The Oneness Experience

[Loki]

People who preach that all things are a oneness seem very suspicious to me. I mean, I've encountered more than a few people who have claimed to experience oneness while on drugs.

Furthermore, I have experienced this sense of oneness -- when my brain function was impaired and warped by fever.

So perhaps the oneness experience is a misperception brought on by intense meditation/medication or other forms of brain impairment.

I think it's self-evident that not all things are one. I am aware of no good reason to think that reality is otherwise.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Loki,

I think it's self-evident that not all things are one.

how do you come to such a conclusion?

[Nick]

It depends on how you look at it. Things are separate and distinct identities that have unique effects on each other. If we make them a oneness, then they lose their identity as a thing. In this sense it's definitely false that all things are a oneness.

On the other hand, the boundaries between the things we perceive are projections of an observer. Without an observer, all things lose their boundaries and ultimately their meaning, and all that is left is a oneness, which I sometimes refer to as Existence, or The Totality.

Both of these conclusions are arrived at by flawless application of logic, nothing more, nothing less.

[mikiel]

People who preach that all things are a oneness seem very suspicious to me. I mean, I've encountered more than a few people who have claimed to experience oneness while on drugs.

Furthermore, I have experienced this sense of oneness -- when my brain function was impaired and warped by fever.

So perhaps the oneness experience is a misperception brought on by intense meditation/medication or other forms of brain impairment.

I think it's self-evident that not all things are one. I am aware of no good reason to think that reality is otherwise.

As I have said often here, Oneness refers to the One Being Whose manifest body is the cosmos... "all things."

On small scale the same is true. I am one person (being) composed of a multitude of parts.
The question of "the One and the many" is resolved as above.

[BGen]

Here is what scientists tell us about Oneness:

Toward Integral Consciousness
Highlights from Düsseldorf 2006 international scientists conference ״Wisdom and Science in Dialogue: The new Planetary Consciousness.

[Loki]

It depends on how you look at it. Things are separate and distinct identities that have unique effects on each other. If we make them a oneness, then they lose their identity as a thing. In this sense it's definitely false that all things are a oneness.

On the other hand, the boundaries between the things we perceive are projections of an observer.

How do you know this for certain? Maybe there is, at bottom, some source material, a particle of some sort that has inherent existence. As you probably know, it was once assumed that the atom was such a particle, but we now know that it can be divided in smaller parts.

But that doesn't mean that, at some level, there isn't a particle that actually has objectively real boundaries.

[skipair]

On the other hand, the boundaries between the things we perceive are projections of an observer.

How did you reason to this conclusion?

It seems to me that some boundaries are projections and some are not. By projections I mean usually the things we want to believe about reality, to the extent of assuming them fact and making compromises with the incoming data to fit the mold of our expectations.

The idea of "oneness" perhaps works like a tool, because even "oneness" can only be seen in duality. Though, I'm still working on my master key/tool, and haven't perfected it yet - if such a thing is possible - so for now I can't say much more.

Also, I don't see the need of saying there is an "observer" who projects, other than assuring people they carry with them prejudice from the past.

[Nick]

It depends on how you look at it. Things are separate and distinct identities that have unique effects on each other. If we make them a oneness, then they lose their identity as a thing. In this sense it's definitely false that all things are a oneness.

On the other hand, the boundaries between the things we perceive are projections of an observer.

How do you know this for certain? Maybe there is, at bottom, some source material, a particle of some sort that has inherent existence. As you probably know, it was once assumed that the atom was such a particle, but we now know that it can be divided in smaller parts.

But that doesn't mean that, at some level, there isn't a particle that actually has objectively real boundaries.

It is not possible for a boundary to be objectively real. They are always subjective based on how the observer divides things up. Any particle can always be divided into a half a particle, then that half particle can then be divided into a half particle, and so on for infinite. Also, no matter how essential a particle may be, it will only ever exist in relation to what it is not, meaning it's existence is just as dependent as any other thing's existence is.

[Nick]

On the other hand, the boundaries between the things we perceive are projections of an observer.

How did you reason to this conclusion?

If there were no observer, there would be nothing to divide things up, and any thing we can currently imagine as an observer would lose all meaning in such a scenario. The only thing remaining at this point is Existence in it's formlessness and absoluteness.

It seems to me that some boundaries are projections and some are not. By projections I mean usually the things we want to believe about reality, to the extent of assuming them fact and making compromises with the incoming data to fit the mold of our expectations.

Could you give me an example of a boundary that is not projected by an observer?

The idea of "oneness" perhaps works like a tool, because even "oneness" can only be seen in duality. Though, I'm still working on my master key/tool, and haven't perfected it yet - if such a thing is possible - so for now I can't say much more.

Oneness isn't something that can be seen, it can only be understood logically, and as we meditate on this understanding we can begin to live more in tune with it.

Also, I don't see the need of saying there is an "observer" who projects, other than assuring people they carry with them prejudice from the past.

You don't see any importance in knowing that things lose all meaning, and ultimately their continued existence if there wasn't an observer there to support it?

[Loki]

It depends on how you look at it. Things are separate and distinct identities that have unique effects on each other. If we make them a oneness, then they lose their identity as a thing. In this sense it's definitely false that all things are a oneness.

On the other hand, the boundaries between the things we perceive are projections of an observer.

How do you know this for certain? Maybe there is, at bottom, some source material, a particle of some sort that has inherent existence. As you probably know, it was once assumed that the atom was such a particle, but we now know that it can be divided in smaller parts.

But that doesn't mean that, at some level, there isn't a particle that actually has objectively real boundaries.

It is not possible for a boundary to be objectively real.

Why not?

[boundaries] are always subjective based on how the observer divides things up.

Any particle can always be divided into a half a particle, then that half particle can then be divided into a half particle, and so on for infinite.

For infinite? How certain are you of this? Isn't it possible for there to be a particle that can't be divided? Who knows, physicists may discover such a particle.

Also, no matter how essential a particle may be, it will only ever exist in relation to what it is not, meaning it's existence is just as dependent as any other thing's existence is.

Ok, you can be absolutely certain of that. HOWEVER - picture a small white dot against a black void. This white dot is a particle that can't be divided up any further. It has an objectively real boundary seperating it from the black void.

Why is this impossible?

[Jason]

On the other hand, the boundaries between the things we perceive are projections of an observer.

Instead of "projections" of the observer, how about simply "perceptions" of the observer? I tend to favour the latter.

Both of these conclusions are arrived at by flawless application of logic, nothing more, nothing less.

Don't forget the arguably questionable axioms that the logic works with. Example "An observer is necessary for boundaries to exist." How is this axiom proved to be correct itself?

[Loki]

I found an interesting tidbit on the absolute.net.

This is from a radio transcript of a show titled THE NATURE OF REALITY

William: Well, I'm of the view that there are boundaries that exist in the world - natural divisions in the way reality is structured that are quite independent of the way we think about it.

David: Can you give us an example?

William: Oh, for example, there are ninety-six elements that naturally occur - the chemical elements. Now it seems to me this is not an invention of human enquiry. It's a discovery. These separate elements with their own particular characteristics existed long before there was any consciousness in the universe to discover this fact.

David: Well, I would say that Nature lends itself to be divided up in particular ways. It's more practical for us to divide the elements into the ninety-six different elements there are. But when you analyse their existence, they disappear. I mean, these elements are made up of atoms and these atoms share a common bond, if you like. You can see that these boundaries begin to dissolve when you analyse them. These elements may exist on a crude level - as all things exist on a crude level - but when you analyse and look for where they begin or end they disappear.

Kevin: All the elements are based on hydrogen, basically. All the elements are just different levels of evolution of the hydrogen atom.

William: The proton seems to be the fundamental building block.

Kevin: Yes.

William: Protons and neutrons, sure.

So there you go! The sages were taught something during that episode. Namely, that there are some things which probably do have inherent existence. There are things which have boundaries.

[Nick]

It is not possible for a boundary to be objectively real.

Why not?

Because boundaries are meaningless without an observer to project them on to reality, and there isn't an ultimately correct way to place a boundary. The standards for dividing things up are based on convenience and survival, both of which are also entirely subjective depending on what suits the observer best.

Any particle can always be divided into a half a particle, then that half particle can then be divided into a half particle, and so on for infinite.

For infinite? How certain are you of this? Isn't it possible for there to be a particle that can't be divided? Who knows, physicists may discover such a particle.

I'm not talking about physically dividing a particle, I'm talking about using one's mind to divide it, and the mind can always divide a half into another half an infinite amount of times.

Ok, you can be absolutely certain of that. HOWEVER - picture a small white dot against a black void. This white dot is a particle that can't be divided up any further. It has an objectively real boundary seperating it from the black void.

What if you were blind? I think if this were the case you would be rightly upset to hear someone tell you the white dot and black void had an objective boundary between them. Now this doesn't mean there isn't a white dot, with a black void surrounding it, but they are still wholly dependent on an observer to perceive reality in such a dualistic manner.

[Nick]

Instead of "projections" of the observer, how about simply "perceptions" of the observer? I tend to favour the latter.

How about the observer projects the boundaries which in turn creates the perceptions they experience.

Example "An observer is necessary for boundaries to exist." How is this axiom proved to be correct itself?

Because boundaries are meaningless without an observer, i.e. they don't exist. Even if you imagine a scenario in which there are boundaries between things but no observer there to project them, this imaginary scenario is still just a projection of your mind.

[Nick]

I found an interesting tidbit on the absolute.net.

This is from a radio transcript of a show titled THE NATURE OF REALITY

William: Well, I'm of the view that there are boundaries that exist in the world - natural divisions in the way reality is structured that are quite independent of the way we think about it.

David: Can you give us an example?

William: Oh, for example, there are ninety-six elements that naturally occur - the chemical elements. Now it seems to me this is not an invention of human enquiry. It's a discovery. These separate elements with their own particular characteristics existed long before there was any consciousness in the universe to discover this fact.

David: Well, I would say that Nature lends itself to be divided up in particular ways. It's more practical for us to divide the elements into the ninety-six different elements there are. But when you analyse their existence, they disappear. I mean, these elements are made up of atoms and these atoms share a common bond, if you like. You can see that these boundaries begin to dissolve when you analyse them. These elements may exist on a crude level - as all things exist on a crude level - but when you analyse and look for where they begin or end they disappear.

Kevin: All the elements are based on hydrogen, basically. All the elements are just different levels of evolution of the hydrogen atom.

William: The proton seems to be the fundamental building block.

Kevin: Yes.

William: Protons and neutrons, sure.

So there you go! The sages were taught something during that episode. Namely, that there are some things which probably do have inherent existence. There are things which have boundaries.

Saying that protons are a fundamental building block for what we percieve around us falls way short of saying it has inherent existence.

[Matt Gregory]

I found an interesting tidbit on the absolute.net.

This is from a radio transcript of a show titled THE NATURE OF REALITY

William: Well, I'm of the view that there are boundaries that exist in the world - natural divisions in the way reality is structured that are quite independent of the way we think about it.

David: Can you give us an example?

William: Oh, for example, there are ninety-six elements that naturally occur - the chemical elements. Now it seems to me this is not an invention of human enquiry. It's a discovery. These separate elements with their own particular characteristics existed long before there was any consciousness in the universe to discover this fact.

David: Well, I would say that Nature lends itself to be divided up in particular ways. It's more practical for us to divide the elements into the ninety-six different elements there are. But when you analyse their existence, they disappear. I mean, these elements are made up of atoms and these atoms share a common bond, if you like. You can see that these boundaries begin to dissolve when you analyse them. These elements may exist on a crude level - as all things exist on a crude level - but when you analyse and look for where they begin or end they disappear.

Kevin: All the elements are based on hydrogen, basically. All the elements are just different levels of evolution of the hydrogen atom.

William: The proton seems to be the fundamental building block.

Kevin: Yes.

William: Protons and neutrons, sure.

So there you go! The sages were taught something during that episode. Namely, that there are some things which probably do have inherent existence. There are things which have boundaries.

Nobody was taught anything; they were agreeing on knowledge that they all had. A hydrogen atom and a proton are the same thing, which is the fundamental building block of the elements in the periodic table. They weren't saying that they are the fundamental building blocks of reality, because surely they all knew that protons are made up of subatomic particles, but the elements aren't based on subatomic particles in any way. They're completely different scientific theories.

[Loki]

It is not possible for a boundary to be objectively real.

Why not?

Because boundaries are meaningless without an observer to project them on to reality, and there isn't an ultimately correct way to place a boundary.

How do you know there aren't boundaries out there somewhere? Like, for instance, how do you know physicists won't discover the boundaries of a building block?

Any particle can always be divided into a half a particle, then that half particle can then be divided into a half particle, and so on for infinite.

For infinite? How certain are you of this? Isn't it possible for there to be a particle that can't be divided? Who knows, physicists may discover such a particle.

I'm not talking about physically dividing a particle, I'm talking about using one's mind to divide it

Yeah, and I'm talking about an objectively real boundary surrounding the most fundamental building block of matter. Such a building block may exist.

and the mind can always divide a half into another half an infinite amount of times.

How can you be certain of this? What you are saying implies that a thing has infinite space. It could very well be the case that a thing is finite, which means you can only divide it up so much. Eventually you're left with two particles - particles which can't be divided.

Ok, you can be absolutely certain of that. HOWEVER - picture a small white dot against a black void. This white dot is a particle that can't be divided up any further. It has an objectively real boundary seperating it from the black void.

What if you were blind?

Well, the white dot still exists, despite I don't see it.

I think if this were the case you would be rightly upset to hear someone tell you the white dot and black void had an objective boundary between them.

I don't think i'd be upset if it was explained to me how this white dot is a particle which obeys laws that cause my brain to work.

Now this doesn't mean there isn't a white dot, with a black void surrounding it, but they are still wholly dependent on an observer to perceive reality in such a dualistic manner.

No, they exist whether there is an observer there to perceive them or not.

[skipair]

If there were no observer, there would be nothing to divide things up, and any thing we can currently imagine as an observer would lose all meaning in such a scenario. The only thing remaining at this point is Existence in it's formlessness and absoluteness.

Why does it have to be assumed that there is a thing that is doing the dividing?

I probably think of experience as being an observer of all reality most of the time. But I can also conceive a perspective where there is the experience of reality without the observer. Beliefs and divisions like past, future, and observer float into consciousness and leave while others take their place.

Have to think more about this though, playing a little devils's A.

Could you give me an example of a boundary that is not projected by an observer?

I think there is a difference between our abstract definitions of things and raw perception. Sensory contrasts are not experienced by a belief system in the most primitive sense, and therefore not "projected" but "presented".

Oneness isn't something that can be seen, it can only be understood logically, and as we meditate on this understanding we can begin to live more in tune with it.

Well I think we "see" our logic in that mysterious intangable "realm of forms", however fleeting and non-reproducable it may be.

You don't see any importance in knowing that things lose all meaning, and ultimately their continued existence if there wasn't an observer there to support it?

If you equate "observer" with "existence" or "reality" then I see your point. But that's not how I would define it, and assume you wouldn't either......?

[mikiel]

m:

As I have said often here, Oneness refers to the One Being Whose manifest body is the cosmos... "all things."

On small scale the same is true. I am one person (being) composed of a multitude of parts.
The question of "the One and the many" is resolved as above.

Bump.
Too simple (second statement) or too large a scope (first statement) ... or both... for your comprehension, Loci?

Are you even familiar with the classical philosophical subject of the One and the many?

I understand 'no reply' as avoidance of the discussion (as exemplified by the the founding trio here.) I don't know your motives. Wondering if you are too stupid or do you deem me too stupid to merit a reply? If the later... challenge me.
There is One Identity manifesting eternally as all forms..., "the many."
What part of this do you not understand?

[Nick]

How do you know there aren't boundaries out there somewhere? Like, for instance, how do you know physicists won't discover the boundaries of a building block?

Because even if we said there were boundaries "out there somewhere", this is still a form of projecting boundaries on to reality. It's inescapable really.

Yeah, and I'm talking about an objectively real boundary surrounding the most fundamental building block of matter. Such a building block may exist.

I think scientists are chasing ghosts when it comes to finding a "god particle" as some have referred to it, but regardless of how godly, or fundamental this particle may be, it's existence is stilly dependent on an observer to project such boundaries around it, and is wholly dependent on that which it is not, which in my opinion makes calling it a "god particle" meaningless. It all sounds very religious to me.

How can you be certain of this? What you are saying implies that a thing has infinite space. It could very well be the case that a thing is finite, which means you can only divide it up so much. Eventually you're left with two particles - particles which can't be divided.

What's stopping me from using my mind to divide these particles again? Maybe it wont be of any practical or scientific use to divide these particles, but that doesn't mean they can't in fact be divided by the mind of the observer.

What if you were blind?

Well, the white dot still exists, despite I don't see it.

On the contrary, I would argue that you actually do see it, but through the eyes of another observer who then relays the information to you. It's a little more indirect, and less effective, but essentially the same thing is going on. Either way, my point is that everyone perceives reality in their own unique way, and there is no objectively right way to perceive it.

Now this doesn't mean there isn't a white dot, with a black void surrounding it, but they are still wholly dependent on an observer to perceive reality in such a dualistic manner.

No, they exist whether there is an observer there to perceive them or not.

I would be amazed if you could some how prove this statement, but I already know that you can't. Because as soon as you do go about trying to prove it you would immediately begin projecting boundaries on to reality again, boundaries which are completely subjective based on the point you are trying to prove, ultimately proving my point correct, which is that boundaries, and ultimately all things cease to exist without an observer there to support them. This isn't to say that the observer is the sole cause of all we perceive, but it is an essential cause.

[Nick]

If there were no observer, there would be nothing to divide things up, and any thing we can currently imagine as an observer would lose all meaning in such a scenario. The only thing remaining at this point is Existence in it's formlessness and absoluteness.

Why does it have to be assumed that there is a thing that is doing the dividing?

I probably think of experience as being an observer of all reality most of the time. But I can also conceive a perspective where there is the experience of reality without the observer. Beliefs and divisions like past, future, and observer float into consciousness and leave while others take their place.

Because even this is another example of an observer projecting boundaries on to reality. Like I said to Loki, it's inescapable.

Could you give me an example of a boundary that is not projected by an observer?

I think there is a difference between our abstract definitions of things and raw perception. Sensory contrasts are not experienced by a belief system in the most primitive sense, and therefore not "projected" but "presented".

Reality, not the thing itself, is presented to us yes. It is we as observers who "choose" how to divide reality up in to the things we perceive. So basically this means that although the observer isn't the sole cause to the phenomena we experience, it is an essential cause.

Oneness isn't something that can be seen, it can only be understood logically, and as we meditate on this understanding we can begin to live more in tune with it.

Well I think we "see" our logic in that mysterious intangable "realm of forms", however fleeting and non-reproducable it may be.

I guess we could picture logic as something within our imaginations, but it doesn't really matter as long as when we go to use it, it is in fact logic.

You don't see any importance in knowing that things lose all meaning, and ultimately their continued existence if there wasn't an observer there to support it?

If you equate "observer" with "existence" or "reality" then I see your point. But that's not how I would define it, and assume you wouldn't either......?

No I do not, but I think my response about the observer not being the sole cause, but an essential cause to the phenomena we experience will help explain my point a little better.

[Jason]

Instead of "projections" of the observer, how about simply "perceptions" of the observer? I tend to favour the latter.

How about the observer projects the boundaries which in turn creates the perceptions they experience.

How about: the boundaries project the observer?

Example "An observer is necessary for boundaries to exist." How is this axiom proved to be correct itself?

Because boundaries are meaningless without an observer, i.e. they don't exist.

How much of that conclusion is derived from empirical observations? Do you know for sure that it will continue to be the case in the future?

[Nick]

How about: the boundaries project the observer?

That doesn't make any sense, unless you mean as observers, we also project a boundary around our self which defines the observer.

Because boundaries are meaningless without an observer, i.e. they don't exist.

How much of that conclusion is derived from empirical observations? Do you know for sure that it will continue to be the case in the future?

It's a purely logical truth built upon A=A, and yes I am absolutely certain this will always be the case.

[skipair]

S: I think there is a difference between our abstract definitions of things and raw perception. Sensory contrasts are not experienced by a belief system in the most primitive sense, and therefore not "projected" but "presented".

N: Reality, not the thing itself, is presented to us yes. It is we as observers who "choose" how to divide reality up in to the things we perceive.

Reality can't be presented without "the things themselves" that make it up. Some of those things we can "choose" to change, like our definitions and beliefs - the meanings of names we give things. But there is what I personally would call a "substrate" of perceptual contrast that exists, boundaries and all, before we project extra boundaries onto it.

For example, let's say that a person was blindfolded their whole life, until one day they were put in a position to see just the sky and the sun. Just blue, and a glowing yellow disk. Let's also assume they recieved no scientific, religious, or any kind of education about the existence of this picture.

When this person opens their eyes, aside from being blinded by the sun, he would see the boundary in its purity. It wouldn't be a Sun God, it wouldn't be the center of the universe, it would be a yellow circle surrounded by blue, and that is all. This boundary is not "projected" by him being an "observer". It is a picture that appears, not necessarily to a "self", not compared to what "other selves" might experience from different perspectives. It is an appearance and that is all.

And along a different note, asserting that the appearance of an observer is an oberserver experiencing that appearance, is something that I see no proof for.

In the end, "projection" to me means delusion of some sort. Seeing boundaries that aren't really there.

[Leyla Shen]

But there is what I personally would call a "substrate" of perceptual contrast that exists, boundaries and all, before we project extra boundaries onto it.

You mean, essentially, a substrate existing on top of a Kantian noumena, implying some absolute form of perceptual integrity? I'd like to see your proof for that.

When this person opens their eyes, aside from being blinded by the sun, he would see the boundary in its purity. It wouldn't be a Sun God, it wouldn't be the center of the universe, it would be a yellow circle surrounded by blue, and that is all. This boundary is not "projected" by him being an "observer". It is a picture that appears, not necessarily to a "self", not compared to what "other selves" might experience from different perspectives. It is an appearance and that is all.

Never mind about the god stuff, for now.

Would you say that the substance, the meaning of this paragraph, required boundaries and an observer in order to be meaningful? And would you say the same is true for the person blinfolded their whole life; that is, would his reality be any less real due to his blindness---due to the fact that the sun itself, for example, appeared differently to you than to him on a sensory level? Why do you assume sight, in this case, is indicative of the true noumenon?