In a recent interview I watched, they described finer values of existence using the term “dimension.” This is a common error I’ve seen even physics PhD’s make.
For example, say we call astral the 4th dimension and mental the 5th. But both the astral and mental are also 3D, so you’d need to add 3 for each. Now you have 9 dimensions, not 5. And what about time? We experience time differently at different resolutions. Are there multiple dimensions of time? Or just different ways of experiencing it?
This is also implying that astral and mental and such are separate spaces, which they’re not. If we’re inside one layer and looking at another, they may seem separate. But that’s only due to the context, not the actuality. If we’re inside a large building, we see floors. If we’re outside, we see the building as a whole.
All of the subtle values interpenetrate each other and the physical and exist in the same space, first arising in the dynamics of awareness aware of itself. Thus, there is one space, whatever the level.
To be precise, space is nested. What we describe as the universe or outer space is a space nested inside the creation space, along with other universes. As aware beings, we hold a reality or personal space within the universe (although that can grow significantly). Every object arises in the dynamics of self-awareness and thus has its own space within the universe space and in your space if it’s been in your experience. Obviously, there’s a lot of overlap. All of these are “defined” areas within one creation space.
This is something like national and local boundaries, only a little more subtle. You could say you live in Canada or France or Tibet. But countries, even local property and land title, are conceptual objects that have no physical reality. They exist in mental space, we could say. The 49th Parallel for example, the border between the US and Canada, exists only on maps. Similarly, the property your home is on may be defined by a fence. But is that anything more than a representation? Even geological boundaries like a seashore are conceptual boundaries to a country. The land continues under the water. And countries continue to argue about where their border really is.
It’s also worth noting that space is omnidirectional. 3D is an arbitrary conceptual way to measure open space and plot objects in it. Bucky Fuller developed a 4D model based on the tetrahedron. A map does not fully describe actual space. The map is not the territory.
A similar issue arises when people speak of “bodies”, as in astral body & causal body. The Vedic term is kosha or sheath. This describes it much better.
Why is this point important? If we use misleading terms, they can lead to conceptual misunderstandings about what we’re experiencing. English doesn’t have a good vocabulary for subtle reality and we need greater precision to improve understanding.
Davidya
Pingback: Nested Space | In 2 Deep
Yes, once you leave the realm of spacial dimensions and space-time, I’ve always found the whole idea of dimensions rather confusing. Especially when people are referring to something esoteric or mystical they tend to throw the word around rather haphazardly. Outer dimensions, inner dimensions, higher dimensions, etc., it makes string theory’s eleven-dimensional space appear prosaic in comparison and seems to be a catch-all phrase for something they themselves don’t really understand.
Hi Gina
Yes. Even referring to subtler layers as “dimensions” is quite misleading as it’s not really a different space. Like changing floors in a building, we may at first think it separate but soon see it as part of the same structure. Not to mention adding a single dimension isn’t valid.
.
Right – physics is recognizing there’s more to it than the physical but is adding curled up dimensions because they’ve not yet recognized layers. An issue of the materialist paradigm. Earlier scientists didn’t have this issue.