our relationship to the world from within in translation

Everything has its double in the traditional dimension of the inner world. A psychic source that acts as a kind of template that is embodied by its physical presence. In traditionally living aboriginal people in Australia, it occurs everywhere in all physical objects. In plants, trees, its leaves, in animals, insects and people as the dreaming. Everything is part of it. It is with our inner person that we interact with the world around us. It also strikes me that it is in this context that we talk about soul migration, and the role our inner person has as something that returns again and again in the stream of consciousness regardless of the time it appears in. I think this is why Buddhists have taken this very seriously, and with great care for how that person should train itself to encounter this content when we are confronted with our consciousness, and to be able to return and contribute with the psychic undercurrent that provides us with substance. In the old Sami inner world, conceptualized as Sáivu. People interacted with everything as part of the physical world, with both the living, with the return of our ancestors, and the dead. With nature and the underlying psychic presences that person encounters in it. We still do it without knowing it because we want genuine relationships that do not always refer to the superego. We want our relationships to be a person to person relationship with our inner doubles in our physical reality. Without it, we lack personal depth and become shallow, relying solely on the superego and its preferred reference to the world. In addition to this line of experiences, and considering the works of quantum chemist, professor Lothar Schäfer. Quote, the empirical world is an emanation out of a cosmic realm of potentiality, a non-empirical realm of the universe that doesn’t consist of material things but of forms. These forms are real, even though they are invisible, because they have the potential to appear in the empirical world and act in it. My point is that neither our stream of consciousness nor the source of its substream is ours. They don’t belong to anyone. We have a relationship with them through our ego, and under certain circumstances of our interaction with them we are provided with a kind of union of their content.