“Just awaken, aware, emptiness. How cool is that?!!!!!”

That is not cool at all, if you ask me. I don’t want to be emptiness. I like me. Awake and aware are nice, but I’m sure what you mean is not what I mean. How do you feel seeing yourself as a drop of soup in a giant bowl of soup? No disrespect intended, that’s just how it sounds to me.

If all of the world, the universe, and everything beyond that is just a dream or illusion, what is it but perception? If we invite a friend to come to the window with us and point to a tree, will they not see the tree? If our perception were unique for each ego, why would they see the same thing at all? Remember that the ego is an illusion itself, the ‘tiny mad idea’. Why would your ego have bothered to create Quasars that you have not seen but an astronomer has? Oneness is closer than you might think.

Only the process of perception is true, but this is not the reality for someone who still perceives self and other. As long as there is a sense of a me identity, which continues after the ego goes, we perceive an inside and an outside, our thoughts and the world ‘out there’. The observer still is.

I’m not suggesting we all see the world the same way. That’s not the point of why we are here. But there is a commonality. The roads don’t change direction because we dream that individually. The sky remains blue, whatever a person might like better.

This actually pointx to the real secret of The Secret. If we want to manifest stuff, we have to place it into the common reality. We have to think in the cosmic mind. We do it all the time as there is no individual mind separate from cosmic mind. But we have to go a little deeper than the usual noise. But I digress.

Yes, we awaken from our individual illusions, as you describe. Then the group illusions, then even God’s. We cannot perceive reality fully until we have removed all coverings.

I agree with your quote. And the real juicy bit is that everything we experience is a form of illusion or dream. So all truth is bogus. (laughs)

This is the realization that allows Unity or Oneness to dawn. Everything is a story, a dream in the mind of the One. When we see that, we can use it as a stepping stone or ladder home.

It’s like what Ruiz says. Don’t believe anything I say. Its just my story, my truth. But listen and you will understand.

When you experience the silence within, you do so from your unique vantage. You remain an aspect of the whole, gradually deepening the wholeness. If there was not an aspect experiencing, we would simply experience the entirety all at once and no further deepening would be required.

Some teachers like Ramana speak of the simple truth of being. It is always good to stay on the ‘goal’ and not get caught up on sidelines. But how do you get there from here?

Yes, some observation, some meditation, some inquiry. But what of the signposts? How do we relate to the new vistas and realities that may open to us? Yes, again come back to being. But to satisfy the mind, it is much easier to move forward. Why otherwise inquiry at all?

Namaste!

“Who is it that has a soul?”
“Who perceives that?”
“What is asking these questions?”

Always pointing to the Void. Relentless. I love it.

To everyone…. Namaste.

I’m not sure I see what you’re saying about perception not being of the individual. What perceives (anything) but a subject (an ego-self)? The fact that we often perceive things in similar ways does not mean that perception is collective. Now, in the sense of: “in perceiving there is only perceiving, no perceiver and nothing perceived,” I wholeheartedly agree. Perhaps this is what you are talking about. Even so, one must not mistake this for “collective perception,” or any notion of collective illusion. Even if we both agree that there is something we call “Freedom,” our (positive) notions of that concept will not be the same, because they can’t be (thanks to “karma”). The only way they can be the same is via negativa, in the absence of the illusion(s) of that concept.

The path of awakening (to use that phrasing) is the process of awakening from our illusions. I cannot awaken from your illusions, just as you cannot awaken from mine. The only way to see clearly is to free ourselves from our distorting illusions. The way to do that is to question our illusions, meaning: questioning our beliefs, assumptions, fears, and certainties (the things on which our illusions are based). We much each do this for ourselves. No one can do this for us (as I’m sure you already know, and would agree). Teachers can show us the path, but we must walk it ourselves. What is “the path?” What I just described regarding our illusions. Of course, there is much involved in this process. But the best way to see what’s involved is to do it for yourself, and thus see for yourself. This is the way it works. For everyone.

To be clear, again, I wasn’t asking you to explain illusion to me. Rather, I was asking what you meant by what you were saying. Then again, I think it’s possible that you have explained it, and we are just approaching this in different ways. And I’m all for the big picture, but one must be careful on what they base the truths which make up that big picture. As I have written elsewhere:

“We can agree on a definition of ‘truth’ that makes sense to us and chalk up truth after truth based on that definition. Just as we can set up what we agree to be reason, and base what is true on that definition and context. But all the truths we build, all the subsequent opinions and beliefs and laws and realities we build upon that original ‘truth,’ are all nothing but illusion and fantasy if that original definition of truth is bogus.”

(Perhaps we are closer to being at the point of “agreeing to agree” than it might seem, Davidya…)

The path of the heart is more expressed, so can be more visual and personalized too.

As humans, and in the time we are in, we have a chance to progress very far. It would be a shame to be satisfied with liberation. (laughs)

hmmm – how to explain illusion in 50 words (laughs).
Perception is not on the level of the individual which is why we see the world in roughly the same way as others. (not because it’s outside in, it’s inside out) Separation is illusion, if you recall.

For most people, the process of awakening is in a series of stages. One way of looking at that is a series of awakenings – to reality, but also from illusion. The first waking is from the illusion of being a separate individual, the story of the ego. The second ‘awakening’ is from the illusion of the world, the shared illusion, the universe. (This one is a little different process that can start before the first and extend after the last, it is of refinement of perception) Finally, we awaken from what can best be described as the dream of God, Lila, the play. All of expression is seen through. The scale of this…

To understand this another way, mind is in layers of increasing focus. Each layer of mind has its own stories and dreams. Individual mind, group/cosmic mind, One mind. You may read of things like Lokas and such. Think of them of subsets of the group.

I agree – the step you are making now is what is most important. Making that step, the key thing is knowing what is real for you. Stopping and looking. I find value in the bigger picture as we then have a sense of context, where the steps may be going. If we don’t get too caught up in the ideas, they can bring us clarity and confidence on the path. They can also become barriers as the idea is not That. So wear them loosely and know that it will change. That’s the adventure of the path.

This does not mean the person cannot function in the world, only that the world is seen as all the same thing. Any “differences” are irrelevant. It’s like the dominance of unity cranked up so much, it absorbs all sense of diversity. There is no longer a separate observer and object of observation – they collapse together. There is simply the flow of awareness. You are that and all this is that.

Yeah, I know, it doesn’t make any sense. But that’s the mind trying to sort out what is beyond it.

Davidya — Illusion is not on the individual level? Not sure I’m following you. So, you’re saying that illusions can exist outside of our own perceptions? The very definition of illusion is: false perception/belief. I am not sure how I can see anyone else’s illusions but my own. In fact, I don’t see how illusion can exist in any realm, or on any level, but the individual. This is the point — We all must awaken from our own illusions to (the) reality (which is the same for all—reality being the absence of illusion). This is the only way it can work, as far as I have seen. Sure, there are all sorts of “theories” out there about these or those levels of existence and illusion and reality and so forth, but the bottom line is that we should and must focus on what we actually can, which is what we see, how we see it. Ultimately, I have found that the less one focuses on theory, and the more he (or she) focuses on what’s right in front of him, the more progress he will make. (That’s not directed at you personally, Davidya.)

I like the stuff from Spinoza. It gets over many of the problems with a stict monism (how could illusion be if all is one – the illusion would have to be the (same as the) one. But then reality is illusion and the difference disappears. I think Spinoza’s approach may be very fruitful. Thanks.

I’d like to explain a little what I understand by unity. Let’s imagine a dog, call him or her “Towser” – a mongrel who happens to have lost his or her rear leg. Towser is a unity – no question. Towser consists of a great number of differences – none of his three remaining legs is the same leg and they are not identical. In a sense Towser (the unity)is these differences. The unity is not threatened by difference but consists of it.

I hope this makes sense.

When inertia is dominant in the perceiver, it is a covering over reality. When movement is dominant, it is illusion. But when clarity becomes dominant, it becomes a ladder to truth. Thus the mask becomes the vehicle.

To say “illusions come from us” may be misleading. Illusions arise from our interpretation of perceptions – in other words, local mind. They are the story’s we invent to explain what we do not see clearly. The field of perceptions themselves is another story. Its not on the individual level.

This accounts for both illusion (duality) and reality (non-duality), but it (rightly) acknowledges the “existence” of both. Reality (non-duality) comes from nothing but itself; illusions come from us, from our own false perceptions (the definition of “illusion”). But, we also come from Reality/Nature, and therefore our illusions must also somehow be a part of Reality.

This is why Spinoza was so utterly brilliant, because he was able to show how we can rightly perceive “differences” of something which ultimately, by its nature, is “One” (as some like to say it). As Tom intimated above in his comment, it can be unwise to deny illusions, for it is through our illusions (“awakening” from them) that we are able to see things as they really are.

Let me simply add this: Oneness is One. Unity is One. There is no distinction, even if there are what appear to be differences to the eye or ear. However, this works well to provide a point of reference for us, in that if we see differences, then we can know that there is further “clarity” to be obtain. For all is One, no separation. Our experience may be of separateness, but that doesn’t make it so. And THAT’S why the world is often referred to as an illusion.

We comprehend things in/through context. What is the ultimate context? What we might call the self, which is the measure by which, the context against which, we understand anything. We create the way we see things by the contexts in which we see them. What and how things are to us is determined by the illusions by which we think we know things.

We easily forget that how we see things stands in for what we think things are. Form is derived by context, by a mold, so to speak, and our conditioned minds are the mold by which the form of how we see things is created.

“What” you see is therefore utterly dependent upon how you see it, which is the context, which is your illusions through/by which you understand/comprehend what you see. Change the illusions, and the way things “are” changes before your eyes.

One of the reasons it’s so hard to rationally “understand” non-duality (or the “no separation” takuin is talking about) is that, well, we can’t! Our rational minds cannot even comprehend anything unless there is context, and context requires “this” not being “that” (i.e., duality). Therefore, at a certain point, we must go “beyond,” or “beneath,” (in other words: let go of) rational thought in order to experience, “be,” the reality that is non-duality. It requires letting go of the need to define, to “understand.” This is one of the things that makes “the path” so challenging, and why it does, indeed, require vigilance.

That is a classic, Davidya.

And I am glad you don’t confuse your wife with an elevator. One has buttons to be pushed. With the other, it is to be avoided. (laughs)

I can understand that the elevator is not my wife, but I have no idea of one, when I am looking at the other. I don’t see a difference; only the thing being seen.

Does that make sense? Differentiation, as it seems to be described in the comments here, is quite unnecessary. A waste of energy. (I may completely be misunderstanding everyone, so please let me know if I have not quite understood what has been said.)

If I see Akiko, I do not know her because of what she is not. She is simply seen. If I see a frog on the ground next to a t-shirt, it is a frog and a t-shirt. What is the big deal?

You might say, “You know it is a frog and a t-shirt because they are different.” Are you serious? It is a frog and a t-shirt because it is a frog and a t-shirt. That is all.

I am not saying it is right or wrong. I am not writing this out of a belief of what is right. I am just going into this to see what is happening.

Let me explain this in another way (just an example). I hold up my right hand and there is a frog. The eyes see the frog and knowledge may or may not say, “This is a frog.” I hold up my left hand and there is a t-shirt. The eyes see the t-shirt and knowledge may or may not say, “This is a t-shirt.” Everything is fine. Then you come along and say, “They are different.” I really do not understand what you mean. Where is the difference?

“Right hand frog, left hand t-shirt.” I am with you.

“They are different.” I am not with you.

You ask me to hold up both hands so I can see both objects at the same time. You say, “They are different.” But how?

You say, “Because one is a frog, and the other is a t-shirt.” NO, not because. One is a frog and one is a t-shirt. PERIOD. That is all. Not because.

This is a very subtle movement that goes on within thought. This may seem like silly semantic nit-picking, but it is not. If there is no separation, there is no separation.

One must be vigilant in seeing all of this. (And hopefully, it made some sense to you.

There is a period when all differences are found to be unreal, then real again. But the new real is not the real of old but instead just waves within the One. Not different. Qualities, but not differences. (word meanings get stretched here.)

Vocabulary is an issue, but deeper is context. How do you describe the taste of a star fruit to someone who has never tasted it? Only by comparing it to something else. If one has never tasted fruit, there is no comparison to offer.

Still, I agree with RWalker. Finding a common language helps communicate. As awakening becomes more common, it’s not useful if people have to guess what is being referred to while trying to understand their experience.

For many, what’s next is self-realization, not Oneness. In self-realization, there is an internal oneness so we can begin to get a sense of it. But it’s always more than the mind might expect.

I quite agree. I’m trying to be clear about our perceptions (the existence of differences) and how this relates to experiences of unity.

I’m sure others are attempting to be clear and communicate the nature of experience too.

Communicating about these things can be really tricky I think. I agree with you that mindfully finding common vocabulary can be really important.

It seems we agree on there being some differences within unity – colours of shirt, table versus sky and so on.

Perhaps we just disagree with the importance we assign to these differences?

You bought a brown shirt and a blue shirt. What is the difference? They reflect light slightly differently. The cut may vary slightly. But both are made of the same cloth and came to you the same way for the same purpose. Now don’t take the analogy too far – the point is that apparent differences are superficial.

Table and sky are the appearance of form in a lively field of nothing. You move through a sea of attention. You perceive otherwise because your senses are associated with the surface qualities and your mind uses that to make a construct.

As Takuin suggests, it is useful to go into it a bit. When we go into it, we find that holes or gaps where the truth resides.

What’s more restrictive, mindfully finding common vocabulary so as to be able to move forward, or ongoing cyclical miscommunication?

I like that Takuin asked what Evan meant by what he said. This should happen more often, I think. Too often people jump to conclusions as to what someone means, which is really an indication of them not actually hearing the other person, but rather inferring what was said via their own conceptual framework and speaking to that. I call it “Forrest Gumping” — catching the ball and running the wrong way with it.