How in the world did (or could) the sense/idea/notion of separateness ever arise?

[Guest guest]

The following is not a rhetorical or trick or smarty pants or " Advaita

Shuffle " type of question. And it's one I'd like to see others on this

list respond to if they are so inclined.

 

Assuming there never was, never will be, and currently isn't any

" separation " how in the world did the *notion* of *separation* or

anything being *other* or *separate* ever arise or occur in the first

place? It seems to me that the notion/experience of " separation " would

be impossible unless it actually did occur or were the case at one

point. I mean, *where* would the thought/notion/experience/sensation of

being separate or other come from. In other words, how could

" wholeness/undividedness/non-separateness " even come up with or create

the sensation or *other* or *separateness*, since, it seems to me, that

it would be so " foreign " to wholeness as to not exist at all. How could

*One* (or " not-two) ever generate the idea/sensation of " two " ? What

could it have possibly drawn from to produce it?

 

Consider me baffled!

 

Michael

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote:

>

>

>

> The following is not a rhetorical or trick or smarty pants

or " Advaita

> Shuffle " type of question. And it's one I'd like to see others on

this

> list respond to if they are so inclined.

>

> Assuming there never was, never will be, and currently isn't

any

> " separation " how in the world did the *notion* of *separation* or

> anything being *other* or *separate* ever arise or occur in the

first

> place? It seems to me that the notion/experience of " separation "

would

> be impossible unless it actually did occur or were the case at one

> point. I mean, *where* would the

thought/notion/experience/sensation of

> being separate or other come from. In other words, how could

> " wholeness/undividedness/non-separateness " even come up with or

create

> the sensation or *other* or *separateness*, since, it seems to me,

that

> it would be so " foreign " to wholeness as to not exist at all. How

could

> *One* (or " not-two) ever generate the idea/sensation of " two " ? What

> could it have possibly drawn from to produce it?

>

> Consider me baffled!

>

> Michael

>

 

a coin has two faces but it is one

like that!

[Guest guest]

On 5/11/06, Adamson <adamson wrote:

>

>

> The following is not a rhetorical or trick or smarty pants or " Advaita

> Shuffle " type of question. And it's one I'd like to see others on this

> list respond to if they are so inclined.

>

> Assuming there never was, never will be, and currently isn't any

> " separation " how in the world did the *notion* of *separation* or

> anything being *other* or *separate* ever arise or occur in the first

> place? It seems to me that the notion/experience of " separation " would

> be impossible unless it actually did occur or were the case at one

> point. I mean, *where* would the thought/notion/experience/sensation of

> being separate or other come from. In other words, how could

> " wholeness/undividedness/non-separateness " even come up with or create

> the sensation or *other* or *separateness*, since, it seems to me, that

> it would be so " foreign " to wholeness as to not exist at all. How could

> *One* (or " not-two) ever generate the idea/sensation of " two " ? What

> could it have possibly drawn from to produce it?

>

> Consider me baffled!

>

> Michael

>

 

Here's a way to look at it:

The original " oneness " is the Profound Unconscious.

Consciousness awoke within the Profound Unconscious.

 

Consciousness eventually comes to the point of being

able to recognize its identity with the Profound Unconscious

which it has been " uncovering " for eons.

 

But to so recognize its identity it must overcome the

appearance of separateness that naturally arises from

Consciousness as gradually unfolding within the vastness

of the Profound Unconscious.

 

In Nisargadatta's terms the Profound Unconscious

corresponds to what he refers to as the Absolute.

 

This " explanation " raises new questions of its own:

Why did Consciousness have to evolve gradually?

Why wasn't it there from the beginning?

 

The same can be said re Nisargadatta's metaphysics:

If Consciousness is ephemeral, and only the Absolute

is real, then how is it that Consciousness arises at all.

Why?

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote:

>

>

>

> The following is not a rhetorical or trick or smarty pants

or " Advaita

> Shuffle " type of question. And it's one I'd like to see others on

this

> list respond to if they are so inclined.

>

> Assuming there never was, never will be, and currently isn't

any

> " separation " how in the world did the *notion* of *separation* or

> anything being *other* or *separate* ever arise or occur in the

first

> place? It seems to me that the notion/experience of " separation "

would

> be impossible unless it actually did occur or were the case at one

> point. I mean, *where* would the

thought/notion/experience/sensation of

> being separate or other come from. In other words, how could

> " wholeness/undividedness/non-separateness " even come up with or

create

> the sensation or *other* or *separateness*, since, it seems to me,

that

> it would be so " foreign " to wholeness as to not exist at all. How

could

> *One* (or " not-two) ever generate the idea/sensation of " two " ? What

> could it have possibly drawn from to produce it?

>

> Consider me baffled!

>

> Michael

>-----------

I don't know how Michael.

 

" how in the world did the *notion* of *separation* or

> anything being *other* or *separate* ever arise or occur in the

first place? "

 

It happened long before there was a world to be in. Before there was

a 'first place'. It happens to be the womb of 'notions' et al. It

includes, but is not limited to or by: 'other',

seperate', 'arising', 'occuring'.......

 

It seems to me that the notion/experience of " separation " would

> be impossible unless it actually did occur or were the case at one

> point. I mean, *where* would the

thought/notion/experience/sensation of

> being separate or other come from

 

It doesn't 'come from' anywhere. All notions of space and time and

self are just and only that: notions...who's? I don't know.

 

In other words, how could

> " wholeness/undividedness/non-separateness " even come up with or

create

> the sensation or *other* or *separateness*, since, it seems to me,

that

> it would be so " foreign " to wholeness as to not exist at all. How

could

> *One* (or " not-two) ever generate the idea/sensation of " two " ? What

> could it have possibly drawn from to produce it?

>

 

Wholeness does not 'exist' in the sense that we use that word. It

both is and is not and is not not ad infinitum....that infinity too,

is also something we can only toy with and play mathematical symbol

language and philosophical games with, and we will never 'understand'

what we mean by it nor what it is in itself. Even if we think we

understand it, that thinlking is proof positive that we haven't

understood a thing about it........It is as illusory as seperateness

and individualism and even 'illusion' itself. What 'It' all really

is, is not something that we will ever, now or in the past or in some

future time,'understand'. Bafflement seems to be an intrinsic feature

and possibly a purpose for the dichotomy. But it is fun isn't it. In

Wholeness there can be nothing foriegn and since it preceeds any

physical world or world governing 'laws', it has no need

of 'generation', and in fact is without anything to draw on or from

except 'itself' which again, for us, will remain 'Mystery'. To

recapitulate: I don'know and you don't know and 'they' don't know

and 'It' doesn't 'know'.

 

Consider me baffled!

 

Done. And that's a consideration for everyone and everything.. and

what would we do without it? If we knew everything, and all the whys

and wherefores, there wouldn't be much for anyone or anything to do,

say, think, believe....you get the idea. And I don't 'know' what I've

written here and it doesn't matter. It's wierd, but as individuals

and groups we seem to want to know about and make causes of many,

many things. For instance, somewhere in this grand world of ours

today, some obscure species of plant, insect, animal, lifeform of any

sort..will be annihilated from the planet. Gone forever. Extinct. We

could make great cause for that loss and the loss of potential

benefit for us of that lifeform, but nothing would change. And since

this type of situation is occurring everywhere at all times, even to

the catastrophic collissions and annihilation of entire galaxies(a

tragedy beyond all World Wars or Iraqs etc.) what IS to be done? And

if you don't 'know' about that ending of a lifeform or ending of a

galaxy of lifeforms and stars and planets.....what possible

difference does it really make in your life? I don't know. Try the

best we can to 'get along' I guess. But that's just a guess. That's

not the way 'It' is, isn't, could be or can be or anything.

 

As Baffled in a Big Way as yourself,

........bob

[Guest guest]

Hari Om

~~~~~~~

 

Hello Folks,

 

I am new to the group, and thought to respond to this.

I start all my emails with Hari Om, as to remind me of my place and

who is really driving the bus,this whole creation, and check the

ego. I hope this is in concert with the 'feel' of the group.

 

> Michael wrote ( I believe):

Assuming there never was, never will be, and currently isn't any

separation " how in the world did the *notion* of *separation* or

anything being *other* or *separate* ever arise or occur in the first

place?

__________________________

 

Lots of speculation, but in a word, time! Kala , zillions of years.

 

 

pranams,

yajvan