How in the world did (or could) the sense/idea/notion of separateness eve

[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

>

 

 

 

 

 

Actually...........Nothing ever happened.

 

 

 

toombaru

[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

 

Hi Michael -

 

The two *is* the not-two.

 

The apparent separations *is* the nonseparate.

 

The knowing that this is so, isn't anything other than what this

actually is, now, as is.

 

To not be aware that this is so, as is, therefore involves avoidance,

and an attempt to invest in separation as if it really could be the

case in some one-sided and ultimate way.

 

As for why avoidance of how things actually are occurs - that's easy,

just listen to what people say and look at what they do. It's

investment in a one-sided way that people want things to be, wish

things could be -- so they could have self as a focal point around

which things revolved. Even with all the complaints, drama, violence

to self and others, misery, hurtfulness -- even with all that, there

is intense clinging to the one-sided wish for self/separation.

 

And, even the avoidance (aka ignorance) doesn't occur in an actuality

of one-sided separation. Even the avoidance and all its repercussions

co-arises with all that is, nonseparately, this instant.

 

So, one knows by being, and by being includes separation and

avoidance, is aware fully, understanding other and self as not-two -

not trying to get away from, ignore, pretend -

 

My two cents,

Dan

[Guest guest]

On 5/11/06, dan330033 <dan330033 wrote:

> 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

>

> Hi Michael -

>

> The two *is* the not-two.

>

> The apparent separations *is* the nonseparate.

>

> The knowing that this is so, isn't anything other than what this

> actually is, now, as is.

>

> To not be aware that this is so, as is, therefore involves avoidance,

> and an attempt to invest in separation as if it really could be the

> case in some one-sided and ultimate way.

>

> As for why avoidance of how things actually are occurs - that's easy,

> just listen to what people say and look at what they do. It's

> investment in a one-sided way that people want things to be, wish

> things could be -- so they could have self as a focal point around

> which things revolved. Even with all the complaints, drama, violence

> to self and others, misery, hurtfulness -- even with all that, there

> is intense clinging to the one-sided wish for self/separation.

>

> And, even the avoidance (aka ignorance) doesn't occur in an actuality

> of one-sided separation. Even the avoidance and all its repercussions

> co-arises with all that is, nonseparately, this instant.

>

> So, one knows by being, and by being includes separation and

> avoidance, is aware fully, understanding other and self as not-two -

> not trying to get away from, ignore, pretend -

>

> My two cents,

> Dan

>

 

Of course...

whoever said there is separateness!

 

It is only separateness that can conceive of separateness.

But that is circular.

Therefore there is no foundation for a notion that separateness

is real.

 

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

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

place? "

 

The same way that " tastes like chocolate " did.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote:

>

> Of course...

> whoever said there is separateness!

>

> It is only separateness that can conceive of separateness.

> But that is circular.

> Therefore there is no foundation for a notion that separateness

> is real.

>

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

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

> place? "

>

> The same way that " tastes like chocolate " did.

 

Yes, quite so -- or " I feel hungry, " or " I feel stupid. "

 

-- D.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn@> wrote:

> >

> > Of course...

> > whoever said there is separateness!

> >

> > It is only separateness that can conceive of separateness.

> > But that is circular.

> > Therefore there is no foundation for a notion that separateness

> > is real.

> >

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

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

first

> > place? "

> >

> > The same way that " tastes like chocolate " did.

>

> Yes, quite so -- or " I feel hungry, " or " I feel stupid. "

>

> -- D.

>

 

 

easily---with the thought it should be something else. ;-)

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> 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

>

> Hi Michael -

>

> The two *is* the not-two.

>

> The apparent separations *is* the nonseparate.

>

> The knowing that this is so, isn't anything other than what this

> actually is, now, as is.

>

> To not be aware that this is so, as is, therefore involves avoidance,

> and an attempt to invest in separation as if it really could be the

> case in some one-sided and ultimate way.

>

> As for why avoidance of how things actually are occurs - that's easy,

> just listen to what people say and look at what they do. It's

> investment in a one-sided way that people want things to be, wish

> things could be -- so they could have self as a focal point around

> which things revolved. Even with all the complaints, drama, violence

> to self and others, misery, hurtfulness -- even with all that, there

> is intense clinging to the one-sided wish for self/separation.

 

 

 

** Here's a extreme example of that: the 21 year-old son of a

co-worker recently committed suicide during a period of

financial and drug-habit problems.

 

Someone in the family had a window/bumpersticker made with

the young man's name, dates, and the following statement:

 

" Everything was beautiful, and nothing ever hurt. "

 

 

 

Ken

 

(nnb)

 

 

 

>

> And, even the avoidance (aka ignorance) doesn't occur in an actuality

> of one-sided separation. Even the avoidance and all its repercussions

> co-arises with all that is, nonseparately, this instant.

>

> So, one knows by being, and by being includes separation and

> avoidance, is aware fully, understanding other and self as not-two -

> not trying to get away from, ignore, pretend -

>

> My two cents,

> Dan

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001 wrote:

 

>

> ** Here's a extreme example of that: the 21 year-old son of a

> co-worker recently committed suicide during a period of

> financial and drug-habit problems.

>

> Someone in the family had a window/bumpersticker made with

> the young man's name, dates, and the following statement:

>

> " Everything was beautiful, and nothing ever hurt. "

>

>

>

> Ken

>

> (nnb)

 

Excellent point.

 

Also true of the use of numbing and euphoric " spiritual " language and

concepts, which act like a drug for the user ...

 

" Everything is beautiful and nothing ever hurts. "

 

Indeed.

 

-- Dan