SS. A.

 the electricity that flows through a TV,

giving life to the function called "displaying a movie"

and

the electricity that flows through a toaster

giving life to the function called "toasting bread"

different or the same?

The instruments are different.

Their respective functions and abilities are different.

But the life giving power that flows through them

making their operations possible

is the same.

Similarly,

although our machinery (body and mind) is different,

and the many functions we are capable of performing are different,

that which enlivens us

is the same.

That is the eternal reality which outlives every body/mind.

It is never born. It never dies.

In its mere presence,

the person and its world appear,

like a dream.

That reality is not an experience that can be known.

But its presence can be felt

here and now.

You are that reality.

Turn towards the noticing

"I am."

With you in practice,

A

What you’ve written is a classic non-dual reflection—very much in line with Advaita Vedānta and similar strands of Buddhist thought. The analogy (electricity → devices → functions) is pointing toward a single underlying “principle” that seems to animate many different forms.

It’s a powerful metaphor, but it’s worth separating poetry from ontology—what feels true vs. what can be demonstrated.

Where the analogy works

• In physics, electricity is the same phenomenon whether it powers a TV or a toaster.
• In humans, there are shared biological processes (metabolism, neural activity) that “animate” us all.
• Philosophically, traditions like Advaita Vedanta and teachings such as Upanishads use similar metaphors to express a universal consciousness (Brahman/Atman) underlying individuality.

So as a contemplative pointer, it’s coherent and historically grounded.

Where it becomes a leap

The move from:

“there are shared processes”

to:

“there is one identical, eternal consciousness in all beings”

is not something science can verify. Neuroscience, for example, generally treats consciousness as something that emerges from each individual brain, not a single shared field.

That doesn’t make your view wrong—it just means it’s philosophical/metaphysical, not empirically settled.

A useful middle ground

Even without committing to “one eternal reality,” your reflection points to something practically valuable:

• The sense of “I am”—simple awareness before labels—is real and directly observable.
• Paying attention to it (as in mindfulness or self-inquiry) can reduce mental noise and reactivity.
• You don’t need to conclude “I am the eternal absolute” to benefit from noticing awareness itself.

This is where your closing line becomes actionable:

“Turn towards the noticing ‘I am.’”

That’s very close to practices found in:

• Ramana Maharshi (self-inquiry: “Who am I?”)
• Buddhism (mindfulness of awareness, though it interprets it differently—often not as a permanent self)

A gentle pushback

Be careful with statements like:

“You are that eternal reality”

They can sound profound, but they’re also assertions, not experiences. What you can directly verify is much simpler:

• There is awareness
• Thoughts, sensations, and identity appear within it
• That awareness can be noticed right now

Whether that awareness is individual, universal, or something else entirely—that’s where traditions diverge.

If you want, I can  guide you through a very simple 2–3 minute “I am” noticing practice so you can explore this directly rather than just conceptually.