Is embodiment a step deeper than the Absolute? 


Q: I have a question for you Boyan and I think others might be interested... It seems to me like in the world of the relative/ego, there are levels, growth, evolution, becoming, etc. Through the eyes of the absolute, there is no journey or becoming. There is simply this unchangingness. Yet you speak of embodiment. How is embodiment not just another senseless journey of the ego? The way you've written about makes it sound like it's almost 'beyond' the absolute in a sense. A step deeper... Curious of your thoughts. 


A: You're right that from the perspective of the Absolute, there is only unchangingness - i.e., everything is appearing within the Absolute, is known by It, and is ultimately made of It. Knowing this, however, does not mean that the body, mind, and world cease to exist. They are known to be made of the Absolute, but there is still the appearance of separation. As long as this appearance remains, then, there is a natural journey of re-alignment of the body and mind with the above understanding. That journey of embodiment is not really 'beyond' the Absolute, as that is impossible, but it is a deepening of the understanding that the Absolute effortlessly loves and embraces everything exactly as it is, including the relative realities.


The ego would say that the Absolute is all there is, and pretend that the body, mind and world do not exist. This pretence stops the understanding from flowing into these relative realities (since they are not there), and creates a duality between the absolute and the relative. 


Q: If I understand you correctly, you're saying that embodiment is only relevant while the appearance of separation persists. If the appearance of separation is seen and removed (never was there in the first place), then embodiment is irrelevant?


Also, when you say, "the ego would say that the Absolute is all there is, and pretend that the body, mind and world do not exist" I take it you mean like a dream self saying "there is no dream" and so denying the experience? Even though fundamentally it's a dream, it's still an experience... in some sense. Denial of the dream is not the same as seeing its fundamental nature. 


A: Yes, exactly - like a dream self saying there is no dream. Seeing the fundamental nature of the dream does not mean that the dream will be removed, but rather that it will be more fully embraced and accepted (precisely because it is a dream). As such, embodiment is a continuation of the realisation that there is only an appearance of separation, and - rather than denying it (as the dream self would like to do), our True Self accepts that appearance fully. It is through that acceptance that the appearance becomes more and more transparent and its illusory reality is revealed on deeper and deeper levels.