Apperception

The pattern matching mind is itself an appearance of beingness. It is an aspect of mental “knowing” that triggers an emotional personal narrative as if what is recognised is experienced as a separate object rather than as an appearance of this ever present beingness.

Pattern recognition continues even after the illusion of separation has fallen away. The mind still recognises objects and can refer to them by name. However once beingness has been clearly seen and separateness has fallen away what is experienced is no longer simply an object called a “tree” (for example) but beingness in form. Jean Klein refers to this as apperception, the perception of oneness in contrast to the superficial perception of separate objects. In his words, apperception is when there is no longer an observer and an observed but only observation in silence. In this apperception the object is no longer divided from the perceiver but is known as arising within the same field of beingness.

So if a car is coming towards the body the brain still recognises the physical danger and moves the body out of harm’s way. But no additional narrative forms that personalises the two bodies involved in the event. Therefore there is no psychological suffering. Nothing remains to cloud the present. Liberation from psychological suffering is maintained.

A question may arise. Should the driver of the car not take more personal responsibility for being more careful? This presumes that the driver is a person responsible for their own actions but from the view of beingness this belief is part of the illusion. Another question may follow. Does the removal of personal responsibility give licence for careless or harmful behaviour?

The response is this. The body mind is a learning system. It is influenced by countless internal and external conditions that make it more or less dangerous to others. But the belief in being a separate person is not one of those protective factors. In fact it often makes the body mind less responsible not more. This belief clouds awareness and objectifies life. However, it needs to be pointed out that if the mind driving simply takes oneness as an idea without the lived experience then this would be using the idea of oneness as an excuse for nihilistic destructive behaviour potentially. Direct lived experience of oneness is what really counts. This is a discernment in the final analysis, an art not a science.

It is interesting to note that research in social psychology supports the effects of this. Drivers who feel more anonymous tend to show more aggressive behaviour. This sense of anonymity arises from a sense of separateness (Ellison Govern Petri and Figler 1995). On the other hand drivers who display higher levels of empathy, a natural expression of felt oneness, tend to drive more safely (Delhomme Chaurand and Paran 2012).

Further research shows that minds experiencing non-dual awareness are more alert and focused. In a 2014 study Zoran Josipovic measured brain activity during non-dual awareness meditation. He found that this state was linked with reduced activity in the default mode network which is normally associated with self-referential thinking and mind-wandering. Participants demonstrated open awareness with less distraction and greater mental clarity. As Josipovic writes, “Non-dual awareness allows for attentional openness without fragmentation, enhancing cognitive clarity” (New York University).

Ultimately when it is seen that what appears as other is not other at all but the same beingness in form, this becomes the natural ground of empathy. It is not an idea or an ethical rule. It is the absence of the illusion of separation.

With love,

Freyja