Originally Posted by Moondance
In a profound kensho shift (of just over twenty years ago) I became utterly convinced of the incomprehensibility of separation. At that time I had no interest in spirituality and had never heard of non-duality or Advaita and was therefore free of any spiritual conditioning. The kensho ‘incident’ didn’t come with a ’all is consciousness/subjective’ or ‘all is energy/objective’ option. It was simply the sense of the absoluteness and sovereignty of THIS, this something-ness (whatever THIS might be.)
Now I’m not necessarily disagreeing with what we might speculate as the fundamental ‘essence’ of reality - I don’t really know. So I’m fairly neutral about it - I’ve found that when we deeply dig into it, our concepts eventually start to fail us. Take consciousness for instance. What do we mean by it. Is there a difference between consciousness and the patterns/forms/manifestations it presents? Or is it of One Taste? If it’s the first then it is clearly not non-dual. If it’s the second then where is the basis for insisting it is consciousness (as opposed to what??)
Can you see what I’m getting at here. If all is of One taste - if it’s just SO - then to call it EITHER consciousness (OR energy or whatever else) is arbitrary - it simply IS.
Here’s a kind of koan to ponder: Imagine that everything in the cosmos is yellow. Every object, form, process and event is yellow. Every thought, memory, idea and story is yellow. EVERYTHING is yellow with no exceptions…
There would be NO yellow.
If everything is consciousness… there is no consciousness.
There is just ______________________
I understand. It fails before language. It fails before conceptualization. It fails when one goes beyond simply Being. To conceptualize It, to label It, to even make an attempt diminishes It. Brings It into the finite.
From our perspective, our anchor in what we experience as objective reality, there is experience. Pure experience. Detached. Dispassionate. Empty. I'd 'label' that awareness or consciousness.
However it does seem to me labels are a necessary means of teaching, instructing or relating in a meaningful manner before a concept is understood and assimilated.
Hence the plethora of paradoxes that discussions like this about It brings to the table.
I started reading a book titled "The Seven Great Untenables" which examines the "discussions" over the nature of maya between the Advaitins and Visistadvaitins. This goes to your musings about conscious and it's relation to objective reality and two opposing views. At this point it's too deep from a Vedantic philosophical perspective for my understanding so I put it aside. I'll return at some point in the future when my understanding is further developed.