Fluid versus spatial paradigms
The “sharp distinction between the individual and everything else” only applies to our spatial presence. Our immediacy extends beyond this boundary. The so-called inner and outer worlds are intertwined within our consciousness. One's perspective emerges from the changing appearance of one's surroundings and the so-called "outer" reality only gains its spatial character from the projection of one's own presence. What emerges from this discussion, however, is a distinction between "spatial" and "fluid" paradigms, where space is in fact ‘imagined’ and the nature of transcendence extends beyond our physical boundary.
While it is perfectly sensible to treat the world as objectively present, the spatial paradigm is by definition divisive. Trapped in this mindset, the individual is bound to adopt materialist values. Identifying with possessions does allude to a connection with the world. But it is a fragile connection, always threatened by changing circumstances, and apparently insatiable.
By contrast, the fluid paradigm is inclusive. However, the nature of this connection is not to be understood in spatial terms. It sounds absurd to say that: "the self is endless and intimately interwoven with everyone and everything the mind senses" without first dissolving the spatial paradigm. It infers that the mind is misinterpreting its relationship to the world. On the contrary, during transcendence, the mind perceives the foundation of its own presence. The extraordinary connection felt during meditation doesn’t just feel real it is real. But it is a connection to the present moment, rather than the physical world as such. The error is understandable though, given that one’s surroundings factor in the creation of one’s perspective.
Continue.
<< Home