Pete / Advaita theory has logical flaw in it - hence whole theory wrong?

[Guest guest]

Hi Pete,

 

 

> Do you see, that what you took for Oneness was a big

> misconception? You thought that the oneness Advaita

> points to, is a physical one. The only oneness advaita

> points to, is a oneness of perception>

 

 

Yes, well said and I think this is the first time someone has pointed

this out at least since I have been here.

 

 

> When your mind

> becomes very still a seamless whole is apperceived

> ( apperception meaning a perception w/o a perceiver.)

> For all practical purposes physical multiplicity will

> always be there. No one becomes omniscient.

 

 

Ok and;

 

No-*ONE* becomes omniscient, no-*BODY* becomes omniscient.

 

 

 

> In addition to this oneness of perception, there is the

> oneness of common origination. All multiplicity comes

> from the Vacuum and returns to it. That might be small

> comfort at your stage of the game. >

 

 

The vacuum?!

Coming to and from?

 

Just kidding

 

I'm sure you know what I am getting at.

 

 

> While in the body,

> Nothingness is, a very hard to come to by, acquired taste.

 

 

We, and the person you are addressing this to are *always* ''in the

body'' up until the physical body dies ( not considering incarnation )

 

 

Kind Regards,

 

Scott

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen "

<sga_email> wrote:

>

> Hi Pete,

>

>

> > Do you see, that what you took for Oneness was a big

> > misconception? You thought that the oneness Advaita

> > points to, is a physical one. The only oneness advaita

> > points to, is a oneness of perception>

>

>

> Yes, well said and I think this is the first time someone has

pointed

> this out at least since I have been here.

>

>

> > When your mind

> > becomes very still a seamless whole is apperceived

> > ( apperception meaning a perception w/o a perceiver.)

> > For all practical purposes physical multiplicity will

> > always be there. No one becomes omniscient.

>

>

> Ok and;

>

> No-*ONE* becomes omniscient, no-*BODY* becomes omniscient.

 

P: Hi Scott,

Yes, no organism.

 

Best,

 

Pete