Practice

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

When I use the term it is not meant to indicate some sort of entity but rather that, despite the very convincing, solid looking appearance of difference, All is One. And that all is included and nothing excluded,including all aspects of self and the manifestation we see around us.

Does the Oneness experience itself as being the Oneness that it is despite the inclusion of all that is within it?

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Does the Oneness experience itself as being the Oneness that it is despite the inclusion of all that is within it?

Nothing is excluded so whatever is manifest must be Oneness, including in this case Oneness both expeisriencing itself as Oneness and also not experiemcing itself as Oneness, each the other and the One love in action, dreaming difference where there is none.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Nothing is excluded so whatever is manifest must be Oneness, including in this case Oneness both expeisriencing itself as Oneness and also not experiemcing itself as Oneness, each the other and the One love in action, dreaming difference where there is none.

Is the Oneness that both experiences itself as Oneness and not experiencing itself as Oneness duality though in and of itself? What does 'connection to Oneness' entail? are you still aware of the connection until there is no connection because nothing 'connects' because all is Oneness?

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Is Oneness that both experiences itself as Oneness and not experiencing itself as Oneness duality though in and of itself? What does 'connection to Oneness' entail? are you still aware of the connection until there is no connection because nothing 'connects' as all is Oneness?

Yes Oneness must be all duality, there is simply nothing else availabe in reality to manifest as duality.

Connection entails/requires nothing. It is impossible to be disconnected. The feeling that one is disconnected from Oneness is not disconnected for it must be Oneness feeling disconnected from Oneness.

Whatever is imagined as disconnected is not including not realizing any of this for it must be Oneness not realizing.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Yes Oneness must be all duality, there is simply nothing else availabe in reality to manifest as duality.

Connection entails nothing. It is impossible to be disconnected. The feeling that one is disconnected from Oneness is not disconnected for it must be Oneness feeling disconnected from Oneness.

Whatever is imagined as disconnected is not.

So, would it then be fair to say, that the difference between TA and NA in regards to the 'Oneness' as we both view it, is that NA is awareness without Satchitananda, whilst TA is awareness with Satchitananda?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satcitananda

The realization of Atman.

I am of the nature of consciousness.
I am made of consciousness and bliss.
I am nondual, pure in form, absolute knowledge, absolute love.
I am changeless, devoid of desire or anger, I am detached.
I am One Essence, unlimitedness, utter consciousness.
I am boundless Bliss, existence and transcendent Bliss.
I am the Atman, that revels in itself.
I am the Sacchidananda that is eternal, enlightened and pure.

— Tejobindu Upanishad, 3.1-3.12 (Abridged)

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

So, would it then be fair to say, that the difference between TA and NA in regards to the 'Oneness' as we both view it, is that NA is awareness without Satchitananda, whilst TA is awareness with Satchitananda?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satcitananda

Yes but also not realizing any of that is also not disconnected for it must be Oneness manifesting as not realizing any of that.

[Iamit]

I have to go to work now but lets continue with our enquiry later and thank you for the exchange.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Yes but also not realizing any of that is also not disconnected for it must be Oneness manifesting as not realizing any of that.

Cool, I thought so and thank you for your explanation.

I have to go to work now but lets continue with our enquiry later and thank you for the exchange.

You have a great day at work and there's nothing further I may inquire, as I pretty much have a fair idea now.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Moondance

As far as I can see, everybody is practicing (in the full sense of the word.) Most are practicing, rehearsing, reinforcing the normalised, accepted version of separation - emergent in early childhood and reinforced by society at every turn. Habits of mind work very hard to keep this particular misapprehension in place. We could call this ‘default practice’.

Good explanation.

In the spiritual context, the practice that interests me is non-practice. By this I mean the act of disrupting or halting this default practice in its tracks.

One has to become conscious of it.

There are various means by which this can come about.

Yes, in the sense that there is more than one way to skin a cat, even though there's only one cat.

Meditation, self-inquiry, illumination, koan, a shock to the system, meetings etc. Sometimes it occurs when the mind is at the end of its tether and it just gives up. Sometimes it can happen in the presence of those who are free of default reinforcement.

Of course it’s all Oneness at play - whether it be the default practice of reinforcing the delusion of separation or the practice that cuts through that. Neither one can be considered preferable - unless there is an interest in or impulse towards liberation from the false (the default delusion of separation.)

Yes, interest in the discovery of what's true disrupts everything, because 'you' have to stop to see.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Gem

Yes, in the sense that there is more than one way to skin a cat, even though there's only one cat.

Yes maybe...but the whole question is...is the cat dead or alive while you skin it?

Don't mind me...I am in a silly mood.