How can we be separate and one at the same time?!

Originally Posted by MikeS80

The fundamental point or lesson of Shankara's rope and snake example is to control one's subjective imagination so one see's how everything really IS without one's subjective imagination, wrong knowledge, wrong understanding, memory and misused right knowledge getting in the way. Shankara's fundamental point/lesson is not to use one's subjective imagination to see both the rope and snake and all forms as not real, an illusion, maya etc etc.

I don't disagree with your bottom-line that everything we perceive is in fact Brahman, however I'm saying it's not in the way we think that is true.

Unless your eyes can see what's beyond fundamental particles all they see are forms and forms are the snake. That's the picture of reality your mind constructs. You see phenomena (as it appears), not the noumenon (as it actually is).

Think of it this way. Can you see air? How about the vacuum of empty space? Does Brahman pervade those spaces too, and if so why can't you see Brahman where nothing appears to be? If the answer is Brahman is omnipresent then there are places you cannot see Brahman with your eyes, hear Him with your ears, smell Him with your nose, taste Him with your tongue nor feel Him with your touch. If you can see Brahman here and not there then it's not really Brahman you are seeing, else your eyes would see Brahman where nothing is. Mind creates a virtual reality that is not even close to a reasonable facsimile of reality as it actually is.

According to Advaita the closest we can get to direct perception is probably deep sleep which is an experience of absence. In other words mind has stopped it's simulation of reality. And that's not It either. It's That which is aware of both experience and absence of experience. It's what we think of as being conscious however since It experiences dreams and deep sleep too It isn't really what we think of as being conscious. I sometimes refer to It as the Extraordinary masquerading as the ordinary. The eye can see but cannot see itself directly and it would be an error for the eye to think its reflection is in fact it. That would be Maya.

EDIT: The mind's simulation is the unreal. The illusion. The dream. The snake. Are we in the simulation or is the simulation in us?

https://vivekavani.com/reality-shado...i-vivekananda/

That which is real in Maya is the Reality in and through Maya. Yet the Reality is never seen; and hence that which is seen is unreal, and it has no real independent existence of itself, but is dependent upon the Real for its existence. ... He who knows the Real sees in Maya not illusion, but reality. He who knows not the Real sees in Maya illusion and thinks it real.

[Miss Hepburn]

What is CA? I looked and can not find it here in the many posts. Thank you.

Btw, the word debating came up...in the Rules here we do not want debating.
...we ''discuss'.

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

What is CA? I looked and can not find it here in the many posts. Thank you.

Chartered Accountancy?

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 343 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I'm an instinct kinda guy so it was easy for me. What also helped was putting my mind, literally in its place.

Just as you are an "instinct kinda guy", I am an intuitive kinda guy. That made it somewhat easier for me ... EXCEPT when the intuition was so apparently absurd that I didn't follow it. I eventually discovered that, if the intuition was PURE regardless of how absurd it initially seemed, I followed it unquestioningly with awesome results. That built up confidence leading to trust leading to total surrender to that intuition (higher power, expanded consciousness, brahman, whatever).

It definitely involves "putting my mind literally in its place" (to use your words).

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by Viswa

....

On internet forums , text is the only medium for meaningful conversation. You have all freedom of expression for choosing your text. But that freedom comes with lot of responsibility. If u misuse/abuse even accidentally/unintentionally that freedom, there can be consequences.

Rest if your writings make great sense to others and they find it very helpful, i m very happy and u can continue to really be of great help to them.

I never saw this interview of Donald Hoffman and he talks about the (un)reality of the world as we perceive it.

https://youtu.be/dd6CQCbk2ro

In this extended interview we dive into the Interface Theory of Perception (how evolution hides the truth about reality in favor of a dumbed down "user interface" that only shows us "fitness payoffs" that help us survive), the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" and how we simply have no idea how consciousness could emerge from physical matter, the non-dual theory of Conscious Realism (how reality is really a social network of "conscious agents" and our perceptions are simply the interface by which we exchange experience with other agents), the math behind conscious agent theory, implications for artificial intelligence (AI), psychedelics, spirituality, and much, much more.

Dang I love run-on sentences.

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

I eventually discovered that, if the intuition was PURE regardless of how absurd it initially seemed, I followed it unquestioningly with awesome results. That built up confidence leading to trust leading to total surrender to that intuition (higher power, expanded consciousness, brahman, whatever).

The question I have is, is it expanded or have we had it all along? I've been psychic for as long as I can remember, until one day I decided to find out about mediumship. It's kinda like the Gnosis in that it 'feels' 'solid' it's always been there. It does help me 'navigate' this reality in many ways and interact with with differently than other people would, I'd guess. It's certainly a richer experience.

As humans, one of the common themes is the need to be a part of something bigger than ourselves, but what if ourselves is bigger than we thought it was?

Originally Posted by Viswa

Even to serious non-dual seekers, I shared everything regarding what "Upanishads or BG or Ashtavakra says", to cut off seeking/attaching/desiring anything,

Which itself puts the focus on the Upanishads or anything else instead of where the so-called non-Duality actually lies.

My question is, has the question in the thread been answered yet?

My direct answer to the question is understanding ourselves will give us the answer, because we already are both separate and one at the same time.

Originally Posted by Viswa

You said "Understanding Ourselves" is the Answer. Right? Then how come you say "We are separate and one at the same time"??. Means, you Understood Already??

It's not rocket science, really, and yes it does mean Atman. You are the answer looking for the question, the seeker is always that which is sought.