The basic process is to begin by embracing as much of all this as possible, loosening the boundaries, bracketing away all judgment, so that the mind feels at its furthest stretch of relaxed apprehension and acceptance. The next step is to introduce the sliver of a question, asking to whom all this is happening, to whom is it appearing, for whom is it? This produces a natural balancing move to the initial one, drawing the self out of latency and allowing a self-consciousness to gather in counterpoise to world-consciousness. When some sort of equilibrium is achieved or becomes conceivable, suggesting a higher and more integrated kind of balance, then the final move is made. This is simply to puncture the bubble by way of its self-conscious pole by applying the firm conviction that there is no consciousness of the self as subject, there can't be, such a possibility being contradictory since the subject can never be an object, no matter how subtle, serene and sattvic that object may appear. Again one might begin from this embodied consciousness and move to the state of pseudo-balance by admitting that this individual and his world in order to seem to be related but different entities must in fact be equal as appearances in consciousness. What is taken to be this consciousness over against an appearing world can only be a certain qualification of a consciousness that embraces both empirical subject and world, or if you want that they are equal as being both representations within a mind process and merely differ in having different roles to play in its dance. In any case consciousness (in the sense of appearance) is at least the entire set-up, and if there needs to be a further witnessing (consciousness as subject) behind that then this can only be empty in the strictest sense, more real than anything, and yet absolutely nothing at all. None of this should be in the least paradoxical.