Dear Magdi,
Could you explain what it means that “I am my perception”?
Does this mean I am my experience? I am everything I know, feel, see, hear, sense?
This seems to be what non-dual mean. Not two things such as “me AND my perception”.
So, I am my perception?
There is no distance between me and anything I know, experience, see, feel?
Thank you

~~~
The main non dual teaching refers to the illusion of the belief that I am a personal body mind. In other words, believing and feeling that I am a mortal body mind is ignorance and the source of suffering.
What I truly am, cannot be put in words and yet words can be used in a way to describe the non dual experience. Words such as presence and being refer to the I AM. Consciousness knowing itself as Sat. Awareness is used to refer to Chit. (out of the Sat-Chit-Ananda model).
What I truly am is not of the mind and cannot be comprehended by the mind.
Perception is a mind event. Thus to say: ‘I am my perception’ is not an accurate expression.
This expression attempts to point to the fact that perception is not separate and external. Namely, that the perceived is not separate from the perceiver.
It would be more accurate to say that the substance of perception is the reality of consciousness. After all, everything we know, we know via consciousness and not via perception. Perception is constantly changing, consciousness is not.
Consciousness (what I truly am) is undefinable and it would be inaccurate to refer to it as perception.
As of the distance between the observed and the observer, indeed, it is zero distance. We do not perceive an external world. We perceive our perception, which is at zero distance.
But this is simply a pointer. It serves to clarify that the feeling of separation lacks evidence. Zero distance is not the ultimate truth since it still refers to an observed and to an observer.
It is important to use the pointer and disregard it once it has served its purpose. The purpose being to clarify the lack of evidence that supports the belief in separation and to set enough doubt about the belief in a external world.
This should soften our hold onto our habitual belief that the external world has a separate reality out of consciousness and allow us to be open to the possibility that consciousness is not personal and separate.
Distance is a mind event. It is not reality. It is based on the belief in the separate reality of form.
Reality belongs to consciousness and not to forms.
I hope this clarifies your question.