On the Real and Non-Illusory Nature of Distinct Times and Places

Ashleigh Grace Walkinshaw claimed that “while consciousness can position itself anywhere it likes, in Oneness there is no “anywhere.”

This viewpoint invites some very basic and practical questions. I asked Ashleigh, if you say that “In Oneness there is no “anywhere,” then how are you able to find your way home? How do you know where your friends live? How do you make your way to work? How do you know where your fridge is in your house?

The reason you can know and do these things is because there are real, distinct places. There is Paris, there is Montreal, there is Bellingham, there is Madras. They don’t all blur together in some indistinct soup; you know when your body is in Bellingham and don’t mistake it for being in Tokyo.

You say that “In Oneness there is no anywhere”; I say that all ‘somewheres’ are nowhere but in oneness. There are distinct places; but all distinct places are none other than modes of the nondual reality. They are spatio-temporal manifestations of Brahman and regions of the grand manifestation we call the planet Earth with its countless diverse ecosystems from which we are not separate.

There are distinct places, and yet, they are not ontologically separate. In another sense, all ‘somewheres,’ all distinct places, are notime but now, here in the limitlessly profound present moment. There are distinct times (we are not living in the cretaceous period, for example) just as there are distinct places, but reality is only ever now. Where do you find your body here and now? This is the most accessible distinct place to you in this moment. This is your ‘here,’ and yet it is none other than the one reality that unites all distinct times and places in their space-time continuum.

The hand on the clock ticks clockwise from one distinct time to another; and yet the distinct times are not separate, nor are the two distinct states of the clock. The distinct times and the distinct states are themselves, none other than the nondual reality itself.


Q: Do you say that locality is a fact because we perceive locality?

A:  This is a great question.  To be precise, we need to we contextualize our statements and be clear about what level of reality we are speaking about.  On the relative level, locality is a fact, even though on the ultimate level, it is not.  Locality is a fact relative to the pairing of a human observer and the concrete position of their body.  This is to say, it is a relative fact.  On the ultimate level, at which matter is considered as seamlessly unified high-state energy, we cannot speak of relative observers and positions.  On this level, locality does not have meaning.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s