Oneness (ritual, mysticism, experience, atheist, spiritual)

[autonomous1one1]

Great thoughts. Glad to see you all come around to my way of thinking on oneness -LOL. But seriously, I believe we all have concluded similarly when it comes to language and words being within the finite, subject-object structure of existence. Words are pointers, and we are using 'oneness' as a pointer towards outside the normal structure in order to explain our experience to 'others' if they are interested. We have concepts, symbols, signs, (poetry, myths, stories, parables, similes, metaphors, analogies, using those) and art and images, etc to work with. After all, isn't that what others use (language within the 'structure' as pointers) to convey to us Samadhi, Satori, Bodhi, Nirvana or Nibbana, Enlightenment, Awakening, Illumination, and Theosis? - and we get the idea, although we really have to experience 'it' to know.

As I understand what each of you, YmirGF, Dopp, Scarlet and Godlike have said I agree. Dopp, one exception, I personally would not say '...stepping beyond its constructs into non-reality and coming back to try to describe it using the very fabric of reality.' I would substitute the words 'ultimate reality' for 'non-reality' and 'existence' for 'reality.' That is only my opinion of course.

Anyway, hope you agree that I am making progress in this area of words. I used to think 'that 'oneness' was the best way to describe our relation to God' until upon reflection, I realized that thought would probably be classified as an oxymoron by you guys. Oneness is one while relation implies two.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by autonomous1one1

Dopp, one exception, I personally would not say '...stepping beyond its constructs into non-reality and coming back to try to describe it using the very fabric of reality.' I would substitute the words 'ultimate reality' for 'non-reality' and 'existence' for 'reality.' That is only my opinion of course.

I'm okay with that substitution.

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Language itself is the fabric of reality. Which is why reality is malleable.

I diagree. What we call language is only the outermost layer of interpersonal communication. Non-verbal communication is far more flexible that verbal communication and should not be underestimated.

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Pictures and linear thought are not two different things. Linear thoughts can be expressed in pictures as well. Myth, on the other hand, is outside of linear thought. The things of myth occur in the eternal present, a category of being for which language is ill-suited. And myth can be conveyed in words or pictures. They can also be misconstrued as being linear (and usually are).

Perhaps the myth of your logic is missing me here. To my thinking, the myths reside within the minds of the person who has not experienced Oneness in that they still believe in the myth of separation.

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

The relationships in language are reality. Oneness is those brief moments of stepping beyond its constructs into non-reality and coming back to try to describe it using the very fabric of reality. A paradox.

I disagree. Language is the physical end result of internal, non-verbal communication. To define language as reality itself is stretching things just a tad, but that could just be my illusory worldview talking though. I will be willing to agree that from a solely physical perspective that might indeed seem to be the case however.

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

One can be constantly in a state of generally receiving epiphanies that the world is composed of symbols. But that's different from ceasing to experience the world through those symbols. Somebody still has to balance the checkbook, get the mail and make dinner.

I sense you are talking about the most superficial layers of reality, as if physical reality is the sole reality and all else is non-reality -- a uniquely physical and quite understandable perspective though it may be.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by YmirGF

I sense you are talking about the most superficial layers of reality, as if physical reality is the sole reality and all else is non-reality -- a uniquely physical and quite understandable perspective though it may be.

You might want to double-check. I'm not talking about "physical reality" at all. Perhaps this is where the communication is breaking down, no?

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by YmirGF

Perhaps the myth of your logic is missing me here. To my thinking, the myths reside within the minds of the person who has not experienced Oneness in that they still believe in the myth of separation.

Well, if true, this is easy enough to test with a simple experiment, if you're game.

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

You might want to double-check. I'm not talking about "physical reality" at all. Perhaps this is where the communication is breaking down, no?

Then I'm just not "getting it" Dopp. I use language to describe personal reality as seen through my direct experience. Language and the relationships within language are NOT the reality I am describing. It is sort of like getting an idea and then rendering the idea using interchangeable blocks of Lego. The final product, in theory, will give you my idea... if I have constructed it well enough. If I am still not reading correct (after 4 times) then please clarify, as to this knave your "Lego representation of a boat" looks more like a car. So, what are you saying then, "dumb it down" a bit perhaps.

[Scarlett Wampus]

*sigh* First of all apologies for the practically incomprehensible post this morning.

Oneness is only understood in contrast to non-Oneness. So the experience is never complete if someone lives to tell about it.

This is interesting to me. I'm likely to be misunderstanding what you mean but nevertheless I had these thoughts in response: This apparent opposition of oneness to non-oneness, as well as never being complete some might say that oneness is never incomplete. Samadhi or other deep meditative states seemingly have no opposites. What gets talked about is the after-effects of oneness, something that has contrast to what we were familiar with prior to these states. Not only can we not describe those experiences in some way that can be understood but we can't even describe it to ourselves except in terms of its after-effects, its memory and/or its translation which is an impression left over rather than it-itself. For instance in stillness my awareness is not drawing attention to stillness. It is affectively absent. It is only after awareness starts to come back that I notice the absence (or presence) of things I am familiar with.

Doppelganger people do come back from Samadhi, if that is anywhere near the same ballpark. Only, what comes back to say, 'Gee, I'm feeling kinda groovy, and I'm seeing more clearly' is absent from Samadhi itself. Its a construction. Its always a construction. To miss, to not presume to know what is doing the constructing, is somehow very important to how what comes back stays healthy. Regardless of how amazing Neo's powers are if he sees himself as having reached the true end of the rabbit hole he is more lost than he was when he was when the Matrix was a mysterious dream he yearned to wake from.

Anyway, ugh, about this Samadhi thing. When I first encountered the to-and-fro from stillness to awareness in meditation I had this image of a black-hole in reverse. I really wanted to get at it yet at its event horizon every attempt to penetrate was deflected away irresistibly. The mind could not look into it. I was only aware of it as an absence of something I could be aware of, a hole in my head. Even if I made the guess that in Samadhi I was within this very absence I couldn't recall any details for the life of me. It lacked all detail. Brainwaves are flat-lined or whatever. The sense of boundlessness, power, love, etc. that flood the mind are after-effects. All that is the shell and the life inside remains always mysterious.

I know it is going quite far to say that we can't even describe 'oneness' experiences to ourselves, but *shrugs*