Well, the point it that we become aware of ourselves first, only later we know things outside. After we become aware that things are outside, we become also aware as to what those things are. From a general knowledge of things, we reach to the specific knowledge of things. “It is not merely something in a featureless bareness that are in front of me, but this is a chair, this is a table, this is a wall clock, this is a person”. Then, the awareness becomes more specified. “This is my son, this is my daughter, this is my friend, this is so-and-so”, etc. Then it becomes further more expresses in the form of an impulse to action with regard to the things seen. This is also, in a way, the process of the creation of the world.
What happened cosmically must have been something like this individual phenomenon that we pass through every day after we wake up from sleep. The point at issue is, how do we become conscious of the world? We become conscious of the world by an expansion of our consciousness gradually from our selves outside. What is this ‘outside’? The so called ‘outside’ is the world, really speaking. The world is not constituted of mountains and trees, human beings, cows and asses.
These are not the world. The world is an ‘outside-ness’ of things, the externality, the so-called ‘thingness’ in all things, a peculiar separation of one thing from another, and this feature becoming a content of our consciousness. The consciousness of externality is the world. If this externality were not to be there, there would be no world
If there is no space between you and me, we would not see each other, and space and time go together. If the one is, the other is also there. So, the space-time structure is the world. What we call the world is nothing but space-time. If this were not to be there, there would be no externality of perception, and if the externality were not to be there, there would be no world-experience. World-experience is nothing but externality of experience. If we are to somehow divest ourselves of the consciousness of externality of every kind, we will ‘enter’ into the world at once, and the world will ‘enter’ into us. The whole problem is of the externality of space-time, and we are given here a lot of information in the theories of knowledge of the various schools of philosophy, as to how we become aware of things outside. The things are not really outside, that is the point. That they are not outside should be clear from the analysis of Nature itself. Things form one organic whole. We cannot say that our leg is outside our body, notwithstanding the fact that we are seeing it. Merely looking at things cannot be regarded as a proof of their externality, because I see even my fingers, but I do not say that they are outside me.
The outsideness of a thing arises on account of a distinction between the consciousness of the seer and the existence of the seen. We begin to feel that our consciousness is different from others’ being. When we speak of the distinction between the seer and the seen, we actually mean a distinction between beings in their essentiality. But, how does one know that another being exists? The space or the time content between us cannot be the cause of this perception. An undercurrent of consciousness is necessary. If there is not going to be a secret connection of consciousness between me and you, I cannot know that you are sitting in front of me. The wind that is blowing on my face through the fan that is moving cannot be regarded as the cause of my awareness that you exist. The wind has no consciousness, it cannot make me know that you are. Nothing that is visible to our eyes, as that which exists between me and you, can be considered a cause of my knowledge that you are. There is nothing, practically, between you and me, there is only empty space. How do I know that you are there? This is a strange phenomenon. My eyes, physically constituted as they are, are spatially cut off from your physical existence; you are not sitting inside my eyes. How do I know that you are and how do you know that I am here? Nothing that is visible to the eyes can be regarded as a cause of the perception of an object.
We may say, there is the mind, and we have finally to bank upon this aspect of our being. The mind is thinking that you are. But, then, where is the mind? Where is it situated? Mostly, we think that it is inside our body. My mind is inside my brain or at least within my body, it cannot be outside. Now, if my mind is inside my body, naturally it cannot be of any help to me in my knowing that you exist; because, you are outside me, at least a few yards away from me, and the mind is inside my body, it has not gone out. But if you say, that, perhaps the mind is going out and is touching the bodies of others, and then it becomes aware, it would be curious that the mind cannot exceed the border of the body. Why speak of people before me, I know even that there is a sun shining in the sky, 93 million miles away from me. Does it mean that the mind is extending 93 million miles outside my body? If we accept this doctrine that the perception of the object is due to the operation of mind and the mind has to touch that object in order that one may become aware of the object, then the mind should reach the stars, which are several light-years away. This is a revelation, indeed,
If this is a fact, the mind is not our mind merely, it is a mind that reaches upto the distant space, the stars, or whatever it is; if we do not accept this theory, we cannot explain how we are aware that the stars are shining in the sky. This is a tentative answer to this pressing pragmatic question. But more important than this issue is the thing that follows. What is mind? Is the mind capable of knowing that things exist outside? We have said so much about the mind, but what is mind? What is it made of? Provisionally accepting the position that the mind knows objects, we have to attribute the mind with some sort of consciousness; because knowing an object is the same as being aware of the object, and if the mind is aware of the object, it is conscious. It cannot be an inert substance.
The mind has to be charged with some kind of consciousness, in the same way, perhaps,-to give a prosaic example,-as a copper wire may be charged with electricity. We need not say that the wire is the same as electricity; the two are quite different things. But the wire is filled with the flow of electricity, on account of which we call it a live wire. If the electricity were not to be there, it becomes an ordinary wire; on which we can hang a wet cloth for drying. It is to be accepted that the mind has to be endowed with some consciousness. If that also is not conceded, the chance of knowing anything does not arise. It should follow that the mind is inseparably connected with consciousness. It has to be pervaded by consciousness, and, so, my being aware that you are in front of me is due to the movement of consciousness towards you, even in the intermediary space between you and me.
This conclusion that consciousness is not limited to the body but is also outside the body follows from another interesting analysis that we can make. We cannot set a limit to consciousness. We cannot say that consciousness is here and not there. Because, to be conscious that consciousness is limited, consciousness has to be outside the limit at the same time. Who is to know that consciousness is limited? It is consciousness itself that knows. The awareness of the limitation of awareness is also a function of awareness. So, the boundary that is tentatively set to a state of awareness is also a content awareness. One cannot be conscious that there is a limit to consciousness, unless consciousness has exceeded that limit. To imagine that there is division between two parts of consciousness would be to assume that there is consciousness even midway between the two assumed parts of consciousness. Otherwise, who is to be aware that there is a gap between two parts of consciousness? The awareness of a gap between two parts of consciousness is also awareness and, therefore, there cannot be a gap in consciousness, which means that consciousness is indivisible.
If consciousness has no parts, it is indivisible, and so all-pervading. It is infinite in its nature. The presence of the infinitude of consciousness is the reason behind the mind being aware that there are objects. But where comes the question of an outside if there is a pervasion of all things by consciousness? There is an error in the perception of externality in things. If the consciousness that knows things is indivisible, and exists everywhere as subject and object, there must be definitely some mistake in our seeing or apprehending things as if they are outside us. This mistake is introduced into our perception by the operation of space and time.
Meditation is the art of transcending space and time. The moment this is effected, we enter into an infinitude of consciousness. By the various techniques of meditation, we overcome the barrier that is created between us and the objects by the action of space-time. The moment we think of an object, we think of it as it is existent in space and in time. The methods of Yoga are the ways of defying the operation of space-time and effecting a union between the subject and the object, the seer and the seen, in their essentiality. In their outward forms, they are distinct, names and forms differ, but the essentiality of the things does not so differ. The content does not vary, only the shape differs. Thus in all processes of the practice of Yoga, one thing alone is aimed at, viz. the union of consciousness with being.
~ Excerpts from “AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF YOGA” ~ By ‘Rev. SWAMI KRISHNANANDA’

It is intruiging to note how human beings, when placed in diverse surroundings,will grow a strong sense of good and bad based entirely upon their experiences without regard to the existence of the world that lies beyond their immediate lives.
Where diversity extends to narrower divisions of region, class and caste, this sensibility is much more pronounced, with bigotry and rigidity of belief taking the place of tolerant understanding. So a person from a certain region in the North can revere the customs and traditions of his native while despising the culture of say, a region in the West or South. And of course the vice versa would follow. The prejudice can encompass differences in rituals, dressing style, food, language, behaviour among others.In India, where states, regions, castes and classes abound, this strong attachment to one's native culture often exhibits as derision of the other, 'different' community.In Hinduism for instance, a woman in white is associated with widowhood; in Christianity, a woman is married in white. The color white does not proclaim its status to Hindus and Christains differently, it's how the two communities look at it. Their perception guided (or clouded?) by a belief handed down through years of customary practice. Appriciation or criticism would then be based upon this belief. The less tolerant of us would probably develop a deep dislike of this basically irrrelevant 'difference' of belief. The dislike would not be restricted to the single object that caused it but extend to the whole community practicing it. Thus deepening the divide further. The other community would be doing the same.If we try to make an effort to overcome that initial prejudice to anything 'different', we would probably realize that beyond the trivial and inconsequential ways of doing little things, there really is nothing different from what we are accustomed to. People in all societies will practice what they have been practising for years. It is nothing more than habit to them. But a habit to which they attach undue significance and look up to as the only good 'way'of living. Another 'way’ of living they know not and cannot understand. Fundamentally, however, their feelings, emotions, fears and aspirations remain the same. Only, the stage, the costumes, the 'settings' change. In that sense, that old cliche will hold good : All human beings are essentially the same.But to arrive at that thought the first step is to know, to understand and to accept with the knowledge that ultimately all things, good or bad, derive from the One Creator. And His creation can never be less worthy of our respect. He created the Jungle, with different species of creatures big and small, diverse flora and intended it to flourish as a whole,in complete harmony. That’s what it does, when left to itself. The animals do not make beliefs, they do not question why the lion should always kill the deer and not vice versa. They do not question God’s original design but simply adhere to His code. It is we humans who, in our eagerness to ‘improve’ upon nature, end up doing more harm than good. We begin to tamper with the forest, cut down some trees, kill some animals, destroying the ecological balance that was so intricately but delicately established by nature.
When we learn to truly attribute everyone and everything to His grand design, understanding and acceptance will flow through naturally, just like a river flows into the sea. With the broad outlook, that all differences are ultimately projections of our basic similarity, we would truly see the world as one big family. And feel like home in any place untravelled before…