>>Why would we be able to see the oneness that we imagine Brahman to be? What nerves could we have developed, what senses are active in this perception? What evolutionary advantage would this confer? Many folks have these visions at some time in their lives, that doesn't mean they are seeing things the way they would if they were realized. That is an erroneous expectation, imo.

you're contradicting yourself. you ask what nerves, etc. we could have developed to make such visions possible, and then say many folks have them (although I admit, you may consider perception of oneself as being unified with all things an hallucination). in any case, as I work on myself, I see this more and more frequently. it seems quite likely to me that such perception increases to a point where one is constantly viscerally (as opposed to merely intellectually) aware of this basic fact. I see no error, I see the results of work. you may be happy with where your perception is. I see basic perception as limited. this is not an intellectual form of masturbation or chasing after peak experiences, nor IME does it render one unfit to conduct their business in ordinary transactions in the "world"

>>Again, just because this is so (in an intellectual way) doesn't mean we are biologically equipped to see it as such.

that is why the "third eye" is not popping out of our foreheads as a physical organ. it is a metaphor for such perception. it's not a slimy ball with a retina, etc.

>>The body and its behaviors are based – in their entirety – on being an individual organism that needs food, shelter and comfort.

luckily the Self is not limited by the body.

>>There's no biological reason for the perception you are *expecting* as a component of your realization.

as a meat-machine, no. happily, I don't seem to be wishing visions of puppies and rainbows to descend on me out of nowhere. a better critique would be to say that I am training myself to have an ongoing hallucinatory experience. not having anything to judge it against besides others who have gone through this process, this is something I can't counter, other than my experience, which tells me that is not the case. but then, some people are quite convinced they're Napoleon, too.

>>Just because you know yourself as the foundation doesn't mean you begin seeing everything built from foundation.

this is an evasive statement. what kind of "knowing" are talking about here? you presuppose a certain level of perception on my part. again, I'm not waiting for a fairy-wand to change everything out of the blue. this is my experience. see the arguments above, that's much better ammunition.

>>This is an understandable attempt to conceptualize Vedanta that is very common. It's quite true when you are talking about the foundation of your awareness. That IS Brahman. But to attempt to slather the world with that is not Vedanta, which, while admitting all is One, specifies that all is One AS Brahman. The world is treated separately.

you're right on that count. it's not Vedanta. it's Tantric Monism. the school of thought I adhere to does not treat the world separately, and is why IMO Shaktism, despite the aftermath of Ramakrishna, meshes better with Kashmir Saivism than Vedanta:

"The philosophy of Saktism is a kind of non-dualism (advaita), similar to that of Kashmir Saivism. In both the systems, the highest Reality is styled Siva-Sakti. Siva and Sakti are not different; they are one. Siva is consciousness as stasis (cit); Sakti is consciousness as dynamis (cidrupini). Siva is pure awareness, which is the ground of all existence. Through his Para Sakti, he effects the manifestation of the universe. He is the sole and whole cause of the world. Only, he becomes the cause, not in his aspect as stasis, but through his dynamic aspect which is spoken of as his feminine part. The main difference between Kashmir Saivism and Saktism is that while the former lays relatively greater stress on the Siva-aspect, the latter emphasizes more the Sakti. Between the Saiva and Sakta philosophy on the one hand, and Advaita-Vedanta on the other, there is close kinship. Advaita too teaches that the ultimate Reality is non-dual, and that it is of the nature of pure consciousness. But, for it the world-process is not real. The world, according to Advaita, is mayika, illusory appearance. The theory of world-appearance is here called vivarta-vada. The corresponding doctrine of the Saiva and Sakta schools is known as abhasa-vada. According to this view, the universe consists of appearances which are all real in the sense that they are aspects of the ultimate Reality."

I am fond of that quote.

>>Advaita resolves this obvious dualism by saying that to the source of awareness – Brahman – there is only Brahman, upon which all other existence depends, all drawing from the same well of awareness. But as long as a mind is present, there will be a world, so you can legitimately speak of the world and Brahman as IF they were separate.

I see this as faulty logic, and it is where our thinking differs radically. I place my bets on Abhinavagupta and many historical Sakta and Saiva thinkers, not Shankaracharya and Vivekananda.

also, I'd mention that Abhinavagupta enumerates a number of methods of Realization, Grace being only one, generally reserved for a lucky few. even my goal of Jivanmukti is not seen as the highest or best form of Realization. most Sadhakas, in his view, need to pursue Moksha in a progressive manner.

> we exist as vehicles for the universe to perceive itself.
*****
That's very poetic, but only speculative on your part.

> yeah, just the One, ultimately.
*****
And that One isn't split into you, me or anyone else. That One is only One. The you, me and everyone else are just ideas that sit in brains. The One has no knowledge of any of us. It only knows Itself. That's why it is One.

> losing the distraction is a change in perception, no?
*****
No, because it's not a distraction, it's a lack of context. In other words, we've always been individuals. EVERYTHING in life tells us we are individuals. Everything we do, we do from the regard of being individuals. The reason we don't see the oh-so-obvious truth is that we don't have a measuring rule to compare it to. Chomsky said that language determines what we know. Jnana is outside language's powers to describe it. So, we blunder around trying to find something we already are, because we don't have a faculty prepared to deliver the understanding.

Rather than a change in perception, think of a shift. It's like those 3d graphic things that were popular a few years ago. You stare at them a while and relax your eyes, and suddenly, you see the 3d image. Did your perception change? I'd say no. What happened was a shift, not a change. You are still perceiving just as you were before, only the focus has shifted to reveal something else. It may be splitting hairs to some, but I see this as a very important, albeit somewhat subtle, distinction.