[Unseeking Seeker]

In my view, it is about knowing vs ignorance. Let us say, someone has not shifted from duality to singularity in direct experience. For him, non-duality would be incomprehensible even if we get Swami Sarvapriya Nanda or Rupert Spira to inundate him with metaphors.

The truth has been pointed out by many who have been, seen and so known. However, for he who does not know in direct experience, it remains a concept.

Let us take ego-identity, the entity (us). It is the entity that seeks to be illumined. This presupposes separation from source, that feeling incomplete, the entity wishes to be complete. So the entity strives and struggles but the basic question it is asking is wrong, so it can never succeed. The entity is illusionary, a mere projection. This becomes self-evident on embracing silence, which causes ego to slowly disintegrate. When ego falls off (it actually literally drops off like a leaf from a tree), the Self that always was, is and will be shines in its self-existent light.

Coming back, how may this be explained in a manner that he who has not so known may comprehend in a manner that is free from doubt? It cannot be done. The affirmation is a concept, until it is imbibed and assimilated in direct experience.

As for ebb & flow of tides, movement of planets, yugas* (*evolutionary cycles), gems & stones, Schumann’s resonance etc., although it seems reasonable to assume that we borrow surrounding vibrations by induction, in my opinion, there is nowhere where God is not and as such, if the fulcrum of our awareness is void-centric, that is to say largely transcendent, then whatever is immanent* (*the manifest universe) cannot have any impact.