THE NATURE OF THE INNER AND OUTER WORLD

 

An address given by V.W.Fra. M.H.J.W. Maas VIIº to Felkin College on the 1^st December 2006

 

Fratres,

Some time ago I put before you some thoughts on the Inner and Outer World.

We considered some of the differences and similarities  between the two and concluded that despite our instinctive belief there is no reason to attribute more reality to the Outer World than to the Inner. The proof for the existence is equally valid for both the Inner and the Outer World. That proof we saw is the fact that we experience them both. We ended with concluding that the Inner and Outer World are part of one system and that they are connected in our person. I ended with some speculation on the shape of the combined Inner and Outer World and suggested that it might be circular

Tonight when reflecting on the nature of the Inner and the Outer World I have to say that those speculations were somewhat ill considered for two reasons. First apparently in the discussion we assumed that what we experience is actually how things are and that the Universe as a whole can be experienced by us. We have no proof for that and given the change our concept of the Universe has gone through over time it is wiser to assume that our concept of the Universe does not describe the Universe as is but only our relations with it and how we experience it.

Second: attributing a form to the known Universe which the combined Inner and Outer World are is somewhat hasty. Form implies a boundary a plane which separates the Universe from what is not the Universe. That immediately implies a new unity consisting of our Universe and that which is not our Universe or outside it. This will constitute a new Universe consisting of our Universe and that which it is not or which is beyond its boundary. We can of course repeat this trick and again and again. It seems simpler to state that our Universe is larger or beyond what we can think. It will be safest to stick with Lao Tse who stated that the Universe or All which can be defined in some way can not be the All.

In our discussion further we noted that  the Inner World had some characteristics that are not seen in the Outer World. In our Inner World we are not bound by the Necessity of time. We saw that we can be at two place at the same time and can go from one time location to another without having to go through the sequence of events in between. We saw that both worlds, the Inner as well as the Outer, contain similar and in many instances the same events. They only differ in the arrangement  of those events in time and place.

On the basis of the fore going considerations we have to reconsider the nature of the Inner and Outer World.

Our early reflections did suggest that the Inner and Outer World are somehow not coinciding but in some way separate and only connected in our person through our perception. In hindsight I do believe that this concept is not tenable.

In the case of our Worlds it will be as in science: the simpler explanation has a higher likelihood of being a more accurate representation of the reality.

The hypothesis that we are dealing with one Universe or All which we perceive in different modes is by far the simplest explanation of the phenomena we described in our first discussion of the Inner and Outer World. It leaves the Universe or All as one continuos reality and explains the two worlds as the outcome of two modes of perceiving. We organise our experiences of the All in the two modes in two different conceptual frameworks. One 3D concept which we earlier called the Outer World and one concept in 4D which we named our Inner World. We are by far better trained and possibly equipped to construct 3D concepts of the All, but we have seen that we do perceive the All in 4D.

The foregoing has some intriguing implications. It firstly implies that the All is at the same time and 3D and 4D. We are so used to regarding our 3D concept of the All as the All that the concept of the Universe to be and 3D and 4D at the same time is a bit unreal. But we have earlier seen that the All that can be defined is not the All. So we must not define the Universe or All as structured in a defined number of dimensions. The All is non dimensional meaning that it can be experienced in any system of whatever dimensions be it 2D 3D. 6D  whatever D, each system will give a true concept of the All be it a defined and therefore imperfect one.

It is this experience that is expressed in the Buddhist concept of the World as Maya that is a phenomenon an image created by our senses which has limited reality if any at all.

As the All is undefined and beyond definition there is a deep truth in this concept.

Our concept of the All is only an awareness of our relation with the All and is shaped probably more in our image than that it shows some of the intricate complexity of the All and Ultimate Reality.

But there is more. We saw that in the 3D world we could be in one place only at any given time and to go from one place to another we had to follow the time line. We are free in the 3D world to move  but we are bound to Time. Time is the necessity we can not escape.

We also observed that in our 4D world, which we named the Inner, we are no longer bound by time we can be on two places at the same time and when going from one place to another we do not have to go through  a sequence of places on a timeline.

Apparently the necessity of our 3D world is the Fourth Dimension or Time.

It seems to be logical that the necessity in our Inner or 4D world will be the Fifth dimension.

And what is this Fifth dimension this Necessity we can not escape from in the 4D world?

In order to have a concept of the All or coordinated experiences of the All we do need a person, a centre in which these experiences are coordinated. It is logical to take our person  or awareness of our individuality and the organising core of the concept of the world as the Necessity in our 4D world, the Fifth Dimension we can not transgress. Accepting the validity of our thinking will raise some questions.

This is  all very interesting but have we any indication that this concept is anything more than an imagination or a play on words?

Can we all learn to perceive the 4D and 5D All.?

When it is a valid concept is it any use to develop and investigate this further?

The reality of the 4d World is not really in doubt. We all have had experiences of it.

How about the 5D Universe the one beyond the necessity of our individuality?

There are some indications that perception of the All beyond our individuality is possible. I believe that the description of the  Mystic Union , Nirvana, Enlightenment amongst many others as described by various mystics of all kind of religions are proof that a 5D perception of the All is possible .

Not many of us have had experiences of it and those who profess to have had them have pointed out ways to get there that are impractical and based on the support of many others to provide the daily needs of those who go there.

Can we all go there. Contrary to many religions and Esoteric societies who adhere to the saying many are called but only few chosen I believe we can. We humans have 99.999 or so of our genes in common, only a few minor variations separate us. Undoubtedly some will be better at it than others but we all can. Just like we can not all run 100 m within ten seconds, but we can all run 100 m.

Why have we not developed these skills and have only very few of us been able to experience this World?.

The answer is a bit longer. In our long evolution we have been very dependent on the our 3D concept of the world for our survival. We have been very much evolved towards favouring our senses that contribute to the 3D concept of the world. We have so far neglected developing our senses for perceiving 4D and 5D.

What we now need to do is like we have done in the 3D concept, we need to systematically observe ,describe form concepts and theories and go back and test those. In this way we can raise our sensitivity and learn to be aware of our 4D and 5D experiences and learn to bring these together in a coherent concept.

Last would we want to do this, would there be any gain for us humans? You never know.

The Greeks who were the first to develop a non religious world concept and embarked on forming a concept of the Universe based on experience organised in a coherent concept which could be tested did not know that this would ultimately lead to an increased power to shape our world and influence the course of events like we now know it has. Had they asked this question they would have had to say I do not know where it will lead. They believed that a better understanding of the world and ourself is worth pursuing.

So I believe we should try it is worth pursuing even while we do not know to what good it may lead. To me a world in which we are able to transgress the limitations of our individuality and can look at the Universe as a whole from a non personal perspective certainly would be a better world.