Oneness

[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.

 

[doppelganger]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[doppelganger]

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?

 

[doppelganger]

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]

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*

 

[doppelganger]

Perhaps the experiment would help. Or at the very least thinking about how to pre-emptively explain why the experiment would not help might help.

 

[doppelganger]

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

I liked 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.

I completely agree with all of this Scarlet. My post you are referencing toys with the idea of "oneness" thought of as not being a symbol for a momentary experience but a state to which a living person could rise and remain indefinitely while simultaneously telling us about "his" or "her" experiences in that state.

But I agree with your assessment. Oneness is known only upon reflection and then known incompletely, though the experience itself is complete even if the words and thoughts used to try to capture a sense of it are not. And certainly one comes back to "I"-"other" from Samhadi. That's actually sort of my point, though in this exchange, I see how it could be misconstrued.

 

[YmirGF]

But I agree with your assessment. Oneness is known only upon reflection and then known incompletely, though the experience itself is complete even if the words and thoughts used to try to capture a sense of it are not. And certainly one comes back to "I"-"other" from Samhadi. That's actually sort of my point, though in this exchange, I see how it could be misconstrued.

Ok, if that is what you mean. IE. Complete while within the state; incomplete when not within that state, then I agree. In fact, that is the heart of my objection to most "revealed" thought. It is out of necessity filtered through the prejudice of the individual's perception. For example, I will often preface a statement with, "my distortion of this is... da da da da da". That is where I think a lot of thinkers miss the boat. They often fail to grasp that they are encumbered by the methodology of the language itself. In light of that one should take statements about Oneness within a larger framework of understanding that are outside of our "normal" reference points. Like the "real" Tao, we can only infer the reality and never are able to pidgeon-hole that reality with simple and relatively meaningless labels. Are we closer to understanding each other now Dopp? Or am I still not getting you, lol.

 

[doppelganger]

Are we closer to understanding each other now Dopp? Or am I still not getting you, lol.

I think we were always on the same page, but having trouble finding the words in this forum that we could both "see" it right away.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

I completely agree with all of this Scarlet. My post you are referencing toys with the idea of "oneness" thought of as not being a symbol for a momentary experience but a state to which a living person could rise and remain indefinitely while simultaneously telling us about "his" or "her" experiences in that state.

But I agree with your assessment. Oneness is known only upon reflection and then known incompletely, though the experience itself is complete even if the words and thoughts used to try to capture a sense of it are not. And certainly one comes back to "I"-"other" from Samhadi. That's actually sort of my point, though in this exchange, I see how it could be misconstrued.

Wasn't entirely sure what was being construed, so was testing the water (or attempting to). A friend pointed out that the whole thing I said sounded nitpicky. Reading back it sure does. I was actually annoyed with myself while writing because I was finding it very hard to make anything make sense. That's the 'ugh' for instance.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Greetings. Let me offer a new wrinkle into the discussion. I think we agree that there is a state of being in which one experiences union or identity with the Infinite. (Please don't hang me up on words here, I am using words as pointers for gists of meanings. Substitute your own words for state, being, experiences, union, identity, infinite, etc.) I think we agree also, albeit it with different words, that one has to come out of the state to 'reflect' on 'it,' on what 'it' was or how to explain it in words. Such reflection is based on a memory of conditions as close to the 'state' as we can get.

Now for my wrinkle. (Consider what I write here to be in metaphorical language or whatever; for, as Dopp indicates, and I agree, the language is 'wrong' the minute I write it.) I believe that while in the 'state' one's self-identity is changed; the here-to-fore thought of finite self is really the Self in unity with the Infinite. This 'infinite Self' can be brought back to every day life and exist in direct awareness of who 'we' are. There is the recognition of nonduality of Self and God and this is where we get the words of the mystics and sages throughout the ages.

According to Roger Walsh:
Ramakrishna - "This divinity of all beings, structures and dimensions can be clearly perceived by the organ of supreme vision that develops nauturally as soon as the mind becomes pure enough."

And the Sufi saint Nizami - "You imagine that you see me, But I no longer exist: What remains is the Beloved."

And Chuang Tzu - The ten thousand things and I are one. We are already one-- what else is there to say?

I think that I know the answer each will give from posts; but, a test is to answer for yourself the question 'how do you view your self - as an infinite self or as a finite self confined to the body?'

 

[YmirGF]

Greetings. Let me offer a new wrinkle into the discussion. I think we agree that there is a state of being in which one experiences union or identity with the Infinite. (Please don't hang me up on words here, I am using words as pointers for gists of meanings. Substitute your own words for state, being, experiences, union, identity, infinite, etc.) I think we agree also, albeit it with different words, that one has to come out of the state to 'reflect' on 'it,' on what 'it' was or how to explain it in words. Such reflection is based on a memory of conditions as close to the 'state' as we can get.

Now for my wrinkle. (Consider what I write here to be in metaphorical language or whatever; for, as Dopp indicates, and I agree, the language is 'wrong' the minute I write it.) I believe that while in the 'state' one's self-identity is changed; the here-to-fore thought of finite self is really the Self in unity with the Infinite. This 'infinite Self' can be brought back to every day life and exist in direct awareness of who 'we' are. There is the recognition of nonduality of Self and God and this is where we get the words of the mystics and sages throughout the ages.

According to Roger Walsh:
Ramakrishna - "This divinity of all beings, structures and dimensions can be clearly perceived by the organ of supreme vision that develops nauturally as soon as the mind becomes pure enough."

And the Sufi saint Nizami - "You imagine that you see me, But I no longer exist: What remains is the Beloved."

And Chuang Tzu - The ten thousand things and I are one. We are already one-- what else is there to say?

I think that I know the answer each will give from posts; but, a test is to answer for yourself the question 'how do you view your self - as an infinite self or as a finite self confined to the body?'

Pity, I did not see this before autonomous1one1. Predictably I would say I am an infinite multidimensional entity and my physical being is the current chosen aspect that is exploring three dimensional reality for its own reasons and purposes. To expand on this I have coined the term the "civilization of the psyche" within which there are literally billions of aspect selves that all compliment the whole self or entity. What must be understood is that ANY aspect can "take the helm" so to speak and at any time when they are ready in their now.

Undoubtedly this might be a bit rich for many of you, but as consciousness expands -- like a proverbial bubble -- the edges between self and god begin to blur to the extent that I have commented of late that god has a name and the name of god is "you". Pretty neat actually, as in this way it applies to every living (or dead) person and being. Just remember that "god" is the aggregate totality of all personalities and all realities etc... the whole enchelada, so to speak. But hey... what would I know?

Call me silly and perhaps think I am writing in metaphoric terms but if people began to focus on the brilliant star directly behind their eyes they might just begin to perceive the nature of the entity and their inherent Oneness with all of reality as well as their eternal connection to the illusive "invisible friend" called "god".

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I congratulate everyone for their wonderful posts. I would like to add something of my own, describing my own experience and whatnot, but I can’t. I just sit here looking at my monitor as though it isn’t there, trying to find words to describe the naked love that opens the door to the One and what I find beyond the threshold. I come up blank; words simply are not adequate to the task. All I can say is that there is a slender knowledge of, or a light touching upon, something more real than anything in this world; a vague awareness that I am, am not, and yet am that which is in all things.

I have yet to step over the threshold.

 

[YmirGF]

I congratulate everyone for their wonderful posts. I would like to add something of my own, describing my own experience and whatnot, but I can’t. I just sit here looking at my monitor as though it isn’t there, trying to find words to describe the naked love that opens the door to the One and what I find beyond the threshold. I come up blank; words simply are not adequate to the task. All I can say is that there is a slender knowledge of, or a light touching upon, something more real than anything in this world; a vague awareness that I am, am not, and yet am that which is in all things.

I have yet to step over the threshold.

Now that my friend is a perfectly charming response. I thank you for your input. As the illustrious Lilithu observed when I actually agreed with her, it takes a certain amount of bravery to express these deeper aspects of how we feel. Bravo and wait till you get a load of the rooms just beyond the threshold.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Greetings. Oneness is a growing way of being. Thanks to more and more information becoming available there are many more individuals that are realizing oneness every day. The last 15 years has seen phenomenal increase in interest worldwide and this is only the tip of the iceberg. (speaking in metaphors, of course)

As an example, check out this site titled "Working with Oneness." What else.

Oneness - Working with Oneness
And its Audio & Video Page

Sufi Modern Mystic, Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee:
http://www[URL="http://www.workingwithoneness.org/movies/102206/Clip102206w.html"].workingwithoneness.org/movies/102206/Clip102206w.html[/URL]

Christian, Father Keating: Working With Oneness: Video & Audio

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

What is oneness?

Every moment.

 

[Wolfscout1]

Oneness is an awareness of understanding that all is connected to everything else ... and not.
all things are made up of energy... energy is the basic divine form. * steps back and watches *

 

[iyatiku]

terrific thread...oneness, nonduality, nonbeing...timelessness. is and is not, simultaneously. transitory, fleeting and nebulous, like that thang called "happiness". perhaps it is dependant upon flowing/movement--and analysis must, by necessity, "freeze" a thing to peruse or explain it!