Guest guest Posted November 20, 2001 Report Share Posted November 20, 2001 > Realization, d b <dan330033> wrote: > >> D: What is the perceived separation between the one >> answering and the one asking? Without >> thought about a separation between a questioner >> and one answering, what would be the >> relevance of the question? >> > My misery is that I see a separation. Hence the question. > > If you don't see this separation why bother to answer? > > Murali We need to distinguish between feelings of separation, which are emotional, and knowledge of distinction, which is cognitive. Dan, Murali, and Gary are distinct beings. Suffering comes from separation, feeling distant from others. The mystical language of unity is primarily language of affect, of empathy. Dan, Murali, and Gary can know that they are different people without feeling emotionally separate. That is mystical unity. A pseudo way of achieving that is to cognitively deny that we are distinct beings, which leads only to mystification not mysticism. A closely related distinction is between being separate, meaning unrelated, and being distinct but related. Dualism sees distinct things not just as distinct but as separate and unrelated. Pseudo-nondualism denies the obvious, that things are distinct. True nondualism acknowledges that things are distinct, but also knows that they are related. It is the cognitive understanding of relationship that grounds the emotional feeling of unity. Gary Schouborg Performance Consulting Walnut Creek, CA garyscho Publications and professional services: http://home.att.net/~garyscho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2001 Report Share Posted November 20, 2001 Realization, Gary Schouborg <garyscho@a...> wrote: > We need to distinguish between feelings of separation, which are emotional, > and knowledge of distinction, which is cognitive. ......we do, huh? Dan, Murali, and Gary are > distinct beings. Suffering comes from separation, feeling distant from > others. .......actually, suffering comes from the habitual referencing of experience and perception to some kind of `center', hmmm? In fact, this so-called `center' is actually empty, isn't it? It's not a `thing'. It's not Murali, or Gary, or Dan. (I'm withholding comment about Judi). >Dualism sees distinct things not just as > distinct but as separate and unrelated. .....oh, and where was that interview published? >Pseudo-nondualism denies the > obvious, that things are distinct. ......boooo -- the bad guys! >True nondualism acknowledges that things > are distinct, but also knows that they are related. ......True nondualism acknowledges and knows nothing. It's keeping its big mouth shut until the fries arrive! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2001 Report Share Posted November 22, 2001 Realization, Gary Schouborg <garyscho@a...> wrote: > > Realization, d b <dan330033> wrote: > > > >> D: What is the perceived separation between the one > >> answering and the one asking? Without > >> thought about a separation between a questioner > >> and one answering, what would be the > >> relevance of the question? > >> > > My misery is that I see a separation. Hence the question. > > > > If you don't see this separation why bother to answer? > > > > Murali > > We need to distinguish between feelings of separation, which are emotional, > and knowledge of distinction, which is cognitive. Dan, Murali, and Gary are > distinct beings. Suffering comes from separation, feeling distant from > others. The mystical language of unity is primarily language of affect, of > empathy. Dan, Murali, and Gary can know that they are different people > without feeling emotionally separate. That is mystical unity. A pseudo way > of achieving that is to cognitively deny that we are distinct beings, which > leads only to mystification not mysticism. > > A closely related distinction is between being separate, meaning unrelated, > and being distinct but related. Dualism sees distinct things not just as > distinct but as separate and unrelated. Pseudo-nondualism denies the > obvious, that things are distinct. True nondualism acknowledges that things > are distinct, but also knows that they are related. It is the cognitive > understanding of relationship that grounds the emotional feeling of unity. > > Gary Schouborg > Performance Consulting > Walnut Creek, CA > garyscho@a... > > Publications and professional services: > http://home.att.net/~garyscho Hi Gary -- Yes, distinction does not equate with any kind of underlying sense of separation. In fact, distinction is the unity of all things. Distinction, if clearly understood, is the fact that nothing exists separately. Namaste, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.