When I simply observe, which is another way of saying, when I observe the mind, I find a center point – a point that is always the same, always here, and always available. This center point can simply be described as awareness, or knowing. I will also make the obvious assumption that you – as my fellow human being, have equal access to and recognition of, this awareness – your own awareness. Already at this point, many new perspectives will challenge the assumptions of what has been written so far. One perspective holds the notion that there is only one awareness, and that is this awareness. Nothing else exists outside of this, since everything that is ever known – in the past, now or in the future – is always in this awareness.

Another, perhaps more prevalent perspective is a dualistic one – that at the core, life – human beings – are distinctly separated from one another. It may not only be confirmed by our apparent separation through our sensory perceptions, but may also be supported by the experience of separation. The level of depth and breadth of these seemingly different perspectives may be difficult to communicate; a message of separation in the eyes of unity will remain unified; a message of unity in the eyes of separation will remain separate.

I am me and you are you. Likewise, from your perspective, I am me and you are you. These notions of “me/you” are interchangeable – in relative terms they are not absolute. Here and there work in the same manner. We can apply this paradigm to other life forms as well. A bird must know, subjectively. An ant must know, subjectively. A plant must know, subjectively. The content and complexity of the experience or knowing may – and probably is – very different between life forms. A bird must take in sensory inputs to adjust itself in the environment. Same goes for the ant and plant. What about seemingly dead matter – rocks, for instance? Well, what do we see? We see a rock. This rock is something otherwise it would not be. A scientist or philosopher can also argue that the rock isn’t really a solid “rock” or object as interpreted by the human brain. The rock is made up of even smaller constituents – sand, minerals. Even beyond that – molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles and so on. Back to the original idea – is there any knowing, or subjectivity in the rock?

Let me jump right into one conclusion: No, the rock itself does not know its own existence (within the boundaries of its own form), however, whenever the rock is known, in a human, for instance – that is the rock’s existential placeholder. The human consciousness upholds the rock’s reality. The same could apply for other life forms or objects as well. I have already veered off a bit into gray-zone land. Here is a legitimate question: How can some life forms be (subjectively) aware and other life forms not? Even this question is not entirely precise. Another question that immediately comes to mind at this point is: What about consciousness? Where is it “located” anyway? I do not mean where in the life form is the source of conscious experience located, but consciousness itself (from its own reference point) – where is it located? To make a semi-conclusion: it seems to be non-local. It seems to be a dimension in and of itself. A space of knowing which cannot not be, because any recognition immediately proves its existence.

At this point I want to introduce a unified perspective – one singular awareness embracing everything. We are still including the ideas of duality and separation, but now seeing all of these separate parts in terms of one whole system – the entirety of life itself. Think of awareness or mind as a complete circle – with no corners, no imperfections. Imagine also that everything that this mind knows – everything – is contained within this circle, including yourself and – yes, your ideas.

A circle can have many symbolic meanings – completeness, perfection, totality, space, and so on. No matter how large or small the circle, all of these qualities remain. The purpose of showing different sized circles is simply to illustrate it has no impact on the circle’s properties. In absolute terms, size does not matter. It could also symbolically represent the variety of life forms – from simple (relatively small) to complex (relatively large). Completeness, perfection, totality and space remain intact. This is essentially the unified view of dualism; yes, there are “separated” consciousnesses, but each consciousness is unified in itself.

Is there a way for these circles to conjoin – to communicate without the sense of separation? Yes, if awareness (within each of us) recognizes its own unity. For communion and deep intimacy to take place we must genuinely honor and recognize “other” as ourselves – the complete circle. We become one – as many, autonomy and freedom intact.