Yes, both realms are one matrix, because both are an interpretation of the same "consciousness" "I" that establishes differences, dividing lines and contrasts.

Yazhi says: "everything is "spiritual world". I affirm: there is NO world, neither spiritual, nor non-spiritual by the same principle of "non-locality" and by the same principle of "NON-time". Even if these principles are interpreted "in a space" and in "a time" and are therefore rhetorically and simultaneously false.

All ideation of any kind of world, be it "spiritual or material" is the attempt of time to try to tear THE ETERNITY and fragment it into infinite pieces <--- worlds. That is why it is said that the "ego/self" also tries to emulate "God", "Eternity", by dilating time ("spiritual world") until it seems that it is "eternal" and that space is infinite.
Time is the tool of the "I" that gives rise to only one world: the world of illusions that you can only perceive "out there" from which you have dissociated yourself. The "I" is time because to build an identity you have needed time. However, to BE what you ARE does not require time because it is not an identity that evolves in time and space. Therefore, how can that which is time control that which does not require time to BE? And what is time for that which has always been as it IS?

From "where is time arising, now, time? What do you do, now, to have the idea of time? How did you acquire the idea of time, now? How do you understand the passing of time? From what non-time does time arise? How can you catch time, now? How much time makes you eternal? Do you do anything to make time?

It's funny that "to control time" you need more ideas of time. But I will "reveal a secret" that you all overlook: to control time, you need to realize that it does NOT exist.

And what purpose would it serve to control that which does not exist? Can time control THAT which is beyond time...?

PS: You can certainly control time, but how do you control that which is beyond time?

Sí exactamente, Charo=María del Rosario

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charo_(t%C3%A9rmino)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Hi, Jimi
I laughed out loud because you misspelled "CHAROtranquilo" instead of "CHARCOtranquilo".

"CHARO" is a woman's name, very common in Spain, which is used pejoratively as in the USA the name "Karen" is used.

It is evident that we do not have the video of the Buddhist monk to be able to have a complete information of what he was meaning with the concept "reality". But, nevertheless, and at the risk of being wrong, having only a meager sentence taken out of a broader context that gives it meaning... I will say the following:

1º Yazhi first states that "nothing we say about the Absolute will represent the objective reality (reality=truth) of how it works. But yet he states at another point that objective reality is the matrix ( illusion=lie)  the set of collective agreements to interpret previous manifestations within the field of potency energy.

One affirmation denies the other: El ABSOLUTO   ≠ MATRIZ

2º When the Buddhist monk affirmed that "the ego was a personal attempt to differentiate itself from reality". He was symbolically referring to the original separation of the "I" as "individual soul" (as a rhetorical symbol) from the Source (ABSOLUTE). That "differentiation" is the original separation and the origin of duality [in all densities (this is a clarification of mine)] which for Buddhism is the origin of suffering and from here is born the longing to "return to the SOURCE. That is to say, when he speaks of "reality" he was pointing out in himself THE ABSOLUTE. This is why the Buddhist monk, as Yazhi relates, continues to speak of REALITY, as a kind of "basic and hard truth".

3º The Buddhist monk is NOT referring to the reality of the "3D matrix". NO. Because to say that the matrix is the "reality" is wrong, because the matrix (I don't care if it is 3D, 5D, 6D, 7D and so on to infinity "D") is by definition, the illusion or the illusory world of perception. And in the "world of illusions" there is NO "universal truth".

There is only an individual or collective relative LIE". BECAUSE BASICALLY, EVERY MATRIX IS A LIE PERCEIVED IN DIFFERENT GRAUDUATIONS THAT WHEN CONTRASTED WITH EACH OTHER, ARE GIVEN THE NAME OF "RELATIVE TRUTHS". That is to say, one could conclude that "the matrix" is a "universal lie" that is individualized in the infinite points of attention, as limited and limiting cognitive biases to an individual consciousness. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the REALITY OF THE ABSOLUTE or ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

TRUTH with capital letters, as I have already said, can NOT be reduced to the ego's idea of what truth is. That is beyond the scope of its comprehension. But there IS a UNIVERSAL TRUTH outside of all cognitivity and which has nothing to do with the relative universal lie of the world of illusions. 

And I conclude with the same sentence of my previous post.
Understanding is the recognition that TRUTH is TRUTH, and nothing else is. Without the first statement the second is meaningless. But without the second, the first ceases to be true.

But there are still many souls who have not accepted both parts of the statement.

Hello Jupiter

As I have already said, of REALITY, everything that tries to define it, is a total lie.
The only thing we can define is illusion, but that too is a total lie, since by definition all illusion has NO existence, per se.
Therefore, when all that is not true has been eliminated, "WHAT REMAINS" is that which is BEYOND ILLUSIONS. That "WHAT REMAINS" is where words and definitions have NO place; it is the DIRECT "experience" of REALITY/TRUTH. And as ACIM says: and then we are silent.

Yes, the answer is always NOW... but how does the NOW do, to do the NOW?... and it is here, in this questioning, where you have to support your attention.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA,   always with your characteristic sense of humor....

I see that during this time that I have been absent from the forum your "ego-user" has moved up the ladder to "ego-moderator". Good, good.. . Tell me dearest, Jupiter-ego, when are you going to stop flirting with the "ego-intellectual" and seriously commit yourself to "The Holy Spirit"??

A big hug.

It is easy to understand if we extrapolate this situation to what happens every night when we dream. That is, the characters that appear in your dream,

ALL of them, are you, because the consciousness that projects them and says it "sees" them is the same. However, "your fragmented mind", what we can understand as the divided mind, or unconscious of its own projection, sees each character in the dream as autonomous individuals, with their own personality and their own consciousness. Moreover, every time you dream during the night and of which you are not conscious, you are actually dreaming yourself, that is, your consciousness is projecting itself in a multiplicity of infinite different projections and in different situations of the same dream dream dreamed during the night. What happens is that your mind, when you awaken to wakefulness, is incapable of remembering such an infinite bastide of information, since what you understand by being conscious is limited to such a narrow and limited range of information of what you understand by consciousness that assuming such a reality becomes overwhelmingly impossible.

However, you must keep in mind that the dreamer is ALWAYS ONE and the SAME in all situations "experienced during the dream". But yes, and this is fundamental: REMEMBER THAT IT IS ONLY A DREAM.

This is the key to get out of the matrix of all matrix: YOU.

Great point @Brahman

This questioning is already a classic within the world of advaita , when an enlightened Master makes this kind of statements denying the existence of a "someone" who says that "it does not exist" when there has to be a "someone" to say it, creating a paradox enormously contradictory to the "Cartesian reason " or from the most austere logic, by the obviousness of the syllogism, which becomes difficult to reconcile to the understanding or perception of the one who has not reached this transcendent Understanding.

This can be explained by understanding that "apparently" within the dream or illusion THE ABSOLUTE, as transcendent, is also expressed, as the immanent, which is inherent to being and is united in an inseparable way to its essence, although rationally it can be distinguished from it. That is to say, when the sage or enlightened one makes this affirmation, he does it from "the most transcendent aspect", that is to say from the Understanding that for the ABSOLUTE the dream of illusion has not happened, does not happen and will never happen, per se, Ramana does NOT exist. However, "from the immanent", the sage or enlightened one, understands that Ramana is the "who/what", who makes this affirmation "from a someone/something". That is to say, from rationality and from the necessary communication built on words as symbols that point or point to other symbols and therefore are doubly distant from the reality they intend to describe, such statements based on the premises on which they start and are sustained are out of all congruence. But this supposes neither conflict, nor incongruity, nor paradox, for the wise or enlightened one, since in reality the transcendent and the immanent are the SAME ESSENCE, which supposes a full integration devoid of opposites.

That is to say, the conflict and incongruity comes from the one who questions this syllogism, because he sees the sage or enlightened one, as he sees himself, that is to say, as an identity fully identified with the apparent reality of the idea "I-ego" and in a state product of the idea of seeing himself separated from "himself".     
However, explained from a "more horizontal and less transcendent" and more pragmatic aspect, we could say the following:

Ramana, points to the non-existence of Ramana, or "self", as a psychological construct, that is, the identification with a subject/object "who thinks, who thinks, who is a self". When Ramana said, "There is no Ramana," he was referring to this construct of psychological identification which is what he denies as existent. What he does not deny is "the self" as a necessary instrument in the world to establish interaction with and with the world. This instrumentalization of the "I" without the emergence of identification as a separate identity is only possible when one arrives at this transcendent Understanding that the "I" does not exist as a thinking reality.

Moreover, on another occasion, Ramana was asked if he no longer had an "ego"... to which he responded by saying that the Jani, or enlightened one, continued to have an ego and to make instrumental use of it, since the instrument that conveyed it was the body, something that he could neither withdraw from nor do without, since it is an intrinsic part of the illusion of the dream itself. But this did not imply that cognitively, there was psychological identification with the instrument or "ego".

That is to say, to give a more prosaic example, it would be like thinking that a carpenter believes that he is the hammer with which he is hammering the nails into the wood. Simply, once his work is done, the hammer is left in the toolbox because he understands that it is only an instrument alien to his sentient identity.   

I would also like to point out and demystify the widespread myth that when one becomes enlightened one stops thinking or that to become enlightened is to have no more thoughts due to the erroneous conclusion that when the "I" or "ego" is extinguished, being the product of an "idea", the thought is also extinguished.

Enlightenment does NOT consist in the extinction of thought. This would only be possible in a catatonic state, and enlightenment is neither a catatonic state nor any type of altered state of consciousness, nor any mystical state, since enlightenment is an understanding that does not operate in space or time, but, nevertheless, it does not annul the logical and necessary capacity of thinking, so necessary and indispensable to unfold in the vicissitudes of the world where one unfolds.

Moreover, in fact, there is generally an improvement in the clarity of cognitive and intellectual processes, since the mind is stripped of the identification with that dirty noise called mental chatter, which opens a space or background of expansion of the mind that generates as a result a deep sense of freedom.

Close your eyes. Listen to the countless undefined sounds now, stop them, the distant background sound, perhaps of traffic, the closer sound of some neighbor banging away, of children playing in the street, the closer still sound of your own breathing, of your own heartbeat, of your own restless insides....

Listen carefully to all these sounds. Now listen even more attentively to where you hear them from... do you find that you hear from two ears, from two ear canals, from two eardrums, from two auditory nerves, from one brain...?

Do you find any organ at all that is now hearing right there from where you hear?
Do you find any mind, any ego, now hearing in there from where you hear?... If you say yes, then introduce them to yourself and describe them to yourself.

Disregarding memory and imagination accept only facts:

Present to yourself the fact of your apparatus hearing.  The fact of your mind hearing. The fact of your ego hearing Can you do it, or is it not true that you find not the slightest trace, not the slightest hint of anything resembling a hearing apparatus, a mind, an ego, right here from where you hear...?

Continue exploring... can you deny that you are nevertheless hearing, that whatever you are, you are hearing?

Explore now from where you are hearing. Let yourself be amazed, completely amazed.  Let yourself abandon your ideas and take on your true dimension or rather your true non-dimension.

Is it not true that the sound is heard from nowhere, from a sounding board without walls, completely diaphanous, more diaphanous and clean than the nave of the largest conceivable cathedral? Is it not true that there is no one, no ego, no mind, absolutely no one hearing there from where you hear?

Keep exploring... Explore that absolute Silence that you hear, that indestructible Silence that you are now, that you are always. Hear how sounds come and go, arise and submerge, completely free, in the Silence, without ever making it noisy, without touching it, without tearing it apart. How many silences do you conceive that can coexist together...let's say two,  three, a thousand?

Is that silence that you are now exploring susceptible of being many? Can it be different in each one of the people here present, in the rest of the people in the world, in the rest of the animals and plants, in all the known and unknown Cosmos?

Do you share something with all of them, something that is nevertheless absolutely intimate to you, so intimate that perhaps you had not noticed it?

Is this silence mortal, can this Silence be born and die, does it not cross the border of deep sleep absolutely unscathed?

Does it not reign there without dimensions, without time, totally identical to Itself, astonishingly real? Do you not see that it will also cross the frontier of what is called death, which was already here at the moment when all this noise of what is called birth took place?

What can you do against it... can you penetrate it, pierce it, destroy it? Is it not absolutely immortal, immutable, unfathomable, inexhaustible? Is it not absurdly accessible to you? Have you ever found yourself without it? Can you elude it, escape from it?

Keep exploring... Isn't this Silence astonishingly alive? Isn't it the sounds that are inescapably dead, ephemerally fleeting? Is this Silence What you hear Are you different from It? Is there anyone else who can be the Silence besides you? What you thought you were is only the incessant movement of the sounds of wakefulness - the noises of thought, the endless flow of words, of names, of the indefiniteness of your ephemeral and false identities - in the absolutely Silent bosom of what you Are. It is the flow of words, of names, which is temporal, mortal, which has a beginning and an end.... but the Silence is only present now, timeless, identical to Itself.

No, have no fear.  If you have followed with complete openness this meditation, you have insensibly effected the passage from your imagined unreal nature to your TRUE REAL NATURE.

What else if not you is that Silence?

Realize the unfathomable vastness of your TRUE REAL NATURE.  Accept it humbly, check your timeless Omnipresence in all temporal happenings. Yes, you preside over the round of life and death.  Yes, you are present in your parents, in your children, in the beginning of beginnings, in the end of endings... is there anything that can compare to you? Are you not incomparably incomparable?

We have been calling you Silence, but is it really nameable, qualifiable, describable, classifiable?

You have never been anything other than your TRUE REAL NATURE, that humble Silence.

@JimiPickle

ok. I need to know:

1.    Explain, please, what you define as "blank that has filled in the blank".
2.    Explain, please define that "MORE", which is "forming". About what or who... from where?
3.    Explain, please, how you define "UNDERSTANDING"?....