It is not possible to reunite colours separated by a prism, nor is it possible to reunite object and subject, on the plane on which they appear as such. In order to 'see' them reunited it is necessary to perceive them as they were before they were separated by the prism, for the prism holds them apart. Behind the prism red and green appear reunited as white, and object and subject reunited as 'I'.
A perception that subject and object are one - as Huang Po told us, resulting in Liberation - cannot be a perception on the part of the objects of that perception. The act of perception, more precisely the perceiving, must be 'transferred' from the dream-subject to the I-subject. More precisely, since the dream-subject is merely such as such, and all perceptions derive from I-subject, even when they are perceived dualistically via the dream-subject, this vital, indeed capital, act of perception, which is just a perceiving, must be a direct perceiving on the part of I-subject, in which the dream-subject and object are seen as one. As long as the perceiving appears as a perception on the part of a dream-subject/object this can never be.
Expressed dimensionally, an act of perception in the three dimensions of dream-life cannot 'see' the duality of subject and object as one; the perceiving must take place in the further dimension in which that duality actually is, and must always be, one. The perceiving itself is not different, for there are not multiple kinds of perception, but it is a pure, that is, a direct, perceiving.
To suppose that such perceiving is unobtainable, is even essentially difficult, is surely a delusion and an effect of erroneous identification, of seeing by what we imagine to be an 'ego'. That delusion removed, dissolved, short-circuited, transcended, the perceiving itself rebecomes normal and direct, and I-dream subject/object should readily be perceived as one. We then have only to open our eyes and perceive it if we will - since we are the I-subject that perceives.
Note 1: Since subject cannot perceive itself, we saw this process the other day as Infusion, as karuna-caritas envisaged as light, and that may be a helpful stage in the process of understanding, but that is also prajna, pure wisdom, for they are two aspects of one 'thing', buddhi perhaps - since we find it necessary to label each apparent element of our discrete understanding in order to conceive it. But the sooner the labels are torn off and burnt the better, and the nearer we are to understanding itself. Let us now scrap the lot and jump to the comprehension that these 'things' are just analytical devices for describing the process of perceiving itself. That perceiving may be 'seen' or 'felt' as prajna, as karuna, be labelled as buddhi, or envisaged as light, but they do not exist in their own right as anything, even as the stuff or plenitude of the 'Void'. It is the perceiving, the movement in consciousness itself, that thereby 'fuses' object and subject so that their unity is re-established as 'I'.
Note 2: In 'Resolving Our Personal Duality - 1' we saw this process, described as 'infusion', in an apparent time-sequence in which the infusion seemed to be the 'cause' of the reintegration of object in subject. But, regarded in a time-sequence, it may be better seen as a 'result' of reintegration, as the cognition that follows or accompanies such integration.
In fact, however, it should be the integrating itself, or, if one prefers, the perception of that integration, in other words the perceiving of perceiving.
