Inside or outside

Things that we see, things that we hear are said to be outside.

While thoughts that appear emotions that are felt are assumed to be inside of me.

This distinction is arbitrary and just a manner of thinking.

In reality what happens is that everything is outside of me.

I can perceive things both "inside" and "outside".

And thus I perceive all, nothing that I perceive is inside.

All perception though is through the senses. Thus the traditional view of 5 senses is quite incorrect.

Corresponding to these 5 senses there must be many others.

For example we perceive pain, now which sense is this?

Internal senses that perceive emotions, thoughts pain feeling.

If there were truly something inside me I would not be able to perceive it.

Is enlightenment for all?

Is it possible for an animal or child or mentally challenged person to be enlightened?

Very likely not and here we come to the role of discriminative intellect.

In and of itself consciousness does not know it's nature. Only through calm observation and discrimination can it appreciate the distinction among consciousness (itself) and attachment.

All this requires the discriminating faculty which is only present in (some) adult humans. Even there it is rare because it is developed through much practice in mediation (such as Vipassana).

A somewhat simplified analogy can be that of quantum physics. Although it us the way that things work and have always worked only few can grasp it and the knowledge of it took a lot of time to appear amongst humanity.

So is the knowledge of the self. Knowledge is in the nature of the intellect and not of the self/consciousness itself.

Thus the state of knowledge or enlightenment is not possible in animals children etc unless the intellect is also present.

That is it is possible but since discriminative intellect is a prerequisite it is quite unlikely.

Story of the three robbers

Once a man went through a thick forest. Three robbers stopped him on the way. They took away everything he had. The first robber tied him to a tree. The second robber said let's kill him here. The third robber said we have got what we needed, let him be, he will die on his own or survive as may be his fate.

And so off they went leaving the traveler behind.

Later the third robber returned he gave the poor traveler food and drink and when his strength was restore took him to the gates of the city.
Oh traveler you must travel from here to the city on your own said he.

But good sir you have between so kind. Come with me to the city leave those wicked people behind. A virtuous person like you surely will be forgiven. I have heard that a great king lives in these walls. He treats everyone equally.

Said the robber, oh man I cannot enter the gates of this city.

This city will burn me if I enter here.

For I like my brothers am a creature of the forest.

My work is done here. I must leave.

And off he went back.

(Originally narrated by Sri Ramakrishna)

Schrodinger

Schrodinger is one of the fathers of quantum physics. At the heart of quantum mechanics lies the Schrodinger equation.

Schrodinger is one of the rare scientists who has thought deeply about the process of science itself. As pointed out earlier on this blog, he also recognizes that at the that science excludes the observer from the field of observation. While it is the most important thing in the whole  business of life (the ground of being as vedanta says). In addition science also excludes subjective objects from its enquiry, leaving a "colourless and soundless and unpalpable" universe.

Here is a collection of some of the quotes from him on these lines.

"[the principle of objectivation] [...] By this I mean the thing that is also frequently called the "hypothesis of the real world" around us. I maintain that it amounts to a certain simplification which we adopt in order to master the infinitely intricate problem of nature. Without being aware of it and without being rigorously systematic about it, we exclude the Subject of Cognizance from the domain of nature that we endeavor to understand."


"[...] The reason why our sentient, percipient and thinking ego is met nowhere within our scientific world picture can easily be indicated in seven words: because it is itself that world picture. It is identical with the whole and therefore cannot be contained in it as a part of it. But, of course, here we knock against the arithmetical paradox; there appears to be a great multitude of these conscious egos, the world is however only one. This comes from the fashion in which the world concept produces itself. The several domains of 'private' consciousness partly overlap. The region common to all where they all overlap is the construct of the 'real world around us'. With all that an uncomfortable feeling remains, prompting such question as: is my world really the same as yours? Is there one real world to be distinguished from its pictures introjected by way of perception into every one of us? And if so, are these pictures like unto the real world or is the latter, the 'world in itself', perhaps very different from the one we perceive? [...]

There is obviously one one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousness. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only one mind. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. [...]

Still, it must be said that to Western thought this doctrine has little appeal, it is unpalatable, it is dubbed fantastic, unscientific. Well, it is so because our science – Greek science – is based on objectivation, whereby it has cut itself off from an adequate understanding of the Subject of Cognitanze, of the mind. But I do believe that this is precisely the point where our present way of thinking does need to be amended, perhaps by a bit of a blood-transfusion from Eastern thought. That will not be easy, we must beware of blunders – blood transfusion always needs great precaution to prevent clotting. We do not wish to lose the logical precision that our scientific thought has reached, and that is unparalleled anywhere at any epoch. [...]

Objective and Subjective

I am is the only subject, while anything else that can be perceived is an object.

Here is what objective and subjective mean in normal language.

Objective means something that can be observed by many subjects. Such as trees, clouds, cars basically anything external.

Subjective means something that can be perceived by a single subject.  Such as thoughts emotions feeling which are essentially internal.

Note that the so called subjective things are what are most important to me.

While the objective things are of secondary importance, in fact they derive their importance from my subjective thoughts and emotions about them.

Science as by its nature only focuses on the objective things.