View Full Version : the inner and outer worlds

solomon levi
03-10-2011, 10:52 PM
I was observing the other day how we have an "inner world" of the mind/subjective/psychological, etc and
then there is the "outer world" that is somewhat more objective and seeming to exist independent of our thoughts.
I thought of the terms microcosm and macrocosm and wondered which one was the larger world. :)
I thought it must be beneficial to contemplate these "worlds" and their relationship to each other and what/who
are we in this picture - is the human being the meeting place of the two worlds? Does the inner world have any
effect on the outer? Do you consider it an aim to develop such a power, to exert a greater effect on the world?
Or do you see the inner world as something to silence, to be free of?

Please let me know what you think or know on this matter. I find it fascinating.
I don't think there are any right or wrong answers, of course. Personally, I've entertained both schools of thought -
those who desire to "create reality" and those who see reality as already created and perfect if/when we drop our minds.
What I'm searching for is an objective and scientific look at the issues. If human beings are a stage of evolution in which
subjective mind-dreams can overlay the actual world, what is the purpose of such an ability?
We understand its abuse, but what about its right use - is there such a thing for you?

To understand where I'm coming from, I spent some 20 years in a school where "creating reality" was the ideal,
and I've proved its possibility adequately enough for myself. But then I found non-duality and walked the non-path
of direct experience and saw the illusory nature of this "I" that desires to "create reality" and found bliss in just
being another object in a universe of objects where The Source is the only Subject.

So for me, both of these I have proven true. When I found non-duality, I turned my back on "creating reality",
but I haven't been able to walk away from it altogether. Dropping or ridding oneself of the mind almost seems
like too obvious of an answer, a reaction to a past of mind as a source of troubles and conflict. It just doesn't
feel true for me that humans would be somewhat unique in their ability to project their subjective dream-images
upon the external world, and that "enlightenment" is to throw away this uniqueness. I often see the possibility
of going "backwards" (deconstruction of the ego) or going "forwards" to something not yet known.
For me, it is much easier to adopt the "do nothing" approach ("This" is all there is, and it's already perfect)
and experience serenity and completeness. There's nothing spectacular about that. When I was training to
"create reality", it was a lot of work, lots of discipline, focus, awareness, being conscious, making choices, etc
- the total opposite of the pathless path - and by doing this I developed "extra-ordinary" abilities such as
telepathy, tummo, being able to see in infrared while blind-folded, ability to sense colors with my fingers,
remote viewing, etc, but as I said, these took a lot of concentration and conditioning.

What are your thoughts, insights, perceptions, beloved friends? What do you think of conditioning and the
unconditioned, etc?

solomon levi

Frater IA
03-12-2011, 02:31 AM
Does one have effect on the other?

As above so below, as within so without. ;)

solomon levi
03-12-2011, 07:55 PM
Ok. But is that true? I've certainly observed it many times, but not all the time. Not every thought manifests
in the outer world, at least not as we desire them to. Otherwise there would be no losers at the casino. :)

When I look at the times I was "successful" and the times not, I would have to say that "ego" acts as a
barrier between the two worlds. Ego causes the inner world to be self-reflective and isolated. All the times
"I" was "successful" my ego had given up and something in me kept going anyway and eventually the inner
merged with the outer - makes me think of squaring the circle as a good analogy.

Or this:


But ego also has some objective reality, for we can witness it - like "he has a huge ego" or other observations
of how ego has "corrupted" the world.

It's almost as if ego is able to manifest negatively quite easily, but ego cannot manifest the positive so easily.
Or does it manifest either/neither equally and the fault is on the observer - we see the negative more easily
because that is what we have trained ourselves to see???

Frater IA
03-12-2011, 09:14 PM
Well, as for ego manifesting positively. Here's how I really feel about that. The ego, no matter what, is always going to be negative. WHY. Because the path to hell is lined with good intent! Even if you are thinking positive, you must make sure it is divine will being fullfilled and not your own. (its a grey area for me too, sometimes I don't know the difference, sometimes I wonder if there is even a difference)

solomon levi
03-16-2011, 05:47 PM
Thanks Frater IA. I can relate to that.

So has no one noticed any conflict between these two approaches: creating reality and reality already is?
What did/do you do? Choose one over the other, or find some reconciliation? Swing from one to the other?

Frater IA
03-17-2011, 01:22 PM
Well, if I have issues with available reality (< or current perception) I generally seek as much truth and knowledge as I can. Then I will have an understanding of it. Once that has been achieved my perception has probably changed, therefore my reality.

solomon levi
03-17-2011, 07:08 PM
For me, a desire will arrive in the mind as something that is not present actual reality, and it's generally simple enough to just notice that
and it falls away when I acknowledge/affirm the present. That's the easy part for me. But there are some recurring desires, like wanting
to change living from paycheck to paycheck for example. I could either discipline myself, which I don't favor, or manifest something
"miraculously" or beyond my ego's knowledge and ability, but when this doesn't happen easily, it too becomes a process and a chore
and I usually fall back on the present to rid myself of the burden. I guess I have to want it a lot to go through with it. It'd be nice if I
do both with the same ease. I sort of threw away "creating" when I found nonduality, but I feel like it has a place too and am half-assed
trying to reintegrate it. Like I said, I guess I'll have to find something I really want to make the disturbance worth while. Or maybe it
shouldn't be such a disturbance - maybe I should just "sneak" it in as if it was IS. Maybe that's the trick. I think I've somehow
complicated it. I'm learning, trying to apply my ability to vertically shift to the horizontal. It's weird that I can enter other worlds
more easily than I can alter this one. I think about playing with parallel time lines and such too, but again I may be complicating it too much.

03-17-2011, 11:17 PM
The way i view this is pretty simple (i think lol):

All that IS, simply IS. The way to "create", is not really "creating" - thats the ego talking, it is actually taking the laws and powers of what IS and using them to manifest what ya need/want - the energy, the matter, the "thing" that you wish to "create" already IS - you just have to realize it, just have to see it, let it be, and reach for it as if it is. ;)

In short - Understanding and Faith to act on it, and what you need, you'll always have, and you'll never need what you do not have - for all that IS, already IS, as is what you want - so see it and get it. :)

Thats the best i can put it into words for now, hope it helps. :)


solomon levi
03-18-2011, 08:50 PM
Hey Seth-Ra.
Ok. But with that view is there no witnessing of potential existence versus actual existence?
The thing that we want already is, but where? Do you see a merging of parallel worlds or energy/imagination densifying into matter?

Thanks. :)

03-19-2011, 02:25 AM
ah, i see what youre asking. :)

Its a bit of both really, and without both, neither works. The imagination/energy is to both to see the possibility (you'd say the parallel you're wanting to occur - it also deals in probability as an outside "energy" contributor) and upon seeing the want/need/desire, whatever you wish to call the transmutation/change, the "imagination/energy" is then send from your self (microcosm), to the self youre changing (macrocosm).

I'll give you an example of how i do this - Dad likes to play pool (billiards to some ;) ), and so i use my Art thusly:

I look over the table, and mentally overlay my Emblem (my avatar) onto the table - i inhale to raise the kundalini of myself, subtly (i dont make it obvious im doing any sort of Art - which is probably why he doesnt ever believe me when i tell him why i always win is because of "magick :cool: " lol) and i mentally send this energy into the Emblem during the exhale, "charging" it. I tend to put my desire into one word, though sometimes more, and overlay the word(s) onto/into the Emblem with another sending of kundalini as i quietly speak the word(s) to it. Then, i simply "let it be" - this is a key thing also, as i cannot FORCE the desired reaction, and it often surprises even myself of how it all works out. :)

Keep the desire vague enough so that the macrocosm (in my case, my Emblem - a piece of myself which contains All in One) may freely operate - the energy you give it is to both establish the connection, and is the essence of an "offering" or "equivalent exchange" of the equation - giving of yourself, of your energy, along with your request. The reason the Macro needs to be allowed to act freely is to allow the "parallels" - not all of which you can see, but it can, it gives it the ability to freely act on the energy of probability and possibility, in conjunction with your energy via the mind.

One more thing - i dont treat any of my Art, including the Emblem itself, as a "mechanical machine" or a "static operation" - but rather, it is all alive, the Emblem is alive, it is me, and it is All, as is the energy, as is the outcome, as is the game itself (in my example - but it goes beyond that ofcourse).
So its all a matter of the Currents of Life, both connection, the request itself, the energy applied, and the probability/possibility capitalized on during the manifesting of the action. :)

I hope that clarifies, rather than confuses. lol ;)


03-19-2011, 05:02 PM
Multi-layered, yet functionally unitive. Fascinating.


solomon levi
03-19-2011, 06:51 PM
Thanks Seth-Ra. I followed that just fine. :)

solomon levi
03-21-2011, 06:58 PM
I realized another way of wording this, another example...
Thanks to Coast to Coast AM - they had a guy on last night talking about beliefs and it reminded me of when I discovered for myself
this idea of having no beliefs and only giving credence/emphasis to those things I could experience or know first-hand.
I'm sure others of you are aware of this idea/concept/approach. So did you also see that you can't create reality without a belief?
To refer to my previous example, why do I believe I should live other than paycheck to paycheck? Where did this belief come from?
This belief has nothing to do with THAT WHICH IS.

So, I'm not saying one is right or true and the other isn't. I'm just saying if we have seen the usefulness of having no beliefs, or perhaps
having only a couple "seemingly essential" beliefs that allow us to function more comfortably or something, then must we throw away
"creating", or do we adopt it as an essential, or.... ????

Anybody follow that? :)

03-23-2011, 01:21 AM
Sorry for slow replies (when i feel i should reply) - work is keeping me tired until the weekends.

A belief of all/no beliefs, is still a belief, and just as the others, will attract the energy flows accordingly. Its not so much about creating, as it is just understanding and using what IS. (much like capturing the Spiritus Mundi - you dont "create it", you use the Law(s)/Truth of what IS, and its various influences to achieve/attract what youre after - much like growing a garden, you nurture the desire/belief with various "attractors" (whether physical action or mental; thought is energy also, and thus attracts likewise) to nurture our "garden".

That being said - i do not join the camp that everyone is right or all roads lead to Rome - but i say all has a part of the Right/Truth - all roads have the potential to get to "Rome". ;)

So no, i would not say a belief is an essential, i say belief itself is a fact of life, it IS - regardless of the belief. :)


solomon levi
03-24-2011, 12:19 AM
Great response IMO Seth!

03-24-2011, 12:43 AM
If All is One - - - How can all roads NOT lead to 'Rome'?

But let's assume they don't all lead to 'Rome'...

The ones that don't lead to 'Rome'... Where DO they lead? How many destinations are there?

Is there an opposite polarity to 'Rome'? An 'Anti-Rome' of sorts?

Or an infinity of destinations?

Curious to hear your belief about this...

03-24-2011, 01:39 AM
Thanks SL. :)

Androgynus, you bring up a very good question. :)
My response would be that all roads do lead to Rome, per se - but in my belief/perspective/experience, it is more of a question of personal desire (i.e. which current you choose to attract/ride), is one on the inside of the city, or the outside. ;)
If you place your palms up and make a clockwise motion with your right hand, and a counter-clockwise with the left, get them in-time and turn them towards one another while still rotating - though they both at first seem to go opposite of one another, you'll find they actually are going in the same direction. This is a very simple example of the dual flows being One - so while both flow towards the same destination, there is still a difference of experience of the same destination.
Another example - though it be "As Above, so Below" - would you rather eat the root Bellow, or the fruit Above? True enough that potatoes are good, so is the current of Bellow, on the other hand, id rather not eat the roots of an orange tree, but the oranges themselves. ;)

Understanding is the key to riding the currents unto perfection - kind of like how the christians would say "You are eternal, and its up to you where you spend said eternity." - its not about gaining immortality, per se, but how you decide to experience said immortality.
If you like the Narnia stories, its like the difference between Jadis (the White Witch), who had eaten the fruit of immortality, and her immortality became her curse - much like the vampires, a thirst that is unquenchable, a personal torment - whereas Aslan, on the other hand, is our perfected Lion. :cool:


solomon levi
03-24-2011, 01:43 AM
You're probably asking Seth but I'll share my answer also.
For me Gurdjieff's "aim" comes to mind. People go where they aim to go, where their thoughts, expectations, intent is focussed -
so the road leads to Rome only when Rome is your aim.

03-24-2011, 02:39 AM
The following excerpts from christian jesuit philosopher Teilhard de Chardin do not necessarily reflect my views, but I think they fit into this discussion as an interesting perspective to contemplate.

Mankind orchestrates the Universe, functioning as a collective Christ:

Having reached the limit of its complexity, the collective Christ—mankind—will undergo a demographic collapse.
All of mankind's universe-orchestrating power will become concentrated in the single survivor, who will be automatically promoted to the rank of Christ personal.

However convergent it be, evolution cannot attain to fulfillment on earth except through a point of dissociation. With this we are introduced to a fantastic and inevitable event which now begins to take shape in our perspective, the event which comes nearer with every day that passes: the end of all life on our globe, the death of the planet, the ultimate phase of the phenomenon of man.

The end of the world: the wholesale internal introversion upon itself of the noosphere, which has simultaneously reached the uttermost limit of its complexity and its centrality.
The end of the world: the overthrow of equilibrium, detaching the mind, fulfilled at last, from its material matrix, so that it will henceforth rest with all its weight on God-Omega.

An orchestra with multiple conductors cannot produce anything but an incoherent cacophony. When the number of the conductors becomes reduced to a single man, the orchestra shifts from cacophony to symphony, turning into the conductor's "extended body." Analogously, when the universe is quantum-mechanically orchestrated by billions of human observers, it is incoherent; every part exists by itself, obeying the principle of locality. Having become orchestrated by a single human observer (Christ personal), the universe will shed its incoherence and turn into the observer's "cosmic body".

Frater IA
03-24-2011, 05:06 AM
I'm just gonna throw in my 2 cents, which is probably very noobish and deluted with crap as I've still not been in study that long. HOWEVER.

All paths lead to same mountain. What is this mountain. It is the completion of the great work. What is the great work. The great work is loosely put, reconnecting your soul with the divine creator, as your soul is more or less a "part" of the divine creator given free will, and thus has ego as a byproduct of free will. So herein lies the issue. If your soul reconnects with divine, ego dies, ego doesn't want to die, so it tends to do stuff that will knock your happy ass back down the side of this mountain so it gets to live longer. SO, as the divine creator, is RULER OF THE LIGHT AND THE DARKNESS (middle pillar anyone), all roads do lead to same mountain, and summit of mountain is same for all. Your path to said summit may be on different side of mountain, you may be more in touch with divine's light or divine's darkness, but if it is divine will, it is STILL divine, and your soul, not your ego, wishes to reconnect with that which it is a part of.


Feel free to stomp on my thought process here, I'm pretty open to more input as I'm kinda throwing together stuff and making my own path as I feel things come together. There is much yet to be understood by this humble frater. ;)