communicate with other creatures 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 wider range of molecules. *f we could put oursel"es in a dog.s mind we would find a somewhat different perception of reality. A6ow other species e'perience reality.B -rom Plato The reali&ation that we do not e'perience reality as it is, $ut only a picture of reality constructed in the mind, is not new. *n The 4epu$lic, Plato argued that the o$jects we percei"e are not the ultimate reality, $ut more li e a shadow of reality. 6e illustrated this 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 sights and sounds we percei"e are the (real world(. %hen science inform us that we are not seeing reality as it is, $ut merely the images that manifests in our minds, we shrug in dis$elief. 6ow can that $e3 6ow can the world that * e'perience so clearly as (out there(, $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 greatest contri$utions in this area was the eighteenth-century 8erman philosopher *mmanuel 5ant. ,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 insight was 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 $e(. The underlying reality he called the noumenon, a 8ree word meaning Cthat which is apprehended(, the thing percei"ed. 5ant.s statement that the noumenon is fore"er un nowa$le should $e interpreted as fore"er ine'perienca$le. The mind is fore"er $arred from a direct nowing of the thing-in-itself. This does not imply that we cannot understand it, or form concepts a$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 sensory data, 5ant reasoned thatour e'perience is as much a reflection of the nature of the mind as it is of the physical world. This led him to one of his $oldest, and at that time most astonishing, conclusions of all. Time and space, he argued, are not inherent !ualities of the physical world; they are a reflection of the way the mind operates, the perceptual framewor within which our entire e'perience of the world is constructed. *t seems a$solutely o$"ious to us that time and space are real and fundamental !ualities of the physical world, entirely independent of my or your consciousness -- as o$"ious as it seemed to people fi"e hundred years ago that the sun mo"es round the earth. This, said 5ant, is only $ecause we cannot see the world any other way. The human mind is so constituted that it is forced to impose the framewor of space and time on the raw sensory data in order to ma e any sense of it all. %e are fore"er constrained to construct our e'perience within these dimensions -- much as a computer is fore"er constrained to present its data in the two-dimensional format of the 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$ly still undenia$le that the world we e'perience e'tends out there around us -- $ut we shall see shortly that it is a reali&ation that contemporary physics is also coming round to accepting. ,ut perhaps the most remar a$le aspect of 5ant.s wor was that he came to these conclusions without any of our contemporary scientific nowledge of the world, or any understanding of the physiology of of perception. 6ad he nown what we now now, 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, as 5ant 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 the mo"ements of the stars are determined $y the mo"ement of the earth, 5ant had turned the epistemological world inside out. %e are not passi"e e'periencers of the world; we are the creators of the world we e'perience. 6e had put the self firmly at the center of things. 5nowing and Seeing

1ur tacit assumption that we percei"e the world as it is, has $ecome so deeply ingrained that it is "ery hard indeed to appreciate that our image of reality is a construction within our own mind. +"en when we intellectually accept the fact, as e"entually we must, it is still e'tremely difficult not to see the image we ha"e created as (out there(. *n fact, we will pro$a$ly always see it this way. ,ut that is not to say it is not possi$le to see it otherwise. *t may $e that spiritual adepts who ha"e made a deep personal in"estigation into the nature of the mind, e'plored the wor ings of their own consciousness, and witnessed the arising of e'perience, ha"e come to see it that way. Throughout the mystical and spiritual literature of the world are e'amples of indi"iduals who ha"e claimed that the whole world is within them rather thant around them, 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 who ha"e e'perienced first-hand that the entire uni"erse -- e"erything we now from the cells in our $odies to the distant twin ling stars -- e'ists within the mind, not the other way around. -ar from suffering from an illusion, a person in this state is nowing the phenomenal reality for what it is. *t is we who are under an illusion when we $elie"e that the world we see around us is Cout thereD around us, rather than within us. The 5ey +"en though most of us are pro$a$ly far from such ad"anced states of consciousness, it is important that we do not $ecome seduced $y our daily e'perience into false $eliefs a$out the true nature of things. %e may still see the sun going down, $ut we now reality is different, and ta e this into account in our considerations of the cosmos. The difference with the 5antian 4e"olution 9let.s follow tradition and name it after one its founding fathers: is that the shift in metaparadigm is not yet complete. /ll the pieces are in place -- just as all the rele"ant pieces of the @opernican 4e"olution were in place $y the early se"enteenth century -- $ut they ha"e not yet $een put together into a coherent model, and the implications ha"e still to sin in. The foundation stone of the emerging metaparadigm is the distinction $etween the phenomenon, the reality generated in the mind, and the un nowa$le reality, or noumenon, that underlies it. %hen this distinction is clear, many anomalies and apparently intracta$le pro$lems across a $road spectrum of human endea"or either dissol"e or ta e on an entirely different nature. The (hard pro$lem( of how consciousness arises from matter is turned inside out So is 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 !uantum mechanics. *t also offers a new perspecti"e on many spiritual teachings. 4eligion and science may not $e as antithetically opposed as many $elie"e; the new model suggests an alternati"e, and far more enlightening, meaning to 8od. ,ut the ramifications are not just academic or philosophical. They ha"e "ery practical implications 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 human affairs. 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"es is focused onto the retina of my eye, where it creates an image of the world (out there(. Photo-sensiti"e cells in the retina a$sor$ the light.s energy, triggering a series of chemical reactions that release electrons. Neurons connected to the cells amplify these discharges and turn them into electrical impulses which are carried $y the optic ner"e $ac to the $rain. 6ere the raw data undergoes a comple' array of processes that e'tract from it shapes, patterns, colors, mo"ements and other features. @omparing these with past e'periences, e'pectations, and other information, the information is integrated into a single picture, and and an image of the tree appears in my consciousness. Fust how this happens is the (hard !uestion( we touched on earlier, and we need not trou$le oursel"es with it anymore for the moment; $ut what is undenia$le is that it does happen. There arises the conscious e'perience of seeing the tree. Similar processes happen with the other senses. Ei$rations in the air emanating from a "iolin trigger minute hairs in the ear, sending electrical impulses to the $rain where they undergo an e!ually comple' and unfathoma$le processing, which culminates in the e'perience of a sound. Pressure sensiti"e cells in the s in relay messages $ac to the $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 ewise send data to the $rain where, in the same mysterious manner, they gi"e rise to e'periences of smell and taste.

0athematics and 4eality The !uestion is sometimes raised as to how it is that mathematics, which is a creation 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 we e'perience and the underlying reality, the correlation $etween mathematics and reality is not so surprising. Science ta es our o$ser"ations of the e'ternal world and see s to understand how they occur and to disco"er underlying patterns and principles. *n doing so, it ine"ita$ly draws upon e'perience %hen atoms were first imagined, they were thought of as small solid $alls of matterGa model clearly drawn from e"eryday e'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. %e interpret them as wa"es or $undles of energy, possessing (spin( and mass. )et e"ery model we come up with, fails in some way or another to capture the essence of the underlying 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. /ll scientific 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 $e far more surprising would $e to find that the image of reality created in the human mind 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 $y pure reason, and does not rely upon any o$ser"ations of the phenomenal world. *t is free from the limitations imposed $y the particular way human minds create their e'perience of the underlying. /s such it pro$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 of distinction. *f * e'perience two apples * am e'periencing two phenomena that can distinguished 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 reality there is distinction; we may not now what the thing-in-itself is really li e, $ut we can measure its separation in the spacetime inter"al from another thing-in-itself. *f there was no distinction in the cosmos, there would $e no difference of any ind. No e'perience whatsoe"er. The e'istence of distinction is as undenia$le as the e'istence of e'perience itself *f there are distinctions, we can count them. The $ase of the counting may "ary. %e use ten 9pro$a$ly $ecause we ha"e ten fingers:, computers use two, the ,a$ylonians used si'ty 9which is why we count si'ty seconds in a minute and si'ty minutes in an hour:, 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 add num$ers together, leading to multiplication of num$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 a concept we readily accept and !uite happy to wor with. *n $etween the integers we disco"er fractional num$ersGnum$ers such as a half, or two thirds, which can $e e'pressed as the ratio of two integers. 6ence their name, the rational num$ers. @ounting all the num$ers we arri"e at the notion of infinity. /nd $etween the rational num$ers we disco"er an infinity of irrational or transcendental num$ers that can $e e'pressed as the ration of two integers. Num$ers such as (pi(, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, or (e(, the $ase of natural logarithms. They can $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 when multiplied $y itself produces that num$er. The s!uare root of one is one; of four it is two; and of eight it is ?.H?H... 9another irrational num$er that goes on fore"er:. ,ut what, as ed mathematicians of negati"e num$ers, what multiplied $y itself gi"es minus one3 Nothing in the range so far disco"eredGany num$er, positi"e or negati"e when multiplied $y itself results in a positi"e num$er. So they defined the s!uare root of minus one to $e a totally new num$er, an (imaginary( num$er, not part of the range or (real( num$ers, and ga"e it the sym$ol (i(. -rom this arose a new and e"en larger set of num$ers, the so-called (comple'( num$ers, that were a com$ination of real and imaginary num$ers. /nd these, it turned out were in"alua$le in helping mathematicians 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 relationship appeared. The irrational num$er (pi(, the irrational num$er (e(, and the imaginary num$er (i(, come together in one of simplest e!uations e"er; (e to the power of i times pi I ->(. 0any mathematicians ha"e eulogi&ed o"er the significance and $eauty of this e!uation. 1ut on the "ery edge of num$er theory a relationship is disco"ered that seems to show it is all in some way pre-ordained. 7ittle wonder that some mathematicians feel that 8od is to $e found in the $eauty and perfection of mathematics. That these three seemingly unconnected num$ers should $e related in such a simple way 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"es coming from a "iolin string, to light wa"es, can $e e'pressed as a com$ination of simple e!uations of this form. *t also e'presses the or$its of the planets, the swing of a pendulum and the oscillation of an atom. *n fact, e"ery single motion in the cosmos can ultimately $e reduced to an e!uation of this form. The whole of !uantum physics depends upon it. *f mathematicians had not disco"ered this most remar a$le relationship, 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 end all science comes down to mathematics. The "ery fact that it is not $ased upon phenomena, is why it is pro$a$ly the $est appro'imation to the underlying reality we ha"e. Spacetime %hen we are under the illusion that my image of the world is the real world, we may assume that many of the !ualities of the phenomena we o$ser"e are independent realities e'isting in the noumena. -or a long time it was assumed that space and time were fundamental to the underlying reality. +instein.s Theory of Special 4elati"ity came as a great shoc to this assumption. 6e showed that what we o$ser"e as space and what we o$ser"e as time are $ut two aspects of a more fundamental spacetime continuum. %hat this continuum is li e we ne"er now -- in this respect it sounds "ery much li e 5ant.s noumena. /ll we e"er now of it are the ways in which it manifests as the two "ery different !ualities of space and time. 0oreo"er, how much of the continuum manifests as space and how much manifests as time "aries according to the relati"e motion of the o$ser"er. Space and time ha"e fallen from their a$solute status. They are $oth created through the act of perception, and so $elong to the relati"e world of e'perience. This is not to imply that they are not fundamental to our e'perience; they are the dimensional framewor within which we structure our mental image of the world. ,ut we decei"e oursel"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 always measure the speed of light to $e the same -- >HJ,KKK miles per second. +"en if you are 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 $e the case. This raises two difficult !uestions: 6ow come the speed is always the same3 /nd why is light so special3 %hen we distinguish the image of reality from the underlying reality, the apparent constancy of the speed of light ta es on a "ery different nature. /ccording to +instein.s e!uations, as an o$ser"er.s speed increases, time slows down, and space 9in the direction of motion: contracts. /t the speed of light, time has slowed to a standstill and space contracted to a point. /lthough no o$ject with mass can e"er attain the speed of light 9+instein.s e!uations predict that it would then ha"e an infinite mass:, light itself does 9$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 no separation $etween the emission of a light ray and its a$sorption. %hat +instein called 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$ly should not e"en try to understand it. /ny attempt to do so would once again fall into the mista e of applying concepts deri"ed from our image of reality to the underlying reality. /ll we need to recogni&e is that from light.s perspecti"e it tra"erses no spacetime inter"al. 6owe"er, when we percei"e the world from our human frame of reference we do indeed o$ser"e a separation $etween the two ends of the light $eam -- the e'act amount 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 a certain amount of time. Since the total inter"al remains &ero, the amount of space created e'actly $alances the amount of time created. -or e"ery >HJ,KKK miles of space, 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 of e'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 time are created in our image of reality. *t is this ratio that is fi'ed -- and this is why in the phenomenal 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 a difficult conundrum in !uantum physics $ecomes much easier to understand. *n our image of reality we o$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 9Two models $oth drawn from our image of reality.: The answer, it appears, is $oth. *n some situations light $eha"es as a continuous wa"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'ical conclusions $y deciding that light is a (wa"e-particle.( *n certain circumstances it appears 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 no need to $e either a wa"e or a particle. /s far as light itself is concerned, there is no duality, no parado'. The physicist.s conundrum appears only when we mista e our image of reality with the (thing in itself(, and try to "isuali&e light in concepts and terms appropriate to our image of reality -- i.e., wa"es and particles. The 0aterial %orld / second conclusion of +instein.s Special Theory of 4elati"ity is that matter and energy are related to each other in a similar way as are space and time. /tomic physics had already shown that solid matter did not really e'ist, our e'perience of solid su$stance $eing an appearance generated in the mind. +instein.s wor went further, showing that matter does not e'ist in the real world as an independent su$stance. %hat appears to us as matter and energy are $ound together in his famous e!uation eImc?. 0ore fundamental than $oth matter and energy is action. Planc laid the foundations of !uantum physics with his reali&ation that the indi"isi$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 the underlying reality -- the world that we are percei"ing (out there(. *n fact we are only descri$ing our image of reality. The materiality we e'perience, the solidness we feel, the whole of the (real world( that we now are all aspects of the image created in the mind; they are part of our interpretation of reality. Parado'ical as it may sound, matter is something created in the mind. %hen we reali&e that e"erything we now, including the whole material world that we e'perience (out there( is part of the phenomenon, the image constructed in consciousness, we find the truth is a complete re"ersal of our e"eryday "iew. 0atter, as we now it, is a creation of consciousness. Not the other way around as contemporary science presumes. Thus the ultimate nature of reality -- the reality we e'perience that is, not the reality of of the noumena, of whose nature we ha"e no nowledge -- is consciousness. Space, time, matter, energy -- the whole su$stantial world $uilt up from our sense perceptions -- is created within consciousness. The essence of this whole phenomenal world is not matter $ut consciousness. The -a$ric of 4eality +"erything we now is part of the picture of reality arising in consciousness. This is true not only of the o$jects we e'perience in the world around; thoughts, feelings and ideas are li ewise manifestations within consciousness, and so are the theories we construct a$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 our e'perience manifests. @olor, sound, taste, smell, space, time, matter -- e"ery !uality we e"er e'perience in the world is a form or !uality within consciousness. 1ur entire image of reality is generated in and from consciousness. Similar claims ha"e sometimes $een made $y spiritual teachings -- pro$a$ly most coherently $y the Eedantic philosophy of ancient *ndia. The %estern scientific mind has usually dismissed such suggestions, since they seem to ma e no sense whatsoe"er. ,ut they are only nonsensical if we confuse the two realities and thin these ancient philosophers were spea ing of the underlying reality 9of which we cannot, of necessity, now or spea :. *f we consider the reality we e'perience, then we ha"e to accept that in the final analysis they are correct: @onsciousness is the essence of e"erything -- e"erything in the nown uni"erse. The 6ard Nuestion %hen we loo at the world, we do not see consciousness (out there(. /ll we see are the "arious forms and !ualities that consciousness has ta en on. To us the (material world( appears to $e de"oid of consciousness. The reason we do not find consciousness in the world we o$ser"e is $ecause consciousness is not part of the picture generated in our minds. *t is the can"as on which the picture is painted. ,ut when we mista enly assume that the picture of reality painted in our mind, is the underlying reality, we find oursel"es presented with a "ery difficult !uestion regarding consciousness: 6ow does conscious e'perience arise or emerge from matter3 This is the so-called (hard !uestion( to which many scientists and philosophers are currently de"oting considera$le time and attention. The hard !uestion that these people thin they are as ing is: (6ow does the noumena gi"e rise to consciousness3( ,ut nowing "ery little of the noumena, we are not 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 of reality than the fundamental reality. They are as ing how it is that a comple' networ of neurons can gi"e rise to conscious e'perience. 6ow does something as immaterial as consciousness arise from something as unconscious as the material world3 *s it a result of the comple' patterning of data across the neural net3 *s it due to !uantum coherence 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'plain consciousness in terms of phenomena that $elong to our image of reality, which is itself 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 we e'perience emerge in consciousness3 %hat is the process of manifestation within the mind3 7ocating @onsciousness

/nother recurrent !uestion concerns the seat of consciousness. %here is the self, our sense of (*-ness(, located3 *s it in the $rain3 *f so, where3 #espite much thought and discussion, no one has yet come up with clear answers to such !uestions. /s with some of the other pro$lematic issues we ha"e loo ed at, this one too stems from 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 whole world -- our entire image of reality, including our $odies and $rains -- is itself a manifestation within consciousness. @onsciousness is the container of our world; it is not contained within it. 1n the other hand, we do clearly e'perience oursel"es to $e located somewhere within that image. %e ha"e created this image of reality and ha"e !uite naturally put oursel"es at the center of this image. The whole world we ha"e constructed is constructed around a central point, the center of our perception. The central point of most of our sensory e'perience is somewhere in the middle of the 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"es within our image of reality. Since the $rain is also located in the middle of the head, it is easy to assume that consciousness is somehow located in the $rain. ,ut this need not necessarily $e so at all. *magine your $rain $eing located in your pel"is. This would not change your e'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 our image 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 spiritual e'perience. Throughout human history there ha"e $een mystics of one ind or another who ha"e proclaimed that (* am 8od(, or words to that effect. To the ears of esta$lished religion this has often sounded li e heresy; (6ow can this lowly indi"idual claim that he 9or sometimes she: is the almighty, eternal creator3( 6eresy enough to get one imprisoned, tortured, or e"en $urned at the sta e. Such people are not necessarily deluded &ealots; they are usually people who ha"e spent considera$le time e'ploring the depths of human consciousness, and their reali&ations are not to $e lightly dismissed. *f we loo more closely at their statements, what they seem to $e saying is that the (*(, that innermost essence of oursel"es, that pure consciousness that lies at our core, is a uni"ersal essence. %hate"er we may $e conscious of, the faculty of consciousness is something we all share. This consciousness is the one Truth we cannot deny. *t is the a$solute certainty of our e'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 all things, 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 spiritual traditions they signify a high state of consciousness, and generally come from adepts with many years of inner e'ploration. *t is far more li ely that they represent people who ha"e e'perienced first-hand that the entire uni"erse -- e"erything we now from the cells in our $odies to the distant twin ling stars -- e'ists within the mind, not the other way around. -ar from suffering from an illusion, a person in this state is nowing the phenomenal reality for what it is. *t is we who are under an illusion when we $elie"e that the world we see around us is actually around us, not within us. These inner e'plorers ha"e disco"ered that it truly is (all in the mind(.