People who are into enlightenment often feel like they can’t relate to non-enlightened folk. They yearn for others who think about the same things. They wish for companions who see things the same way. Without like-minded others they feel lonely, disconnected, and separate from non-awake others.

Irony, anyone?

And it's not like it's so easy to connect with the right kind of others. Scan through some of the Consciousness groups on Facebook and watch a few zillion takes on Truth show up. There are inquirers and shamans and crystal lovers and manifesters and Advaitans and Buddhists and positive thinkers and sit-with-feelings-ers and scholarly readers and disciplined orange-robed meditating this-is-the-only-way-ers.

Ever try to truly connect with someone whose version of spirituality is different from yours?

Yeah, that’s not any less alone, is it?

So people gather into “schools of thought.” Kind of like the Sorting Hat at Hogwarts.

But ... this doesn’t make sense. How can connectedness only be possible when there are shared interests? That’s not very connected, is it?

It’s starting to appear that people might be using apparent common interest in consciousness to define … themselves.  Y'know, as individuals.

Separating the world into, “You’re in,” and “You’re out.”

Which kind of contradicts that little enlightened idea of no separation, no?

Not to mention those many consciousness explorers who've come to think that having that interest makes them special in some way. Superior, almost. Y’know, a few steps above those poor stuck non-awake non-spiritual types.

Hey, no ego in that, right? No separation, individualization, identity there.

‘Course not.

Just looked at logically, it's pretty clear that if awakening is what is sought, it's not going to be found in the divided Us-Them teams of conscious people vs not-conscious people.

In fact it’s very possible that the thought, “I need people around me who think the same as I do,” actually creates the sense of isolation, rather than being its result.

Maybe “like-minded” is not only unnecessary, it’s an interference.  

When we sort people into Who’s With Me and Who’s Not, we end up focusing on thought, narrowing perception, and missing other, non-thought forms of communion.

Because whatever it is we really are, (whether it's named consciousness or God or universe or spirit or soul)…

Maybe it doesn’t need one human’s words to match another human’s words.

Maybe it doesn't need agreement.

Maybe it doesn’t need words, thoughts or points of view at all.

Besides, whatever that is, this What-We-Really-Are thing, where does it end, and the What-The-Other-Guy-Really-Is thing, begin?

If we cant find that divider, it could be because there isn’t one.

In which case, we’re already connected and there’s nothing separating us.

No matter what thought says, no matter whether there's agreement, no matter whether thoughts are about consciousness or beer or camels.

Which would mean we’re equally as connected to a NASCAR fan or a Trump supporter or a religious zealot as we are to an Enlightened Sage.

Perhaps that’s shocking.

But only if we’re focused on thoughts.

Move attention away from the selective sorting into agree-disagree groupings, and we begin to see that “alone and disconnected” isn’t possible.  

Regardless of our viewpoints on consciousness, enlightenment, and those Others.

Which is pretty sweet.

And connected.

And anything but alone.


Click to get in on the Mind-Tickler every week