Originally Posted by Moondance

This is full of the (I'm sure, unintentional) misdirection mentioned before. Here’s a couple of examples:



Yes, nonduality IS unconditional and unavoidable. But realisation is not.



Again, the red herring. We are not talking about connection since repeatedly it has been agreed that connection is always already the case. We are talking about realisation OF connection. Realisation OF connection IS NOT THE CASE until it is.

Also:

“Connection is unconditional and unavoidable and therefore requiring no change whatsoever.”

Yes, repeatedly this has been agreed on.

“This of course includes changes such as the end of feeling disconnected and realization.”

Yes, these are not needed for connection to be the case. But realisation IS needed for realisation of connection to be the case.



Once again (and if possible, without recourse to the red herring), do you disagree that in order for realisation of Oneness (or realisation of connection to Oneness) to be the case, realisation needs to happen?

Originally Posted by Iamit

What is being said is that realization is unnessary for the purpose of connection and therefore it would mislead seekers to say otherwise.

You may have some other purpose in mind. Good luck with it, whatever it is.

Originally Posted by Moondance

Astonishingly it has happened again. The red herring has entered the pool with all the bravado of Jaws.

(If anyone is unsure of how the above contains the red herring I’ll be happy to explain - though the pattern should be pretty clear by now.)

I have no interest in being a nag so I’m happy to let it go…

…until next time. :)