Does the Tail Wag the Dog?

Consider the ancient Chinese Tao symbol of yin and yang. This deceptively simple symbolization is a map representation for all manifestation, consciousness and everything (or, really, nothing) in between. The elegance and simplicity of the prototypic yin-yang symbol reveals a subtle complexity of relationship seldom considered beyond the obvious. From the rudest teepee of conceptual elements—positive and negative—a skyscraper of complexity arises, much like, for example, all computers have for their basis the binary number symbols, 1 and 0 (i.e., yes and no = on and off). And just as an understanding of the binary numbers underlies the mastery of computers, understanding the interplay of yin and yang underlies the comprehension of what’s going on in life. The yin-yang symbol can be viewed as a beautiful, stylized blueprint of the cosmos and its dynamic of dualistic manifestation—the play and tension of opposites. Yin, the black half of the pair, represents, in simple terms, the “negative” aspect of reality: darkness, receptivity, cold, void. Yin is the low or non-energy state toward which yang, representing the positive aspect of reality—light, dynamism, heat and fullness—continually flows. All manifestation arises within this continuum of tension and interplay inherent in the polarity of yin and yang.

Consider, for example, the following cycle of nature: yin, the ever-abiding sea, receives yang, the sun’s rays, whence arises yang as water vapor (clouds) to dwell within yin, the sky. The sky gives birth to yang, the rain, received by yin, the earth, which supports yang as flowing river seeking reunion with a boundless sea of yin. This constant arising of yang within yin and yin inherent in yang is shown by the contrasting “eyes” within the stylized yin-form and yang-form, which, together, in-form the circular boundary of the symbol. Black/yin has an ever expanding point of white, appearing in the position of an eye, while the converse is true of the white/yang form. Here we have the ingenious artistic rendering, possessing the quality of a figure/ground relationship which “ping-pongs” the observer’s eye to and fro within the contrast between black and white, serving to imbue the symbol with a seeming dynamism of movement. Where yang is not, there is yin; where yin is not, there is yang. The relationship is inseparably interdependent, for neither exists except as its own opposite give it form. In prototypical conceptual terms this is how the manifest universe ceaselessly becomes and passes away in a constant natural flow: the mutual transformation of opposites.

While yin and yang represent any conceivable pair of opposite at all levels, the unifying reality of the symbol is a totality which supports and transcends all opposites: the circle. Consider an ancient symbol of infinity (and the universe), the Ouroborous—the serpent which consumes its own tail to nourish its own growth. Or, consider the face and obverse of a coin which is transcended and subsumed by the wholeness of the coin itself. Yin and yang have no independent existence, for one is implicit in the other as dual aspects of a encompassing unity. They exist independently only as mental interpretations (via the inherent cognizing function of the mind), as seemingly isolated points in a continuum which are simultaneously both and neither of its extremes (for instance, a baton, having two ends, is not deemed to be exclusively one end or the other, nor both, taken additively, but their unity). This inherent contrast of opposites is represented graphically in the yin-yang symbol by the black and white pair fitting together to form the circle that circumscribes them. The subsuming circle, with its partial aspects, yin and yang, is one symbol for the Chinese TAO. Variously translated as “way” or “suchness of manifestation”, it is THE NAMELESS. The Original-Reality-Beyond-Concept; the Self-Existent Absolute; Consciousness Without An Object (or Subject): everywhere and nowhere, eternal yet instantly vanishing, immanent, eminent and everywhere imminent—in short, omnitaneous reality.

Bearing the foregoing development of yin and yang in mind, let us now proceed to another application of its elucidation. Let us assign for the logo’s black/white contrast, the ultimate of opposites for humans: consciousness (white) and all objects of consciousness (black), i.e., the manifest universe. Thus the self-in-consciousness, or conscious-center-of-awareness, the “I”, in its life-long outward quest, forever encounters its absolute opposite, the surface of an apparently infinitely extended cosmos of objects apparently outside and impenetrable to it. Can you see then, that all objects of consciousness actually in-form consciousness, i.e., give it form by delimiting its borders (like a flashlight beam is limited or obstructed by what it shines upon). Conversely, all objects of consciousness are equally in-formed by the consciousness of them. Neither consciousness nor its objects exist independently, as each defines the other—renders it manifest—just like a flashlight beam is undetectable without an intervening atmospheric obscuration of, say, fog or smoke, or other objects undetectable without the illumination of the flashlight beam. The yin-yang figure visually portrays this idea: the quintessential nature of the universe is Pure Consciousness, or Consciousness-Without-An-Object-and-Without a Subject (CWOWS). Subjective consciousness—man’s consciousness—versus all objects of consciousness are the dual relative aspects subsumed and transcended by unitary, self-existent CWOWS, just as yin and yang are subsumed and bounded by the circle in the TAO symbol. Self-awareness and its antithetical objects-of-perception literally create the universe as follows: subject perceives object and object in-forms subject. This means that object and subject are not incommensurate things, they are opposing aspects of a unifying CWOWS which is beyond yet within them. Subject consciousness is the perceiving of objects and objects literally are their perception in consciousness. “One hand washes the other”. There can be no movie without the film obstructing the projector light…and, beyond that, nothing whatsoever without the cinema screen itself “hidden” by the form, color and action of the film itself.

We see then, the so-called “inner world” of consciousness and the “outer world” of space-filled-with-things to be really a continuum like the face and obverse of a coin. An intrinsic condition of human sentience is its ongoing awareness (to greater or lesser degree) of its own awareness (“apperception”). In this it makes its own consciousness an object of perception. As we shall see, this has some significant implications. Consider that where consciousness perceives itself, there is nothing to perceive, since it has become an object of consciousness and therefore assumes its antipodal form, unconscious objects--voids (i.e., it obstructs itself by denying itself). This is an impossible, lifting oneself by one's bootstraps-type operation, presenting a paradox: consciousness, in attempting to perceive itself, perceives non-consciousness, i.e., effectively hides itself. It is like a searchlight trying to shine upon itself, and in its pivoting about, illuminating everything but itself. This is the central dynamic and enigma of the boundary between the known and unknowable: subject-consciousness, in seeking itself, ipso facto finds the universe instead. Perception of the cosmos is the creation of the cosmos. The ‘physical’ universe and consciousness are one.

Consciousness can be likened to a disembodied eye (in a land where mirrors are non-existent). Such an eye cannot see itself for it is that which does the seeing—the functioning of sight. As is true of all the senses (including the mind, as it is a vehicle and synthesis of them), all that the eye beholds, it very literally is, since all objects of sight cannot be separate from the agency that sees them. When the eye looks to see itself, it can behold only the absence of itself; and it is this absence that is the foundation of all the objects of sight—the absence that allows and structures their existence. The perfection of functioning for eyes is not being in the way of (i.e., being absent to) what it sees. It is absolutely behind everything so all things can be in-front-for-sight. To expand the metaphor somewhat: imagine spinning around trying to glimpse the back of your own head and forever seeing only that which is the perfect absence of it, i.e., what, of necessity by design, is always 180 degrees from the back of your head. But, strangely, this is the only way you can see the back of your own head, for it is connected, indeed inseparable, via its own absence, to all you do see. This is the mind-blowing way that emptiness (absence) and fullness (form) are united. It is described as follows, in the Heart Sutra:

Here, O Sariputra, Form is Emptiness and the very Emptiness is Form;

Emptiness does not differ from Form; Form does not differ from Emptiness.

Whatever is Form—that is Emptiness. Whatever is Emptiness—that is Form.

The same is true of Feelings, Perceptions, Impulses and Consciousness.

Here is the most profound and most subtle but challenging endeavor of all mentation. Paradox confounds the mind—runs it into an alley and sets it against itself. For, designed to project outwards, to objectify the cosmos by isolating itself from its partner in creation, the mind sees Fullness in its own Absence…yet knows it not.

All objects of consciousness are absences thereof, yet partaking of form as if independent, exotic “things-out-there” and vouchsafed by an incommensurate, immaterial, conscious perception. In other words, the tail wags the dog.

Hubble Vision

So, you’ve got this technologic marvel, the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), orbiting the Earth, in the optimal environment and position for astronomical observation. You decide to point it at a part of the universe that appears virtually empty—black, to every device heretofore available to man. And, except for a few foreground (i.e., our own Milky Way galaxy) stars, it sees nothing. Hmmmm, what if there is something there after all, but still too faint to see? You decide to make an extended photographic exposure of that space with the HST: a MILLION-second timed exposure requiring some 400-odd orbits of the Earth. That’s a time exposure of 277.77 hours. If there’s something yet-unseen there in that space, the light that arrives from it is so faint—a few photons a minute, say—that the only way to collect enough of it to see anything requires an extremely long exposure. So you do it—the necessary programming and other technical arrangements—to pull it off. Well, in a sort of reverse Cheshire Cat dynamic, images begin to appear and when the exposure was complete and various computer clarity enhancements done, the resultant remarkable, indeed, breathtaking photograph is dubbed the “Hubble Ultra Deep Field” (HUDF) image. [This is a simplification. For nuts-and-bolts detail, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field]

So…what to all appearances was an uninhabited tiny corner of space, turns out to have, count them: 10,000 (!)…not stars, but GALAXIES! And each galaxy contains billions of stars in its own right. That’s a LOT of ‘un-inhabitation’! To get an idea of the amount of space this is to the naked eye from Earth, it is smaller than a 1 mm by 1 mm object placed 1 meter away (i.e., a poppy-seed held at arm’s length) and roughly equal to one thirteen-millionth of the total area of the sky. Ten thousand galaxies in a pinhead-sized pinch of the cosmos! If this doesn’t give you a feel for your mote-like, miniscule-to-the-maximum, relative position in the scale of things, I don’t know what could.

Obviously, few people are apprised of this information. If everybody were, however, and appropriately impressed with it, do you suppose they would act any differently? I submit that whatever impact such cosmological data engendered would, in a New-York-minute, be swallowed up by the ten thousand exigencies and mundane worries of the careworn, work-a-day world that the brain was evolved to deal with. Human consciousness is simply not designed to harbor, other than temporarily, an appreciation (which in itself is only an inkling given by our modern technologies) of human size vs. galaxy size, to say nothing of cosmic size, nor any extended contemplation of it. This is not to say there are not people who have it in their DNA to attempt such ongoing contemplation and wield its realization in their moment-to-moment doings. One of the techniques given by, let’s say, extraordinary humans of yore, to interested hangers-on, was the task of “Remembering the face (or name) of God with every breath.” Do you think there’s a connection? William Blake said it this way:

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wildflower.
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

This kind of insight-praxis is attempted, normally, only by those of a monastic bent and with best effect in a monastery or other retreat-type setting. Why are so few smitten with such a need, and why is it that human consciousness is apparently not built for, nor has capacity for the extraordinary insight that William Blake so eloquently describes? Elementary my dear Watson: it’s counterproductive. It is contrary to what Life needs for humans to be doing—which is the making of culture and through it the evermore sophisticated investigation and control of “nature” for their continued flowering. And, just as in a jet engine there is a lot of pressure, heat, explosion and noise to propel the jet on its course through the sky, so too must there be in human endeavor to propel the Rocket-of-Life on its course from emptiness into fullness, from void into form. Life even gave us a catchphrase for it: “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” Still, there are humans with the proclivity and drive for extraordinary attention; those with an enhanced appetite for insight and application of a non-dual understanding of what’s going on around them. What is their function in the larger scheme of Life’s program and agenda? Elementary my dear Watson: they comprise a kind of DNA background memory—like memory foam conforms to the form of whatever presses into it, then returns to its original shape when released; they are like shock absorbers on a car chassis or the yellow light in a traffic signal or the catalyst in a chemical reaction, promoting it but not changed by it; they are the mirrors in a clothing store changing room…they watch the audience watching the movie…they are the ones with Hubble Vision.

Silence is Golden

Understand first that consciousness is not an adjunct or property of the physical brain. In fact, the converse is true: the physical body and all material things owe their existence to consciousness. Consciousness is the primordial "stuff"—the pre-existent substrate of all. This counterintuitive, bassackwards, realization is increasingly—and mind-numbingly so for traditional science—surfacing in modern physics and even cognitive psychology. But we're not talking the ordinary, ego-centered, binary logic (e.g., 'things are either A or not-A, but certainly not BOTH A AND not-A') consciousness that every human knows intimately and undeniably. No. We're talking Consciousness-Without-An-Object: Pure, undivided Consciousness. Think about it: isn't it obvious that the scientific method is a system made up in and by consciousness which is useful for the creation and furtherance of human culture? N'cest pas? And culture/civilization is the tool that Life-through-human-consciousness uses for its own agenda, an agenda which split-conscious humans cannot begin to fathom. Take away consciousness and what've you got? Nothing! If you want to say that 'things' exist without conscious perception of them, then be my guest. But realize this: without consciousness any such assertion cannot even be made! This is the case that Kant spun out in the Critique of Pure Reason, to wit: consciousness is like a pair of rose-colored glasses that cannot be removed, and all talk of non-rose-colored reality is meaningless. Wittgenstein said it this way: "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent.". What you see, regardless of its eccentricity, is the doing of consciousness and talk about it is ALSO the doing of consciousness, but one layer removed from direct seeing and thus the property of the mechanics of culture, which is of little use for UNDERSTANDING. Case closed. Be silent. Be happy. Or be ordinary.