Unity but we didnt perceive it

[kavaris]

I should preface that, this question teeters on "the question itself", that is, nearby/towards (1) the distillation of truth, and ((2) the -istemi, though maybe a little less so since istemi points towards an *experience) and which is ultimately to get yas thinkin'...

Granted its a bit of tautological, equivocation of sorts, in order to pull a thread and see what happens; As normally we dont speak as if the Unity~the one is, and continues to be, happening now literally. But supposing we did, and supposing we were to say then that *The unity happened but you just didnt perceive -What are your thoughts on that?

Its not worth arguing over beyond the argomento on the subject from the standpoint of your own opinion, as we just dont speak openly from the perspective that, what we are is the inability itself ~to perceive that which we are. And hopefully yous see that im not asking facetiously, and am genuine, and curious myself; Otherwise i wouldnt ask...

*p.s. if yous want to argue, i wont stop yous, though do realize threads are sometimes stopped if the arg. gets overly aggressive so keep that in mind.

Nevertheless its another way at pointing at the same thing. So i thought i might ask yous what your interpretation of it is~Though i personally dont think this way~myself, in terms that mirror this literal mindset given the limitation of words and thoughts and such.

Instead, i just frame it in my head, much like how everyone else does regularly, that is how we are rather moving towards something, by way of~or by virtue of being independent. From that independent place we move closer to something we dont fully understand, or that we understand but dont embody. or that we intend to embrace, or... Et caetera options? Yousll fill the rest out.

This edges on the side of a philosophical conversation, as i feel its different than what (or what i assume) we are normally thinking of when we think of Unity. Unity as a form of existing now, is the unity that also defies now, because we arent actually "perceiving unity literally", therefore (what would we be talking about?) -is the question.

But to those of us who understand that it airs on the side of, where communication fails to describe, i do still feel, or we may feel or find it interesting, so in as much as it can get us on the same page when it comes to the rare event where we may be tasked to describe "What a unity , or Thee unity is", like in some circumstances that happen here, where we are to engage and answer such a question.

Edited February 23 by kavaris

[kavaris]

Hopefully thats not too confusing, as i realize now, reading over it, theres two different *kinds of unity floating around in there, as theres an *a unity and *the unity.

[Breakingthewall]

Unity is very simple, it's the absence of limits. We perceive relative limits, one form is limited by other form, it's a form because it's defined by opposition to other forms. 

This differentiation is what creates separation, which is the same as closure. You perceive yourself as separate, and therefore you live in a vibration of lack. If you transcend separation, lack disappears, since you perceive yourself as bottomless, without borders. This bottomlessness and absence of limitation is open, and this openness is what you are, appearing as this present possibility in which there are apparent relative boundaries, but they are circumstantial, ultimately what you are is no limits and you perceive it whole time. That's no two, no separation, or if you prefer unity. But as unity has a connotation of closure, seems better no two. 

Edited February 23 by Breakingthewall

[kavaris]

15 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Unity is very simple, it's the absence of limits. We perceive relative limits, one form is limited by other form, it's a form because it's defined by opposition to other forms. 

This differentiation is what creates separation, which is the same as closure.

Oh thats actually a better way to phrase it then. That is, "We are \*occupied by the perception of limitations", ergo on one end, we are taking up the space via \* these other forms ∆ And so therefore... That which exist Now, as well as that which we are Moving / facing~is itself There But in a sense we just dont perceive it.

The reason i was really tryina get back to the title is cause, i really want to encapsulate both ideas, it existing right now, and as something thats not yet evident, And i think somehow wording it in a way like that gets closer to a more perfect way to describe it. Or atleast, its close to the original premise, of which i think most ppl would agree on, who have had the exp., that it is that close to us, just not perceived as such -typeve thing. Thanks!  ha

Edited Tuesday at 03:13 PM by kavaris