Hi Darin:

I have something perhaps ridiculously simple to ask:

If I describe virtually everything you're identified, the individual, collective, inner, other realms, etc as objects of "awareness," and "Awareness" as singular - not my awareness or your awareness - does that ring a bell experientially?

For example, take JP's observation of thinking as prayer. This is quite commonly understood in most contemplative traditions. In Christianity it's referred to as "Lectio Divina." In Tibetan Buddhism, the English phrase for this is "analytic meditation," which is really not at all about pure analysis, but about beginning with conventional analysis and synthesis, and being open to deeper and "higher" intuition and inspiration, and practicing to the point where all that is integrated and what might be described as a kind of deeply prayerful "thinking" - spontaneous and fully in harmony with that singular Awareness - emerges organically.

To put this very simply, if you look at your palm, it's not too hard to see there is the object - "palm" - and subjective "awareness' of the palm.

For every idea, sensation, thought, movement of will, instinctive impulse, feeling, emotion, world event, etc there is the object and the awareness of objects.

Have I made this too complex or does it make any sense? I think B Alan Wallace, in his book "Mind in the Balance," made a good case that whatever words are used, this basic distinction of a singular Consciousness or Awareness and an infinite multitude of objects of Awareness is common to all world contemplative traditions, Eastern, Western, indigenous.