|
Post by enigma on Jan 28, 2015 11:00:48 GMT -5
Perhaps it is either, neither or both depending on how one perceives self or what they are . Realizing what you are is more about realizing that there is only what you are rather than realizing oneness so perhaps what one makes of oneness and separation is each to their own on that score . If there is only what you are does that necessarily relate to oneness . I suppose if there is only what you are there can seemingly be two of what you are without being separate or one . Why has it got to be one or the other .. Perhaps it is either, neither or both depending on how one perceives self or what they are . It is what it is regardless of how one perceives it. It seems to define oneness. Two of what you are??
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 28, 2015 11:03:55 GMT -5
You cannot be both one and separate. That reasoning is flawed. Sometimes it's best to set 'reasoning' aside Yes, but some are attached to reasoning and can at least be held accountable for their lack of it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 28, 2015 11:14:11 GMT -5
It makes no sense to 'you', because it reveals the flaw in your reasoning.. you are both/and.. You cannot be both one and separate. That reasoning is flawed. You can, it's just different contexts. In my perspective, one context does trump the other, but that's not a matter of truth, it's more a matter of resonance. What I would say though, is that they could only both be true if oneness transcended separation. As I see it, oneness is fully inclusive, and so it does include separation.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 28, 2015 11:21:03 GMT -5
Sure, the point is there is not just the YOU of Enigma. There is also the YOU of Source, and the YOU of Laughter. They are the same Beingness, the same Intelligence. There is just that Beingness, just that Intelligence. That Beingness/Intelligence does not get run over and die. It never appears; is never born. You (or YOU) are the unborn. Yes, at the universal level of consciousness we are all the same being. And at the individual level of consciousness the same being is trapped in a physical body. So when the body gets run over by a truck it disappears and the trapped consciousness is reclaimed by the universal consciousness. At least that is my understanding. The body isn't just a shadow on the wall, it is consciousness itself.Yes. Well said. It's one thing to say that the body is encompassed within the whole or a facet of Source, and quite another to separate it out, to conceptually hold it apart from the totality of Source/Beingness/Intelligence/Consciousness itself, to say it is something 'other than' that.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 28, 2015 12:18:46 GMT -5
Yea........I've had this conversation with E numerous times. I've suggested previously that even if he is right, he can't function in life without a sense of separation. He just comes back with, Why not? source has nailed you here, THAT is why not. I'll be interested in your answer. I don't see the issue. The only way I can imagine one is if I assume I'm the only mind/body in the world, which of course I don't. Then I don't understand how "I'm not the only mind/body in the world" is not in any way a sense of separation.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 28, 2015 12:23:56 GMT -5
Hi stardustpilgrim, the way I see it, is that the senses and the dynamics of perception associated with them don't function any differently just because of mental psychosis. Even if there is just YOU, YOU will still jump out of the way of an illusory truck, so that YOU don't get run over and killed by YOU. The YOU that you are referring to is an appearance only, and has no independent existence. It's a shadow on the wall. That YOU that jumps out of the way is not what I am, so it makes no sense to talk about it and ask questions about it as thought it is. I don't believe I have independent existence in any way whatsoever. Does that make me a nondualist? (Seriously)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 18:55:28 GMT -5
hi steve, the descriptions of hallucination, delusion and mental psychosis are all associated with the loss of being in touch with reality, as it is normally conceived. But anyone who has an interest in spirituality, truth or the ultimate reality doesn't actually conceive of reality as it is normally conceived. That change in the conceiving of reality is therefore a mental psychosis. People, or rather society in general, see that change in the conceiving of reality in a negative and not a positive way. So from my point of view, it's quite possible that it is societies mental psychosis which is out of touch with reality. Yes, sometimes, when I sense someone who is a stranger is open to it, I'll engage them in conversation along the lines of "what you think you are/this is isn't what it is", and the results are always rewarding ... but I'm sure that most of the people who might overhear those would think I'm a loon. But, on the other hand, if people were all equipped with speakers that spoke out the contents of their minds as they went about their daily business, how many new mental hospitals would we have to build?? The consensus trance is a fragile and superficial thing. This situation seems to me to be simply a function of the complexity of the human brain/mind. Hi laughter, thanks for your response.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 28, 2015 19:50:17 GMT -5
You cannot be both one and separate. That reasoning is flawed. You can, it's just different contexts. In my perspective, one context does trump the other, but that's not a matter of truth, it's more a matter of resonance. What I would say though, is that they could only both be true if oneness transcended separation. As I see it, oneness is fully inclusive, and so it does include separation. Oneness includes the idea of separation. The idea appears, actual separation does not.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 28, 2015 19:57:03 GMT -5
Yes, at the universal level of consciousness we are all the same being. And at the individual level of consciousness the same being is trapped in a physical body. So when the body gets run over by a truck it disappears and the trapped consciousness is reclaimed by the universal consciousness. At least that is my understanding. The body isn't just a shadow on the wall, it is consciousness itself.Yes. Well said. It's one thing to say that the body is encompassed within the whole or a facet of Source, and quite another to separate it out, to conceptually hold it apart from the totality of Source/Beingness/Intelligence/Consciousness itself, to say it is something 'other than' that. It's not something other than consciousness. I mean the body is a shadow on the wall in Plato's cave, which is still consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 28, 2015 20:01:56 GMT -5
I don't see the issue. The only way I can imagine one is if I assume I'm the only mind/body in the world, which of course I don't. Then I don't understand how "I'm not the only mind/body in the world" is not in any way a sense of separation. Because the appearance of individuated perspectives is not the same as separation. BTW, to say I don't assume I'm the only mind/body in the world, is not the same as saying I'm not the only mind/body in the world. The latter implies I am a mind/body, and I don't mean to say that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 28, 2015 20:07:35 GMT -5
The YOU that you are referring to is an appearance only, and has no independent existence. It's a shadow on the wall. That YOU that jumps out of the way is not what I am, so it makes no sense to talk about it and ask questions about it as thought it is. I don't believe I have independent existence in any way whatsoever. Does that make me a nondualist? (Seriously) I don't know. I'm not sure what a nondualist is.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 28, 2015 20:08:20 GMT -5
You can, it's just different contexts. In my perspective, one context does trump the other, but that's not a matter of truth, it's more a matter of resonance. What I would say though, is that they could only both be true if oneness transcended separation. As I see it, oneness is fully inclusive, and so it does include separation. Oneness includes the idea of separation. The idea appears, actual separation does not. I would say the idea of separation and separation itself are not separate, so separation is included. Are you seeing a difference between 'separation' and 'actual separation'?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 20:08:47 GMT -5
Yes, at the universal level of consciousness we are all the same being. And at the individual level of consciousness the same being is trapped in a physical body. So when the body gets run over by a truck it disappears and the trapped consciousness is reclaimed by the universal consciousness. At least that is my understanding. The body isn't just a shadow on the wall, it is consciousness itself.Yes. Well said. It's one thing to say that the body is encompassed within the whole or a facet of Source, and quite another to separate it out, to conceptually hold it apart from the totality of Source/Beingness/Intelligence/Consciousness itself, to say it is something 'other than' that. Hi figgles, thanks for your response.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 28, 2015 20:09:56 GMT -5
Oneness includes the idea of separation. The idea appears, actual separation does not. I would say the idea of separation and separation itself are not separate, so separation is included. Are you seeing a difference between 'separation' and 'actual separation'? A difference between the idea and the actuality? Of course.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 28, 2015 20:14:40 GMT -5
I would say the idea of separation and separation itself are not separate, so separation is included. Are you seeing a difference between 'separation' and 'actual separation'? A difference between the idea and the actuality? Of course. Okay, I wasn't clear your distinction was between the idea of separation and separation itself, I thought you were distinguishing between 'separation' and 'actual separation'. In a context of 'actuality', I would say that there is no separation or that separation is an illusion, but in the context of 'oneness', which I see as inclusive, I would say that separation is included whether it is illusion or not.
|
|