The plain issues with Oneness.

[GabeDupuis]

I would like to clearly outline some of the issues Oneness encounters, however, I will be unavailable for any responses until next weekend.

1. "The One" Dividing itself to experience multiple view-points

The problem here is that we have no explanation as to how this may work. I have yet to see anyone describe how it might.

2. Needing to deeply analyze our experience

Many people will fall back on the commonly reported feeling of oneness experienced during mystical states, NDE's, meditative states, and OBE's to back up the concept of oneness. The main issue is this: They simply feel at one with what they are perceiving at that moment. We have no other indicators that they were actually merging with the universe, and not some part of themselves or something else. Again, just because it is common does not mean they are connecting to the same thing.

(On a side note, I have had a transcendental experience, and I felt no sense of oneness with the universe. It was only a lonely teaching from one other figure)

3. Reincarnation and Mediumship

In reincarnation studies, we can see persistent parts of the personality/self, and with Mediumship we have (supposedly) actual entities communicating as a ego-self being from beyond. (I've heard some interesting cop-outs saying these are "lingering shadows" of the previous personality. I never knew so many parts of a person could be consciously active in the absence of them... Even though there is only "One"...)

4. Using Brains as the main localizers of Consciousness, even in the face of Idealism

I've noticed many use brains as the main thing that forms the illusion of separateness, in that they localize a bit of consciousness. Yet, many who subcribe to that will also believe in Idealism, where everything is mindstuff, including brains. They will quite often put forward that the death of it will result in the ego/self dissolving, yet the brain was only a figure within the mind (according to Idealism, to which I subscribe), so we have a concept forming a concept... The loss of self could just as likely be an illusion from expectation, just as much as having self could be an illusion caused by the brain.

I must ask that people carefully read and consider these points. I am not trying to troll anyone, and these points are quite valid (though I'm going to be told they aren't about one hundred times). This isn't an attack, either. I'm just trying to get this out there. I must add also that I am a proponent of psi and survival of consciousness, and that I am not a sock account.

Josh

[JohnMurdoch]

Well there goes my long and thoughtful response. Apparently I was not logged in, yet I had to log in order to hit reply. Anyway good questions, I'll retype in the morning... anyway my post could be summed as followed.

Reality is not to be understood, theorized, intellectualized or pondered about, it can only be experienced for oneself.

[Lizzie S]

Originally Posted by GabeDupuis

I would like to clearly outline some of the issues Oneness encounters, however, I will be unavailable for any responses until next weekend.

1. "The One" Dividing itself to experience multiple view-points

The problem here is that we have no explanation as to how this may work. I have yet to see anyone describe how it might.

2. Needing to deeply analyze our experience

Many people will fall back on the commonly reported feeling of oneness experienced during mystical states, NDE's, meditative states, and OBE's to back up the concept of oneness. The main issue is this: They simply feel at one with what they are perceiving at that moment. We have no other indicators that they were actually merging with the universe, and not some part of themselves or something else. Again, just because it is common does not mean they are connecting to the same thing.

(On a side note, I have had a transcendental experience, and I felt no sense of oneness with the universe. It was only a lonely teaching from one other figure)

3. Reincarnation and Mediumship

In reincarnation studies, we can see persistent parts of the personality/self, and with Mediumship we have (supposedly) actual entities communicating as a ego-self being from beyond. (I've heard some interesting cop-outs saying these are "lingering shadows" of the previous personality. I never knew so many parts of a person could be consciously active in the absence of them... Even though there is only "One"...)

4. Using Brains as the main localizers of Consciousness, even in the face of Idealism

I've noticed many use brains as the main thing that forms the illusion of separateness, in that they localize a bit of consciousness. Yet, many who subcribe to that will also believe in Idealism, where everything is mindstuff, including brains. They will quite often put forward that the death of it will result in the ego/self dissolving, yet the brain was only a figure within the mind (according to Idealism, to which I subscribe), so we have a concept forming a concept... The loss of self could just as likely be an illusion from expectation, just as much as having self could be an illusion caused by the brain.

I must ask that people carefully read and consider these points. I am not trying to troll anyone, and these points are quite valid (though I'm going to be told they aren't about one hundred times). This isn't an attack, either. I'm just trying to get this out there. I must add also that I am a proponent of psi and survival of consciousness, and that I am not a sock account.

Josh

Not sure why you created a new thread really? Otherwise everytime someone wants to reassert their position or understanding on a subject they've recently raised, a new thread emerges. You cannot intellectualise and analyse "oneness" or enlightenment or nirvana for that matter as duality is the domain of intellectual rationalising.

[GabeDupuis]

Originally Posted by Lizzie S

Not sure why you created a new thread really? Otherwise everytime someone wants to reassert their position or understanding on a subject they've recently raised, a new thread emerges.

You just showed why. People don't seem to want to address these issues, just sweep them under the rug.

Originally Posted by Lizzie S

You cannot intellectualise and analyse "oneness" or enlightenment or nirvana for that matter as duality is the domain of intellectual rationalising.

Since when? Why does duality have to be the realm for that? I want to analyze it, and better understand it. Even if there is "Oneness" (in the Advaita sense), why can't it be understood?

[GabeDupuis]

Originally Posted by JohnMurdoch

Well there goes my long and thoughtful response. Apparently I was not logged in, yet I had to log in order to hit reply. Anyway good questions, I'll retype in the morning... anyway my post could be summed as followed.

Reality is not to be understood, theorized, intellectualized or pondered about, it can only be experienced for oneself.

And the way I experience could be quite different from the way you, or someone like Sniffy does. Arguing "Oneness" is an absolute, which I think there aren't many in reality.

[Lizzie S]

Originally Posted by GabeDupuis

You just showed why. People don't seem to want to address these issues, just sweep them under the rug.

Since when? Why does duality have to be the realm for that? I want to analyze it, and better understand it. Even if there is "Oneness" (in the Advaita sense), why can't it be understood?

Josh, with all due respect please don't put words in my mouth over the reasoning behind wanting to keep a newly posted subject to one thread. It makes for easier reading to refer to that thread, that is all; it isnt me sweeping your questions "under the rug" as you eagerly suggest.

You appear to have displayed a little impatience for an almost immediate and in your view all-encapsulatingly correct answer to questions of self and non-self, the part and the whole; questions great sages and philosophers have expounded since time begin: the concept of spiritual and transcendent oneness.

At the same time you are asking, in regard to NDEs, if anyone can truly be one and the same as all the inanimate and animate matter in the universe, are you not? How there might be a rationally proveable process which merges small "mind" with some universal consciousness?

Incidentally, you also made a reference, I believe, to a post I made where I postulated the idea of residual "soul fragments" and called it a "cop-out". If I wrong then please oblige me to that effect, however you need to read properly the many avenues of investigative enquiry people will go down in elucidating what they believe might be the case to the "bigger picture"; in fragmentation or wholeness; however whole you want to make "whole".

You can read for yourself in my posts that I do not claim to definitively "know" the blueprint/format, in all its metaphysical glory or complexity, behind our journey as souls because I seek the fluidity of investigating and constantly being open to new ideas and concepts, perhaps even turning the concept on its head because I like playing devil's advocate too.

Yes, I believe in the realm of the paranormal, and can testify personally to faith healing, but everything else rests with direct experience; i.e self-inquiry.

So to your question, which has the potentiality I understand for you to conclude I have deviated from the "ultimate truth" answer you seek, but ho-hum....:

The people who claim to experience "oneness" in NDEs are for want of a better word using the best possible reference. It is a unique and intense experience they have no frame of reference to compare to, therefore in turn they label it as a sense of "oneness".

What "indicators" would satisfy you that they are in fact merging with the "universe" - we are talking here about deeply profound personal experience and insight, not scientific measurement of where self ends and universal oneness begins.

There is also the question for me of whether we are talking about universal consciousness, i.e. sentience, or simply a more prosaic merging into the void of no-thing-ness. As clearly these people are interfacing experientially with something greater than themselves, then this falls within the former - appearances within consciousness, albeit an expanded version.

You also remark "I never knew so many parts of a person could be consciously active in the absence of them...". Even though there is only "One"..."."

There is only "one" yes, reflecting "all". (And there are multitudinous facets to the human mind, even in the split of subconscious and conscious). This is the cat chasing its tail intellectual paradox advaita students have a hard time getting their head around. I have a hard time getting my head around it but intuitively I understand that in order at least to understand what oneness might be I have to take thought, along with preconceived notions, out of the equation!!

It is inevitably our identification with things which provides the sense of separateness from them (language to an extent exacerbates this); which at its worse can be disassociative and painful. In meditative calm abiding we are able to an extent to drop these veils and merge with pure beingness or absolute reality.

The rise and fall of thoughts, or ebb and flow of our sense of self, is possibly something which although existing on a grander scale when we cross over, is still a binding aspect. So in conclusion I believe oneness is merely a term to describe the experience of something far greater than ourselves.

[Craig Weiler]

Would you argue that you do not have one body? Yet your white blood cells act as though they are independently conscious by single mindedly chasing down and killing only those bacteria and viruses that are harmful to the body.

If we look at flocks of starlings, or colonies of insects, we see tremendous coordination that defies ordinary mechanistic explanations. A tribe is an entity unto itself, composed of people, but not limited to specific members. People can come and go and the tribe remains.

Consciousness is more complicated and difficult to fathom than you're imagining.

[Raimo]

Originally Posted by GabeDupuis

with Mediumship we have (supposedly) actual entities communicating as a ego-self being from beyond.

In Michael Tymn's excellent book, The Afterlife revealed, on page 119 there are interesting quotes by discarnate spirits. They have told through mediums that individuality does not disappear even when the soul reaches the highest sphere, which is also sometimes referred to as merging with all or achieving Oneness with the Creator.

Silver Birch said: "All spiritual progress is toward increasing individuality. You do not become less of an individual. You become more of an individual."

Frederic Myers: "The Merging with the Idea, with the Great Source of spirit, does not imply annihilation. You still exist as an individual. You are as a wave in the sea."

[GabeDupuis]

Originally Posted by Lizzie S

Josh, with all due respect please don't put words in my mouth over the reasoning behind wanting to keep a newly posted subject to one thread. It makes for easier reading to refer to that thread, that is all; it isnt me sweeping your questions "under the rug" as you eagerly suggest.

I apologize.

You appear to have displayed a little impatience for an almost immediate and in your view all-encapsulatingly correct answer to questions of self and non-self, the part and the whole; questions great sages and philosophers have exponded since time begin: the concept of spiritual and transcendent oneness.

Sorry, are you saying that I am impatient for answers? Because I most certainly am.

At the same time you are asking, in regard to NDEs, if anyone can truly be one and the same as all the inanimate and animate matter in the universe, are you not? How there might be a rationally proveable process which merges small "mind" with some universal consciousness?

Nope. I'm saying that it is their experience, that they are having. There is no way for even them to know if they are encountering a greater mind or what-have-you. As for a rationally provable process which merges small mind with a universal consciousness, I believe there can be none. At the lowest, most fundamental level I see consciousness as separate. People having these experiences doesn't really lend it as much strength as many think, because it could quite possibly be an experience within themselves, for as I stated earlier, they feel at one with whatever they are experiencing at the time.

Incidentally, you also made a reference, I believe, to a post I made where I postulated the idea of residual "soul fragments" and called it a "cop-out". If I wrong then please oblige me to that effect, however you need to read properly the many avenues of investigative enquiry people will go down in elucidating what they believe might be the case to the "bigger picture"; in fragmentation or wholeness; however whole you want to make "whole".

I didn't even know you had said that, I had just remembered reading a post on the other thread (my short term memory isn't the best right now). The reason I called it a cop-out was because I felt it was just thought up to allow oneness (Advaita) to still be admissible, even though I have trouble even beginning to figure how that might functionally work (also, don't bother giving me the business about how it's on a different level and all that. It would still have a way it works regardless).

You can read for yourself in my posts that I do not claim to definitively "know" the blueprint/format, in all its metaphysical glory or complexity, behind our journey as souls because I seek the fluidity of investigating and constantly being open to new ideas and concepts, perhaps even turning the concept on its head because I like playing devil's advocate too.

Fair enough, but you certainly seem to have a bias for the "All is One" approach, and I don't mean to be insulting. I do certainly have biases to different views myself.

Yes, I believe in the realm of the paranormal, and can testify personally to faith healing, but everything else rests with direct experience; i.e self-inquiry.

Yes, everything does rest in direct experience, for our minds are the only ones we can ever be sure of, and the same goes for our experience. I can't help but point out here that some people will have experiences that could hint towards entirely different views (i.e. Christian NDE's). I can't help but feel (as much as many may want to deny it) that after experiences like that we often have all sorts of interpretations, and by the end of the day they can be completely wrong.

So to your question, which has the potentiality I understand for you to conclude I have deviated from the "ultimate truth" answer you seek, but ho-hum....:

I do seek ultimate truth, and I highly doubt it will be as cut and dry as Oneness is.

The people who claim to experience "oneness" in NDEs are for want of a better word using the best possible reference. It is a unique and intense experience they have no frame of reference to compare to, therefore in turn they label it as a sense of "oneness".

So you agree with me that they are quite likely not merging with any sort of universal mind (or whatever you wish to call it)? Or are you saying that the only interpretation we can draw (most of the time) is probably the most correct?

What "indicators" would satisfy you that they are in fact merging with the "universe" - we are talking here about deeply profound personal experience and insight, not scientific measurement of where self ends and universal oneness begins.

Indicators of merging that satisfy me? Well, it rules out NDE's (maybe) because they do certainly come back... I really can't be sure of any, because any sort of revival would show that they never merged.

There is also the question for me of whether we are talking about universal consciousness, i.e. sentience, or simply a more prosaic merging into the void of no-thing-ness. As clearly these people are interfacing experientially with something greater than themselves, then this falls within the former - appearances within consciousness, albeit an expanded version.

It isn't necessarily clear that they are interfacing with something greater than themselves, because for all I know they are looking within.

You also remark "I never knew so many parts of a person could be consciously active in the absence of them...". Even though there is only "One"..."."

There is only "one" yes, reflecting "all".

You shouldn't state this as though it were an obvious fact. And yes, I'm quite aware many consider it to be.

(And there are multitudinous facets to the human mind, even in the split of subconscious and conscious). This is the cat chasing its tail intellectual paradox advaita students have a hard time getting their head around. I have a hard time getting my head around it but intuitively I understand that in order at least to understand what oneness might be I have to take thought, along with preconceived notions, out of the equation!!

Well, firstly, I think it's a paradox because it simply doesn't cohere with Advaita, and secondly, I don't really know if discarding thought will necessarily allow someone to understand an extremely complex process, as that would have to be.

It is inevitably our identification with things which provides the sense of separateness from them (language to an extent exacerbates this); which at its worse can be disassociative and painful. In meditative calm abiding we are able to an extent to drop these veils and merge with pure beingness or absolute reality.

I can somewhat agree here. I can definitely see how we are one with our experiences, and even pure beingness in an individual sense, but to say that we are all one (as in consciousness) is horribly tricky. It's the problem of other minds we are faced with when coming to this conclusion.

The rise and fall of thoughts, or ebb and flow of our sense of self, is possibly something which although existing on a grander scale when we cross over, is still a binding aspect. So in conclusion I believe oneness is merely a term to describe the experience of something far greater than ourselves.

Alright, I'm not dumping Advaita quite yet, but I still see it as highly unreasonable.

[GabeDupuis]

Originally Posted by Craig Weiler

Would you argue that you do not have one body? Yet your white blood cells act as though they are independently conscious by single mindedly chasing down and killing only those bacteria and viruses that are harmful to the body.

If we look at flocks of starlings, or colonies of insects, we see tremendous coordination that defies ordinary mechanistic explanations. A tribe is an entity unto itself, composed of people, but not limited to specific members. People can come and go and the tribe remains.

Consciousness is more complicated and difficult to fathom than you're imagining.

Oh no Craig. I understand all of that, and I'd prefer if you didn't make broad assumptions about how I think something is. Things coordination doesn't necessarily imply one mind, however it could show that a large amount of unseen communication occurs between minds. Also, though I agree with you, simply saying something defies a mechanistic explanation, or that it is more difficult and complex than someone imagines does not make it so.