1

Beyond the Brane:

Other Dimensions, Realms, and Orthogonal States of Awareness

Brian Kelch

Dec. 17, 2007

2

Brian KelchBuddhist Cosmology

Dec. 17, 2007

Beyond the Brane:

Other Dimensions, Realms, and Orthogonal States of Awareness

Central to the very heart of reality, a beautiful vision is available – when we can‘see’ without adopting limiting positions. This vision concerns Space, which isprimordially peaceful, open. In its openness, it is an open-ended accommodatingof various views, welling up, floating, and gathering within Space. Althoughundisturbed, it is filled with appearance. Space is therefore not static, but isinstead a serene explosion of expanding creativity, filling all the eons of pasts andfutures, without exhausting its openness or its capacity for exhibiting a furtherwealth of presences.

-Tarthang Tulku (1977)

Edwin A. Abbott, in 1884, wrote his widely popular novella, Flatland: A

Romance of Many Dimensions (Abbott, 1992) about the life of a square who narrates our

journey through the implicative perceptions of beings who reside in a world with only

two spatial dimensions, front to back, and side to side. This world is of geometric beings

who have no concept or experience of the up-down dimension and all its repercussions.

After Square experiences an expanded state of awareness mediated by a 3-space1 sphere,

and Square’s awareness being is opened to higher dimensions, he finds he is incapable of

convincing the Flatlanders of the larger reality of Spaceland.2 Even more surprising to

1 In this paper I will use 3-space or 3D to refer to a realm with 3 spatial dimensions and 1dimension of time. Alternately I will use 4 dimensional spacetime to refer to theconnected fabric of 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension resulting from Einstein’sworks on relativity.2 Spaceland is said to be larger than Flatland because it contains Flatland’s two spatialdimensions.

3

Square is his inability to convince Sphere of the possible existence of spatial dimensions

higher than the three of Spaceland.

Some results of this higher dimensional awareness on a lower dimensional space

is Sphere’s ability to perceive most of the Flatland universe by floating above it, and her

ability to ‘teleport’ Flatland objects out of closed containers into Spaceland only to

‘reappear’ at a different location in Flatland.

This story is written and received as a work of science fiction; however, the laws

of these intersecting universes are mathematically sound. Over a century later, physicists

are seriously considering the possible existence of spatial dimensions beyond our familiar

3 of length, width, and height. What could this possibly look like? To train our mind to

picture such scenarios, let us consider an example in the style of Flatland. What would a

sphere passing through the 2-space world of Flatland look like to a Flatlander? It would

first appear as a point, or ‘singularity’, appearing out of nowhere. This point would

expand into a 2D disk that increased size until its radius equaled the radius of the 3D

sphere. At this point, the disk would then increasingly get smaller until it reached its final

singularity and vanished. Generally, an n-dimensional object moving through an (n-1)-

dimensional space would look like a continuous movement of infinite cross-sections, or

‘projections’, of the n-dimensional object (which are themselves (n-1) dimensional).

To expand our example into the more abstract, let’s consider a 4D sphere, or

hypersphere, passing through our familiar 3D world. Similar to Flatland (but one

dimension higher), the 4D sphere would first appear as a point, or singularity, which

continuously grows into a 3-dimensional sphere3 that increases in size until it equaled the

3 Any cross-section of a hypersphere (4D sphere) is a 3 dimensional sphere.

4

radius of the 4D hypersphere, only to diminish in size back to a singularity, and then

vanish.4 So why should we care? This may all seem interesting purely as a mathematical

visualization, but modern physicists are beginning to believe our familiar world really has

more dimensions than we normally perceive.

Space is the Place

Conveniently for now, we are ignoring the question of what a dimension of space

actually is – or more specifically, what space really is. It may be impossible to

‘objectively’ study these concepts due to our seeming inability to step “outside” of them.

The standard approach is to look at the properties of concepts like space, which have

equally abstract implications such as dimensionality. It is not coincidental that this same

problem applies to our study of consciousness, which is vitally entwined with our

concepts of space as context, realm, or gestalt. The interconnectivity between concepts of

space and mind are rigorously studied in the Buddhist traditions that may have much to

share with the physicists.

Vasubandu’s Abhidharmakosha lists three uncreated elements of reality – besides

the two aspects of the enlightened state itself; the third primordially existing element of

reality is space (Skt. kha). This belief implies that if an aware being can transcend the

4 A more challenging and enlightening visualization could be to imagine an object with anon-solid, irregular structure, passing through these lower dimensions. The intersectionwould be more dynamic, with a good degree of both continuous patterning and seeminglyrandom movement in its projection.

5

three worlds5, sukkha and dukkha6 are no longer defined, and we are left with kha, space.

However, this still leaves the question of what this pure space is?

Physicists generally bifurcate into two camps when it comes to basic assumptions

about space – seeing space as container of objects7, or space as superior or more primary

to objects within it. In the latter camp, physicists seem to agree with the Buddhists, in that

there can be ‘empty’ space. What is the essence of this infinite openness? Does this imply

infinite dimension? Perhaps these are the wrong questions - ones based on abstractions

sprouted from the perspective of a lower dimensional, constricted nodal point of

awareness, engrained with and sustained by uncritical assumptions about these concepts

of space and awareness of space.

A Brief Interlude with Time

When speaking of dimensionality in this paper, I will mostly address issues

relating to the dimension of space, since multiple dimensions of time are nearly

impossible to conceptualize (if they exist at all)8. A dimension of space can be defined as

the degrees of freedom of motility, or the number of pieces of information we need to

5 In Buddhist cosmology, the three worlds are the desire realm (kamadhatu), form realm(rupadhatu), and formless realm (arupyadhatu) – all of which are the impermanenttotality of samsara and are sustained by different degrees of ignorance and its result,suffering.6 In Sanskrit, suk is like the prefix eu in Greek (as in euphoric. Commonly sukkha,euphoric-space, is translated as bliss.Duk translates as constricted. So dukkha, constricted-space, is usually translated assuffering.7 In this case, space without a material object is inconceivable.8 Many reports from modified states of consciousness, such as psychedelic plants ormystical experiences, report a perspective outside of time, and type of dynamic eternitywhere there still exists duration, but without ‘objective-time’. Could this be a way toimagine alternatives to a single dimension of time?

6

describe a location. In Flatland, any object can be located with two numbers, an x-y

coordinate. In our familiar 3-space world, we need 3 numbers: longitude, latitude, and

altitude. Our normal 3 dimensions are said to be infinite, meaning that each direction of

travel along a dimension extends forever. We will mention finite, curled-up dimensions

soon.

Time as a dimension seems to behave differently from space since things within

this single dimension only seem to move in one direction. In the context of this paper, I

will not specifically focus on time, but some implications for its organization may arise in

our discussion.

Before turning away from time, it is helpful to remember that Einstein’s relativity

equations describe a space and time that are linked in a continuous ‘fabric’ of spacetime.

This theory implies that distance and time are deeply related, and gravity is equivalent to

the warp of this fabric. This approach makes both space and time more relative and

‘elastic’ than anyone previously assumed. For example, seeing the light of the stars is

literally looking back in time to the moment the light we see left the star. By the time the

traveling light from the star reaches our eyes, it may take hundreds or thousands of years

for us to experience.9 Our own sun is seen as it was about eight minutes in the past, and

we won’t see its “present” glow until about eight minutes into the future. This is true of

all sense perception since the phenomenal signals, such as sound waves, smells, and light,

take some interval of time to reach our sensory apparatus, get filtered and processed

through our brain, resulting in an experience. According to the Abhidharmakosha, any

9 This is of course unless the light traveled near something like a black hole, where thewarp of spacetime fabric is so strong, that even light and time are twisted into itsgravitational funnel.

7

experience takes three elements: the object of sensation, the apparatus to sense, and the

processing of the signal.10 Only when these three elements are connected, does an

experience occur.

This process takes a non-zero amount of time, which might imply that we are

always experiencing the world slightly behind the “present moment”. On top of this,

special relativity theory shows that space and time are relative to the observer. This

seems to suggest that there isn’t a common objective present moment, but only an

experienced one, where the sum of all sentient experience of present moments would be

an interval and not a moment of time. 11

Dimensions of Scale

One way to experience dimensionality is through scale. Take for instance our

biosphere as the membrane of the planet. From our perspective, it is definitely 3-

dimensional. However, looking at the planet from the moon, we no longer see the depth

of the surface, but only a relatively thin shell of a sphere that appears as only a curved 2-

dimensional membrane. If we back up even further, the entire earth would look like a

one-dimensional point in space, right before it disappears from view (0 dimensions).

Similar shifts in dimensional perspective occur in the microcosmic direction as well. An

animal in our biosphere appears to have a two dimensional skin. On smaller dimensions

of scale, this 2D membrane opens up into bigger dimensions as we notice the 3D

molecules and cells that make up the seemingly 2D animal skin. Perspective on different

10 In this system, consciousness (sixth sense) works the same way in respect to thoughts,imaginings, and other “internal perceptions”.11 Notice how we spatialize time with metaphors such as ‘interval of time’. We willaddress these metaphors soon.

8

scales makes dimensionality appear relative, and is one way that dimensions can be

hidden from our normal awareness. Physicists would say that appearances of

dimensionality can change, but objectively, all these observations were still within a 3D

universe – or within whatever the agreed upon dimension of our universe turns out to be.

It is clear, however, that our shared perspective on earth is only within a minute interval

of infinite options of scale, which profoundly influences our views on the world.12

The Dominant Models of Physics

There are currently two major theories in modern physics that describe our

physical universe. Special relativity and the standard model, focus on larger objects that

experience the effects of gravity in a substantial way. The second model, called quantum

theory, describes the world on the micro scale of the particles, quarks, and strong and

weak forces, where gravity plays a very insignificant role. The laws of the universe

predicted by these two models are vastly different in their organization and implications.

This disparity of appearance between the large and small has baffled physicists for

decades. Both models are extremely effective at predicting verifiable results in their

particular domain, but they don’t seem to be describing the same universe.

Physicists want elegancy in their theories prompting many to work in such fields

as super-string theory, M-theory, and other models of theoretical physics that attempt to

give a single description of “objective” reality. They aim for a more fundamental model

that contains both the standard model and quantum model of the universe. A strange

12 A good nature video on either the cosmos (macrocosm) or the microbial or insectoidscales of perspective (microcosm) offers a good example about how alien and unfamiliarour world can appear on slightly different scales.

9

consequence of this search is that built into most of these modern theories is the non-

obvious requirement of more dimensions than we normally experience. Super-string

theory models a universe with 10 or 11 spatial dimensions (and one of time) as a

minimum.13 Interestingly, the two dominant models of physics don’t favor any particular

number of spatial dimensions.

Where are these Dimensions?

If there are more than 3 spatial dimensions, wouldn’t we have some experience of

them? Not only is evidence lacking in our conventional subjective experience, but also in

careful objective experiments and observations by both particle physicists and

astrophysicists. Nothing like a 4th spatial dimension has ever been implied as a result of

thousands of particle accelerator tests, and measurements of extreme detail, in both the

micro and macroscopic world. However, to be fair, these physicists have never really

been specifically looking for other dimensions until recently.

Any theory of extra dimensions would have to explain why these dimensions are

normally invisible to us. Until recently, the most accepted theory about the existence of

other dimensions is that they are curled up in extremely small loops at every point in

space. This theory suggests that space loops into a higher dimension in which the loop is

smaller than a Planck length.14 An extremely small object (smaller than a Planck length)

moving into the higher dimension along the loop would loop back to where it started

13 There are even some studies by modern theoretical physicists that take seriously theidea of non-integer dimensionality, or fractal-dimensions (Jammer, 1954).14 A Planck length is far smaller than we can currently even conceive of detecting. It isabout 10-20 times the diameter of a proton, and is used extensively in quantum mechanicsbecause it is said to be where spacetime is completely dominated by quantum effects.

10

almost immediately.15 Even though these loops would be located at every point of 3D

space, they would be nearly impossible to ever detect.16

The reason extra dimensions were forced to be this small is that it was believed

that if dimensions were larger, or even infinite, than physicists would see some evidence

through types of interactions between particles and diminished energy distribution (which

would have to spread evenly along all dimensions of space). A tiny, finite dimension

could theoretically exist and still be invisible, but it is conveniently and purposefully

defined to be so small that we have no way to test for its existence or notice any of its

effects.

How Big Can Other Dimensions Be?

In response to these issues, Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum recently developed

two models, RS-1 and RS-2, which resulted from trying to determine how large extra

dimensions could actually be and still remain invisible to us (Randall, 2005).

Surprisingly, in RS-2 they proved that a fourth spatial dimension could actually be

infinite, like our familiar 3 dimensions, yet still be normally invisible to us! I will avoid

any complicated details of how this model works, but it will be useful to provide a basic

overview of their model and its implications.

15 To account for the existence of multiple tiny dimensions, mathematicians proved thepossibility of complicated manifolds that curl up multiple tiny dimensions in very specialways so that they remain extremely compacted. The most interesting of these is theCalabi Yau Manifold or n-fold, used in super-string theory.16 This issue is controversial in physics because theories such as super-string theory, thathypothesize about scales too tiny to measure, verify, and experimentally test seem to fitmore into the realm of philosophy, or metaphysics, than physics.

11

Borrowed from M-brane theory, Randall and Sundrum situated our ordinary 3-

dimensional world on a brane, which got its name from a metaphorically similar

membrane. Branes represent a lower dimensional pocket, or slice, of a higher

dimensional space, called the bulk, which spans every dimension both on and off the

brane.17 A brane is defined by its ability to trap particles, including light, onto its surface,

and in the case of a brane with some infinitely long spatial dimensions, these particles

would have no idea that they were stuck on a lower dimensional space, bounded by other

dimensions.18 These particles are free to move in any of the three infinite spatial

dimensions, but are prevented from leaving this brane and moving into higher

dimensions. The only exception is gravity, which has been proved to be uncontainable to

a fixed size of dimensionality. This exception is important, as we will see shortly.

Basically, some physicists believe our familiar universe to be a lower dimensional island,

floating through a higher dimensional sea.

Insane in the Brane

M-brane theory shows that within the bulk, there can be any number of branes,

each with their own unique set of particles, forces, and dimensions. These branes could

also influence each other gravitationally or even collide with each other, forming new

branes. One striking cosmological hypothesis of intersecting branes is related to our

visualization of a hypersphere moving through our ordinary 3-space world. Remember

17 The fact that the bulk bulges out in all dimensions, everywhere, is why it’s described as“bulky”.18 Set theory is a field of mathematics that looks at cardinality, or different classes of sizesof infinity. This theory is important when thinking of the infinite space opened with anaddition of dimension. For example, the space of Flatland could be infinite, but restrictedto a plane. Spaceland is also infinite in space, but a space that contains Flatland.

12

that it starts as a singularity, expands to some size, and then collapses into another

singularity as the hypersphere leaves our 3-brane. The Penrose-Hawking Singularity

Theorems require a singularity at the beginning of cosmic time – dubbed the ‘Big Bang’.

We could imagine that this singularity is the first contact between two intersecting

branes, implying that our familiar universe is the intersection, and the dynamic interplay

of the material universe is the cross-pattern of a dimensional dance. When these branes

finally pass through each other, our universe shrinks toward the predicted collapse-into-

singularity called the ‘Big Crunch’.

Where is the Evidence?

On a more basic level, if we were on a brane, and we were everywhere bounded

by other infinite dimensions, why haven’t we seen any evidence of them? The reason has

to do with the bending of spacetime, and the fact that not all objects or forces would

necessarily be trapped on the brane. Randall and Sundrum showed that if there were a

dramatic enough warp to spacetime, then a 4-space universe would normally be observed

to be the same as a 3-space universe. The exception is that their model doesn’t require

gravity to be confined to the brane and thus solves the troublesome hierarchy problems of

physics.19 Not only that, but RS-2 implies the existence of particles predicted by super-

symmetry, and provides evidence for the accuracy of models such as M-brane theory and

super-string theory.

19 The hierarchy problem is the anthropic issue of why the weak force is 1032 timesstronger than gravity. The relative weakness of gravity compared to the other forces is aproblem that has plagued physicists for decades.

13

What is most exciting about RS-2, and sets it apart from models that assume the

existence of tiny compact dimensions, is that RS-2 may be experimentally verifiable.

Within the next few years, the Large Hadron Accelerator at CERN in Switzerland will be

capable of producing energy high enough to detect supersymmetric particles from

neighboring branes with partners on our brane, if they exist. In short, we could know for

certain whether we live in a multidimensional realm very soon. Could this be the next

evolution of Copernicus’ theory when he shifted our planet from its stable center of the

universe to being just one of billions in a galaxy that is also one of billions, in a universe

which is omni-centric? Brane models seem to now put us in an arbitrary dimensional

pocket of a multidimensional space.

But Wait, We Never Really Said What Space Is

Let’s take a step back for a moment and revisit some basic assumptions.

Conveniently, we are talking about things that may not be as well defined as they appear.

The scientific model never really answers the question of what space really is, even

though we can talk about its abstract properties of dimensionality. These questions seem

to have a dramatic impact on the nature of observer, observation, and the observed. From

the Madyamika perspective, science is really only examining “conventional reality” as

opposed to “ultimate reality”, with an uncritical examination and basic ignorance of the

fundamental connection between observer and observed. Asking about the essence of

‘phenomena’ in the view of modern physics, the Dalai Lama posed this question to

theoretical physicists during the Mind and Life conference in 1997.

What about [phenomenon’s] actual nature? What is it really? When you startprobing beyond the appearances, trying to understand the real nature of the

14

existence of the imputed or the designated entity, this is called an ultimateanalysis, seeking the nature of ultimate reality. When you start seeking that, youdon’t find anything at all. In fact, you find that there is nothing to be found. Thevery “not finding” of phenomenon, when you seek it through ultimate analysis, iswhat is meant by emptiness (Zajonc, 2004).

In the forward to Jammer’s Concepts of Space, Albert Einstein eloquently opens space

around these same issues.

The eyes of the scientist are directed upon those phenomena which are accessibleto observation, upon their apperception and conceptual formulation. In the attemptto achieve a conceptual formulation of the confusingly immense body ofobservational data, the scientist makes use of the whole arsenal of concepts whichhe imbibed practically with his mother’s milk; and seldom if ever is he aware ofthe eternally problematic character of his concepts. He uses this conceptualmaterial, or, speaking more exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, assomething obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value oftruth which is hardly ever, and in any case not seriously, to be doubted. Howcould he do otherwise? (Jammer 1954)

This is the angle the scientist has taken, and in a way defines science. However,

the limits of this approach are becoming a serious enough issue to address, and further

analysis is capable of unraveling the structure of science as we know it.20 This is not to

suggest that we throw out science and all of its results. Modern scientific models have

done exceptionally well at making predictions about the material world. Technologies

such as GPS systems actually rely on Einstein’s relativity equations in order to work.

However, physics has a history and was based on some initial assumptions about the

nature of our universe made thousands of years ago. As fields and disciplines evolve

through time and culture, these assumptions turn into false certainties and remain

continuously unnoticed and unquestioned.

20 These problems of observation are cropping up in quantum mechanics as the observernow is shown to impact the object observed (The Sanskrit word alambana is the object ofcognition and will be important later in this paper).

15

The World is Made of Language

Concepts and words such as space are merely conceptual labels that actually

flatten cognitive ‘dimensionality’.21 Words and concepts are merely placeholders for

abstractions on experienced reality. We take our concepts to be existent objects, separate

and distinct from the rest of syntactical reality. Language is at its essence metaphorical

and self-referential. Notions of space and time are so engrained into our worldview at

such a fundamental level, that our languages are composed almost entirely in metaphors

of time and space.

George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, in their book Metaphors We Live By, examine

and categorize these different metaphors in detail. Examples of spatial metaphors include

orientation metaphors22, container metaphors23, and metaphors of ideas-as-things oriented

in space (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). Lakoff and Johnson convincingly suggest that

metaphor has the power to create our vision of reality rather than simply giving us a way

to conceptualize a pre-existing reality. In their own words,

Metaphors may create realities for us, especially social realities. A metaphor maythus be a guide for future action. Such actions will, of course, fit the metaphor.This will, in turn, reinforce the power of the metaphor to make experience

21 I use the word dimensionality metaphorically. For example, calling all of New Yorkone name, gives an artificial one-thing-ness to something which has infinite facets andnuances, or dimensions. Remember that another, more general definition of something’sdimension is the amount of information needed to fully describe that ‘thing’. Location inspace may have a finite spatial dimensional coordinate, however concepts like ‘NewYork’, may have infinite cultural dimension.22 Examples are up = happy (feeling up), conscious (woke up), healthy (peak health), incontrol (control over), quantity (price is up), time (coming up), good (things looking up),virtuous (high standards), and rational (high level discussion)…”down” having theopposite connotations.23 These are metaphors of boundary with an in/out orientation. Examples are visual fields(there is nothing in sight) and events, actions, activity, states (are you in the race?).

16

coherent. In this sense metaphors can be self-fulfilling prophecies. (Lakoff andJohnson, 1980)

These metaphors of space are based on an ever evolving understanding of what space

actually is. Jammer extensively studies the different notions of space as they have

evolved through the sciences and philosophic traditions, which reveal distinctive groups

who take the position of either space as a container of objects (which implies no empty

space) or space that is needed for objects and thus in some sense superior to the material

world (Jammer, 1954) Both concepts contain assumptions and created abstractions on our

experience of space. Can there be other options?

What can we say about a space that is eternally present? Like a fish trying to

study water, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to say anything ‘objective’ about

something we have never been apart from. Science may be able to measure, analyze, and

hypothesize about properties of space, but this is not the best method to study the essence

of concepts like space.

Any time that scientists have claimed to have discovered a fundamental ‘object’

in the world, smaller scales reveal that ‘object’ to be composed almost entirely of space.

We have yet to find any fundamental ‘thing’ in the world, only interactions of apparitions

that appear on different scales, which acquire names such as Brian, chair, molecule, atom,

particle, quark, lepton, or string. From these different perspectives of scale, we usually

perceive these perceived concepts as having a stable and inherent existence. 24 Our

relationship to the world is metaphorical and linguistic. Even physical energies such as

24 From the perspective of a tiny particle, our body, this paper, mountains, and metalswould be virtually invisible, allowing the particle to pass right through these seeminglysolid objects as if they weren’t even there.

17

angular momentum and force are only defined in terms of space and time, concepts

which are poorly defined. Our consensual world of solid things is more like a graphical

user interface made up of pixels which are themselves made up of pixels, ad infinitum.

Internal Space and Awareness

The physicists have defined a complex yet experimentally functioning model

about the physical world of particles and forces and the strange possibility that our

familiar 3-space world is a neighborhood of an invisible higher dimensional system.

However, our mind, our awareness, is not a ‘thing’ composed of particles and is thus

necessarily defined as contained to a brane, such as the ones physicists are describing. In

such models, physicists actually have nothing specific to say about these troublesome

concepts labeled mind, consciousness, awareness, and experience. To find out how all of

this relates to us, we must investigate traditions that take our subjectivity as a primary

lens of investigation.

Lakoff and Johnson describe many ways in which we metaphorically refer to

these subjective and cognitive nodes of reality as ‘things’ within a sort of mental ‘space’,

but let us look behind the metaphor. Our thoughts, awareness, and consciousness are just

words in English, which function as nouns, and often get confused with objects due to

our reification of unexamined conceptual metaphors and assumptions. When we talk

about the realm of awareness and thoughts, we often refer to another spatial metaphor,

the internal world. But where is this internal world and what is it inside of? Inside my

head? Inside my mind? Interestingly, mind is usually metaphorically perceived as a sort

of space that contains the ‘objects’ of thought, imagination, etc. Is this the same kind of

18

space physicists are describing in their models? With a quick inspection of our own

thoughts and imaginings, it is clear that this process is not inside the head. It is not clear,

however, that this process has any centralized spatial location at all, yet space seems to be

everywhere present both within and around these concepts of mind and awareness. There

is even a space around our musings on space-saturated-thoughts.

An initial examination of the realm of mind seems to reveal that dimensionality of

this ‘internal space’ corresponds to the dimensionality of our perceived ‘external’ world.

This shouldn’t be surprising. It is difficult to imagine a situation where our internal

dimensional space didn’t match the dimension of our external experience. I could

imagine a car that is pretty close to a physical perception of a car. It can have height,

width, and depth. I could rotate it or mentally walk around it and discover its 3-spatial

dimensions. Interestingly, our mental imaginings are perspectival. We visualize a car

from a particular point-of-view. It has a front and a back that we determine based on our

imaginative orientation. This perspectival orientation is the result of an inferred observer

who exists even in imaginal spaces. Can this be otherwise? Can we conceive of a

mentation in 4-space or imaginings without perspective?25 Mathematicians and

theoretical physicist often run up against this problem when working with such

abstractions as objects in higher mathematical dimensions.26

What do we make of this correspondence between “external” perception and

“internal” imaging, specifically in respect to space and dimension? Physicists are quick to

25 Actually these two scenarios might be similar. Seeing all sides at once of a 3D object(essential 4D vision) would be similar to seeing the object without a particularperspective.26 An ability to distinctly visualize higher dimensions would have certainly given me anadvantage when I did work in theoretical mathematics!

19

assume that mind is an emergent phenomenon from an already existing external world,

but traditions who have taken mind and awareness as their focus of study have found this

proclamation of emergence to be premature and based on an investigation of subjectivity

‘qualities’ that are neither nuanced nor rigorous when examined from an ‘objective’

point-of-view.

Traditions of the Subjective

The Southeast Asian and Tibetan traditions of Buddhism have taken a different

focal point in their examination of reality.27 Contrary to the physicists who examine only

the seemingly objective and “external”, the Buddhists have taken an equally rigorous

approach to the examination of reality by focusing their wisdom lens through the

seemingly subjective and ‘internal’ in relation to the ‘external’. At the heart of this

tradition is the path (Skt. marga) to open space around our unexamined yet fundamental

notions about ‘reality’, ‘mind’, and ‘self’ in order to unfetter ourselves from false views

and tune our awareness to that which is most real. This approach is more nuanced toward

examining notions such as time and space, since physicists taking a purely objective

standpoint don’t have the ability to pin down these concepts as discrete or measurable.

This doesn’t stop physics from building extensive abstract models based on assumptions

about these carriers of dimensionality. These models may work as a functional blueprint

of material reality, but they say nothing about what the reality of phenomenon actually is.

27 Some Buddhist traditions, such as the “mind only” school, take the other extreme fromthe materialist conception of mind, and believe that mind is primary and out of itdeveloped our perceived reality. Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions take the middle waybetween all extremes.

20

Tibetan Lama Tarthang Tulku specifically addresses these issues in his pioneering

work, Time, Space and Knowledge (Tulku, 1977). Within its pages are a deep description

and understanding of the relationships between mind and awareness to space and time,

which is revealed to the reader through a series of exercises and examples. As Buddhist

Philosopher, Herbert Guenther writes in the forward to Time, Space, and Knowledge,

“True, we have got ourselves out of the familiar, but we have chained ourselves to the

abstract or, as one liked to term this new fetter, the absolute (with or without capital

letter).”

We have built up elaborate systems of science and philosophy based on

fundamental assumptions about the seemingly primary factors of reality such as the three

subjects in Tarthang Tulku’s work, where he poetically reminds us, “There is not the

slightest difference whether one is fettered by a chain of gold or a rope of straw.”

Guenther comments on this statement in his forward,

This is a bold and devastating statement, but while it destroys cherished notions, italso asks us to scrutinize our ideas all the time. The emphasis on ‘all the time’,assuming we already know what ‘time’ means. History shows that despite thecontinuous effort of refining our concepts we have not been cautious all the timeand have often replaced the straw by gold. (Tulku, 1977)

When we evaluate our ‘cherished notions’, they often turn out much differently

than we assumed. These relatively frequent dramatic shifts in our most fundamental ideas

about the nature of reality are evident throughout history, and were generally catalyzed

through the discerning search for essence and nuance in the assumed.28 The path (marga)

28 We mentioned the Copernican revolution earlier, which replaced our basic notion andobservation of a stable earth with a somewhat arbitrary planet revolving around anordinary star (one of ‘billions and billions’) in one of the hundreds of billions of galaxies

21

of Buddhist traditions requires the use of discerning awareness to undo all built-up

illusory conceptions of reality and self; the ultimate paradigm shift out of all ignorance.

Why we should care is that this ignorance is said to be the origin of all experienced

suffering (dukkha). This path is primarily accomplished through nuanced methods of

examining concepts of mind and experience. “Experience,” says Guenther, “is

nevertheless the source of interpretative notions among which ‘space’ and ‘time’ turn out

to be ‘horizon forms’ of experience itself.”

Tarthang Tulku uses the metaphor of a ‘focal-setting’ which restricts us to our

normal cherished notions of space, and that a wider focal-setting can open our awareness

to ‘higher’ spaces and even to ‘Great Space’. Could he be referring to something similar

to the mathematical concepts of larger dimensions? He explains,

‘Higher’ means more encompassing, more open and inclusive. Such spaces may‘include’ lower spaces in the sense that they are not so concerned with preservingan insular character – they are more accommodating. For this very reason, theyreflect Great Space. The insights acquired in ‘higher’ spaces also apply to ‘lower’spaces – they are not merely descriptions of the terrain of one territory as opposedto another. (Tulku, 1977)

To better understand these ideas, let us examine one of Tarthang Tulku’s visualization

practices called ‘the giant body’. It involves visualizing a human body the size of the

universe and mentally examining the spaciousness of its insides and the fuzziness and

permeability of its various membranes. Essentially we are examining dimensions of scale

and the space that is revealed behind normal perceptions tuned only to a spatial sliver of

scaled awareness.

of the universe. These “paradigm shifts” are discussed at length in works by Kuhn (Kuhn,1962) and Teilhard de Chardin (Teilhard de Chardin, 1999).

22

The visualization evolves toward examining the body from a perspective outside

of its boundaries. Tarthang Tulku asks us to, “Consider the possibility of entertaining this

vision without it being limited to a single angle or point of view; try to see the body from

all directions and levels simultaneously” (Tulku, 1977) This visualization is essentially

training the reader to move her perceptual awareness into a higher dimension.29 What

normally prevents this movement into ‘higher’ spaces are concepts and reified metaphors

based on uncritiqued assumptions about the organization of reality.

According to Tarthang Tulku, “There are no concepts and also no ‘Great Space

which is distinguished by an absence of concepts.’ Great Space is not a ‘thing’ and is not

different from our lower space” (Tulku, 1977). This is a more subtle view of the essence

of space than the physicists have described. In the Buddhist view, ‘lower’ space is

defined by the experience of crowding and constriction, while ‘higher’ space is more

open. Great Space might be conceived by us as primordial and infinitely open and

radiant.30

So why should we care? Remember that dukkha, suffering, is better translated as

“constricted space”. According to these traditions, all suffering is due to the constricted

(‘internal’) space caused by a fundamental worldview and perception which is out of

alignment with the structure of reality itself – a reality that is eternally, and naturally

open, spacious, and luminous.

29 To get a better idea of this, consider Flatland. If Square visualized his body fromoutside its boundaries, he would normally take a point of view in which he could see nomore than two edges at a time. If he were able to visualize without a particular point ofview all the sides of his body would essentially appear equivalent to seeing a square like3D creatures see it, all four sides at once.30 ‘Higher’ and ‘lower’ space doesn’t necessarily imply the physical dimensional model,but uses a similar dimensional metaphor.

23

Cosmology and Organization of Realms

Lets us now turn to a shared cosmology of the Hinayana, Mahayana, Kalachakra

and Dzogchen traditions.31 Central to this cosmology is the organization of samsaric

reality by stabilized nodes of awareness into coherent structures, or gestalts, called

realms, which are the interdependent relationships of the macrocosm, the physical

universe, and inner microcosm of sentient beings’ awareness. The macroscopic realms

are defined and sustained by different degrees and types of constrictions through

ignorance in the microcosmic nodal points of awareness, such as you and me. These

models of Buddhist cosmology are based on two conceptual systems – one deriving from

Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakosha and the other from the later Kalachakra Tantra. 32

Book one, “Myriad Worlds”, of Jamgon Kongtrul’s encyclopedic work, The

Treasury of Knowledge, describes the Buddhist cosmological systems associated with the

four traditions mentioned earlier. Central to these models is the belief that sentient beings

have always been in a state of fundamental delusion and ignorance. Cosmologies reveal

the process of how these types of delusions form and subsequently organize realms of

existence with beings experiencing them. Kongtrul says, “This instinctive unawareness of

the nature of being serves as the concomitant cause that activates the propensity for

dualistic experience. This causes a being to wander astray in the three realms [of

31 There is not one Buddhist cosmology. Even similar cosmologies in different traditions,like the ones we will be looking at, have some fundamental distinctions. We will focusprimarily on the most widely accepted cosmology from the Abhidharmakosha, and willtouch on some others in less detail.32 The Avatamsaka Sutra, or Flower Garland Sutra, presents a different cosmology ofinfinite fractal unfoldings and interpenetrations of realms as the central organizingprinciple.

24

existence]” (Kongtrul, 1995). These three realms of formless (arupadhatu), form

(rupadhatu), and desire (kamadhatu) are organized according to sentience descending

into more constricted degrees of ignorance. The three realms may themselves open in

fractal flowers to reveal finer levels of realms.

The desire realm comprises thirty-six types of beings: Six groups of gods,[humans of the] four continents, [Inhabitants of the] eight islands, animals andstarving spirits, [Beings in the] eight hot hells, and the eight cold hells. (Kongtrul,1995)

In the Mahayana tradition, in which there exist infinitely many buddhas,33 there also exist

pure-lands attributed to each buddha.34

As the central organizing symbol of this intricately described cosmology is the

image of Mt Meru, the cosmological mountain with realms organized vertically along its

axis. The human realm that we call home is one of 36 levels in the desire realm, which is

the lowest of 3 classes of realms. This system puts our world near the middle of the desire

realm with some worlds ‘below’ us and some ‘above’.35 The hierarchical organizing

structure is in a sense related to levels of ignorance and suffering, or ‘more-real’ to ‘less-

real’. This is a sticky point that will be discussed shortly.

Within the literature of Buddhist cosmology, each of these many realms are

described in fantastically vivid detail from how they appear to the senses, what kinds of

beings inhabit them, what the different flow rates of time are, and generally what

33 In pre-Mahayana Buddhism, the Buddha was a historical figure. In the Mahayanatradition, beginning with the Lotus Sutra (1st century C.E.), is the idea of an eternalBuddha where the historical Buddha is only one manifestation. The Flower Garland Sutra(3rd-4th century C.E.) describes multiple buddhas that exist simultaneously in the universe.34 Because classical cosmology didn’t describe pure lands, there is some discrepancy onwhere some are cosmologically located – within or outside of the three realms (Sadakata,1997).35 I again emphasize that this organization from ‘higher’ to ‘lower’ is not meant to refer tohigher and lower physical dimensionality as previously discussed.

25

experience is like for beings in these realms – emphases being on the types of suffering

endured. 36 So why is so much effort taken to describe in subtle detail, the characteristics

and organization of ‘other-worlds’? We know scientists have not found any evidence of

these worlds in a physical sense.

Are These Realms Real?

First of all, this question depends on that we mean by real, which is a complicated

philosophical investigation that involves at its root most insights from the Buddhist

traditions. The conventional and simple answer is that these realms are metaphors for our

own states of awareness. For example, in our desire realm, when we are angry or ‘fired-

up’, we are hell beings in a hell realm.37 Our entire environment reflects and sustains this

state of ‘hell’. Similarly, the animal realm is the ‘eat or be eaten’ suffering of instinctual

inertia, dominated by stupidity and an ontology of ‘I-cant’.38 All realms are based on a

feeling of lack and are dominated by ignorance and suffering. Even so-called god-realms

are characterized by the suffering of attachment and fear of losing one’s ‘immortal’

riches, health, and well-being. The suffering is magnified by the thought of no-escape.

The fear of losing what one has (attachment), or the terror of being unable to flee from

what causes misery, adds to the suffering, and triggers reactive emotional responses

which sustains the existence of these realms. The ‘higher’ form and formless realms are

36 There are many subtle differences among traditions on how specifically these worldsappear and are organized, such as relative size, number of subsets of realms, etc.37 A quintessential example of a hell realm is war.38 Other examples are: hungry ghost realms (pretas) would be dominated by feelings oflack. Human realms are quintessentially neurotic and characterized by fragile egostructures. Jealous Gods (asuras) are obsessed with god realms, or comparing self withthose with more abundance.

26

also dominated by ignorance and suffering but in a significantly smaller degree – beings

are still fettered to this impermanent hub on the wheel of samsara. Kongtrul writes,

“Moreover, the four levels of the formless realm are only distinctions of contemplation;

they have no form or location” (Kongtrul, 1995). Specifically, the form realm

(rupadhatu) is visited in transcendent states, altered states of consciousness, and

absorptions. The form-less realm (arupyadhatu) is the experience of infinite

consciousness, dynamic emptiness, and neither perception nor non-perception. The

impermanence of experience in these transcendent realms brings us back to the

‘mundane’.

What’s more, as long as we are ignorant to the nature of self and reality, caught in

the dualities of ignorance, we are beings in realms; both concepts being a sort of

apparition of habitual response – neither of which is said to have inherent existence. It

seems to follow that the question of the reality of these realms is a question of the reality

of our everyday existence including our precious notions of self and world. Realms are

the standing wave of constricted awareness (or space) defined by the proportions and

flavors of ignorance, which obscure the innately pure and infinitely open awareness

(space) and ground of reality itself.39

In regard to this question of ‘real-ness’, the more appropriate investigation might

be into what it means to be real. Self and world definitely seem real enough for us to have

experiences that we take seriously. However, through investigation, realms are said to be

39 I am not necessarily implying with my parenthetical connections that ‘space’ and‘awareness’ are the same. I am merely indicating the running metaphor between the twoconcepts.

27

the interdependent co-arisen mirror, reflecting the mistaken belief and co-defining the

existence of selfness. Tarthang Tulku says,

A central insight is that inasmuch as everything that constitutes our realm andexistence is alike in being a function of a focal setting, everything is inseparablyrelated – ‘given together’. A tempting, but misleading, inference is that thisinterdependence gives special prominence to the self or mind, that the self hasadopted a viewpoint or focal setting but can also change it. Yet, as we have seen,the ‘self’ is only a part of what we are calling the ‘output’ of the focal setting. Ithas no special status. (Tulku, 1977)

The type of realm in which beings find themselves reflects and substantiates the

emotional upsets (klesha) endured by its inhabitants that are caused and affected by the

dualities of hope and fear. The cyclical nature of this realm/being creation matrix is the

movement along the axis of ‘verticality’, symbolized by Mount Meru.

Goin’ Orthogonal

What does this extensive organization of realms along the towering symbol of

verticality, Mount Meru, actually represent? The defining characteristic of Mount Meru is

its perpendicular verticality. This universal axis can be thought of as a type of

orthogonality or vector of perpendicular dimension. This is not to say it is as specific as

the notion of a 4th dimension as defined by physics, but more that it is a symbol of

degrees of openness in the space of awareness, or the motility of mind. Similarly, within

many indigenous shamanic cultures, their cosmology has an axis symbolized as the

world, or cosmic tree40, which ‘orthogonally’ cuts through at least 3 (sometimes 7, 9, 12

or many more) specific ‘worlds’ – one of which is our familiar ‘middle’ world. It is the

40 Different shamanic cultures may use symbolically similar axes of a ladder, rope, orbridge.

28

shaman who metaphorically climbs this cosmic tree to other realms. According to Eliade,

“The Cosmic Tree, expressing the sacrality of the world, its fertility and perenniality, is

related to the ideas of creation, fecundity, and initiation, and finally to the idea of the

absolute reality and immortality” (Eliade, 1964). This cosmic axis, by connecting all

worlds, is in itself transcendent of these realms.

Interestingly, the Mongols define their cosmic axis as a four-sided pyramid with a

tree in the center (Eliade, 1964). These indigenous shamanic symbols of the orthogonal

organization of realms, seems to have been the model from which evolved some

important symbols of the later Buddhist cosmologies. Though the cosmologies of

different shamanic traditions vary, in a range of degree, with each other and also with

Buddhist cosmologies, their primary cosmological organization around a symbol of

perpendicularity seems far from coincidental.

What unites these traditions’ cosmologies is the said ability of awareness to move

along this axis and ‘go-orthogonal’. This intentional beam of verticality seen as either

Mount Meru, or the World Tree, is the path of travel and line of influence between

worlds. In the Buddhist cosmology, beings have been cycling through these realms of

suffering forever, and will continue to do so until they learn to move with intention along

the path out of all realms to that which is most ‘real’. These realms are held together by

the sticky actualization of karmic consequences. This in turn also inflicts suffering due to

our inability to see a way out. There is an experienced stuckness to these realms.

However, these are traditions that envision a Buddha in every realm, which symbolizes

the primal space of infinite awareness suffused throughout, granting the innate capacity

to transcend the wheel of samsara.

29

The spiritual cosmonaut, both bodhisattva and shaman, is the one who in a sense,

goes orthogonal to the set of all axes, in that she isn’t stuck in the cyclic wandering

between constricted worlds. Both bodhisattva and shaman master this freedom from the

muckiness of realms primarily to move through and work in realms with intention and

awareness for the sake of other beings blind to these more open dimensions of mind.

There are a variety of techniques in both the Buddhist and shamanic traditions to

travel to between realms/worlds. As we have seen in Buddhism, realms and beings

trapped in samsara co-create each other through karmic entanglements. However, the

path (marga) of Buddhism can be seen as the intentional movement along, and

transcendence off, this cosmic axis, through precise practices of nuanced discernment on

the essence of awareness, self, and reality. The shaman, however, employs techniques to

intentionally visit other realms for purpose of helping her tribe in this world by

negotiating with ‘beings’ in these other realms, gathering information, healing the sick,

and other survival based technologies. Many shamans serve this role because they are

prone to spontaneous movement between worlds, however most employ specific

technologies to facilitate this journey. The most common of these are through rhythmic

drumming41 and/or the use of psychoactive plants and fungi.

Real-Enough

One important distinction should be made between the quality of realms or worlds

in the shamanic traditions versus the model from the Buddhist traditions. Certain

41 The drum, most often said to be made from the bark of the world tree, facilitatesintentional use of rhythmic entrainment to synchronize the brain into alpha wave trancestates, which has the effect of ‘opening’ the mind of the shaman to travel between worlds(Harner, 1980)

30

shamanic technologies, namely psychedelic vegetables, which are used to traverse the

world tree that stretches between worlds, can be universally employed by anyone willing

to undergo the unsettling insights revealed along the duration of its tour. These

psychoactive vegetables have the profound effect of transporting a being’s awareness,

experientially into completely alien worlds where the dichotomies of real/not-real or

self/other are often meaningless. Descriptions of these realms range from vivid

experiences almost identical to the ‘metaphorical’ depictions of different hells in the

Buddhist traditions, to states that have been shown to possess all of the qualities of

mystical experience as set forth by William James, which bear striking resemblance to

Buddhist descriptions of pure-lands.42 Equally prevalent among psychedelic explorers is

the experience of higher dimensional space, and alternate dimensions of time. The

Buddhists comologies already admit that the form and formless realms are consequences

of mystical or expanded, meditative states, but there are equally convincing correlations

between more literal descriptions of various parts of the desire realm with experiences

with psychedelic plants and fungi.

What does it mean that descriptions of realms from Buddhist cosmology can be

literally experienced in all their rich detail? Notice that the metaphor shifts such that the

Buddhist cosmological description refers to an ineffably more intensely experienced

realm. Previously the metaphor seemed to experientially overstate the target of its

comparison, emotional and conceptual states, but in this context the metaphor seems to

point in the other direction – at something ineffably more alien to standard experience.

Perhaps the Buddhist models and descriptions of realms as metaphor is accurate as a

42 See Leary, Metzner, and Alpert’s study, ‘The Good Friday Experiment’.

31

microcosmic and local thumbprint of ‘higher’ and more archetypal43 realms, which can be

visited in highly modified states of consciousness. Would a lower dimensional shadow of

a realm metaphorically relate to literal descriptions of that realm? Can we organize the

more literal versus metaphorical descriptions of realms into hierarchies based on what’s

‘real’? Despite the discrepancies to the experienced literality of these realms, the

Buddhist’s insights on how these realms form and are maintained seem to be unaffected.

So are these more literal experiences of realms any more ‘real’?

There is extensive literature about first-hand psychedelic experience with beings

and realms completely alien to our normal experience in which the psychonaut may

communicate, learn, or even be attacked by these beings. Mostly by those who have

never experienced this type of dissociation from the mundane, there is the claim that the

experience is ‘hallucination’ (implying ‘less real’) or simply projections of the

‘unconscious’. Both concepts are poorly defined and serve to conceptually turn away

from the experience itself.

From my own experiences with the shamanic plant medicine ayahausca, the

realms and beings experienced during its effects, emotionally feel, perceptually look, and

behave as real, and often more real than my everyday consensual reality. These worlds

often have the quality of being contained within a ‘bigger’ spatial and cognitive

dimension44 such that it contains the everyday dimensions of mind and world in which we

are all familiar. What I mean by a ‘bigger’ or more open cognitive dimension is that there

43 I reluctantly use the word ‘archetypal’ to refer to realms, but these ‘spaces’ oftenappear more mythological from an ordinary perspective.44 It should be clear by now that ‘bigger’ spatial dimensions would have to coincide with‘bigger’ cognitive dimensions, since the two non-distinct realms seem to define eachother.

32

is often a sense of gnosis, or transcendence beyond the confines of linear or dualistic

concepts – not to a world that is chaotic and confusing, but to populated universes where

paradox and ironic insight are more basic organizing principles than linearity and logic.

From this perspective the conventional reality is seen more for what it is, dreamlike,

constricted, fragile, and ruled by lack of discernment and habitual responses to reactive

notions of hope and fear.

In one sense, these realms are real enough. From a certain perspective, the

question of the reality of any experienced realm is the question of the reality of our

conventional ‘realm’. Is this the standard from which we measure the ‘real’? The only

argument for the reality of one over another is our repeated group experience over time.45

Is it any wonder then, that the indigenous cultures that repeatedly go together into these

alien realms through ritualistic use of psychedelic plants, take them to be as, and often

more real than our conventional reality? The repetition of an experience makes that

experience more real. Meditation, then, is the making real of introspective discoveries.

Tim Leary and Ralph Metzner were first to describe ‘set and setting’ as essential

trajectory conditions for how a psychedelic experience could unfold. A person’s set

(mental state) and setting (environment) can be seen as isomorphic to the organization of

realms of Buddhism. An angry person (hell realm) in a drunken biker bar taking a high

dose psychedelic will likely have experiences of literal hell realms. What do I mean by

this? Visualize the 36 levels of the desire realm as around a circle on a 2D plane, often

45 We could further open that argument by thinking about the perspective and standard‘reality’ experience by other beings we share our world with, such as animals, reptiles,insects, and fish who experience the world in vastly different ways.

33

depicted in visionary thankas. These more ‘metaphorical realms’46 each may have a depth

of dimensionality (picture a 3rd dimension in our model) which is characterized as more

perceptually and experientially literal to the descriptions. Each realm seems to have sort

of fractal unfolding into degrees of meaningful experience.

The Illusion of a Robust Comfort Zone

Discerning investigation into our own ‘set and setting’ as a being in a realm

reveals the endless continual movement from one realm to another in the more

metaphorical sense. However, the boundaries of our consensual reality between the more

literally experienced ‘other-worlds’ are closer than we may realize. The most obvious

boundaries of our realm are the poles of birth and death which all of us are linearly

traveling along the dimension of time. This interval is the fragile shell of my so-called

life. From a purely physical perspective, we have seen how our normal awareness is

constricted to a microscopically thin dimension of scale considering the infinite

directions into the macro and micro that are possible.

Perceptually and experientially we leave this realm every night when we sleep

and dream. If we try to avoid this departure by not sleeping, we will soon experience a

radically different reality due to exhaustion and sleep deprivation. Slight fluctuations of

environment will also cause massive shifts of consciousness. One example is Carbogen, a

range of ratios between carbon and oxygen (the main ingredients of our atmosphere) that

causes extremely dissociative psychedelic effects. There are also thousand of plants,

46 I say ‘metaphorical realm’ to refer to the standard interpretation of Buddhistcosmology. This phrase is not meant to lesson the intensity of experience that each realmoffers, only to distinguish it from shamanic realms that are described as moreperceptually literal to standard descriptions.

34

fungi, and even animal secretions scattered around the world that have been fount to have

psychedelic properties with a potentially profound impact on experienced reality. Food,

sex, exertion, illness, injury, art, music, and love can all have a significant impact on our

experienced reality of self and world. Basically, major changes of any aspect of our

fragile comfort zone is experienced as the disorientating movement between worlds, and

is often avoided at all costs due to the power of fear and attachment. It is the spiritual

aspirant, shaman, and scientist who often seek these states of dissolution in order to get a

more thorough perspective on reality despite the apparent repercussions to cherished

notion.

Grounded in Freefall

We have taken quite a jaunt through the dimensions of other worlds. Hopefully

these different angles of philosophical light illuminate more perspectives on our inferred

cosmologies. Heraclites once said, “Nature loves to hide.” It is obvious but profoundly

strange that what is most real in the world is not what is most obvious. There are no

theories of our human condition or ideas about our universe upon which all people could

agree are true or even real. Yet due to our general unawareness, there arises a desire,

often culturally, to figure things out. This conundrum of human experience has resulted

in cultures across space and time having unique cosmologies, from the indigenous

shamanic worldviews, to religious institutions and modern science. Despite the infinitely

varied cosmologies that these cultures could potentially create, there are often striking

similarities between them that are far from conventionally verified as real – ideas of other

worlds, realms, dimensions, and beings.

35

People captivated by their particular cosmologies don’t perceive their worldview

as mere model – for them it is how the universe really is, and it is everyone else’s

perspectives that appear as mere models. Our basic assumptions about the essence of self

and universe go largely unquestioned and get reified and ingrained through their parasitic

home in language. We become addicted to a very narrow comfort level of space and time.

However, deep inquiry into the essence of self and world reveal greater nuances of

dimension both in space and awareness. Seemingly ‘internal’ space and dimension

fluctuate, mirroring outer ‘external’ space and dimension – like an apparition dancing

with its own reflection. Not only can we experience other realms, in a certain sense, we

are always moving through, or getting stuck, or being influenced by these various

dimensions of existence. Realms can be thought of as the perceptual trace of a roaming

awareness.

It is not within the realm, but through a sort of conceptual orthogonality

transcending perceived boundaries of ‘dimension’, that inter-world travel is possible.

Realms are characterized by their experienced lastingness, and it is often difficult to find

space within these constrictions. How does one get out of a cage that she doesn’t know

that she’s in? Can merely opening to larger ‘dimensions’ of space/awareness be enough?

We are reminded of the parable of the frog in a well that had no concept of the ocean-

frog’s proclamation of a reality far larger than he could have ever imagined (Rinpoche,

1998). But is going ‘bigger’ enough,47 or can we realize that all these scales of awareness

are just the play of mind and space? As Tarthang Tulku says, “Space is projecting space

into space” (Tulku, 1977).

47 Actually, in the parable, upon seeing the ocean, the frog from the well died ofastonishment!

36

Cosmology is the description and organization of the entanglement of ignorance

for the purpose of orienting our cosmological compass to the fact that we are actually

stuck within a sort of self-created web of suffering. Essentially, our path is out of all

cosmologies, along the orthogonal axis perpendicular to all world trees, and all Mt

Meru’s and off all branes. This isn’t a particular discrete destination or physical/cognitive

dimension, but a process. The fractal dance of continuously unfolding in dimensionally

perpendicular directions – angles perpendicular even to themselves – is the path to Great

Space. This primordially pure space is not fractured into finite dimensions, but is an

awareness that is open continuously and infinitely. The path is the goal. The 3 elements

said to be the only uncreated aspects of reality, space, and the two aspects of the

enlightenment, point to reality itself – the uncreated, and undestroyed, primordially pure

source of infinite harmonies, which display the dance of standing waves labeled self and

world onto itself. As Tarthang Tulku says,

Once our perspective is sufficiently open, all experience can be seen as thedynamic interplay of Space, Time and Knowledge. The inherent beauty ofappearance, which is the dance of Time, Space, and Knowledge, unfolds naturallybefore and with us. We can then directly experience our Being, which expressesitself as a dynamic and complete freedom. In this way we can discover what itmeans to be truly human. (Tulku, 1977)

37

Works Cited

Abbott, Edwin A. Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions. New York: Dover

Publications, 1992.

Eliade, Mircea. Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Princeton: Princeton UP,

1964.

Harner, Michael. The Way of the Shaman. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1980.

Jammer, Max. Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics. 3rd ed.

New York: Dover Publications, 1954.

Kongtrul, Jamgon. “Myriad Worlds.” The Treasury of Knowledge. Trans. Kalu Rinpoche

Translation Group. New York: Snow Lion Publications, 1995.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press, 1962.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1980.

Randall, Lisa. Warped Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe’s Hidden

Dimensions. New York: Harper Perennial, 2005.

Rinpoche, Patrul. The Words of My Perfect Teacher. Trans. Padmakara Translation

Group. Revised ed. Boston: Shambala, 1998.

Sadakata, Akira. Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins. Trans. Gaynor Sekimori.

Tokyo: Kosei Publishing, 1997.

Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre. The Human Phenomenon. Trans. Sarah Appleton-Weber.

Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 1999.

38

Tulku, Tarthang. Time, Space, and Knowledge: A New Vision of Reality. Emeryville,

CA: Dharma Publishing, 1977.

Zajonc, Arthur, ed. The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama.

Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004.