Simultaneity, regarding the OIC's origins

[anagogy]

So real to illusion is a spectrum of degrees?

I am just trying to understand what you are thinking. I understand what you are saying in terms of conceptualization but I am confused over how exactly this is supposed to be organized. It seems to me that from what you are saying 'real' or 'illusion' is entirely a matter of perspective if the undistorted unity is always and ever present, it's just a matter of whether or not that is what you are perceiving. However, this becomes more difficult to apply to actual experience because in actual physical experience the 'undistorted unity' and the 'distorted unity' don't have clear or apparent divisions.

Basically, my issue with this train of thought is that it is entirely mental it seems. It looks great in theory and in the mind, but when I start to think about it in reality it doesn't make any sense to me. One of the reasons is because real/illusion appears to me to be a duality and so I don't understand how that can be fundamental to unity which does not have such a differentiation.

That also being said, in the idea of permanence there is impermanence and so again, a duality used to measure unity which doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me there is a great effort to separate "real" from "illusory" but I don't understand it because to me they are really no different. The way people apply these words they use them to instead try to categorize truth, in otherwords what is real is true, what is illusory is false. Yet, the attempt to categorize the truth of unity is, in itself, a flawed approach in my mind, since unity can't be categorized.

The distinction between real and unreal is only important to beings inhabiting states of consciousness such as we, involving relativity.  As beings trying to grasp the light of undistorted unity because we don't consciously perceive it.  

So it is only relevant to beings seeking the light of truth.  Some beings aren't seeking this.  So it wouldn't be relevant to them, they are happy with the dream.

The absolute couldn't care less about such distinctions.  From its "perspective", there is no distortion.  Just undistorted unity.  Clear still pond.

The universe is nondual.  There is no duality.  But the One, in an attempt to apprehend the Two, or duality (Ra calls it the exploration of manyness), attempt to create an illusory one.  As it stands, unity can not become disunity.  The nondual cannot actually become dual.  All it can do is confuse itself.  It is like the snake looking at its own tail, and mentally deciding that the thing it is seeing is other than itself.  This is obviously not true, but it plays these mind games with itself, for the sake of the experience.  Why not?  Nothing but time, right, haha?

Rather than painstakingly trying to define a clear line between real and unreal, in practical experience it may be more organic to just think of it as waking up a little more with each experience, which is pretty much what we are all doing automatically.  We have experiences, we distill the love/light from them, and move onto the next experience.

The main thing of importance to understand, metaphysically, about distortion/undistortion in my opinion is that distortion involves a willful focus.  That is the kinetic manifestation of intelligent infinity.  When the focus is relaxed, the consciousness automatically withdraws back to the natural state of undistorted beingness.

If I failed to address your question, let me know.  Thanks.

Tl;Dr - The Absolute is relative only to itself, and so all relativity is a fundamental of unity.

I agree that the relative is part of the absolute (I think).  I just don't think the absolute experiences the relative like we experience the relative.  Perhaps I'm horribly confusing the issue, but perception of separation, of any kind, is unique to us, seemingly inhabiting portions of reality, rather than the "whole shebang".  That is the difference from my perspective.  One is potentiated (willful focus which creates distortions) and one is unpotentiated (relaxed focus, dissolving back into pure unity).

Anyways, thanks for sharing your thoughts.  They are very interesting.