Nonduality and the validity of spiritual paths

[Iamit]

If Oneness is the only reality, disconnection is impossible and not dependant on achieving any particular state. Whatever state you are in must already be Oneness arising as that state, There is nothing else available! You cant have a day off:). This has severe implications for the validity of spiritual paths that by there very nature imply that there is some distance between the seeker and sought often referred to as enlightenment,
realization. awakening, or liberation. Should any of these occur, connection to Oneness would in no way be increased for it must already be Oneness unenlightened, unrealized, asleep, and imprisoned !

[wstein]

Originally Posted by Iamit

If Oneness is the only reality, disconnection is impossible and not dependant on achieving any particular state.

This makes two shaky assumptions:
1. Oneness can't split into two Onenesses separate from each other
2. Oneness can not change its nature.

[no1wakesup]

Originally Posted by wstein

This makes two shaky assumptions:
1. Oneness can't split into two Onenesses separate from each other
2. Oneness can not change its nature.

Agreed. Transparent points.

Consciousness collapses or contracts into a singularity. The immeasurable infinite condenses into a localized point instantly forming a relationship between observer and observed.

A split, for most, may also suggest some sort of proportional occurance as if splitting an apple equally in half. The infinite has no equal parts. There is nothing in the infinite that can be measured as there are no bondaries to define or grasp. Space is no longer space.

Oness does not change its nature, It can only transition. It can contract, condense, expand or dissipate. Even a leaf carries the nature of the tree, a small flame carries the nature of a fire and If you take a cup from the ocean, the ocean is still in the cup.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by no1wakesup

Consciousness collapses or contracts into a singularity. The immeasurable infinite condenses into a localized point instantly forming a relationship between observer and observed.

A split, for most, may also suggest some sort of proportional occurance as if splitting an apple equally in half. The infinite has no equal parts. There is nothing in the infinite that can be measured as there are no bondaries to define or grasp. Space is no longer space.

Oness does not change its nature, It can only transition. It can contract, condense, expand or dissipate. Even a leaf carries the nature of the tree, a small flame carries the nature of a fire and If you take a cup from the ocean, the ocean is still in the cup.

Beautifully expressed!

Only a person who has experienced it can say those words.

The relationship between observer and observed can also form a localised point into which both fully dissolve in a state of infinite entropy. Awareness is thus lost to experience.

I've been reading many posts on here where people are trying too hard to intellectualise it all, but that only takes them further away from finding the answers within and it's somewhere the mind cannot go. It gives me a headache just trying to understand it all when I wasn't meant to.

Even though the leaf carries the nature of the tree, it is not the tree.

[r6r6]

.."no1wakesup--Consciousness collapses or contracts into a singularity."...

Consciousness and singularity is not defined here.

The immeasurable infinite condenses into a localized point instantly forming a relationship between observer and observed.

Infinite what? There exists no infinite consciousness. Why would someone even consider an irrational, illogical idea as that?

A split, for most, may also suggest some sort of proportional occurance as if splitting an apple equally in half. The infinite has no equal parts.

Infinite what?

There is nothing in the infinite that can be measured as there are no bondaries to define or grasp. Space is no longer space.

Now "space" has entered into the narrative, yet it is not defined as occupied or non-occupied.

Oness does not change its nature, It can only transition.

What is this "oneness"? What does this oneness transition into? Lack of clarity definition appears as meaningless mumbo jumbo to me.

It can contract, condense, expand or dissipate.

What can contract, condense, expand or dissipate? Oness? What is that exactly?

Consciousness? What is that exactly?

Space? It is illogical, irrational and lacks common sense for non-occupied.

Occupied space can do all of the above. Again, without definitions and clarity we have what appears to me as meaningless mumbo jumbo.

Even a leaf carries the nature of the tree, a small flame carries the nature of a fire and If you take a cup from the ocean, the ocean is still in the cup.

A flame and a tree are not infinite.

A "small flame" is a "fire", to suggest there is a differrence is irrational, illogical and lacks common sense.

Cup of the ocean is not the ocean. To suggest that a cup of the ocean is the ocean is irrational, illogical and lacks common sense. The ocean contains, sharks, jelly fish, sponges, whales etc.

This is just appears to me as being more more irrational, illogical meaningless mumbo jumbo added to other mumbo jumbo. imho

There exists only two infinites;

1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept of infinite, and,

2} macro-infinite non-occupied space, that, embraces our finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse.

To grasp the most comprehensive integral whole, begin with the cosmic trinity in my cosmic heiarchy, that, is catagorized into three parts/aspects.

This way no parts are excluded and we see that any true oneness is has no less than three aspects of consideration ergo omni-considerate.

" U "niverse/ " G "od: The Cosmic Trinity

1} Spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent } metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ex concepts of infinite, space, God, Universe, time, dogs whales etc,
----------------line-of-demarcation-----------
2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite, non-occupied space, that, embraces our finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse,

3} finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse

Oness of finite, occupied space Universe is teh same as saying, all is connected, and that occurs via gravity ( ) if not also dark energy )(.

Finite, occupied space Universe also subcatagorizes into three distinct aspects. Gravity( ), dark energy )( and observed reality frequencies ^v^v{ sine-wave pattern }

The truth exists for those who seek it, those who dont and those who scoff at. imho

r6

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Infinite what? There exists no infinite consciousness. Why would someone even consider an irrational, illogical idea as that?

My dear r6.

Infinite consciousness IS irrational and illogical by its very nature! and you don't 'consider it' - you become it! you merge into it!

You are trying to use rationality and logic to reason your way into the unreasonable here.

You say things with such conviction as if you know, but do you? do you really?

Can you prove to me there exists no infinite consciousness? since the burden of proof rests with you for making the claim. Thank you.

What is this "oneness"? What does this oneness transition into? Lack of clarity definition appears as meaningless mumbo jumbo to me.

Yes it does...to YOU and I'm glad you made that distinction.

You like using 'mumbo jumbo' a lot don't you? *ignore list time*

Now "space" has entered into the narrative, yet it is not defined as occupied or non-occupied.

Both!

Clearly you don't get it and clearly there are 'spiritual saboteurs' on here who don't like to see me agreeing with others and finding personal help and worth in what others say, because they wouldn't have even posted had I not said anything. *sigh*

[r6r6]

The Necromancer--My dear r6. Infinite consciousness IS irrational and illogical by its very nature!

No your being irrational, illogical via your human nature allowing you to do so.

and you don't 'consider it' - you become it! you merge into it!

Yes I do consider "infinite consciousness" as presented to me via the text, previously considered and expressed in text format in this thread.

You are trying to use rationality and logic to reason your way into the unreasonable here.

Yeah, I make no excuses for attempting to be rational logical and using common sense.

Yes you and others offer irrational, illogical lack of common sense ergo "unreasonable" i.e. you and some others lack reason, your{ or others } personal reasoning to offer us the reader irrational, illogical, lack of common sense "unreason" is not explained.

Please share your reason for offerring illogical, irrational, lack of common sense "unreason" to the readers here.

You say things with such conviction as if you know, but do you? do you really?

Who does? I've always been available to give rational, logical common sense explainations for my conclusions, and often have in various threads around here for a few years now.

Can you prove to me there exists no infinite consciousness? since the burden of proof rests with you for making the claim. Thank you.

I offer no proofs. Who does in this thread? What is fair for the goose is fair for the gander. I'm willing to offer rational, logical common sense for what I believe.

Not so much some others.

Yes it does...to YOU and I'm glad you made that distinction.
You like using 'mumbo jumbo' a lot don't you? *ignore list time*
Both!

No sugar coating here, I tells it like I see's it. To paraphrase some other{s}.

Clearly you don't get it and clearly there are 'spiritual saboteurs' on here who don't like to see me agreeing with others and finding personal help and worth in what others say, because they wouldn't have even posted had I not said anything. *sigh*

I joined a group forum once not really knowing exactly what I was getting into. It turned out that all this peopled did wast make statements of positive re-inforcement to each other.

There was not intellectual content even to be considered. These people just made positive statements about each other. It is hard for me to recall the kind of statements exactly but I went sort of like this, as best as I can recall;

Bob, your a wonderful person,

Sue, I think your also wonderfuld,

Tom, you have such a beautiful nature{ or was it pysche or aura etc }

Sally, your the kindest person for being who you are,

Sally, Rod here and I agree with Tom your so kind.

And so it went, on and on and on and on.

Here is the thing Necromancer, I think expressing truth is as important if not more important as giving people positive reinforcement.

Truth is spiritual. 50% of being sane begins with recognizing those truths about ourselves. We cannot change ourselves if we do not acknowledge the truth of who we are for starters.

I have a not so close friend that I thought had some mental issues. Then one day I hear he chose on his own, to go in get some mental help and I thought, cool that is the first step toward sanity, acknowledging self truths.

Truth is spiritual as much as if not more so than constant positive reinforcement in most cases. There may exist some specific mental cases where what a person needs more than truth is just constant positive reinforcement.

In those cases, here at spiritual forums, the could exist such a catagory or thread for that kind of mental help specifically.

To be clear here in the latter mental stories, are given as a reference for my speaking to truth as spiritual, not that you, or no1wakesup has a mental issue. Hope you dont get confused in those regards and try and convolute the two differrent issues Ive reference in the latter, above.

r6

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by wstein

This makes two shaky assumptions:
1. Oneness can't split into two Onenesses separate from each other
2. Oneness can not change its nature.

The assertions are not facts, but aspects of a story. In that story Oneness appears to be two but is in reality one. Luckily, for the purpose of ending the feeling of disconnection the story is not required to be factual, once the idea that truth can be known is transcended. Not difficult as it is so easily challenged.

Originally Posted by wstein

This makes two shaky assumptions:
1. Oneness can't split into two Onenesses separate from each other
2. Oneness can not change its nature.

Well now that all depends. We have to do the math! If oneness is one then oneness plus oneness equals twoness. But if oneness is infinite, then oneness plus oneness equals infinity.

[wstein]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Well now that all depends. We have to do the math! If oneness is one then oneness plus oneness equals twoness. But if oneness is infinite, then oneness plus oneness equals infinity.

Fortunately Oneness does not hinge its nature on math.