Q: You seem like a different person and far away from me in space.

/

Central Nevada, halfway between Tonopah and Ely

You seem like a different person and far away from me in space.

How are you not?

 

I am a different person than you and I am far away… from the perspective of the separate self (the dualistic viewpoint). 

"From" a non-dualistic "perspective" there is no subject (thus no objects either) and therefore me, you, distance, etc cannot exist in any real sense.  Distance is the measurement between two objects and "you" and "I" would be objects (even as a subject, still an object), so "from" this "perspective" neither exists in any concrete sense.  (I've used quotes here because strictly speaking, there is no perspective at all)

We've communicated before, so I know you are immersed in the non-duality consideration and I therefore need not discuss it here.  Instead, let's play a bit of a perspective game and see if we can come up with another explanation of our common experience.

Imagine that you are sitting on a chair in a room 100 miles from me sitting on a chair of my own.  The room you are in is windowless and the door closed and other than the chair and you, there is nothing in the room.

As you sit there in the darkness, you know that I am sitting on my own chair 100 miles away.  ...Wait...  That's not correct.  Isn't it more true to say that you only imagine that I am sitting on a chair and that you imagine that I am 100 miles away?  After all, how do you know for sure?

Let's add a phone to your room.  You call me and I tell you I am sitting on a chair.  Do you now know I am sitting on a chair?  Isn't it possible I didn't tell you the truth and so therefore you still can only imagine that I am sitting on a chair (and even it were true, you still can only imagine it).

Let's translate this a bit.  From your experience, all you know about my experience is what you imagine of it.  Even when I tell you I'm sitting on a chair, you still have to conjure up words and images in your own mind to represent what you hear me saying, and thus you are really just translating my words into what you imagine my experience might be.  Said another way: your experience of my experience remains your experience alone.

Now this may seem too simplistic to model your real life, but let's test it a bit by taking it outside the confines of the little room. 

If you and I were to meet, would you know my experience as I know it?  No, of course not.  If I told you of my experience, would you then know it as I do?  Again, of course not.  ALL of your experience is from your perspective and thus everything you experience must be a singular view of experience, and therefore can never ever include the actual experience of another.

Stop for a moment and consider that.  We have just come up with a demonstration that the entire world, as viewed from your perspective, is entirely of your creation!

Let's move to the park and join a friend.  From your point of view, the tree over there is viewed only from your perspective.  Your friend standing next to you articulating her view of the same tree is heard by you and thus again translated into your understanding of her perspective (and therefore remains your perspective of hers).  And it's worth noting that the tree over there, from your experience, is really only your brain's translation of reflected light (a bunch of colors and shades), a translation that calls it "a tree over there".  From your immediate experience, you really have no idea what is actually happening… it is only a personal translation that gives you "evidence" of the "tree".

Yes, I seem to be a different person than you, but I can only be known by you through your own perspective and therefore (it can be argued) I am your creation and thus you. 

Yes, I do seem to be far away, yet if I were writing this in a house next door to yours, wouldn't your experience of me be the same as if I was 100 miles away?

See what we've done here?  We created another world-view that is different than the standard model (and yet still remains dualistic).  The common world-view is just… well, a certain world-view that is quite convincing... but only from within the limits of its perspective.  Yet when we acknowledge that it is dependent upon a number of assumptions, we open the door to other possibilities.  Conversely, when we fixate on a single perspective, there is little room for real exploration.  It is only when we free our mind from the responsibility to define our "world" that other possibilities become available.

Again to be clear: the example above was not one of a non-dual perspective (although admittedly, it hints toward it).  It was simply an exercise to create a different viewpoint that acknowledges that you and I can be one-and-the-same (and thus there would be no distance between us).

Let yourself explore your experience.  Really explore it.

Discover that all you really know is the experiencing itself.

Q: Are there good metaphors for how the mind misperceives itself as separate?

/

Lake Crescent in Olympic National Park, WA

One of my favorite teachers uses the movie screen and movie as a metaphor for reality.

I sometimes think what I am is similar to smoke taking shape as form -- and then there is a little tornado or something at the head region that loops back on itself.  When attention gets sucked into this looping tornado (which is the story of “me”), consciousness is only aware of the little "I" story and it is missing the billions of miles of space outside of the tiny tornado.

Neither of these metaphors fully gets the experience of non-duality known here. Can you think of a metaphor for how the body/mind misperceives itself as separate?

 

First we must understand that these are only metaphors, and as such they are limited in their usefulness.  Language cannot point directly to understanding (nor can anything else).  Among other things, metaphors offer the mind a glimpse at the possibility that it (the self) perhaps doesn't understand the "full picture".

In the metaphor of the movie and screen, the screen plays the role of awareness (or oneness, by some tellings) and the movie that plays upon the screen is duality (subject and objects).  We, as individuals, are characters in the movie and as such are unable to see the screen upon which we are playing and we believe our role as separate individuals.  We can turn, look back, up and down, and even within, and we can never see the screen itself (after all, all of our actions are playing out in the movie, beyond our limits to perceive as characters "on" the screen).

As a separate self, I cannot see that I am playing within awareness (the screen).  Yet as the screen, everything shows up within/upon me, and all remains dimensionless from this perspective (the screen is immeasurably thin).  Everything, absolutely everything is allowed to be displayed upon the screen and like awareness, the screen is not affected in any way by what is displayed upon it.

The characters that play within awareness (the screen) are just that, characters, and thus are not "real" and are no more substantial than the tree that shows up on the screen or the passing cat.  They believe they are real and separate from the other characters and object on the screen, yet they are in fact equal and the same as everything else on the screen.   They are just projections... of light, in this case.

Summing it up, we can say that the objects on the screen are separate from each other only from within the perspective of the movie, yet from the screen's (awareness') perspective they are dimensionless and are one (or better: not two, not separate).

Let's look at your metaphor.  If I understand it correctly, the smoke plays the role of awareness. When it collects in dense regions, objects are apparently formed… yet they remain just smoke, and thus it is only in appearance that they seem to be objects. 

Thoughts in your metaphor appear convincing because they seem to perceive other thoughts and objects (other concentrations of smoke).  The smoke takes shape into thoughts like "I need this work deal to come through.   I need my kids to listen to me.   I need more financial security.   ...and then I will be happy.”  The swirling seems dense and real and it quickly loops back onto itself, concentrating attention away from the vastness of experiencing into a narrow and convincing illusion of "me" and "my life".

Another metaphor is the wave upon an ocean.  The wave (the individual) may appear to be separate, but it is in fact the same as the rest of the water (oneness).  It forms and seems very distinct, and then it falls back into oneness.  Even when it crashes to the shore it is never separate from the water itself.

Yet another metaphor is that of a mirror and the reflections upon it.  The mirror (awareness) will reflect anything and everything, yet it remains completely untouched by what it reflects.  All that appears within it is just a reflection, and is thus one (and not multiple objects).  Nothing that is reflected in the mirror is "real" or permanent.

The metaphor of the dream and the dreamer also works as a modeling of limits of duality, but for brevity sake I will not explore it here (although I may revisit it in another post).   

So, as you requested, I will create a new metaphor: An actor and the play she performs in.  Here the actor is awareness and the role she plays is a character in duality. 

As an actor, it is most convincing if we take on our role seriously and completely become the character within the play.  When we do this, the stage and props become very, very real to this character (the separate self in this metaphor).  Our acted persona perfectly reflects the character and our every movement is indistinguishable from the actual person we are playing. 

Within this play there are other actors who are just as gifted as we are and their roles are no less convincing.  From our character's point of view, they are not actors and instead they appear very real indeed.

Now what happens if we play this character so completely that we forget that we are acting and thus then believe that we are the character itself?  From our new perspective (the character's), it is not possible to perceive the actor ... because the character has become real, and the actor must then be, at best, only be a figment of the imagination of the character.

This metaphor, like the others, creates a modeling that shines light on the limits of the duality framework.  It also demonstrates how the character cannot (by definition) perceive the actor who is playing it (the separate self cannot perceive awareness).  Similar to the others, this metaphor shows that as characters in the play, we have forgotten what we really are. 

It can also be noted that it too has its limits.  For example, the mind can argue "Ok fine.  But when I remember I am an actor and not the character I am playing, I can walk away and join the others actors off-stage and I'm therefore still a separate individual".  In response, we can then modify the metaphor and suggest that it isn't a play, but instead a puppet show where you (awareness/oneness) are playing all the characters and from within each, forgetting that you are just a puppet.

Try as we might though, when the purpose of the metaphor is misunderstood, the mind will always find a way to poke holes in it and there lies the answer to your question: There is no metaphor that will allow the mind to perceive that it is not separate.

All metaphors are concessions to the belief that we are separate and if we remain committed to this perspective, ALL attempts at understanding will fail.  When the metaphor is viewed as a complete description, the mind (the self) will resist understanding and a "you" will remain locked in the belief in the subject-object world-view.  If you believe you are a separate self, then you are as you believe.

Again: these types of metaphors are only useful when they are not taken literally and are instead used to encourage doubt in the fixation of the subject-object model.  

Understanding is not of the mind.  Understanding is just understanding.  It is not a thought.  It is nothing.  No thing.  The mind (?!!) only understands concepts and concepts are dualistic, relational, and by their nature dependent upon a subject-object configuration.

The metaphors are pointing to understanding.  Like all teachings, they can only point.  Let them be what they are. 

Let the mind go.  Let it go.

-- PS: When you realize that you are not the character in the play (and aren't anything), you can then return to the play and enjoy watching the actor play its character!  How fun!