Guest guest Posted September 27, 2007 Report Share Posted September 27, 2007 I used to think that oneness meant soemthing like Nicholas of Cusa described as the convergence of opposites--or was it coincidence of opposites? However you call it, it is a concept that is not particularly digestible Lately I have been thinking that oneness can best be approached--conceptually--by describing it as what happens when everything is mediated through one consciousness.Everything is one for you because you experience everything in and thruogh your consciousness.What anything is " in itself " --if it is anything " in itself " is not at issue since the thing has been translated into your conscousness and that is all you will ever know of it.And your consciousness is one and you are one with it. Now someone will come along and say, " There is no " you " etc., and we will be right back biting the dust of Nicholas of Cusa's feet. Which goes to prove that the study of Advaita is not for sissies. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2007 Report Share Posted September 27, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > I used to think that oneness meant soemthing like Nicholas of Cusa > described as the convergence of opposites--or was it coincidence of > opposites? However you call it, it is a concept that is not > particularly digestible Lately I have been thinking that oneness can > best be approached--conceptually--by describing it as what happens when > everything is mediated through one consciousness.Everything is one for > you because you experience everything in and thruogh your > consciousness.What anything is " in itself " --if it is anything " in > itself " is not at issue since the thing has been translated into your > conscousness and that is all you will ever know of it.And your > consciousness is one and you are one with it. Now someone will come > along and say, " There is no " you " etc., and we will be right back > biting the dust of Nicholas of Cusa's feet. Which goes to prove that > the study of Advaita is not for sissies. Z the study of advaita is not for anyone. it's for nobody. what dust? there is no....... :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2007 Report Share Posted September 27, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > I used to think that oneness meant soemthing like Nicholas of Cusa > described as the convergence of opposites--or was it coincidence of > opposites? However you call it, it is a concept that is not > particularly digestible Lately I have been thinking that oneness can > best be approached--conceptually--by describing it as what happens when > everything is mediated through one consciousness.Everything is one for > you because you experience everything in and thruogh your > consciousness.What anything is " in itself " --if it is anything " in > itself " is not at issue since the thing has been translated into your > conscousness and that is all you will ever know of it.And your > consciousness is one and you are one with it. Now someone will come > along and say, " There is no " you " etc., and we will be right back > biting the dust of Nicholas of Cusa's feet. Which goes to prove that > the study of Advaita is not for sissies. Z > Tom, Ramana said " When thought is quiet then you remain alone " . And alone also means all-one. And indeed, I am afraid of remaining alone and therefore thought is constantly babbling from early morning till late evening. And 90% percent of my thoughts are inner dialogs with people not being present. Therefore, when wanting to understand what this Oneness could be one's thought has to get quiet. But thought never gets quiet. Werner 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.