(© T.J. Gray, 1968)
'Crossing over to the "opposite shore"' implies turning from objectivisation to what may be termed 'subjectivisation', which is 'returning' the six senses to their source. This constitutes a 'turning over of the mind' from externalisation to internality, from objectifying the 'kingdom of the Earth' without to integrating the 'kingdom of Heaven' within.
In this process each of the six senses should be turned back to their common denominator, but when any one such is so reversed they are all thereby, for their diversity is only apparent. To this reversion the terms paravritti and metanoesis also seem to be applicable.
This is a reversion from durational thought and sensation to im-mediate apperceiving unextended in 'space' and 'time'.
Note: The traditional representation of this process, which is the mechanism of what is called 'enlightenment', 'awakening', etc., more accurately awakening to the enlightened state, as a crossing over of what-we-are to an objective 'shore' which must then be what-we-are-not, is a catastrophic concession to our conditioned inability to think otherwise than by objectivisation. It is catastrophic because in itself it directly contradicts what we are being instructed to do in the statement itself, which thereby is rendered nonsensical.
The 'crossing over' must necessarily be a metaphorical integration and could not be a disintegration, for the latter could only imply that what-we-are is phenomenal and that what-we-are-not is noumenal. Every concept based on our factuality as phenomena must necessarily be a turning-away from the essential understanding which is that phenomenality is nothing in itself, and that 'bondage' is precisely and only that misapprehension. Release, by whatever high-sounding name it may be given, can only be an abandonment of that false identification, which thereby leaves us not re-identified but just dis-identified, and thus inconceivable by what is conceiving, which can only be represented by the impersonal pronoun 'I'.