Dualistic Perception and Reality

Food for thought:

Not all concepts are defined in a dualistic way. Think of how we differentiate between colors. Its not a "good" or "bad", or a "light" or "dark" dualistic distinction, but a reduction of many, e.g. The color I perceive now is not red or blue or green or purple or orange or pink... I'll call it yellow. Yellow is therefore defined as the color that is not all the other colors. Dualism I think is an unfortunate concept to use sometimes as it gives the impression of either X or not X, which is not the case as shown above.

However, any differentiation is the dualistic process of the left hemisphere of our brain. In a nano second a color has been compared to each other color. "Dualism" is only a label that shouldn't be taken so literally as if all comparison is only between two consciously defined things. We can still be unconscious to how quickly the left brain is comparing one color with one other color during a sequence of defining one color against every other color. The term "dualism" may also consider that the brain is two hemispheres and only one of these is doing comparisons (making distinctions, defining and refining).

"There is no limitless reality or reality that is limitless."

So you say. However, I word it this way. There is ONLY limitless Reality, which is nothing (or " The Great No Thing"), and there is nothing else. Limits are themselves constructs or fabrications (and confabulations).

I agree, there is the 'nothing_ness', 'emptiness', 'The Great No Thing' but they and "limitless" are ultimately constructed and conditioned by a living human body with a brain and mind.
These concepts cannot be absolutely absolute, at best they are relatively absolute.

"btw, is your concept of non-dualism based on any of the Eastern philosophies, i.e. Advaita, Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism, others, Abrahamic mysticism or from your own personal experiences and philosophy?"

Personal feeling experiences later supported in language (I guess for just bringing the left hemisphere more inline with the feeling experiences) by various authors, some of which were English interpreters of Zen and the Tao mainly but also other sciences and your input just tonight of the Jill Bolte recording. Her experience mirrored mine although without the brain haemorrhage.

Noted.

My point is,
1. in the spiritual journey, one will inevitable encounter these sort of 'enlightened' experiences within a controlled environment,
2. the general public will also experienced these sort of enlightened experience due to various reasons, i.e. out of the blue, brain damage (Jill Bolte's case and many others), drugs, etc. etc.
3. however, these 'enlightened' experiences in a non-spiritual setting do not necessary meant the person is highly spiritual, it is only a 'jump-start' for anyone to proceed with the spiritual journey. For some, they would prefer to ignore and suppress it.

Since you are reading up Zen and Tao, I presumed you are continuing with some sort of spiritualit journey. I am not sure what you are up to, personally I would tie up with some of these specific schools, adopt their practices, go into greater depth in terms of knowledge to reinforce (without giving it too much attention and priority) those 'enlightened' experiences.

Jill Bolte is a neuroscientist without any spiritual background who happened to be striken with these enlightened experiences due to brain damage. I highlighted Jill Bolte experience to demonstrate that these sort of so-called 'enlightened' experiences are not the ultimate and final markers of developed spirituality and philosophy, as it can be experience by anyone (Tom, Dick and Harry) outside the spiritual fratenity.
In anycase, I would not take Bolte's exposition of left-right brain dichotomy to represent enlightened and non-enlightened too seriously. There is more to it with spirituality and the brain/mind correlation.

" The point is, at the ultimate level, no one can "experience" or realize transcendence, non-dualism without a living body." Spectrum.

That is impossible for you to know.

I thought that is very obvious.
Whether it is Jill Bolte, Hui Neng, a meditator, a schizo or any monk, those 'enlightened' experience are always (100%) reported by a living person.
A schizo or monk may have lost their sense of the ego-self, but there is still the living body, brain and mind.
There is no such reports from the dead who came back as spirits.

-- Updated Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:34 pm to add the following --

Food for thought:
Not all concepts are defined in a dualistic way. Think of how we differentiate between colors. Its not a "good" or "bad", or a "light" or "dark" dualistic distinction, but a reduction of many, e.g. The color I perceive now is not red or blue or green or purple or orange or pink... I'll call it yellow. Yellow is therefore defined as the color that is not all the other colors. Dualism I think is an unfortunate concept to use sometimes as it gives the impression of either X or not X, which is not the case as shown above.

The principle of duality is axiomatic in common sense and conventional reality which is basically X or not-X.

"The color I perceive now is not red or blue or green or purple or orange or pink... I'll call it yellow.
Yellow is therefore defined as the color that is not all the other colors. "
This is reducible to duality, i.e.

Yellow is yellow (+ve) vs Yellow is not X, Y, Z colors (-ve)

Within the common sense and conventional reality, duality is an axiomatic principle.

However, from other philosophical perspective, non-dualism is a possibility and can be experienced in relation to the common sense and conventional perspective.
Whilst one can discuss and experience non-dualism in a different perspective, but it is nevertheless and ultimately 'in relation' to conventional and other perspective, therefore non-dualism itself is ultimately dualistic.

Granth. "That is impossible for you to know."


Spectrum. "I thought that is very obvious. Whether it is Jill Bolte, Hui Neng, a meditator, a schizo or any monk, those 'enlightened' experience are always (100%) reported by a living person. A schizo or monk may have lost their sense of the ego-self, but there is still the living body, brain and mind. There is no such reports from the dead who came back as spirits."

Yes, but that is only a consideration for reporting an experience. I'm not saying that your proposition may not be a fact. I'm just saying that either you or anyone knowing it to be a fact is impossible. Remember, these people are reporting an experience only because they lived. It is my presumption that this experience could be an eternal one beyond the personality/bodies life (which is merely an aspect of life. A particular dimension of it). This transcendent experience has no time within it. It is dimension-less. So "eternal" just means that no sense of time is apparent. No left hemisphere activity means..... no time, no personalty, no body, no earth, no space and no universe. One IS the space. Nothing is apparent during this experience. It merely appears apparent only after a possible return to normal dualistic consciousness precisely BECAUSE dualistic consciousness is making a comparison between normal experience and other.

-- Updated August 19th, 2012, 1:41 am to add the following --

So I 'm not saying that you are wrong. I am only questioning your ability to know whether you are right or wrong on that. It's a speculation, is it not?

Granth. "That is impossible for you to know."

Spectrum. "I thought that is very obvious. Whether it is Jill Bolte, Hui Neng, a meditator, a schizo or any monk, those 'enlightened' experience are always (100%) reported by a living person. A schizo or monk may have lost their sense of the ego-self, but there is still the living body, brain and mind. There is no such reports from the dead who came back as spirits."

Yes, but that is only a consideration for reporting an experience. I'm not saying that your proposition may not be a fact. I'm just saying that either you or anyone knowing it to be a fact is impossible. Remember, these people are reporting an experience only because they lived. It is my presumption that this experience could be an eternal one beyond the personality/bodies life (which is merely an aspect of life. A particular dimension of it). This transcendent experience has no time within it. It is dimension-less. So "eternal" just means that no sense of time is apparent. No left hemisphere activity means..... no time, no personalty, no body, no earth, no space and no universe. One IS the space. Nothing is apparent during this experience. It merely appears apparent only after a possible return to normal dualistic consciousness precisely BECAUSE dualistic consciousness is making a comparison between normal experience and other.

-- Updated August 19th, 2012, 1:41 am to add the following --

So I 'm not saying that you are wrong. I am only questioning your ability to know whether you are right or wrong on that. It's a speculation, is it not?

For me, it is not speculation. My basis is knowing is based on what I can know, known collectively and verifiable & justifiable collectively, i.e. consensus reality.
It may not be sufficient for you, but I don't think you can or will dispute my proposition, whatever the experience, it is grounded on a living person.

I won't dispute the experience, but to presume that sort of experience can be eternal beyond the personality/bodies is pure speculation. In anycase, such theory would not be Zen or Taoism and definitely not Buddhism. Advaita Vedanta do support such a theory, i.e. that experience is in the realm of Brahman, the all, the oneness, the one consciousness, the Absolute. I agree with the various philosophies of advaita vedanta but not the concept of its ultimate Brahman.

I am refreshing on Kant at present, and he explained very clearly how pure reasons with its own rules will seduced humans into the speculative transcendental illusions. This tendency to arrive at some finality, certainty and conclusion is definitely psychology, re evolutionary psychology and its crude basis is the speculation of the existence of God as a closure as humans are not programmed and are very uncomfortable with uncertainty.
Note 'certainty' is a big topic in philosophy and generally there is no certainty (Wittgenstein) and completeness (Godel, etc.)

Spectrum,

Although the examples you provide of what you call “dualistic perception” are quite meaningless, you seem to be grasping for the distinction between what is called representational realism and naive realism. The latter point of view holds that things in themselves are exactly as we experience them through the senses. For reasons that should be fairly obvious, no serious philosopher accepts this appraisal.

Representational realism holds that our sensations are only conscious representations that cannot be equated with things in themselves.

The real epistemological question is: To what extent (if at all) do our sensory experiences correspond, however indirectly, to the world as it really is?

For me, it is not speculation. My basis is knowing is based on what I can know, known collectively and verifiable & justifiable collectively, i.e. consensus reality.
It may not be sufficient for you, but I don't think you can or will dispute my proposition, whatever the experience, it is grounded on a living person.

grounded in the person doing the reporting? However, the person who is reporting isn't necessarily grounded themselves (with the exception of Jill Bolte Taylor). Many have interpreted their "mystical" experience in very ungrounded ways. The person (the condition that is the personality) very much colors the experience. If one believes in a Christian God before having a transcendental experience will usually interpret such experience through their particular logic. Reportage will be as unreliable as reportage can be of knowable 3 dimensional events.

Spectrum,

Although the examples you provide of what you call “dualistic perception” are quite meaningless, you seem to be grasping for the distinction between what is called representational realism and naive realism. The latter point of view holds that things in themselves are exactly as we experience them through the senses. For reasons that should be fairly obvious, no serious philosopher accepts this appraisal.

Representational realism holds that our sensations are only conscious representations that cannot be equated with things in themselves.

The real epistemological question is: To what extent (if at all) do our sensory experiences correspond, however indirectly, to the world as it really is?

I was discussing the above with a focus towards the Eastern philosophical perspective thus there was no question of naive and representational realism. This why it is discussed in this religious rather than the 'metaphysics' section.

As I mentioned I am refreshing on Kant at present, and for Kant there is no things-in-themselves that are 'out there' waiting to be corresponded to by sensations and conscious representation.
Whatever the reality, ultimately the subject (humans) are its co-creators.

-. This tendency to arrive at some finality, certainty and conclusion is definitely psychology, re evolutionary psychology and its crude basis is the speculation of the existence of God as a closure as humans are not programmed and are very uncomfortable with uncertainty)

Nothing is final, only perception ends. The source of perception never ends. It never begun. It always is.

grounded in the person doing the reporting? However, the person who is reporting isn't necessarily grounded themselves (with the exception of Jill Bolte Taylor). Many have interpreted their "mystical" experience in very ungrounded ways. The person (the condition that is the personality) very much colors the experience. If one believes in a Christian God before having a transcendental experience will usually interpret such experience through their particular logic. Reportage will be as unreliable as reportage can be of knowable 3 dimensional events.

As I had mentioned the self is constructed upon many layers and modules which can be 'independent' in one sense and interdependent with other modules.
In the ordinary sense, we have the waking, sleep and dream consciousness where the experiences can be different between them, but they are nevertheless grounded on a living person with a brain and mind.

Within waking consciousness, there can be many sub-layers of consciousness, of various degrees of alertness, drunk consciousness, drugged consciousness, brain damage consciousness, cosmic consciousness, unitary consciousness, etc.
In cosmic and unitary consciousness within waking consciousness, one may experience various 'mystical' experiences of oneness with the universe, etc.
These experiences are nevertheless grounded on a living person with a brain and mind, albeit supported with different neural connectivities.
There is no way, these cosmic unitary experiences can be independent of a living person with a brain and mind.

The question is, why do some people infer or conclude that these cosmic nond-dualistic experiences are independent of the living person and eternal. Kant, neuroscience, evolutional psychological and various other knowledge can explain why some people has the tendencies to do this. You can create a hypothesis and explore whether it is plausible or false.

-- Updated Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:00 am to add the following --

Nothing is final, only perception ends. The source of perception never ends.

That is very true.
However did you notice, how you are trying to finalize your experiences as something independent of personalities and bodies and is eternal.
What I find difficult to agree is 'your attempting and trying to finalize' as there is no end to it.

It never begun. It always is.

In the common sense and conventional perspective, there is an "It".
But in the ultimate sense, there is no inherent "it".
As such 'it always is' is difficult to swallow.
Why not say "Is is always is".

Within waking consciousness, there can be many sub-layers of consciousness, of various degrees of alertness, drunk consciousness, drugged consciousness, brain damage consciousness, cosmic consciousness, unitary consciousness, etc.
In cosmic and unitary consciousness within waking consciousness, one may experience various 'mystical' experiences of oneness with the universe, etc.
These experiences are nevertheless grounded on a living person with a brain and mind, albeit supported with different neural connectivities.
There is no way, these cosmic unitary experiences can be independent of a living person with a brain and mind.

Explain OBE where there is a view of this "independent living person with a brain and mind" from a point in space outside of this person.

""Nothing is final, only perception ends. The source of perception never ends."

That is very true.
However did you notice, how you are trying to finalize your experiences as something independent of personalities and bodies and is eternal.
What I find difficult to agree is 'your attempting and trying to finalize' as there is no end to it.

Trying to finalize what? I said NOTHING is final.

"It never begun. It always is."
In the common sense and conventional perspective, there is an "It".
But in the ultimate sense, there is no inherent "it".
As such 'it always is' is difficult to swallow.
Why not say "Is is always is".

There is nothing. No it, nothing. Everything is an illusion. However, there is the source of everything. Everything comes from nothing, from source. Explain source? I can't. Explain nothing? I can't.

-- Updated August 19th, 2012, 6:48 am to add the following --

Or I can explain nothing. Here is my explanation between these brackets. ( )

-- Updated August 19th, 2012, 6:56 am to add the following --

It is only that your brain does not like this explanation. The brain loaths nothing. The brain wants to chatter, chatter, chatter. It fears nothing. In it's fear of nothing it wants to find noisy answers rather that silence. It wants analysis because the brain IS analysis. It is an action. The action of analyzing. It wants it's action to survive. Silence for the brain means death. Chattering analysis is a survival instinct, but in the final analysis THERE IS a final anslysis.

-- Updated August 19th, 2012, 9:44 pm to add the following --

Explain OBE where there is a view of this "independent living person with a brain and mind" from a point in space outside of this person.




Trying to finalize what? I said NOTHING is final.



There is nothing. No it, nothing. Everything is an illusion. However, there is the source of everything. Everything comes from nothing, from source. Explain source? I can't. Explain nothing? I can't.

-- Updated August 19th, 2012, 6:48 am to add the following --

Or I can explain nothing. Here is my explanation between these brackets. ( )

-- Updated August 19th, 2012, 6:56 am to add the following --

It is only that your brain does not like this explanation. The brain loathes nothing. The brain wants to chatter, chatter, chatter. It fears nothing. In it's fear of nothing it wants to find noisy answers rather that silence. It wants analysis because the brain IS analysis. It is an action. The action of analyzing. It wants it's action to survive. Silence for the brain means death. Chattering analysis is a survival instinct, but in the final analysis THERE IS a final anslysis.

Explain OBE where there is a view of this "independent living person with a brain and mind" from a point in space outside of this person.

Btw, I have done a lot of research on OBEs and NDEs.
The latest on OBE that make it less subjective is the research from Olaf Blanke where they were able to induce OBEs within laboratory conditions.

Research by Olaf Blanke in Switzerland found that it is possible to reliably elicit experiences somewhat similar to the OBE by stimulating regions of the brain called the right temporal-parietal junction (TPJ; a region where the temporal lobe and parietal lobe of the brain come together). Blanke and his collaborators in Switzerland have explored the neural basis of OBEs by showing that they are reliably associated with lesions in the right TPJ region[86] and that they can be reliably elicited with electrical stimulation of this region in a patient with epilepsy.[87] These elicited experiences may include perceptions of transformations of the patient's arms and legs (complex somatosensory responses) and whole-body displacements (vestibular responses).

I would recommend that every human experience OBE which would expand their range of consciousness.

Trying to finalize what? I said NOTHING is final.

In theory you know NOTHING is final, but yet you are trying to finalize.
That is the seduction of the natural reification module in one's brain.

It is only that your brain does not like this explanation. The brain loaths nothing. The brain wants to chatter, chatter, chatter. It fears nothing. In it's fear of nothing it wants to find noisy answers rather that silence. It wants analysis because the brain IS analysis. It is an action. The action of analyzing. It wants it's action to survive. Silence for the brain means death. Chattering analysis is a survival instinct, but in the final analysis THERE IS a final anslysis.

This is a good analysis.

Applying the analysis to your 'experience', your brain cannot accept that there is 'nothing' more to what is experienced by the self.
Experience is experience, there is nothing more to it.
But your brain/mind is insisting there is something that is independent of personalities and bodies and it is eternal.
Why? it is because your brain loaths nothing.

Btw, I have done a lot of research on OBEs and NDEs.
The latest on OBE that make it less subjective is the research from Olaf Blanke where they were able to induce OBEs within laboratory conditions.



I would recommend that every human experience OBE which would expand their range of consciousness.

Sure. It does sound like a bit of fun. But what does this experiment say about the views we have from our everyday normal experience? We presume that we exist only within the skull and body as if it is a building, and from this building look out through windows (eyes) at what we assume are external experience. External to a thing (individual process) we assume is our self. Does Blanke's experiment not tell us that our self is every phenomena one is experiencing?

In theory you know NOTHING is final, but yet you are trying to finalize.
That is the seduction of the natural reification module in one's brain.

I don't see that I am trying to finalize everything or anything. It is just that beyond a brain's mere analytical limit (the verbal mind. The aspect of mind which only communicates with other mere verbal aspects of other's minds), there is nothing to merely verbalize. Even 3 Dimensional things never end, as such. They transform. They change. But their form as they merely appear to exist within a moment (which one could call a "life span") only disappears FROM an aspect of our mind. Only DISAPPEARS from the verbal, analytical and limited aspect of mind. The aspect we call " you" and "me". "We", as this mere aspect, cannot see/experience the radical change that happens to other "you's" and "me's" as they, apparently, become dead. At death, I will presume, it is only aspects of others that disappear from our limited forms of consciousness as perceived only by our own and temporary limited forms of consciousness. So nothing is final in WHOLE Consciousness. Only appearances appear final. It is all part of this dream.

This is a good analysis.

Applying the analysis to your 'experience', your brain cannot accept that there is 'nothing' more to what is experienced by the self.
Experience is experience, there is nothing more to it.
But your brain/mind is insisting there is something that is independent of personalities and bodies and it is eternal.
Why? it is because your brain loaths nothing.

Well, there is experience and then there is experience. Most experience is of a limited, very limited, variety. With regard to "something" that is independent of personality/body which is eternal?

The thing about perceptions of "eternal" is that the brain tries to grasp this as a concept. The brain tries to see "eternal" as something. As a conceptual thing to the extent that it conceives "eternal" as a period of time. But it is NO time. It is not some-thing therefore. It is never "independent" therefore.

Sure. It does sound like a bit of fun. But what does this experiment say about the views we have from our everday normal experience? We presume that we exist only within the skull and body as if it is a building, and from this building look out through windows (eyes) at what we assume are external experience. External to a thing (individual process) we assume is our self. Does Blanke's experiment not tell us that our self is every phenomena one is experiencing?

Aaarh.. lost a good portion of my reply to the earlier section post.
Will rewrite when I get back the extra energy

Well, there is experience and then there is experience. Most experience is of a limited, very limited, variety. With regard to "something" that is independent of personality/body which is eternal?

The thing about perceptions of "eternal" is that the brain tries to grasp this as a concept. The brain tries to see "eternal" as something. As a conceptual thing to the extent that it conceives "eternal" as a period of time. But it is NO time. It is not some-thing therefore. It is never "independent" therefore.

Experience is limited because humans are fallible.
The illusion (A)* above is a good example of how experience is limited and deviated from a perspective of reality (B).
While B is truer than A, it does not imply that A is to be final or the absolute truth and note,
there is no absolute truth, there are only perspectives -Nietzsche.

It is a good move and possible to explore reality to the extent that there is no time, no space and transcending everything, but the point is we should not reify anything (WHOLE Consciousnes of WHATEVER) from this venture without proper qualifications, at the minimal that "we" have something to do with it, i.e. it cannot be totally independent of the self.

*airtightinteractive.com/2005/07/checker ... -illusion/

Aaarh.. lost a good portion of my reply to the earlier section post.
Will rewrite when I get back the extra energy




Experience is limited because humans are fallible.
The illusion (A)* above is a good example of how experience is limited and deviated from a perspective of reality (B).
While B is truer than A, it does not imply that A is to be final or the absolute truth and note,
there is no absolute truth, there are only perspectives -Nietzsche.

It is a good move and possible to explore reality to the extent that there is no time, no space and transcending everything, but the point is we should not reify anything (WHOLE Consciousnes of WHATEVER) from this venture without proper qualifications, at the minimal that "we" have something to do with it, i.e. it cannot be totally independent of the self.

*airtightinteractive.com/2005/07/checker ... -illusion/

Whole Consciousness can be the experience. It requires a balanced brain. Both hemispheres in harmony with each other. All things arise within Consciousness, including "things" that are brained creatures, and then you have certain brained creatures which may become tuned with Consciousness. This tuning requires the harmonious relationship, which is already what Consciousess is, to happen within the brained creature. As unbalanced brained creatures we re-create disharmony, or, re-incarnate disharmonious living circumstances. If a brained creature has realized harmony within it's own brain system it then will not care about death and therefore not bother in striving to put it off for as long as possible, and will also not bother to strive for any number of temporary pleasures. An expression for this realization is Self Realization. Prior to this realization is our normal state of self consciousness rather than self AS Consciousness. Striving for experience, whatever the experience may be, is a reflection of this disharmony. This impulse to fulfill and satisfy the unbalanced and disharmonious separate feeling self. The non-productive aspiration to fill up a state that always feels empty. The state that regards emptyness, and therefore space, as something to be feared. Space, however, is something we should MAKE for others rather than the over-production of stuff and emotions to fill space up with. Space is nothing. When we make space for others we are practicing relationship. The practice of relationship is to make space rather than fill space. Space, or nothing, is relationship. Two hemispheres of the brain of a creature where each hemisphere is relating consciously with the other hemisphere has created the circumstance of Relationship. It has become FULLY conscious. The brained creature no longer needs to look outside itself. It is now reflecting Consciousness within and without. It is now home.

-- Updated August 20th, 2012, 4:57 am to add the following --

Re: "space for others" This can be a bit of a trick for understanding the inherent philosophy. In Reality, there is no other. Only in fear of harmonious relationship is there the invention of otherness. "whenever there is other, fear arises". Two hemispheres experiencing harmonious relationship can no longer discern otherness. One is one with space, rather than the sensation of one within space (with accompanying sensations of feeling confronted by "others" that seem to be striving to share the same space). "Otherness" is our own personal condition for which we should take personal responsibilty for.

-- Updated August 20th, 2012, 5:11 am to add the following --

So to "make space for others" is to make mind space. The opening of mind. To see no other or others as other. After all, the concept of other is happening in one's own brain. So "making space for others" doesn't necessitate bringing in all sorts of bedraggled or otherwise strangers into one's physical home (or a sexual "other" into one's sexual life). But these things might be practiced by some (MOST) until they get the lesson. In the meantime we are DOING this lesson until we GET it.

Whole Consciousness can be the experience. It requires a balanced brain. Both hemispheres in harmony with each other. All things arise within Consciousness, including "things" that are brained creatures, and then you have certain brained creatures which may become tuned with Consciousness.
An expression for this realization is Self Realization.
Two hemispheres of the brain of a creature where each hemisphere is relating consciously with the other hemisphere has created the circumstance of Relationship. It has become FULLY conscious. The brained creature no longer needs to look outside itself. It is now reflecting Consciousness within and without. It is now home.

When you veer into the subject of 'consciousness' or 'Consciousness', that is where the problem starts.
Consciousness is a complex and vague topic. Consciousness is used as a loose term and as a convenience, just like the word 'mind'. Note the 'easy' and 'hard' problem of consciousness that is going around the philosophical community.
When we do not know what consciousness really is, there is no little credibility when you use the term to represent something we do not know.
When you use consciousness in the sense of 'Consciousness' with a capital "C", it can only get more vague.

Your presentation of consciousness above is similar (?) to that of Advaita Vedanta (AV). AV believes the phenomena world including the self as an individual, are illusions in the world of duality. (Maya). What is Real is not individual consciousness but rather Whole Consciousness, i.e. the Absolute, Brahman.
The individual consciousness is Atman whose dharma is to achieve Self Realization, loose its self-identity to merge with Consciousness -the Oneness. The analogy is like an individual water droplet from the mountain top journeying and in a quest to merge with the Ocean as One (non-duality).

I am VERY familiar with AV and I think AV is a very good philosophy but I do not agree with its concept of Brahman as the One Consciousness, the ALL, Thou Art That, Tat Twam Asi.

Tat Twam Asi = In other words that Brahman which is the common Reality behind everything in the cosmos is the same as the essential Divinity, namely the Atman, within you. It is this identity which is the grand finale of Upanishadic teaching, according to Advaita. The realisation of this arises only by an intuitive experience and is totally different from any objective experience. It cannot be inferred from some other bit of knowledge. To comprehend the meaning an analysis of the three words in the pronouncement is needed.

Re: "space for others" This can be a bit of a trick for understanding the inherent philosophy. In Reality, there is no other. Only in fear of harmonious relationship is there the invention of otherness. "whenever there is other, fear arises". Two hemispheres experiencing harmonious relationship can no longer discern otherness. One is one with space, rather than the sensation of one within space (with accompanying sensations of feeling confronted by "others" that seem to be striving to share the same space). "Otherness" is our own personal condition for which we should take personal responsibilty for.

There is no 'Reality' that is the mother of all reality.
There is a reality for 'other' and there is a reality for 'no other'. Both reality is necessary for optimal life. The right balance should be the one that end with a balanced of 'other' and 'no other'. The problem is when there is an extreme bias to either 'other' (duality) or 'no-other' (non-duality).

So to "make space for others" is to make mind space. The opening of mind. To see no other or others as other. After all, the concept of other is happening in one's own brain. So "making space for others" doesn't necessitate bringing in all sorts of bedraggled or otherwise strangers into one's physical home (or a sexual "other" into one's sexual life). But these things might be practiced by some (MOST) until they get the lesson. In the meantime we are DOING this lesson until we GET it.

'Space', 'mind' can be very vague terms, and worst still if grounded on 'Consciousness' which is more vague.