Oneness

[Random]

I had hoped that Robert/autonomous1one1 would have offered his thoughts.

As did I.

Well, of course Oneness involes others, hehe. Here I think Godlike/Conor and Robert/autonomous1one1 might understand what I am getting at, as might Cynic and perhaps a few others... Seynori etc...) What I am getting at is that for some of us the experience never really went away. For most it would seem to be a "passing" thing, a cherished memory and in no way in fact "lesser", but simply not a permanent alteration of viewpoint. To this day, when I close my eyes, I see a Light and that Light is the radiance of Oneness. It has never left me in over three decades. I am sorry if my words imply my experience is somehow "greater" than that of others. Clearly it is not, although it is perhaps different. Otoh, it could simply be that my brain was overexposed during illumination and that the image is simply "burned in".

So please... accept that "lesser" and "greater" do not really exist and it is a bit of my own fault in not explaining myself clearly. For example, the barest instant of sensing Oneness may result in profound outward changes in the individual. For those of us who enjoy a somewhat permanent experience of this phenomena there is the possibility of becoming complacent... and taking things for granted.

Agreed, another way of saying this is that having experienced the most profound sense of all-pervasive unity, Oneness or lack of distinction, we realize that we all exist in a limitless Chain of Being which transcends time wherein the "I" is the "You" is the "We" is the "Us". Inasmuch as this is subjectively true, Oneness invloves others: everyone living!

 

[autonomous1one1]

I had hoped that Robert/autonomous1one1 would have offered his thoughts.

And so I will, although with so many wondrous responses this thread is already a gem.

My apologies for the late response. I seldom have watched the 'discussions' forums (always at the 'debates' forums) and at the time that I discovered this thread I had a prior commitment that interfered with my immediate response. At least this will bounce this thread back to the front.

From my viewpoint, oneness is a very key word, YmirGF, for imo, every religion has a central aim or goal towards oneness with some infinite 'source.' This goal is called by different terms such as illumination, enlightenment, awakening, theosis, and others. So is the 'source' termed many different ways such as God, source, the Infinite, the Ultimate, the Absolute, the Ground of Being, and so on. Realizing 'oneness' is expressed with different words, too; often used are union, identity, harmony with, united or unity, mergence, dissolution into, and others. I like the words of the Pope in his first Encyclical Letter about The Unity of Love where he wrote about 'union with God:' "But this union is no mere fusion, a sinking in the nameless ocean of the Divine; it is a unity which creates love, a unity in which both God and man remain themselves and yet become fully one." But 'unity' and oneness can mean different things from harmony of will, to united in purpose, to 'one' in the union of love, to identity. Many of these meanings when applied to humankind and God in the last analysis leave 'separation' and dualism, although any of them will still relate to tremendous experiences. My experience moves into a realm of non-dual realism and description in words is difficult because as dopp has indicated in other threads, language is limited to the dualistic subject-object structure. With this in mind, I think the best understanding of 'oneness' from my perspective is 'identity.'

Have you personally felt a state of being that can only be described as a state of Oneness?

Yes. After a few years on what I would call the path of knowledge, I had an experience into what I would call an intuitive direct awareness, for lack of better words.

How did that experience change your perspective of yourself, God and Reality?

Totally, from a perspective of separate entities (oneself, God, and other things) to one.

Did you emerge from the experience unchanged or unaffected by it?

No. There was a significant transformation of the self. It immediately involved many of the feelings of joy, awe, freedom, security, knowledge of eternal life, love of all, etc. that we have posted in other threads. The 'self' became redefined.

Have you managed to duplicate the experience?

Yes, with ever increasing frequency. It is interesting that, as Michel wrote, when one tries to reflect on what the 'experience' is, one loses it because the experience might be described as involving the total awareness. After many occurences and immediate examinations afterwards, I concluded that a shift in self-identity to Self-identity was a very key aspect; a shift to realization of one's infinite Self as the true one that has been hidden.

Have you managed to "hold" the experience?

The memory with all the results, the new being, is continuous and permanent but the experience itself, the awareness, is somewhat intermittent. I have read that it is possible to hold it 24-7, even at night, and I am getting better at it.

How long did it/they last?

I would say several days with quick returns but never totally through the night; although I have awakened in dreams with the correct Self.

 

[Valjean]

I'm confused. How can oneness involve others if oneness, by definition. excludes all otherness?

If Reality/the Universe consists entirely of a single Conscious Entity dreaming of diversity, where does this "otherness" come in?

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

I'm confused. How can oneness involve others if oneness, by definition. excludes all otherness?

If Reality/the Universe consists entirely of a single Conscious Entity dreaming of diversity, where does this "otherness" come in?

The human mind first develops an egocentric perspective. From that it can go on to ethnocentric perspective. From ethnocentric into worldcentric, and further. When these shifts happen it can seem as though others, previously rendered alien and separate, are absorbed into a more expansive perspective and sense of self changes dramatically as result. Even if there are experiences of oneness it takes considerable time for such experiences to encourage a more substantial and permanent shift in perception. Also there is always the possibility that what feels like oneness is actually solipsism, e.g. egocentricism doesn't necessarily develop into ethnocentricism such that an individual comes to see themselves as part of a greater whole. It can happen that egocentricism doesn't expand into more complex relations but collapses in on itself, resulting in a perspective where the 'other' is merely an extension of a limited self. Its often quite hard to distinguish between authentic expansion and solipsism.

 

[autonomous1one1]

I'm confused. How can oneness involve others if oneness, by definition. excludes all otherness?

If Reality/the Universe consists entirely of a single Conscious Entity dreaming of diversity, where does this "otherness" come in?

A valid question, Seyorni, from one with the perspective of Samadhi especially, but the answer is simple and I suspect that there is not as much confusion compared to making a good point. Some of us communicate in two languages - one from the perspective of oneness and the other within the subject-object structure that most people know only. Some describe this as writing from 'above' or writing from 'below.' It is the latter in which the word 'other' is used. I find that even when Enlightenment or Samadhi are being described the language most often is within the subject-object structure about an 'individual' that 'overcomes dualistic subject-object awareness through unity with the object of meditation.' (Britannica online). I suspect that you have much better words than I to write always from 'above,' from the perspective of what I have called the New Being after others that have used that term. So, when I and 'others' write using the word 'others' please understand it correctly (lol) from your advanced position.

Does this help or add to confusion?

 

[michel]

I'm confused. How can oneness involve others if oneness, by definition. excludes all otherness?

If Reality/the Universe consists entirely of a single Conscious Entity dreaming of diversity, where does this "otherness" come in?

I think I can understand what you are asking; I believe that we are all "of one".
The separation is only one when we are incarnate into a physical body....and perhaps (in some different way), in between incarnations.
</IMG>

 

[autonomous1one1]

....The separation is only one when we are incarnate into a physical body....and perhaps (in some different way), in between incarnations.
</IMG>

Greetings, Michel. Not sure that I understand this comment and maybe others will not either. Would you care to explain further?

 

[michel]

Greetings, Michel. Not sure that I understand this comment and maybe others will not either. Would you care to explain further?

I would have thought folk would be fed up with hearing my beliefs......

I believe that God is "The sum total of everything that there is".

In the way that I believe in the Trinity (where there is God the Father, the son, and the holy Ghost), I believe that all that we know is a part of God; we humans have souls that originally were part of God, and that will return to oneness with God at the end of time. I believe in reincarnation; - the method by which we are to progress to get to the stage when we may rejoin God.

 

[doppelganger]

"Oneness" is a trick of words. Words take an inter-related universe and break it up into manageable and usable parts. Oneness is the vague, inexpressible nothing of stepping outside of words and imagining an experience of the universe not dictated by the social reality of language. "Oneness" too, is a construct of language though. It is part and parcel of actually viewing the universe of my experience in a chopped-up, organized and useful manner.

If one actually entered in a state of Oneness permanently, they wouldn't be using language to tell us about it. They'd cease to be conscious of self and could no longer use language and couldn't function or fend for themselves in a social reality.

 

[Halcyon]

If one actually entered in a state of Oneness permanently, they wouldn't be using language to tell us about it. They'd cease to be conscious of self and could no longer use language and couldn't function or fend for themselves in a social reality.

How do you know that?

 

[autonomous1one1]

I would have thought folk would be fed up with hearing my beliefs...... I believe that God is "The sum total of everything that there is".

In the way that I believe in the Trinity (where there is God the Father, the son, and the holy Ghost), I believe that all that we know is a part of God; we humans have souls that originally were part of God, and that will return to oneness with God at the end of time. I believe in reincarnation; - the method by which we are to progress to get to the stage when we may rejoin God.

LOL, we couldn't get fed up with your statements, Michel, we love you too much. Just for my understanding then, I would conclude that although a 'consciousness of God' (from another thread) you view us as finite beings separate and distinct from others within a subject-object structure.

 

[autonomous1one1]

How do you know that?

Good thought, Halcyon, and I will look forward to doppelgänger's response. I always find his thinking challenging. In my own case, I am sure of everything except the ability to function or fend for myself in a social reality.

 

[Random]

If one actually entered in a state of Oneness permanently, they wouldn't be using language to tell us about it. They'd cease to be conscious of self and could no longer use language and couldn't function or fend for themselves in a social reality.

I picture a yogi in the grip of unending bliss, frozen in time with an ecstatic smile on his face, staring @ the heavens with his arms spread wide and never coming out of it until he wastes away and dies of starvation. But I digress...

For you, Dopp, "Oneness" might be a linguistic trick of words but kindly remember for those of us starved of terms to describe our esoteric experiences, it is a blessing to have even ONE simple word to define something we have in common. For me, Oneness will do to describe the blissful, indivisible Unity of Belonging, which is what its really all about (IMO).

 

[doppelganger]

How do you know that?

By logical deduction.

Oneness as an experience requires a subject/self fixed in language. So an actual "experience" of loss of self would have nobody to experience it and hence no language to express it with, or a self to desire to express it, nor an "other" for that non-self to express it to.

In mythological form, Jung hits the point quite well in his essay "A Psychological Approach To The Trinity."

"The world of the Father typifies an age which is characterized by a pristine oneness with the whole of Nature, no matter whether this oneness be beautiful or ugly or awe-inspiring. But once the question is asked: 'Whence comes the evil, why is the world so bad and imperfect, why are there diseases and other horrors, why must man suffer?' - then reflection has already begun to judge the Father by his manifest works, and straighway one is conscious of a doubt, this is itself the symtpom of a split in the original unity. One comes to the conclusion that creation is imperfect - nay more, that the Creator has not done his job properly, that the goodness and almightiness of the Father cannot be the sole principle of the cosmos. Hence the One has to be supplemented by the Other, with the result that the world of the Father is fundamentally altered and is superseded by the world of the Son."

 

[doppelganger]

For you, Dopp, "Oneness" might be a linguistic trick of words but kindly remember for those of us starved of terms to describe our esoteric experiences, it is a blessing to have even ONE simple word to define something we have in common. For me, Oneness will do to describe the blissful, indivisible Unity of Belonging, which is what its really all about (IMO).

Don't get me wrong - the experience is all too real and in the present. It's just than no word adequately marks it - including Oneness. "The Tao that can be spoken is not the Eternal Tao."

The experience is sort of being and non-being at the same time. It's a paradox created when social reality is momentarily shattered.

 

[Random]

Don't get me wrong - the experience is all too real and in the present. It's just than no word adequately marks it - including Oneness. "The Tao that can be spoken is not the Eternal Tao."

Would you consider the Tao (the Way) and the Word (of God) co-equal and Eternal, Dopp, or dissimilar in some way..? Is the Tao the Word? Are they ONE?

The experience is sort of being and non-being at the same time. It's a paradox created when social reality is momentarily shattered

Quite yes, there is no-significant-Other in the experience, to put it in marital terms.

 

[doppelganger]

Would you consider the Tao (the Way) and the Word (of God) co-equal and Eternal, Dopp, or dissimilar in some way..? Is the Tao the Word? Are they ONE?

I don't think so. Tao is closer to "the Father," while "the Word" (logos) is more like te, which means something akin to "power," but also "virtue."

Tao Te Ching, verse 38 (Mitchell trans.)

The Master doesn't try to be powerful;
thus he is truly powerful.
The ordinary man keeps reaching for power;
thus he never has enough.

The Master does nothing,
yet he leaves nothing undone.
The ordinary man is always doing things,
yet many more are left to be done.

The kind man does something,
yet something remains undone.
The just man does something,
and leaves many things to be done.
The moral man does something,
and when no one responds
he rolls up his sleeves and uses force.

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.

Therefore the Master concerns himself
with the depths and not the surface,
with the fruit and not the flower.
He has no will of his own.
He dwells in reality,
and lets all illusions go.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

I think doppelgänger has it right. The word Tao is not Tao, and this is the very first thing one reads when picking up the Tao Te Ching. Whatever the Tao is understood to be, it is not, and that negative definition is presented for a reason.

When reading the Tao Te Ching descriptions of the Way of the Tao are like an observation from the outside of the influence of the experience of oneness as a state of mind or stage of development. That has its interrelated subjective value but it cannot transmit the experience itself. When it isn't positively described in the Tao Te Ching it is being negatively defined in relation to what we normally find in the contents of our thought. To strip away ideas for the experience of Tao-that-is-not-Tao to re-emerge is also seen in particular effect in the practices of Zen Buddhism a great deal.

Rinzai said, "If I were to demonstrate the Great Matter in strict keeping with the teaching of the Patriarchal School, I simply couldn't open my mouth."

No where in the above quote can the Tao to be found in exclusion of where it is not. How could Rinzai demonstrate that through words rather than use words to appeal to silence? The influence of oneness as an experience can be described but always such descriptions cannot directly communicate the experience. The best they can do is transmit some kind of mood.

"Calm and serene in the moonlight,
Lo! A deserted boat on the water,
not tossed by the waves or drawn by the breeze,
bathed in the pale light
of the moon!"
- Dogen

I find the above beautiful. As a description of what Dogen is feeling it has impact. I also get a similar mood from listening to certain techno songs but I couldn't expect anyone to associate those with the post-meditative state of mind unless they were already familiar with it and had a liking for techno. They might have a liking for techno with little experience of meditation and come to associate the feeling from the song with what they think they are after, but that can become problematic in that its possible to positively define oneness while missing the very fire at the heart of the surrounding smoke (and mirrors). It can be frustrating, especially when first discovering a great new/old thing like 'oneness' and wanting others to have it too, but the interior of experience cannot be understood from the exterior.

 

[YmirGF]

There are certainly some fascinating viewpoints here. I'm going let this run for a bit longer before adding my 2 cents. I will say this, Dopp is onto something. Language itself creates misunderstandings especially when attempting to describe what may well be the greatest paradox of all. The simple fact Dopp is that the vantage point of "self" is never dissolved. The vantage point of Oneness is in seeing all within a single unit and the front row seat is taken by the self that views it. There is only one self and its name is “you”.

Aside from that Dopp, if indeed your premise is correct, we would never have heard about this legendary state of being as no self would have ever experienced it and been able to "return" to tell about it. With no origin point, or reference point but homogenous oneness, there would indeed be nothing or no one to report the experience. However, the individual DOES perceive this phenomenon and so they see that they themselves are one and all is a part of them. This is about as subjective as things can possibly get -- lol.

Oh, you ask how it would communicate. That is simple. One would simply project the contents of their mind directly into the mind of another. Simple thought transference. It is a piece o' cake, really. Think in pictures, not linear thought and the image resolves itself. This is the other side of thought, or the well that thought springs from. Describing it in linear terms is not for the faint of heart although many have given it their best efforts.

But I will agree, language presents its own set of problems when describing non-physical aspects of reality. Fortunately, the self is not hampered by such limited methods of communication when exposed to the reality of its larger identity.

Oh well, I hope that makes some sense. It does to me, lol. :areyoucra

 

[doppelganger]

Very interesting insights, Paul.

Language itself creates misunderstandings especially when attempting to describe what may well be the greatest paradox of all.

Language itself is the fabric of reality. Which is why reality is malleable. The highest achievement of human wisdom is to not confuse the signs with the things signified. If you've seen "The Matrix," think of the end where Neo finally sees the bits of data that form the images of the Matrix and gains complete mastery over reality by mastering its symbols. Now imagine seeing that you are also constructed from that data.

The simple fact Dopp is that the vantage point of "self" is never dissolved. The vantage point of Oneness is in seeing all within a single unit and the front row seat is taken by the self that views it. There is only one self and its name is &#8220;you&#8221;.

I don't disagree. The two experiences create one another. Oneness is only understood in contrast to non-Oneness. So the experience is never complete if someone lives to tell about it.

With no origin point, or reference point but homogenous oneness, there would indeed be nothing or no one to report the experience. However, the individual DOES perceive this phenomenon and so they see that they themselves are one and all is a part of them. This is about as subjective as things can possibly get -- lol.

We perceive the paradox of Oneness/self in moments of epiphany where we are outside of language - moments of wonder at nature, moments of pure compassion, moments of transcedence, moments of alteration of brain chemistry (drugs, sleep, brain damage), etc. - and try to report about it. I know you know Paul the difficulty of describing such experiences in way that conveys anything meaningful in the words themselves. It's not possible. Indeed, a sort of epiphany transferrence (or mood transference as Scarlet suggests) through myth and metaphor is the closest approximation, and even then the communication is likely incomplete. The recipient of such a transfer must be willing to open those sorts of lines of communication. The communication will occur when the mood of the myth can be associated with a similar mood by the recipient.

Think in pictures, not linear thought and the image resolves itself.

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).

But I will agree, language presents its own set of problems when describing non-physical aspects of reality.

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.

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.