« Ultimately, it seems to me unknowable whether there is or isn’t anything other than, or outside of consciousness, and I wonder if mind and matter aren’t just two different ways of seeing and describing the same inconceivable and ungraspable reality. ». Yes! The certainty around the consciousness-only model seems to fly in the face of the uncertainty/mystery endemic in all-that-is, and is ironic given the ill-concealed disdain of its adherents for equally-insistent materialists. Insistence isn’t proof and doesn’t make anything true. Any model can only ever be a thesis amongst countless theses - she says with certainty!🤣
I always suggest Zen teacher (and former science writer) Steve Hagen's book "The Grand Delusion" on why consciousness is fundamental. It's dense but very readable and very much based in a scientific approach. Rupert Spira, otoh, guides people through contemplative explorations of direct experience to arrive at this certainty. I haven't arrived at the certainty either of them have, although I'm there more and more often.
Mr. Nibbles, I find it generally distasteful when people (especially those hiding behind a mask) feel the need to impugn the motives and character of people they've probably never met. And I didn't post this article to inspire a debate over materialism vs idealism. Far from it. And while these perspectives have existed for centuries, I think a lot has changed over the centuries as well.
Kate, I wasn't talking to you! That was a reply to Nobulator Nibbles, as I've now edited it to clarify, whose comments here and elsewhere I have at times found quite irritating. I was specifically referencing his remark that Rupert Spira "has a financial empire to build, and acolytes to hold on to. Doubt is rarely profitable." I completely resonated with your comment, and I share your appreciation for uncertainty. ❤️🙏
Hi Joan. I liked the video and your piece – all ‘food for thought’. Not that thought can improve on just this, the present moment – but delving into philosophical questions is fun and probably part of being human.
I wouldn’t classify myself a materialist or a spiritualist (if that’s the opposite). I would say I’m a naturalist, a naturalist in the sense that everything is seen as natural, including all the cognitive functions – and consciousness. Nothing gets left out: the birds, trees, houses, thoughts, being conscious etc. all a part of being of and in nature – as am I.
As a naturalist, I can’t help but see that everything in nature exhibits a sort of awareness. Not in the sense of being conscious but in that everything responds and reacts to its particular environment – even inorganic material like rocks and minerals. I studied geology for a while and was amazed to discover that under certain conditions minerals within rocks change and grow.
I am sympathetic to what Nisargaddata had to say about consciousness and awareness: -
“Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience.”
Words such as awareness and consciousness get used in different ways. I have that very same quote from Nisargadatta on my website in an old article on this subject where I also distinguish between them: https://www.joantollifson.com/writing29.html -- but they are often used synonymously, sometimes by me as well.
Naturalism as you describe it seems to be akin to how indigenous peoples experience the world. It also seems like panpsychism, which is the view that everything has some kind of consciousness, rather than that there is ONLY consciousness appearing as everything. David Hinton, whose books I love, seems to express this perspective quite beautifully. And my friend Robert Saltzman calls himself a naturalist and not a materialist, although he emphasizes epistemological limitations and not knowing.
"As a thing is viewed, so it appears" - Padmasambhava
Thank you for this lovely essay Joan! I'm reading Paul Levy's book the Quantum Revelation which touches on all the topics you mention in this post. You might enjoy it.
Once again Joan you hit my nail on the head ;-) I watched the Chris Niebauer vid - again you introduce me to an interesting new thinker - and he said the most wonderful simple thing (from when he was aged 10 in Catholic church) "If God made everything he only had God stuff to work with." In 'grown up' terms ... panentheism.
Panentheism is a new word for me, but wikipedia says it is the belief that the divine intersects every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time. Or in my language, All there is, is God. And God is synonymous with consciousness or primordial awareness and is the fundamental reality, at once immanent and transcendent. Yes? ❤️
At a glance, this seems like a political tract in which Buddhism is conflated with leftist politics. And while it says a few things with which I might resonate, it's not my cup of tea. But in the spirit of my article, like everything else, this emerging organization is an appearance of consciousness. 😎
You hide your identity (assuming your name isn't actually Nobulator Nibbles), and you leave long-winded comments about things this article wasn't about at all, and you drop insults here and there along the way. Some folks just piss me off, and you seem to be one of them.
Love this. I feel like in the end all our argumentd about Ultimate Reality are just words...pantheism vs panentheism, whether panentheism means God "is" or is "in" the world, Advaita's all Self vs Buddhist non-self...all just words (David Loy's work had a big impact on me). This one really resonated. 😊
Well, yes and no. The words are all words. But as I tried to suggest, it's also about a different felt-reality. So not just words. When I read Chris's comment on my FB share and something flipped, it was experiential.
Hello Joan, Nicely said! I think your own words contain even deeper and moreliberating knowledge then what is ostensibly presented. Hopefully I can make it clear what I think that is. 
"The flip was visceral, as if everything turned upside down."
Visceral means there was impact of the implied meaning of the words on your intellect, the de facto gatekeeper of well being because how we feel simply existing depends on what we "know." The problem is, what we "know" can be simply, empirically so (true), or it can be a belief rooted in ignorance.
"In that moment and for a while afterwards, it completely erased any last vestige of the persistent idea that there [is more than one] consciousness."
This is the most crucial part in my opinion. "It" refers to the knowledge. "Completely erased any last vestige of the persistent idea" is a true statement about that knowledge - it *completely* eliminates ignorance (the idea that I am in anyway separate, limited, in adequate, unworthy, or lacking at the very locus of my experience, my "self").
Therefore, the references to time, "in that moment" and "for a while afterwards," *do not refer to that knowledge* or its liberating benefits, but rather to the shift in experience from something (anything) short of unchanging, limitless fullness and fundamental well being, to precisely that experience.
That shift only *seems* temporary because the experiential benefits are (inwardly) given a kind of higher priority than the knowledge. This is understandable of course because we all desire lasting happiness, which is only really found when the suffocating sense of separation is removed (as it was "in that moment and for a while afterwards" for you).
However, Chris's comment, and the wisdom of non-duality (Vedanta, for one), points to the fact that limitless, whole, and complete (which only refers to consciousness, existence itself) is not an experience to be obtained, but rather a fact about myself (and the world) to be known. 
Hi Dave. Yes, the reality of what was so viscerally felt and seen after that flip has never been absent and is always here-now, for there is naught beside. And the fact of limitless, whole, and complete reality is not dependent on any particular experience. Those inevitably come and go.
I'm not sure how you use the words knowing and knowledge, as they can mean either direct knowing or the acquisition and accumulation of second-hand information. As I use language, visceral means somatic, sensory, fully embodied and lived, not merely an intellectual idea, although it was a conceptual shift that initiated this. And what was "shifted into" wasn't some whole new perspective, but rather direct knowing that felt deeper and fuller. (Words are never quite right).
As I see it, experiencing is often colored by the ubiquitous dualistic, materialist map that most of us have been bathed in all our lives, and this is true of "my" experience, even after many decades of being immersed in (and expressing) nonduality. Ignorance and delusion still frequently show up, as I suspect they do for almost everyone. Of course, "me" and "everyone" are appearances without substance or independent existence, and so it might be more accurate to say that Consciousness is fooled again and again by its own creations. But it can still FEEL as if "I" am fooled.
That view is so deeply conditioned and constantly reinforced that we often don’t even realize we’re operating from it. Having a particular "momentary" experience of being popped out of this delusion in an especially strong and vivid way was not really the point, as experiences are always impermanent and ultimately only fleeting shapes in a dream.
But it seems to me that part of why Vedanta and Buddhism and other nondual expressions and pointers have appeared on the scene, is because delusion is painful, and while experiences are always fleeting, a way of experiencing, seeing and being can indeed become more and more dominant, or to put it differently, delusion can fall away more and more completely. Of course, always only NOW. (Impossible to ever put any of this into words without it being slightly wrong).
I don't always write in impersonal or absolute language, and I wanted to share what I'd experienced in relation to this Big Question, the resolution to which can seemingly have a real impact on our lives.
Hi Joan, Thanks for your reply, beautifully worded and phrased as always.
I must say I don't agree at all that words fail to do justice to this topic. The clarity, precision, and poignancy of your own writing demonstrates that quite well. I do completely agree about the word visceral, however. If I thought we were talking about something "merely intellectual," I would not bother engaging. This is about the lived, lasting experience of freedom, or it's painful opposite. 
What I was trying to convey is something I learned from Vedanta, which is that not only are words capable of delivering visceral liberation, but there is no other resolution to ignorance than a seemingly (to say the least) intellectual one if reality is non-dual in nature, since there is no actual visceral (experience) problem. If there was an experiential problem, by definition reality would not be (as you stated) "limitless, whole, and complete."
Only consciousness, which is existence, fits that definition and description of reality, which means that the  visceral problem that is indeed present as the suffocating pain of delusion that you referred to (which I agree is the entire reason that Vedanta and Buddhism exist), must only be due to unseen and for that reason unexamined *beliefs* about myself that are self limiting and self denying. When those are removed, that "deeper and fuller" direct knowing is found to be already present underlying my current experience of limitation. 
I love and value words. But they are inherently dualistic and thus can never completely capture the nondual living actuality. They can describe, point, invite, celebrate, praise, etc. They can even trigger deep insights, beautiful experiences and profound realizations. But we can't drink the word water, find nourishment in the menu, or live in the map. So, in my experience, no way I try to express any of this is ever exactly right. That's all I meant by the words never being quite right.
But I think we are fundamentally in agreement here about suffering (which I distinguish from pain and painful circumstances) being caused primarily by believing in false ideas. (I say primarily instead of entirely because there may be other factors). And I see the pathless path as one of seeing through these false beliefs and delusions and simultaneously "awakening" to what is here now without them. This can happen suddenly or gradually, but either way, it only ever happens NOW. And for most of us, it seems to be a never-ending, lifelong, present moment process, not a finish-line that we cross once and forever after.
However, we may indeed come to a deep realization that wholeness is ever-present, impersonal, and all-inclusive—so that we understand that even if we sometimes FEEL separate, lost, confused, anxious, worried, depressed or totally bewildered, this is simply a passing appearance, and that wholeness can never actually be lost. And in any moment we stop and check, we can verify that this boundless wholeness is fully present. And by paying attention (or by doing The Work of Byron Katie or cognitive therapy), we can see that the thoughts that tell us otherwise are just thoughts. They may still arise, but we no longer believe them, or not for long.
Whether "there is no other resolution to ignorance than a seemingly (to say the least) intellectual one," I'm not sure. I'd say there is probably always an intellectual component, but it seems to me that awareness is the transformative power. And perhaps the resolution unfolds in different ways for different people.
What Chris wrote in that comment on my FB was not new information. I'd heard that, read that, even written that myself many times before. But for whatever reason, it triggered something profound at that moment. I might have read the same line hundreds of times before (and after) without that same effect.
This is an article on my website written in 2017 and tweaked slightly in 2023 that I was reminded of by another comment on this post, so I went an re-read it: https://www.joantollifson.com/writing29.html — I often have the sense that I am "getting" (and also expressing) the same insights again and again. Some people seem to have dramatic, sudden awakenings, but my "awakening" (which is not mine) has been gradual, almost imperceptible unless I reflect back, with occasional lightbulb moments like the one recently where a switch flips. And of course, that's all a story. In reality, there is just THIS that cannot be captured by any word.
I love what you said, and I agree ostensibly with the logic of it, but I also hear implications that don't jibe the non-dual standpoint as I understand it. 
For example, it is true we cannot drink words, but that is like saying that eyes are limited because they cannot hear. It is true, but it doesn't really say anything. Words, thoughts, are our one and only means of making sense of the world, via the intellect. There is no other means of understanding. There's nothing to understand about taking a walk, or smelling a flower. There is a ton to understand about being an apparent individual in an infinite totality.
What there is nothing other than, which to me is a very useful and accurate way to point to what cannot actually be pointed to, is the only "thing" that is not "inherently dualistic."
Duality, which is all experience, all appearances, cause and effect, knowledge and ignorance, creation itself, and anything and everything "else" known and unknown in all times, places, and circumstances, is all that exists. That is what is referenced by saying THIS.
But THIS does not implicitly include "what there is nothing other than," which there are many other words to refer to including consciousness, existence, limitless, fullness, and the Self, to name a few. The reason THIS is not included in the Self, is because THIS is an object of experience, which implies a non-appearing, ever-present, unchanging, uninvolved knower/witness.
The Self does not "exist" in the way THIS (duality) does. It's simply is, without qualification, unborn and uncreated. In order to exist, in other words to appear, form is required, and the Self is formless and limitless. If it were not, experience itself would not be known because there would be no standpoint outside of duality to know it.
I don't know if that makes sense to you, but that's the best I can convey it. Really enjoyable conversation, i'm hoping you should continue it! Thank you. 
Actually, I think we're coming from quite different places. I didn't think so at first, but this comment makes it clear. And we seem to mean very different things by some of the words we are each using. I'm not a hardcore Vedantan, as you apparently are, and I don't actually resonate with all parts of that philosophy. And I don't resonate with most of what you say here or see it in the same way. We could try to nit pick it apart, but I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. I don't really enjoy long philosophical back and forth in comments, so I'd say we've done enough of it.
Yes, if you are taking this to be philosophical then we're talking about different topics. It still was an enjoyable conversation even if the differences are left to the imagination for now. Thank you 🙏🏻
For me, I find AI a useful framework for understanding my own mind in action.
AI draws a strong distinction between our experience (training data) and the predictive models we build from experience.
We are conditioned to have very high confidence in our models. Models of the world, models of ourselves. It makes it very difficult for the mind to question the validity of those models.
Awakened experience is the practice of allowing the mind to drop the predictive models — by learning to observe directly, in real time, what our experience actually is.
Hey everyone! I really enjoy playing with these ideas (as do all of you, evidently!)...
A few jottings based on your piece, Joan, and broadly coming to similar conclusions (but definitely without any "certainty") but having not played the video, I'm afraid (I'm quite lazy really):
I agree that "consciousness gives the impression of things", but for me extrapolating that to "everything is consciousness" is a stretch.
In the case of the woman with DID - the fact that an observable change was noted in her visual cortex when her "blind identity" had primacy does not, in my opinion, argue, necessarily, for the "primacy of mind over matter"....maybe the reverse is a actually the case - that these transient changes in this area of her brain resulted in the changes to her perceptual ability and therefore her perspective. Who knows...
I agree that we can never experience anything outside of consciousness, and, as you say, we cannot step outside of consciousness.
And, at the root of it all, all if this is ineffable, unpindownable, groundless.
Fair enough mate…for me though, it is an enjoyable pastime mulling over the various perspectives that people present about their experience of living - to experience the “aha” moments from time to time when an idea really resonates, and notice as my own perspective shifts and flows along with everything else. And acknowledging the fact that what works for me right now is just that…
I guess I have to admit that I also enjoy playing with ideas, at least to some extent, and it's hard to really find a line between an idea that cracks something open and what it experientially cracks open. But what I meant in leaving the response I did was that I'm focused on direct experience more than philosophy and ideas. As for your initial comment, I agree with you that "extrapolating that to 'everything is consciousness' is a stretch," and while I think the woman's experience with DID blindness does suggest the power of mind over matter in some cases, I agree it doesn't prove the primacy of mind. 🙏
Beautifully put...I do love the precision with which you express stuff Joan - it helps to mitigate the intrinsic problems with trying to describe in words matters that are by definition beyond language.
And yes, being able to draw clear lines between causes and effects in these matters, when thought about deeply, often proves fruitless - in my view, of course!
When I look in this moment which is the only moment there ever is and I feel into it, I honestly don’t know.
Also, as I continue to soak in this ever passing moment without describing it and just go with this ineffable experience, I find that I don’t really care because this experience itself is enough and it surpasses any inquiries as it is. It surpasses any of my attempts to nail it down, lean this way or lean that way descriptively. Just here in this ongoing flow.
In those moments where the wonder and awe arises, like this one where that just decided to show up, I can’t imagine anything better than this not knowing at least not in this moment.
I've been on one retreat with Francis and have attended quite a number of his talks in person over the years, plus I've read all his books and listened over the years to many of his talks online, including the recent one I was sharing on FB to which Chris responded, so I'm pretty familiar with what Francis has to say. Yes, he does talk about not knowing, and I do appreciate that. But as I hear him, he's very much aligned with the primacy of consciousness view. I don't get any sense of uncertainty about it from him. But perhaps you hear him differently.
« Ultimately, it seems to me unknowable whether there is or isn’t anything other than, or outside of consciousness, and I wonder if mind and matter aren’t just two different ways of seeing and describing the same inconceivable and ungraspable reality. ». Yes! The certainty around the consciousness-only model seems to fly in the face of the uncertainty/mystery endemic in all-that-is, and is ironic given the ill-concealed disdain of its adherents for equally-insistent materialists. Insistence isn’t proof and doesn’t make anything true. Any model can only ever be a thesis amongst countless theses - she says with certainty!🤣
I always suggest Zen teacher (and former science writer) Steve Hagen's book "The Grand Delusion" on why consciousness is fundamental. It's dense but very readable and very much based in a scientific approach. Rupert Spira, otoh, guides people through contemplative explorations of direct experience to arrive at this certainty. I haven't arrived at the certainty either of them have, although I'm there more and more often.
Thanks, Joan. The wrinkle here for me is the notion of certainty.
Yes, I get the balancing tactic.
Mr. Nibbles, I find it generally distasteful when people (especially those hiding behind a mask) feel the need to impugn the motives and character of people they've probably never met. And I didn't post this article to inspire a debate over materialism vs idealism. Far from it. And while these perspectives have existed for centuries, I think a lot has changed over the centuries as well.
That was neither my intention nor wish, Joan but I accept that you see it differently.
Kate, I wasn't talking to you! That was a reply to Nobulator Nibbles, as I've now edited it to clarify, whose comments here and elsewhere I have at times found quite irritating. I was specifically referencing his remark that Rupert Spira "has a financial empire to build, and acolytes to hold on to. Doubt is rarely profitable." I completely resonated with your comment, and I share your appreciation for uncertainty. ❤️🙏
Hi Joan. I liked the video and your piece – all ‘food for thought’. Not that thought can improve on just this, the present moment – but delving into philosophical questions is fun and probably part of being human.
I wouldn’t classify myself a materialist or a spiritualist (if that’s the opposite). I would say I’m a naturalist, a naturalist in the sense that everything is seen as natural, including all the cognitive functions – and consciousness. Nothing gets left out: the birds, trees, houses, thoughts, being conscious etc. all a part of being of and in nature – as am I.
As a naturalist, I can’t help but see that everything in nature exhibits a sort of awareness. Not in the sense of being conscious but in that everything responds and reacts to its particular environment – even inorganic material like rocks and minerals. I studied geology for a while and was amazed to discover that under certain conditions minerals within rocks change and grow.
I am sympathetic to what Nisargaddata had to say about consciousness and awareness: -
“Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience.”
Ron Elloway
Really helpful Nisargaddata quote - thanks Ron. Phil
Words such as awareness and consciousness get used in different ways. I have that very same quote from Nisargadatta on my website in an old article on this subject where I also distinguish between them: https://www.joantollifson.com/writing29.html -- but they are often used synonymously, sometimes by me as well.
Naturalism as you describe it seems to be akin to how indigenous peoples experience the world. It also seems like panpsychism, which is the view that everything has some kind of consciousness, rather than that there is ONLY consciousness appearing as everything. David Hinton, whose books I love, seems to express this perspective quite beautifully. And my friend Robert Saltzman calls himself a naturalist and not a materialist, although he emphasizes epistemological limitations and not knowing.
"As a thing is viewed, so it appears" - Padmasambhava
Thank you for this lovely essay Joan! I'm reading Paul Levy's book the Quantum Revelation which touches on all the topics you mention in this post. You might enjoy it.
Once again Joan you hit my nail on the head ;-) I watched the Chris Niebauer vid - again you introduce me to an interesting new thinker - and he said the most wonderful simple thing (from when he was aged 10 in Catholic church) "If God made everything he only had God stuff to work with." In 'grown up' terms ... panentheism.
Panentheism is a new word for me, but wikipedia says it is the belief that the divine intersects every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time. Or in my language, All there is, is God. And God is synonymous with consciousness or primordial awareness and is the fundamental reality, at once immanent and transcendent. Yes? ❤️
Joan, love what you wrote. Love the comments. Thank you all.
https://substack.com/@johnshane1/note/c-103768094
At a glance, this seems like a political tract in which Buddhism is conflated with leftist politics. And while it says a few things with which I might resonate, it's not my cup of tea. But in the spirit of my article, like everything else, this emerging organization is an appearance of consciousness. 😎
I didn't post what I did to engage in political discourse. I'd appreciate if folks would take that elsewhere and not use my page for this purpose.
You hide your identity (assuming your name isn't actually Nobulator Nibbles), and you leave long-winded comments about things this article wasn't about at all, and you drop insults here and there along the way. Some folks just piss me off, and you seem to be one of them.
Love this. I feel like in the end all our argumentd about Ultimate Reality are just words...pantheism vs panentheism, whether panentheism means God "is" or is "in" the world, Advaita's all Self vs Buddhist non-self...all just words (David Loy's work had a big impact on me). This one really resonated. 😊
Well, yes and no. The words are all words. But as I tried to suggest, it's also about a different felt-reality. So not just words. When I read Chris's comment on my FB share and something flipped, it was experiential.
I'm also a fan of David Loy.
Hello Joan, Nicely said! I think your own words contain even deeper and moreliberating knowledge then what is ostensibly presented. Hopefully I can make it clear what I think that is. 
"The flip was visceral, as if everything turned upside down."
Visceral means there was impact of the implied meaning of the words on your intellect, the de facto gatekeeper of well being because how we feel simply existing depends on what we "know." The problem is, what we "know" can be simply, empirically so (true), or it can be a belief rooted in ignorance.
"In that moment and for a while afterwards, it completely erased any last vestige of the persistent idea that there [is more than one] consciousness."
This is the most crucial part in my opinion. "It" refers to the knowledge. "Completely erased any last vestige of the persistent idea" is a true statement about that knowledge - it *completely* eliminates ignorance (the idea that I am in anyway separate, limited, in adequate, unworthy, or lacking at the very locus of my experience, my "self").
Therefore, the references to time, "in that moment" and "for a while afterwards," *do not refer to that knowledge* or its liberating benefits, but rather to the shift in experience from something (anything) short of unchanging, limitless fullness and fundamental well being, to precisely that experience.
That shift only *seems* temporary because the experiential benefits are (inwardly) given a kind of higher priority than the knowledge. This is understandable of course because we all desire lasting happiness, which is only really found when the suffocating sense of separation is removed (as it was "in that moment and for a while afterwards" for you).
However, Chris's comment, and the wisdom of non-duality (Vedanta, for one), points to the fact that limitless, whole, and complete (which only refers to consciousness, existence itself) is not an experience to be obtained, but rather a fact about myself (and the world) to be known. 
🙏🏻☀️❤️ Dave
Hi Dave. Yes, the reality of what was so viscerally felt and seen after that flip has never been absent and is always here-now, for there is naught beside. And the fact of limitless, whole, and complete reality is not dependent on any particular experience. Those inevitably come and go.
I'm not sure how you use the words knowing and knowledge, as they can mean either direct knowing or the acquisition and accumulation of second-hand information. As I use language, visceral means somatic, sensory, fully embodied and lived, not merely an intellectual idea, although it was a conceptual shift that initiated this. And what was "shifted into" wasn't some whole new perspective, but rather direct knowing that felt deeper and fuller. (Words are never quite right).
As I see it, experiencing is often colored by the ubiquitous dualistic, materialist map that most of us have been bathed in all our lives, and this is true of "my" experience, even after many decades of being immersed in (and expressing) nonduality. Ignorance and delusion still frequently show up, as I suspect they do for almost everyone. Of course, "me" and "everyone" are appearances without substance or independent existence, and so it might be more accurate to say that Consciousness is fooled again and again by its own creations. But it can still FEEL as if "I" am fooled.
That view is so deeply conditioned and constantly reinforced that we often don’t even realize we’re operating from it. Having a particular "momentary" experience of being popped out of this delusion in an especially strong and vivid way was not really the point, as experiences are always impermanent and ultimately only fleeting shapes in a dream.
But it seems to me that part of why Vedanta and Buddhism and other nondual expressions and pointers have appeared on the scene, is because delusion is painful, and while experiences are always fleeting, a way of experiencing, seeing and being can indeed become more and more dominant, or to put it differently, delusion can fall away more and more completely. Of course, always only NOW. (Impossible to ever put any of this into words without it being slightly wrong).
I don't always write in impersonal or absolute language, and I wanted to share what I'd experienced in relation to this Big Question, the resolution to which can seemingly have a real impact on our lives.
Hi Joan, Thanks for your reply, beautifully worded and phrased as always.
I must say I don't agree at all that words fail to do justice to this topic. The clarity, precision, and poignancy of your own writing demonstrates that quite well. I do completely agree about the word visceral, however. If I thought we were talking about something "merely intellectual," I would not bother engaging. This is about the lived, lasting experience of freedom, or it's painful opposite. 
What I was trying to convey is something I learned from Vedanta, which is that not only are words capable of delivering visceral liberation, but there is no other resolution to ignorance than a seemingly (to say the least) intellectual one if reality is non-dual in nature, since there is no actual visceral (experience) problem. If there was an experiential problem, by definition reality would not be (as you stated) "limitless, whole, and complete."
Only consciousness, which is existence, fits that definition and description of reality, which means that the  visceral problem that is indeed present as the suffocating pain of delusion that you referred to (which I agree is the entire reason that Vedanta and Buddhism exist), must only be due to unseen and for that reason unexamined *beliefs* about myself that are self limiting and self denying. When those are removed, that "deeper and fuller" direct knowing is found to be already present underlying my current experience of limitation. 
I love and value words. But they are inherently dualistic and thus can never completely capture the nondual living actuality. They can describe, point, invite, celebrate, praise, etc. They can even trigger deep insights, beautiful experiences and profound realizations. But we can't drink the word water, find nourishment in the menu, or live in the map. So, in my experience, no way I try to express any of this is ever exactly right. That's all I meant by the words never being quite right.
But I think we are fundamentally in agreement here about suffering (which I distinguish from pain and painful circumstances) being caused primarily by believing in false ideas. (I say primarily instead of entirely because there may be other factors). And I see the pathless path as one of seeing through these false beliefs and delusions and simultaneously "awakening" to what is here now without them. This can happen suddenly or gradually, but either way, it only ever happens NOW. And for most of us, it seems to be a never-ending, lifelong, present moment process, not a finish-line that we cross once and forever after.
However, we may indeed come to a deep realization that wholeness is ever-present, impersonal, and all-inclusive—so that we understand that even if we sometimes FEEL separate, lost, confused, anxious, worried, depressed or totally bewildered, this is simply a passing appearance, and that wholeness can never actually be lost. And in any moment we stop and check, we can verify that this boundless wholeness is fully present. And by paying attention (or by doing The Work of Byron Katie or cognitive therapy), we can see that the thoughts that tell us otherwise are just thoughts. They may still arise, but we no longer believe them, or not for long.
Whether "there is no other resolution to ignorance than a seemingly (to say the least) intellectual one," I'm not sure. I'd say there is probably always an intellectual component, but it seems to me that awareness is the transformative power. And perhaps the resolution unfolds in different ways for different people.
What Chris wrote in that comment on my FB was not new information. I'd heard that, read that, even written that myself many times before. But for whatever reason, it triggered something profound at that moment. I might have read the same line hundreds of times before (and after) without that same effect.
This is an article on my website written in 2017 and tweaked slightly in 2023 that I was reminded of by another comment on this post, so I went an re-read it: https://www.joantollifson.com/writing29.html — I often have the sense that I am "getting" (and also expressing) the same insights again and again. Some people seem to have dramatic, sudden awakenings, but my "awakening" (which is not mine) has been gradual, almost imperceptible unless I reflect back, with occasional lightbulb moments like the one recently where a switch flips. And of course, that's all a story. In reality, there is just THIS that cannot be captured by any word.
Anyway, thanks for your comments. ❤️🙏
I love what you said, and I agree ostensibly with the logic of it, but I also hear implications that don't jibe the non-dual standpoint as I understand it. 
For example, it is true we cannot drink words, but that is like saying that eyes are limited because they cannot hear. It is true, but it doesn't really say anything. Words, thoughts, are our one and only means of making sense of the world, via the intellect. There is no other means of understanding. There's nothing to understand about taking a walk, or smelling a flower. There is a ton to understand about being an apparent individual in an infinite totality.
What there is nothing other than, which to me is a very useful and accurate way to point to what cannot actually be pointed to, is the only "thing" that is not "inherently dualistic."
Duality, which is all experience, all appearances, cause and effect, knowledge and ignorance, creation itself, and anything and everything "else" known and unknown in all times, places, and circumstances, is all that exists. That is what is referenced by saying THIS.
But THIS does not implicitly include "what there is nothing other than," which there are many other words to refer to including consciousness, existence, limitless, fullness, and the Self, to name a few. The reason THIS is not included in the Self, is because THIS is an object of experience, which implies a non-appearing, ever-present, unchanging, uninvolved knower/witness.
The Self does not "exist" in the way THIS (duality) does. It's simply is, without qualification, unborn and uncreated. In order to exist, in other words to appear, form is required, and the Self is formless and limitless. If it were not, experience itself would not be known because there would be no standpoint outside of duality to know it.
I don't know if that makes sense to you, but that's the best I can convey it. Really enjoyable conversation, i'm hoping you should continue it! Thank you. 
Actually, I think we're coming from quite different places. I didn't think so at first, but this comment makes it clear. And we seem to mean very different things by some of the words we are each using. I'm not a hardcore Vedantan, as you apparently are, and I don't actually resonate with all parts of that philosophy. And I don't resonate with most of what you say here or see it in the same way. We could try to nit pick it apart, but I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. I don't really enjoy long philosophical back and forth in comments, so I'd say we've done enough of it.
Yes, if you are taking this to be philosophical then we're talking about different topics. It still was an enjoyable conversation even if the differences are left to the imagination for now. Thank you 🙏🏻
Beautiful
For me, I find AI a useful framework for understanding my own mind in action.
AI draws a strong distinction between our experience (training data) and the predictive models we build from experience.
We are conditioned to have very high confidence in our models. Models of the world, models of ourselves. It makes it very difficult for the mind to question the validity of those models.
Awakened experience is the practice of allowing the mind to drop the predictive models — by learning to observe directly, in real time, what our experience actually is.
Hence, just this. As it is.
Hey everyone! I really enjoy playing with these ideas (as do all of you, evidently!)...
A few jottings based on your piece, Joan, and broadly coming to similar conclusions (but definitely without any "certainty") but having not played the video, I'm afraid (I'm quite lazy really):
I agree that "consciousness gives the impression of things", but for me extrapolating that to "everything is consciousness" is a stretch.
In the case of the woman with DID - the fact that an observable change was noted in her visual cortex when her "blind identity" had primacy does not, in my opinion, argue, necessarily, for the "primacy of mind over matter"....maybe the reverse is a actually the case - that these transient changes in this area of her brain resulted in the changes to her perceptual ability and therefore her perspective. Who knows...
I agree that we can never experience anything outside of consciousness, and, as you say, we cannot step outside of consciousness.
And, at the root of it all, all if this is ineffable, unpindownable, groundless.
Thanks mate.
Actually, I'm not really here because I "enjoy playing with ideas."
Fair enough mate…for me though, it is an enjoyable pastime mulling over the various perspectives that people present about their experience of living - to experience the “aha” moments from time to time when an idea really resonates, and notice as my own perspective shifts and flows along with everything else. And acknowledging the fact that what works for me right now is just that…
I guess I have to admit that I also enjoy playing with ideas, at least to some extent, and it's hard to really find a line between an idea that cracks something open and what it experientially cracks open. But what I meant in leaving the response I did was that I'm focused on direct experience more than philosophy and ideas. As for your initial comment, I agree with you that "extrapolating that to 'everything is consciousness' is a stretch," and while I think the woman's experience with DID blindness does suggest the power of mind over matter in some cases, I agree it doesn't prove the primacy of mind. 🙏
Beautifully put...I do love the precision with which you express stuff Joan - it helps to mitigate the intrinsic problems with trying to describe in words matters that are by definition beyond language.
And yes, being able to draw clear lines between causes and effects in these matters, when thought about deeply, often proves fruitless - in my view, of course!
Have a great day!
When I look in this moment which is the only moment there ever is and I feel into it, I honestly don’t know.
Also, as I continue to soak in this ever passing moment without describing it and just go with this ineffable experience, I find that I don’t really care because this experience itself is enough and it surpasses any inquiries as it is. It surpasses any of my attempts to nail it down, lean this way or lean that way descriptively. Just here in this ongoing flow.
In those moments where the wonder and awe arises, like this one where that just decided to show up, I can’t imagine anything better than this not knowing at least not in this moment.
Maybe you should have a closer look at Francis Lucille.
His basic axiom is the “not knowing “..
Take care and enjoy this beautiful day …
I've been on one retreat with Francis and have attended quite a number of his talks in person over the years, plus I've read all his books and listened over the years to many of his talks online, including the recent one I was sharing on FB to which Chris responded, so I'm pretty familiar with what Francis has to say. Yes, he does talk about not knowing, and I do appreciate that. But as I hear him, he's very much aligned with the primacy of consciousness view. I don't get any sense of uncertainty about it from him. But perhaps you hear him differently.