[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

It has to be the same for everyone. Perception of that One awareness differs. This is the difference between manifested conscious (dualistic) and unmanifested consciousness (non-dualistic).

It's what Advaita is all about.

LOGIC 101: IF 'perception' (or 'expression') of said One (awareness) differs as a result of its being perceived by/through the character/lens of the 'perceiver', the idea of non-dualistic/unmanifested consciousness have has no relevance to the REALITY of the LIFE or the act of LIVING of any BEING (assuming that you grant that LiFE is a REAL phenomenon!)?

LOGIC 102: For said idea to be relevant, one would have to assume/believe that one could and/or did attain no 'character' 'status' as a Being, which anyone of course may choose to believe is possible, but which submit is an oxymoronic (i.e. illogical, therefore delusional) belief because every Being is Itself a differentiated aspect of the ONE all-encompassing BEING-DOING. To assume and proclaim that one or someone else has managed complete 'i'dentity dissolution is therefore an act of 'grandiose' pretense-iousness, logically speaking. In terms of actual (hence 'manifest') existence, at most there can only be your, my, or someone else's historical-character-based version of said being.

IMO, any and all 'pretenders' in said regard (not just orthodox 'Advaitists') are a plague which destroys the possibility of truly mutual/respectful relationship on our planet because they automatically invalidate any and all other 'perceptions' of said ONEness which differ from their own (self generated or 'adopted') version. They automatically hinder the possible of true (i,e. rea!) brotherhood-n-sisterhood in 'the body' of The ONE's BEING-n-DOING therefore. Again, I qualify this statement as being no more and no less that my personal opinion/assessment of the matter, which I wish to submit for others' consideration.

Note: Such 'violation' may not be unrecognized as such because it may be 'unmanifest' as a result of its being 'done' by way of not doing (by way of 'omission' rather than 'commission')m by way of not earnestly/honetly/reciprocally relating to the thoughts and feelings of folks whose 'perceptions' differ from one's own - thereby, in effect, aiming to 'ostracize' them by way of relational 'silence', which is characteristic of many who just 'toot' their own preferred 'horn' here'.