For our mental equilibrium, it is important to have some kind of reference to our psychic perception and its own internal logic in its connection to our cognitive abilities, in order to have a way of explaining how we experientially formulate perceptions of the psychic content that we materialize when we see it through the reality our external senses provide us with. Two old collective names for the separation of these experiences, and the mental work they present to us from their opposites, are Indriya and Āyatana. They have existed for a very long time and are also constantly experienced anew by self-observing people who, through their raw experience even without knowing them, confirm the documented experience we have of them. If we remain in the functional aspects of Indriya and Āyatana long enough for their mental properties to become clear, and their mutual influence on each other in our everyday life to be able to show the content they create both together and separately, then the religious function between them also becomes apparent when they have not yet been separated experientially. The reason I use these terms to refer to the experience of these mental states and their functions is that I know of no equivalents in psychology or otherwise. By reusing them, I also gain access to an experientially based documentation of them that has existed much longer than our epistemological contexts extend. Āyatana as an experiential center relates us to the cognitive functions of consciousness and their individual properties. Āyatana makes it impossible to perceive and understand the content of the properties Indriya develops in our mental functions, which have nothing to do with our external senses, because Indriya balances them and ensures that they maintain their proper relationship to our mental objects. When they cannot be perceived objectively as mental properties whose functions act together but independently of each other, we add the content of Indriya to our cognitive functions and external sense objects without being able to perceive them as separate in their mutual interaction with each other. External objects are then also assigned mental properties that mean that they will be perceived as possessing attributes that go beyond what our external senses convey to us. If we cannot perceive this when it arises with a self-reflective meditative habit, it will instead take on a religious overtone. Which makes it appear as a religious function. Objects of the mind in an embodied sense will be provided with our mental functions and their inherent psychic energy. They will transform into the unknown relationship we have to our own mental content and in one way or another assume these properties for us. In this way, we give form and content to the properties and functions we carry within ourselves in an embodied and material way through other people and objects for them. Through this self-observant oscillation, we also discover that nothing is permanent. Nothing is indefinite. Everything is temporary. It arises and disappears all the time. It is precisely here that we discover, through self-observation, that what we emphasize in ourselves is what we promote in others, and what others emphasize is what they promote in us. Without some meditative self-reflection where this distinction between them is made visible, we end up in a state of psychic anxiety where everything becomes one and the same. We will never discover that the world is an individual experience. That what we do in it is something we stage from the states that arise between us and ourselves. If these are unknown or undeveloped, it is the world we create for others around us. We create the suffering and mental deficiencies that exists in it, from the relationship we have with ourselves.