"No Separation" Explained.

[Princess Arabia]

This is how I understand the "there is no separation" phrase.

Imagine you're eating a piece of bread. The action of "eating bread" is happening. Without you, there's no eating of bread, just bread. Without the bread there's no eating of bread, just you. Both are needed for there to be eating of bread. How can there be separation there. 

If you are staring at a wall, the action of staring at a wall is happening. You cannot be separate from that wall or else there's no staring happening. There cannot be any separation between you and anything you're aware of. Staring at a wall involves the wall and the one staring at the wall. Eliminate one and the action of staring at a wall disappears. They are like two sides of the same coin.

If you're watching a street fight, you're not separate from that activity because without you being aware of the street fight, there's no street fight and if you take away yourself from the street fight, you cannot be aware of it. Both coexists together. One cannot exists without the other. You might say, there are plenty of street fights that I'm not aware of across the globe; yes, but I'm not aware of them so they don't exist for me. What about reading about a street fight. I'm not separate from that article then, not the street fight because I'm aware of reading about a street fight. In that moment, that article and I are one because without both objects there is no action.

You are never separate from the objects of your awareness because both need to coexist for awareness to take place and if one is missing, there is no awareness of it.

So, separation is impossible, as Awareness is all there is and there's nothing outside of it.

 

 

Edited October 5 by Princess Arabia

[Yimpa]

1 minute ago, Princess Arabia said:

If you are staring at a wall, the action of staring at a wall is happening. You cannot be separate from that wall or else there's no staring happening. There cannot be any separation between you and anything you're aware of. Staring at a wall involves the wall and the one staring at the wall. Eliminate one and the action of staring at a wall disappears. They are like two sides of the same coin.

@Breakingthewall - thoughts?

[Princess Arabia]

4 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

@Breakingthewall - thoughts?

Oh God! Here comes, "you have to be open to the cosmos in order to be one with it.....". Lol

[Hojo]

I'd say yes but your body is part of the environment saying the body is not part of the environment and is something else is ego .

There is no thing in the environment that isn't the environment. 

Edited October 5 by Hojo

[Princess Arabia]

8 minutes ago, Hojo said:

I'd say yes but your body is part of the environment saying the body is not part of the environment and is something else is ego .

There is no thing in the environment that isn't the environment. 

I'm not sure where I said this. Where did I say the body is not a part of the environment. You're aware of the body so it's still an object in your awareness. The environment consists of objects within your awareness. It is not a separate entity.

Edited October 5 by Princess Arabia

[Hojo]

@Princess Arabia there's no such thing as bread or a human eating bread. Its just the environment. A person and  bread is the environment pretending to be a human eating bread. 

Edited October 5 by Hojo

[Keryo Koffa]

 

Edited October 5 by Keryo Koffa

[Princess Arabia]

10 minutes ago, Keryo Koffa said:

 

Hahaha hahaha. You're a mess!!

[Princess Arabia]

19 minutes ago, Hojo said:

@Princess Arabia there's no such thing as bread or a human eating bread. Its just the environment. A person and  bread is the environment pretending to be a human eating bread. 

You have missed the point of the analogies.

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Princess Arabia said:

Oh God! Here comes, "you have to be open to the cosmos in order to be one with it.....". Lol

No, what I think that it's a mistake, Metaphysically speaking, it is that you are looking at the wall, then you are one. There is really no you looking at the wall, there is a reality that is the complete set. "looking at the wall" is meaning, you on the one hand, the act of looking and the wall on the other.

All of this from the perspective of the ego that knows things is obvious, but really, if you erase all the meaning and you don't know what "you" is, or "looking" or "wall", there is only one thing: reality.

This is Step one to, as you have said correctly (without any irony), open yourself to the cosmos and be one with it, you do not open yourself to the cosmos, you erase yourself and the cosmos remains, and then it is obvious that the cosmos is you. remove mental meaning from the equation, then you can perceive yourself, and deepen your perception of yourself

 

 

[Princess Arabia]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

No, what I think that it's a mistake, Metaphysically speaking, it is that you are looking at the wall, then you are one. There is really no you looking at the wall, there is a reality that is the complete set. "looking at the wall" is meaning, you on the one hand, the act of looking and the wall on the other.

All of this from the perspective of the ego that knows things is obvious, but really, if you erase all the meaning and you don't know what "you" is, or "looking" or "wall", there is only one thing: reality.

This is Step one to, as you have said correctly (without any irony), open yourself to the cosmos and be one with it, you do not open yourself to the cosmos, you erase yourself and the cosmos remains, and then it is obvious that the cosmos is you. remove mental meaning from the equation, then you can perceive yourself, and deepen your perception of yourself

 

 

Yes, I think it gets complicated when we say "you". And then we have different names for these things. I see what you're saying here. I Princess, isn't looking at a wall, looking at a wall is happening but not by me. Correct?

 

[Keryo Koffa]

@Breakingthewall You are always the cosmos and dissolve yourself in various layers. Once you dissolve the outer layer of your human ego experience, the ego of the cells within your body is next, and once their desire to exist and perpetuate the experience dissolves, it's the universe's turn, once the ego of the "physical" universe dissolves, there is no universe. All creation, material or immaterial is of the same universal drive for existence, experience, and evolution, innate to it, but not always aware of. All of it is desire, but not all of it suffers.

[Breakingthewall]

Just now, Princess Arabia said:

Yes, I think it gets complicated when we say "you". And then we have different names for these things. I see what you're saying here. I Princess, isn't looking at a wall, looking at a wall is happening but not by me. Correct?

 

Let's say that you, or me, are the reality, and in the reality many things appears, in fact infinite things, and one of them is the appearance of you looking the wall, then you, the reality, get lost in the appearance of a you inside the set who seems to be the perceiver of a perception, when really there is not perception, there is just the reality, the whole thing that is. Forget that could be others or anything else, any meaning, god, creation, anything, just the reality. At first seems a jail. You realize that you, as the reality, independent of the content, are always here, and nothing is really happening, you are trapped for ever in the now. But then you can realize that the now, that is, you, is unlimited. Beyond the apparent content, the wall, the your, etc, this now is an abyss, and all that abyss is you, and you are alive, you are the totality of the existence, and you have no limits. You are an abyss, all of you are the same, we are the abyss, and you can perceive yourself, your quality, your absolute freedom. Then, happiness, freedom, beauty. But who else in the world is going to understand you? Nobody! Nobody has open himself to the abyss, it's so so rare. 

[Princess Arabia]

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Let's say that you, or me, are the reality, and in the reality many things appears, in fact infinite things, and one of them is the appearance of you looking the wall, then you, the reality, get lost in the appearance of a you inside the set who seems to be the perceiver of a perception, when really there is not perception, there is just the reality, the whole thing that is. Forget that could be others or anything else, any meaning, god, creation, anything, just the reality. At first seems a jail. You realize that you, as the reality, independent of the content, are always here, and nothing is really happening, you are trapped for ever in the now. But then you can realize that the now, that is, you, is unlimited. Beyond the apparent content, the wall, the your, etc, this now is an abyss, and all that abyss is you, and you are alive, you are the totality of the existence, and you have no limits. You are an abyss, all of you are the same, we are the abyss, and you can perceive yourself, your quality, your absolute freedom. Then, happiness, freedom, beauty. But who else in the world is going to understand you? Nobody! Nobody has open himself to the abyss, it's so so rare. 

Ok, thanks.

[Hojo]

2 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

You have missed the point of the analogies.

This is how I understand the "there is no separation" phrase.

Imagine you're eating a piece of bread. - The environment cant have a you eating a piece of bread or a piece of bread or a you, the environment is all their is it cant have something in it eating a piece of bread that would be separating the environment into something its not.

The action of "eating bread" is happening. Without you, there's no eating of bread, just bread. Without the bread there's no eating of bread, just you. Both are needed for there to be eating of bread. How can there be separation there. - You are separating things in the environment from the environment. The environment cannot eat and it cant be bread you are looking smaller when to find no separation you have to look bigger. Pick the biggest thing you can be, the environment and then stop there. That's whats happening all the time, whatever that is its not eating and its not bread and it cant eat bread. Saying the environment is eating bread is a separation in the environment. God is where your environment begins and ends, and then behind you too. Nothing is happening inside of it.

Edited October 6 by Hojo

[Princess Arabia]

11 hours ago, Hojo said:

This is how I understand the "there is no separation" phrase.

Imagine you're eating a piece of bread. - The environment cant have a you eating a piece of bread or a piece of bread or a you, the environment is all their is it cant have something in it eating a piece of bread that would be separating the environment into something its not.

The action of "eating bread" is happening. Without you, there's no eating of bread, just bread. Without the bread there's no eating of bread, just you. Both are needed for there to be eating of bread. How can there be separation there. - You are separating things in the environment from the environment. The environment cannot eat and it cant be bread you are looking smaller when to find no separation you have to look bigger. Pick the biggest thing you can be, the environment and then stop there. That's whats happening all the time, whatever that is its not eating and its not bread and it cant eat bread. Saying the environment is eating bread is a separation in the environment. God is where your environment begins and ends, and then behind you too. Nothing is happening inside of it.

ok