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

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote:

 

> 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

 

As long as " why " can be asked, there is a presumed " before " which

would allow something to have caused something else to occur.

 

If one reaches the beginningless truth, there is no " before " -- hence

no " why " can be asked.

 

All the appearances of events, beings, conditions, experiences

involving befores and afters, beings which can be aware of conscious

and unconscious mind, all the why's and wherefore's -- are, at the

same time, this very begininglessness.

 

It can't be expained because there is no " before " involved - hence no

outside, and therefore no inside.

 

With nothing inside, there are no actual beings to require

explanations to make things sensible to themselves, just the

appearance or semblance of beings asking questions.

 

In other words - a being which can ask why will never be fully

satisfied -- but with no such being assumed, no explanation is

required or sought.

 

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

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

> Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote:

>

> > 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

>

> As long as " why " can be asked, there is a presumed " before " which

> would allow something to have caused something else to occur.

>

> If one reaches the beginningless truth, there is no " before " -- hence

> no " why " can be asked.

>

> All the appearances of events, beings, conditions, experiences

> involving befores and afters, beings which can be aware of conscious

> and unconscious mind, all the why's and wherefore's -- are, at the

> same time, this very begininglessness.

>

> It can't be expained because there is no " before " involved - hence no

> outside, and therefore no inside.

>

> With nothing inside, there are no actual beings to require

> explanations to make things sensible to themselves, just the

> appearance or semblance of beings asking questions.

>

> In other words - a being which can ask why will never be fully

> satisfied -- but with no such being assumed, no explanation is

> required or sought.

>

>

> -- Dan

>

 

crystal clear

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote:

>

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

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

> >

> > > 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

> >

> > As long as " why " can be asked, there is a presumed " before " which

> > would allow something to have caused something else to occur.

> >

> > If one reaches the beginningless truth, there is no " before " -- hence

> > no " why " can be asked.

> >

> > All the appearances of events, beings, conditions, experiences

> > involving befores and afters, beings which can be aware of conscious

> > and unconscious mind, all the why's and wherefore's -- are, at the

> > same time, this very begininglessness.

> >

> > It can't be expained because there is no " before " involved - hence no

> > outside, and therefore no inside.

> >

> > With nothing inside, there are no actual beings to require

> > explanations to make things sensible to themselves, just the

> > appearance or semblance of beings asking questions.

> >

> > In other words - a being which can ask why will never be fully

> > satisfied -- but with no such being assumed, no explanation is

> > required or sought.

> >

> >

> > -- Dan

> >

>

> crystal clear

>

 

 

 

Bravo! The myth of presence exposed.