Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 20:27:10 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'? Hi andrew, I can see why you asked that question. I'm kind of twisted so I will twist enigmas response and you can let me know what you think... Oneness includes the idea of oneness. The idea appears, actual oneness does not. It's a bit ironic, in that, that which appears(separation) is not actual, and that which doesn't appear(Oneness) is actual. I don't actually like the word separation, it sounds so permanent. I prefer the word separated, it leaves the door open for a retracement back to Oneness.
|
|
|
Post by steven on Jan 28, 2015 21:03:46 GMT -5
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. I think maybe you guys focus on, or use the wrong words in these debates. I can find no experiential evidence of anything anywhere being totally independent and disconnected, but you can seperate two children that are fighting, or two hairs on your head, but these are not true seperations of course, they are more like a kind of segregation. So there is no independence, and no seperation, but there clearly is differentiation and segregation. There, problem solved :-)) Does that make me a party pooper?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 28, 2015 22:01:52 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. Given your preferences for mental models, yes it can be both.. but, if you were to let go of those models, you would realize it is neither.. your preference for the model of oneness simultaneously creates separateness, which nobody is talking about separateness, anyway, until someone else starts on about oneness.. nondualists choose the oneness model and then look for converts by any means, including confrontation.. most seekers are open to various understandings, like 'pieces of a puzzle', and are willing to set aside models for a clearer experience of their existence.. for some reason, nondualists insist that their 'piece of the puzzle' is superior to the other pieces, and they reject all but their own interpretation of what is happening, sometimes with 'off-putting' tactics.. You say oneness is all there is, but cannot actually account for the separation that exists except by saying it's not real.. but, there you are, 'saying' it's not real TO what you say 'is not real', always armed with the escape clause: 'you don't understand'.. Nothing, at all, changes when you stop believing in oneness.. stop believing in separation, though, grab onto 'live' 440 volt 3 phase power wire, you'll insist on separation immediately.. oneness and separation are models in your mind, ideologies, not pointers.. help the seeker learn to travel, then whichever journey they take they'll understand where they are..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 28, 2015 22:16:24 GMT -5
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'. Again, separation as an idea is included, as all ideas are included, but ideas are not the actualities the ideas refer to. (The idea of separation is not separation)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 28, 2015 22:30:27 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'? Hi andrew, I can see why you asked that question. I'm kind of twisted so I will twist enigmas response and you can let me know what you think... Oneness includes the idea of oneness. The idea appears, actual oneness does not. It's a bit ironic, in that, that which appears(separation) is not actual, and that which doesn't appear(Oneness) is actual.I don't actually like the word separation, it sounds so permanent. I prefer the word separated, it leaves the door open for a retracement back to Oneness. Separation is the objectification of appearances, and so appearances are not inherently separate. They are simply appearances appearing to the senses or the mind. (as thought/feeling) For oneness to appear, it would have to be determined to be an object of perception, and of course that's not what oneness refers to, though some do indeed talk about 'the oneness' as they erroneously objectify it. In this way, oneness can appear to appear, just as separation appears to appear. In actuality, they are both abstractions of mind that appear only in the thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 28, 2015 22:36:06 GMT -5
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. I think maybe you guys focus on, or use the wrong words in these debates. I can find no experiential evidence of anything anywhere being totally independent and disconnected, but you can seperate two children that are fighting, or two hairs on your head, but these are not true seperations of course, they are more like a kind of segregation. So there is no independence, and no seperation, but there clearly is differentiation and segregation. There, problem solved :-)) Does that make me a party pooper? Pull two hairs out of your head and they will appear to be separate according to your "experiential evidence". This is the path Tzu takes to conclude separation. I say experiential evidence is not always valid, and we call this illusion.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 28, 2015 22:41:24 GMT -5
You cannot be both one and separate. That reasoning is flawed. Given your preferences for mental models, yes it can be both.. but, if you were to let go of those models, you would realize it is neither.. your preference for the model of oneness simultaneously creates separateness, which nobody is talking about separateness, anyway, until someone else starts on about oneness.. nondualists choose the oneness model and then look for converts by any means, including confrontation.. most seekers are open to various understandings, like 'pieces of a puzzle', and are willing to set aside models for a clearer experience of their existence.. for some reason, nondualists insist that their 'piece of the puzzle' is superior to the other pieces, and they reject all but their own interpretation of what is happening, sometimes with 'off-putting' tactics.. You say oneness is all there is, but cannot actually account for the separation that exists except by saying it's not real.. but, there you are, 'saying' it's not real TO what you say 'is not real', always armed with the escape clause: 'you don't understand'.. Nothing, at all, changes when you stop believing in oneness.. stop believing in separation, though, grab onto 'live' 440 volt 3 phase power wire, you'll insist on separation immediately.. oneness and separation are models in your mind, ideologies, not pointers.. help the seeker learn to travel, then whichever journey they take they'll understand where they are.. You say it is neither oneness nor separation, but rather both oneness and separation. Your reasoning is flawed.
|
|
|
Post by steven on Jan 29, 2015 1:02:57 GMT -5
I think maybe you guys focus on, or use the wrong words in these debates. I can find no experiential evidence of anything anywhere being totally independent and disconnected, but you can seperate two children that are fighting, or two hairs on your head, but these are not true seperations of course, they are more like a kind of segregation. So there is no independence, and no seperation, but there clearly is differentiation and segregation. There, problem solved :-)) Does that make me a party pooper? Pull two hairs out of your head and they will appear to be separate according to your "experiential evidence". This is the path Tzu takes to conclude separation. I say experiential evidence is not always valid, and we call this illusion. I'm in your camp, I can't find any seperation anywhere, I do think they are just using bad vocabulary choices though ;-) If they argued for differentiation and segregation within the vast oneness, instead of arguing for simultaineoues seperation and oneness, that they would have less suitors for that debate :-) Maybe not though. I was thinking about this today, in my own experience....Everything I experience is very clearly, very experientially ME. I was wondering if this was always so, and whether at some point I must have percieved seperation....but when I search my memories, I cannot remember ever feeling or percieving seperation....seems like it's not that I percieved seperation, but instead, I use to ignore the oneness, or just be blind to it in a way that you are often blind to what you ignore or do not pay attention to. I suspect that if most people search their memories carefully, they may see that they never percieved seperation, they just ignored oneness.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 29, 2015 2:49:02 GMT -5
Pull two hairs out of your head and they will appear to be separate according to your "experiential evidence". This is the path Tzu takes to conclude separation. I say experiential evidence is not always valid, and we call this illusion. I'm in your camp, I can't find any seperation anywhere, I do think they are just using bad vocabulary choices though ;-) If they argued for differentiation and segregation within the vast oneness, instead of arguing for simultaineoues seperation and oneness, that they would have less suitors for that debate :-) Maybe not though. I was thinking about this today, in my own experience....Everything I experience is very clearly, very experientially ME. I was wondering if this was always so, and whether at some point I must have percieved seperation....but when I search my memories, I cannot remember ever feeling or percieving seperation....seems like it's not that I percieved seperation, but instead, I use to ignore the oneness, or just be blind to it in a way that you are often blind to what you ignore or do not pay attention to. I suspect that if most people search their memories carefully, they may see that they never percieved seperation, they just ignored oneness. I think virtually everyone assumes separation whether they contemplate the concept or not. There would be no argument from me with the idea of oneness and differentiation, but I don't think that's what the 'both/and' folks want to say.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 29, 2015 3:01:29 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?? ... and that is your perception of how 'it is' . It isn't even 'what it is', unless one perceives it as such . How have you concluded that 'it is what it is' without relating to it in that way through your own perception of it? When niz said I am that, he concluded I am that through his own perception of self . If anything, perhaps it would be rather I am not even that, and What is, isn't even what is . I would however agree if there is only what you are it seems to define oneness or at the very least point to it but I must also keep pointing to the realization of what you are that is neither one nor separate but rather 'there is just what you are' . A dot on a page can mean many things to many people, it might mean nothing at all to some . There is no-one that pays any comparison to what individuality is nor what oneness is within the realization these are all comparisons what we are has of it's self of the mind . Oneness or separation has been on the lips of many throughout the ages I am suggesting there can be two or a million 'of what we are' without being separate or as one . It might not make sense because we are normally either relating what we are as one or separate .
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2015 4:51:26 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'? Hi andrew, I can see why you asked that question. I'm kind of twisted so I will twist enigmas response and you can let me know what you think... Oneness includes the idea of oneness. The idea appears, actual oneness does not. It's a bit ironic, in that, that which appears(separation) is not actual, and that which doesn't appear(Oneness) is actual. I don't actually like the word separation, it sounds so permanent. I prefer the word separated, it leaves the door open for a retracement back to Oneness. Hi there source, what you said makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2015 4:55:40 GMT -5
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. I think maybe you guys focus on, or use the wrong words in these debates. I can find no experiential evidence of anything anywhere being totally independent and disconnected, but you can seperate two children that are fighting, or two hairs on your head, but these are not true seperations of course, they are more like a kind of segregation. So there is no independence, and no seperation, but there clearly is differentiation and segregation. There, problem solved :-)) Does that make me a party pooper? The problem as I see it, is that the word 'separation' has meaning in the collective consciousness and is experienced, so it can't really be ignored, even though I would agree that the word 'differentiation' is considerably better for the purposes of spiritual conversation. As I see it, anything that has meaning and is experienced has to be included in 'oneness', with the exception (as source just described) of 'actual oneness' itself!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2015 4:58:09 GMT -5
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'. Again, separation as an idea is included, as all ideas are included, but ideas are not the actualities the ideas refer to. (The idea of separation is not separation) Okay, then I would say that what the idea of separation refers to is included in oneness, even if what it refers to is an appearance or an illusion.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2015 5:05:56 GMT -5
Hi andrew, I can see why you asked that question. I'm kind of twisted so I will twist enigmas response and you can let me know what you think... Oneness includes the idea of oneness. The idea appears, actual oneness does not. It's a bit ironic, in that, that which appears(separation) is not actual, and that which doesn't appear(Oneness) is actual.I don't actually like the word separation, it sounds so permanent. I prefer the word separated, it leaves the door open for a retracement back to Oneness. Separation is the objectification of appearances, and so appearances are not inherently separate. They are simply appearances appearing to the senses or the mind. (as thought/feeling) For oneness to appear, it would have to be determined to be an object of perception, and of course that's not what oneness refers to, though some do indeed talk about 'the oneness' as they erroneously objectify it. In this way, oneness can appear to appear, just as separation appears to appear. In actuality, they are both abstractions of mind that appear only in the thoughts. I would agree that appearances are not 'inherently' separate, but they are 'non-inherently' separate. It's why I said that I consider oneness to transcend separation (though I don't consider that to be a 'truth' as such) Even though both 'separation' and 'oneness' are abstractions of the mind, 'experiencing' requires there to be an experience of more than one thing/object/appearance.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2015 5:15:48 GMT -5
I'm in your camp, I can't find any seperation anywhere, I do think they are just using bad vocabulary choices though ;-) If they argued for differentiation and segregation within the vast oneness, instead of arguing for simultaineoues seperation and oneness, that they would have less suitors for that debate :-) Maybe not though. I was thinking about this today, in my own experience....Everything I experience is very clearly, very experientially ME. I was wondering if this was always so, and whether at some point I must have percieved seperation....but when I search my memories, I cannot remember ever feeling or percieving seperation....seems like it's not that I percieved seperation, but instead, I use to ignore the oneness, or just be blind to it in a way that you are often blind to what you ignore or do not pay attention to. I suspect that if most people search their memories carefully, they may see that they never percieved seperation, they just ignored oneness. I think virtually everyone assumes separation whether they contemplate the concept or not. There would be no argument from me with the idea of oneness and differentiation, but I don't think that's what the 'both/and' folks want to say. 'One and many' would probably be agreed by most of us. To me, its just a contextual issue (word games!) Saying 'there is no separation' or 'separation is an illusion' are pointers, not truths. So if you were to say.... in 'reality/actuality' there is no separation, I would take it as a legitimate pointer and would have no problem with it, because when using the ideas of 'reality/actuality', you set the contextual stage for the pointer. However, for me, 'oneness' by definition is inclusive, so contextually it has to include separation. To exclude it would miss the point of 'oneness'. In a nutshell, exclusion separates. Sp oneness even includes the possibility of excluding lol, but this excluding would happen in a smaller context. Hence why (in a smaller context) it can be validly argued that Enigma exists in a separate location to Andrew. Do I think oneness transcends the many? Yes. Do I think the many are less valid or even less true than oneness? No.
|
|