I don’t recall which grade it was, probably late elementary school or sometime in middle school, but I recall one time riding the bus with the rest of my classmates from some field trip or another. Middle of the day, clear bright weather. There I am, my usual introverted child self, maybe some age between like 9 and 12, sitting by the window starting outside watching the landscape go past—and there I am, thinking my thoughts as I was, and it struck me:
Gosh, the sky is big.
Which, like…duh. I asked the kid next to me (I’ve long since forgotten who) if they ever thought about how big the sky was, to which they give a (in hindsight utterly predictable) answer of pure confusion and dismissal, a combined “no” and “duh”. I shrugged off their reply and went back at staring out the window. I don’t remember anything else about that trip, or even what grade it was, but I remember the sudden childlike awe that struck me when it dawned on me how immeasurably huge the sky is.
Which is weird, right? I mean, there hasn’t been a single day in my life that I haven’t seen the sky. Sometimes it’s clear, sometimes it’s cloudy; sometimes I see the Sun, other times the Moon, other times only stars (and even then, maybe more or fewer depending on light pollution). Somedays I go outside with the sky directly overhead, other days I stay inside and see it from my window, but there has never been a single day I can recall where I haven’t seen the sky once. It’s always there, it’s always been there, and it always will be there. It stretches from east to west and from north to south, a complete 360° circle, forming the illusion of a complete and total dome around the boundary of the horizon. And yet, for some reason, in this one bizarre moment, I only realized just then how big the sky actually is.
And yet, every now and then, in the intervening years, it’ll dawn on me all over again, with almost the same impact as it did the first time. As it did earlier today while I was taking an afternoon walk around my neighborhood.
Thinking back on it, and all the times I remember that instance and all the times I get hit with it, I realize now what actually triggered it. Sometimes I’ll be lying on my back on the ground staring up at the sky, but that isn’t what trigger it (although, if you trick your brain, you can kinda make it feel like you’re stuck to some sort of ceiling facing a bottomless pit, which is neat, too). What triggered this realization was, sitting on that older kind of school bus with the plain seats and cheap industrial interior, the fact that I was staring at the sky from a window—and realizing that the sky exceeded the frame of the window itself.
Intellectually, of course, I knew that the sky would go past the boundaries of a single small window (it literally exceeds all boundaries!), but I think what I realized in that moment was that the sky could not be bounded, could not be contained, and just staring out the window with a bit of tired-relaxed-eye vision to see both the sky and the window through which I saw it helped me come to that realization. Whether or not the window is just one of a series and you’re just looking through a single pane, or whether it’s a single window in a wall, the sky will always fill the window, and just keep going past it. Heck, you could look up outside at the sky between the tops of trees on a street, or the sky between tall buildings in an alleyway, and you’ll see the same thing: there is nothing that could ever actually limit the sky. It just keeps going, well past the point where you yourself can see it.
It’s like…consider your own eyesight. You have your field of view, and while some people have better peripheral vision (things outside the direct center of your sight) than others, everyone has limits to their field of view. Now, dear reader, if you’ll indulge me in a bit of an exercise: consider your own field of view. Become aware of the limits of your sight, how far you’re able to look from left to right and top to bottom, with one or both eyes. You don’t need to move your eyes or anything, just relax your eyes slightly and just…become aware of your whole field of vision.
Now try to look past that, say, further to your right than your right eye actually can see. Don’t try to move your eyes to the right, but just try to look further to the right than what you’re actually seeing in your field of view. Look to the right into the space where you can’t look anymore.
Feels weird, right? Almost like a paradox; your eyes aren’t designed for that, even from at the level of your own skin right down to the level of your optical nerves. How can you see anything when you literally don’t have the field of vision to see? How can you look in a direction when there’s nothing there to look? How can you get input from a source that you are literally unequipped to receive input from?
Try it again. Don’t move your eyes, don’t try to strain them or give yourself a headache. Just as you became aware of your field of vision as it is, try to become aware of what is outside your field of vision. Perhaps just start with the area to the right outside your field of vision like before, or (if you’re bold) the whole area outside your entire field of vision, as if you were looking backwards while facing forwards.
Your brain is probably racing at this point, trying to figure out what sort of image to supply there for something that literally has no image. For most people, it’ll be whirling around in a confusion, since you’re trying to tell it to do something that it naturally knows what to do normally but it’s operating in an undefined area here. Should you just perceive an inky blackness, a void devoid of any image at all? Should you perceive static, like a TV disconnected from any input cable? Should you perceive what you know is actually outside your field of view, mentally constructing it from memory rather than from sense of sight? Should you perceive the inside of your own flesh and skull, veins and tendons and all?
That feeling you get from trying to look past your own field of view is the same kind of feeling I get about the sky in general. Just as with the limitations on your field of view, where you can just turn to see a bit more to the left or right or up or down depending on how you turn, you can just look out the window a bit more from a different angle, or poke your head out and crane your neck to get a bigger view of the sky to see more of it. But there will always be parts you can’t see, parts you know are there, but the perception of which—the mere feeling of the perception of which—simply exceed your capacity to perceive.
And, again, that makes sense; of course the sky would do that, because it’s the sky. But I think what stuck with me then, and what continues to stick with me now, is the sheer feeling of Unlimitedness that this is all so intimately bound up with. Interminability, infinity, immeasurability, boundlessness, endlessness—these are all things that the sky is perhaps one of the best, most physical, and most immediately accessible representations of these notions that we have. Unlike any building we might inhabit, any land we might tread, any sea we might sail, any road we might walk, any depth we might plumb, there is nothing on this planet that is as unlimited as the sky itself is. And, when you think about it, that’s just the 2D spatial qualities of it; when you consider that there is nothing on this planet that has lasted as long as the sky has, or will have lasted as long as the sky will, taking any temporal bounds as a “windowframe” of time as it were, then the sky becomes even more daunting. And, going back to the spatial qualities of it, even if you were to just consider the sky as some sort of 2D dome above the Earth based on its appearance to us, it’s technically just “the whole of the rest of space”, so if you consider it as a 3D domain, then it’s also extends infinitely above you in every direction, too.
There is nothing that can bound, limit, frame, or contain the sky. Try as you might, you will fail—because the sky is what bounds, limits, frames, and contains all things.
When we talk about things associated with the sky, there are several terms we can use, each of which has a fascinating etymological origin:
- “sky”, from Proto-Indo-European *(s)kewH- “to cover, to conceal” (cognate with Latin obscurus)
- “heaven”, from Proto-Germanic *hibin-, perhaps from Proto-Indo-European *kem- “to cover” or from *h₂éḱmō “stone” to refer to the celestial vault generally
- “celestial”, from Latin caelum “heaven, sky”, with unclear etymological origin, but perhaps from Proto-Indo-European *kaid-slo “bright, clear” or *keh₂i-lom “whole”
- “天” (the Chinese character for the sky, heaven, or celestial things, including weather or divine entities associated with such realms), is considered as a person with outstretched arms (大) with a level over the head (一), originally representing the round sky (囗) above a person but in addition/alternative to this as an anthropomorphic depiction of heaven as a person with a large head
In three of the examples above, there’s a notion of the sky being something covering us, like a tarp over a pile or a lid on a pot. The sky is the “lid” of the world we’re familiar with; from our perspective, the sky is what conceals the things above it from us, but by that same token, when seen from above, the sky is what keeps us down here below separated. In a sense, the sky is the limit of the world, that which contains us and covers us, like a tunic does a body.
But the word “celestial” above is not quite like the other. It has a different connotation, if you consider the PIE root *keh₂i-lom “whole”, and which would render the word “celestial” indeed related to our word “whole” and thus “holy”. While the connotations of the English words may well have existed in an earlier time in a different language (emphasis on the word “may”), it’s especially interesting when you consider the Latin word caelum as the opposite of templum “a part” (itself from PIE *temh₁ “to cut”, related to Greek τέμενος). Sure, this word is generally used to refer to any space dedicated to a deity or to their worship (hence our modern English derivative “temple”), but when it came to the ancient Roman practice of augury, it refers to a demarcated space that an augur would mark out in the sky—a “cut-out part” as it were—in which the augur would observe any omens for interpretation. The whole sky was not observed, but just a part of it, presumably because the observation of the whole sky was not something possible or feasible to do, especially considering the relatively limited and limiting concerns humans have about things down here. As a parallel, consider: in ancient Greek thought, one went to a legitimate oracle of the gods for prophecy, but otherwise would piously refrain from trying to determine the events of the future (though one might still seek out advice or guidance regarding it), because only the gods were permitted to know the mind of Zeus and the inner workings of Fate, and even then, such a mind could not be known in full, but only particular thoughts.
There, again, we see a notion of limits—and that makes sense for us as human beings, doesn’t it? By our very nature, we are finite creatures, and we can’t really deal well with infinity all that well. I’m reminded of the distinction in Islamic conceptions of infinite time (courtesy of Andrew Chumbley’s Qutub) between azal and abad. In this context, azal is defined as “eternity a parte ante” or “eternity without a beginning”, and abad as its counterpart of “eternity a parte post” or “eternity without an end”. As human beings, we naturally have only our own frame of reference to understand abstract concepts, and the most immediate frame of reference for discussing matters of time is the present moment. In this light, azal is the whole infinity of the past up until this moment, while abad is the whole infinity of time from this moment into the future. We can look in either direction well enough, but trying to look at both at the same time to consider one infinity unbounded in both directions at once is…challenging. Sure, we might be able to accept the existence of time as something without beginning and without end, both agenēton and ateleuton, but trying to actually comprehend that is a different matter. In astrological terms, it’d be like trying to join together the North and South Nodes of the Moon together to see what their conjunction would be like; they are, by definition, opposites of each other. It’s just the same with azal and abad—and perhaps fittingly so, as they both have conjectured Persian origins meaning “without head (start)” and “without foot (end)”, respectively, just how the North Node is the “head of the dragon” (but without a body, as in Rahu) and how the South Node is the “tail of the dragon” (but without a head, as in Ketu). It’s only through limitation, because we’re ourselves finite, that we can’t easily approach unlimitedness.
And yet, that very notion of unlimitedness is what so many of us in this mystical stuff seek. I mean, from the Corpus Hermeticum, consider Hermēs’ vision of Poimandrēs revelation of the “the archetypal form, the preprinciple that exists before a beginning without end” in CH I.7:
After he said this, he looked me in the face for such a long time that I trembled at his appearance. But when he raised his head, I saw in my mind the light of powers beyond number and a boundless cosmos that had come to be. The fire, encompassed by great power and subdued, kept its place fixed. In the vision I had because of the discourse of Poimandrēs, these were my thoughts.
Or again when Nous tells Hermēs how to understand God in CH XI.20:
Thus, unless you make yourself equal to God, you cannot understand God; like is understood by like. Make yourself grow to immeasurable immensity, outleap all body, outstrip all time, become eternity and you will understand God. Having conceived that nothing is impossible to you, consider yourself immortal and able to understand everything, all art, all learning, the temper of every living thing. Go higher than every height and lower than every depth. Collect in yourself all the sensations of what has been made, of fire and water, dry and wet; be everywhere at once, on land, in the sea, in heaven; be not yet born, be in the womb, be young, old, dead, beyond death. And when you have understood all these at once—times, places, things, qualities, quantities—then you can understand God.
In these examples, we have Hermēs confronting (or being told to confront) the very notion of divinity in all its unlimitedness, in all its boundlessness. In the former example, this is the revelation of Divinity itself; in the latter example, this is the way to be understand it. It is so unlike anything else we might understand, given how we’re so finite—or, rather, are accustomed to finitude and limits, even if our limits are all within this grand infinity. After all, the sky stops being a sky once you’re no longer on Earth; then it just becomes space, same as everywhere here. Once you no longer have sky, you no longer have a separation between world and not-world, inner space and outer space. It all just becomes…well, it doesn’t become anything, doesn’t it? It’s rather that the barrier just falls down: it’s a revelation, an uncovering, and in this case, the sky itself is the covering. At that point, you’re no longer gawking at the limitations that unlimitedness breaks, because there’s no limits there to gauge “limit” or “limitless” anymore. You just…are, as something with and in and of the totality of everything.
I know this post is a little weird and rambly, but as I said earlier, I occasionally turn to that childlike thought in my childhood of being in awe at how big the sky was. In considering what it meant and exploring that line of thinking a bit, it reminded me of an important aspect of this mystical stuff that I’ve been exploring more as part of my Hermeticism. Maybe I haven’t been particularly adept at expressing it, but realizing how used we are to limits in general and realizing how limitlessness can be an aspect of Divinity—and, moreover, how easily it is to behold that limitlessness, and how weird it is to actually experience it—is something I think is a crucial reminder of what it is we’re in this for. After all, as Nous told Hermēs, we need to get on God’s level in order to understand God.
Remember that little experiment from above, about trying to see outside your field of vision? Maybe I could make up for the rambling of this post with leaving you a little meditative exercise that builds on that, and which also relates to the imagery of the sky. As with most meditative exercises, get yourself into a good posture, relax yourself, and regulate your breathing however you normally do so. Once you’re ready, consider: see yourself sitting as I was, on a school bus seat, looking out the window at the sky. Take a good look out the window—what do you see? Trees, cars, people walking their dogs, construction crews? Always find the sky behind and covering them all, and fix your focus on the sky. Contemplate how it covers, surrounds, and exceeds anything else you see, wherever else you see it. Mentally extend how big the sky must be in your mind, not just in one direction but in all directions. Dwell in that feeling of Bigness, letting it wash away and drown out all else that you saw before.
But, later on, once you’re ready after giving the above a few attempts, consider this instead: see yourself as a single point on Earth, wherever you fancy yourself, and look up at the sky above you. See the limits of your own perception of the sky: is it a window, or the horizon, or the clouds, or your glasses-frames, or the limits of your field of vision? Slowly take away each limit you come across to behold more and more of the sky, even unto the whole Earth itself if you have to, even your own body if you have to, so that all you observe is a clear sky in a perfect sphere all around you. Once you get to that, start removing the very sky itself outwards, removing each layer of the atmosphere from your central vantage point, going outwards and outwards and ever outwards, all to see what continues to lie beyond. Once you get to the point where you’re observing the entire observable universe all as one thing—well, what then? Work on your own mental “field of vision”; what are you not perceiving yet, what lies outside your field of imagination (just like how you were trying to look to the right of your own field of vision above)? Strip away your own perceptive and imaginative limits, strip away the thing even doing the perceiving itself, strip away the very thing stripping the notions of limits—and then dwell therein.
You must be logged in to post a comment.