What Does "Not Separate/Oneness" reference?

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

What Does "Not Separate/Oneness" reference? Sept 8, 2024 19:14:51 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Sept 8, 2024 19:14:51 GMT

Ina:
This is where Niz' focus on "I am" has good merit. He says to start your attempt to knowing by leaving aside everything that you believe, that you believe you know, that you believe there is, that is obvious, that you experience, that you feel, memories, ... everything. You just know that you exist. You don't know what you are, what exists, ... You don't know anything else.

Then he seemed to have realized / hypothesized that the physical reality he experienced wasn't an objective reality, it somehow was only his creation. I haven't read enough of his opinions to know if he suggested how this creation happens, or more. He also realized / hypothesized that what he is in the physical reality is actually a state of something else; there is something "behind" it. I don't know what he suggest that that might be. But, it doesn't matter what he believed, if he was right or wrong, how distorted his hypotheses were. To me it matters only what I can learn from my inner source of knowledge and guidance, and in order to minimize the inherent distortions, to leave aside everything, to "completely empty the cup".

When you admonish others re: challenge/argument of post content, you are not an empty cup. The hypocrisy is glaring here. The goal for seekers should be to first and foremost become clear regarding mind content....do said values match behaviors....are there inconsistencies between espoused viewpoint vs. the way one moves within the world?

A focus for the seeker upon strong aversions...those places where his feelings dip down into fundamental condemnation...where there's a sense of 'intolerance' towards, lets say, someone challenging your viewpoint on a spiritual forum....becoming relatively clear and aware of mind's machinations requires this type of unabashed, sincere, earnest focus. There must be a willingness there to be tough with self....to hold the content of mind...beliefs, said values, up to the light for scrutiny, to compare them in an uncompromising way to "walk."

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

What Does "Not Separate/Oneness" reference? Sept 9, 2024 19:44:45 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Sept 9, 2024 19:44:45 GMT

Tenka:
. well yer, in a way, butt realising that there isn't any separation, (which most of us agree upon) doesn't mean that there isn't individuality in effect. It doesn't mean as said above there is something perceiving through a trillion eye balls.

Right. Realizing fundamental Oneness does not mean "realizing" that individuated, limited windows of conscious being....that individuated perceivers/experiencers are "existent."

Realizing fundamental Oneness equals seeing all distinction as appearance only....arising temporally, as a time-bound expression within/to that which abides. Appearing persons fall under that umbrella of "appearance only." Important to note: The "only" is not a denigration or vilification of appearance, rather, it's a qualifier indicating absence of inherent existence...absent of separation. Inherent existence in it's own right, relative to something that appears, equals "separation."

"NO separation" is a reference to the underlying singularity between the ground and it's dependently arising expressions...to that which never changes....that which exists, regardless of temporal arisings/ebbings, expressing temporarily, AS apparent limitation.

It can be said that there is only what you are individualised without separation, and each individualised experience had is individual by nature, it doesn't mean that something or other is perceiving instead of what the individual constitutes.

Again, it boils down to what an individual constitutes and non duality doesn't venture much into what that actually entails / means.
(other than it must represent something illusory).

Nonduality very clearly designates the individual as 'appearance only....devoid of it's own inherent existence.' And that applies to every worldly thing that could ever be perceived relative to that appearing individual....personality, thoughts, feelings, senses, spiritual beliefs, all experiential content including the mystical, and awe-inspiring. SR/awakening....the shift that is SR, is not 'an experience' per se, even though there may indeed be some specific experiential content surrounding said shift. It is though a shift that if abiding, does impact/change experience in some very important, yet not always so easy to talk about ways.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

What Does "Not Separate/Oneness" reference? Sept 9, 2024 19:47:23 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Sept 9, 2024 19:47:23 GMT

Tenka:
Centered at the point of the individual. My mum used to say that each individual person was the centre of their own universe.

Not to infer separation of course. In a way everyone is God, experiencing life in their own universe. There own bubble of life experience.

I know the way I have come across here is problematic, but just sharing a theme of thought.

Actually, what you're saying here, does indeed "infer separation." You're operating under a different definition of that term/pointer than what Nonduality is offering.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

What Does "Not Separate/Oneness" reference? Sept 9, 2024 19:51:50 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Sept 9, 2024 19:51:50 GMT

ZD: :
There is also the realization that awareness is primordial and is the field in which all phenomena appear--the realization that awareness would remain even if the manifested universe completely disappeared. This kind of realization changes one's understanding.

tenka:
. Not so much a realisation but a conclusion.

Actually, what YOU are asserting here is but a "conclusion." In SR, there is direct, immediate reference for an abiding ground of unfettered, unwavering Awareness, that abides even in the absence of content/some-thing to BE "aware of." Once apprehended it is the most certain, Absolute, direct knowing you could ever have. There is no argument...no doubt....it's crystal clear.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

What Does "Not Separate/Oneness" reference? Sept 26, 2024 18:45:02 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Sept 26, 2024 18:45:02 GMT

SDP:
Correct, being is not just being. There is the being of a star, the being of a mineral, the being of a plant, the being of a reptile, the being of a mammal, the being of a human being, the being of a Buddha, a Christ.

Multitudes of individuated 'beings' = "appearance only." SR reveals there a fundamental ground of "being/awareness/seeing" that is singular and inherently abiding....ultimately "indivisible," despite the fact that it expresses as apparent distinction/many.

Earlier, consciousness came up. Consciousness precedes all things.

Yes. And in that "preceding" all things, it is the very ground from which all apparent things, springs forth. All things arise within Consciousness, not the other way around as it seems when mired in the dream-scape.

Multiple, individuated persons/conscious beings are but an appearance arising within the singularity of abiding Awareness/Consciousness.

Seth/Jane Roberts has a good and useful term, consciousness units, CUs. CUs are fundamental, they are kind of metaphysical atoms. In his new book, Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers and Human Nature, Federico Fa-gg-in uses the term consciousness units. I suspect he arrived at the term independently, can't imagine him reading Seth-Jane Roberts.

When seeing shifts to completely 'beyond/prior to' the dream-scape, those consciousness units are also seen to be part and parcel of what's included in the dream-scape.

Metaphysical seeings are still "within" the dream-scape even though they "seem to be" beyond/prior to. Your "beyond/prior to," is not actually beyond at all....in order for a true transcendent seeing to occur, the primary locus of seeing must shift from the limited eyes of personhood to that which has no identity...no property...no quality....unfettered "Seeing/Awareness" itself. Only then will it become clear that which falls under the umbrella of "the manifest/dream-scape," vs. that which inherently, abiding exists, regardless of what appears/manifests.