Conceptualizing "The Infinite"

This post of your's Tenka, dovetails nicely with the exchange Herbert and I are having regarding what "empty of inherent existence" means/is pointing to.

Nonduality does not really say anything about the quantity of experiential facets that can be attributed to the apparent person/body-mind-character. What it does say, is that all of those relatively known, experiential facets, are like the apparent person, like all apparent objects/things and apparent conditions, "appearance only/absent their own inherent existence."

The story of experiential past lives, soul families, ethereal spirit bodies, continued experience following death, etc,...all of that, can still stand as "relative knowing, relative experience,"...a 'story within the overriding unfolding story' and so long as it's all seen as such, no problem.

The key is, that which is relative, a facet of the dream-scape/story/movie (those are all but analogies/metaphors...don't take them literally) remains relative and there is no attempt to posit such as "Absolute Truth."

When Absolute certain knowing becomes absent relative to all perceivables, the story and any and all of it's myriad facets, lose the "substance" previously, erroneously ascribed to them. The world and all it's things and conditions, is no longer 'carved in stone.' (another analogy/metaphor).

It really is very difficult to find the words to explain what the world is like once it's all been seen to be devoid of inherent existence. "Dream" gets pretty close, but still falls short.

Magical carrots. Can’t be explained with words. Has to be directly experienced. Can’t send a blowup of it now. Tonight though, if I remember. 

I've recently been exploring different/new ways to try to point to the seeing through of 2nd mountain and the integration of that realization (3rd mountain).

Sometimes a mere change in language/terms can make the difference between a pointer hitting home, or not.

I think this way of talking about Truth, is conceptually graspable even prior to yet having seen through "the mountain," so long as there's sincerity/honesty;

Bottom line, if "It" can be observed, looked at, seen, witnessed, then it's not "primordial/fundamental." To apprehend Truth, it's that ground, fundamental some-nothing, that must be unveiled.

From a solely personal viewpoint, it seems as though the person, via physical eyes is "the perceiver/source of seeing/observing." But, it's quite easy to see, if a step back/prior to that is successfully taken, that the person as observer, can also itself, "be observed." Which means, the person, as observer, is itself, also, but 'a perceivable.'

What is it that perceives, sees, observes, the person and it's apparent perceptions?

If "It" is still a something that is perceivable, observable, another step back/prior to must be taken.

When seeing is from that primordial, fundamental place/non-place, prior to/beyond ALL perceivables, it becomes very clear it is not itself "a something perceived/observed" but rather, it is simply awareness itself, aware "of" that which appears within/to "it." It's all essentially one, but it never becomes True that the abiding "becomes" limited/bound/temporal. That's why it is said that distinction, limitation/boundary is apparent only...and that actual limitation can only ever be an illusion/delusion.

With that apprehension, it can then be seen that awareness as ground, does not shift or change and that it can and does stand alone, absent any/all perceivables. Whereas perceivables/appearance, for the duration of it's temporal arising, is entirely dependent upon that abiding ground.

There can be Awareness absent distinction/appearance, but no distinction/appearance absent the abiding ground of awareness within which it arises.