Oneness

[davidsun]

Let me attempt to augment understanding of the idea.

Taking current 'understandings' of physical 'energy' as an analogy:

The Universe is the expression of one 'source', i.e, 'energy', which energy may take many 'forms' (matter) and inter'act' in many 'ways' (gravitationally, electrically, magnetically, weak-nuclear-force-ly, and strong-nuc;ear;force-ly.

In this analogical model, every 'nodule' and 'amalgam of nodules' (of energy) is conscious in its own right, in its own way.

All nodules and exchanges of energy between them are an integral part of one gargantuan ever-ongoing Flow-process.

Hence the idea of 'oneness' applies both to the thang, i.e. the energy, that Flows and to the process, i.e. to the Flow as well.

Though 'energy' can 'observe' (how else could in interact with 'other' 'aspects' of energy?), energy itself cannot be 'observed' directly - only its 'forms' and 'actions' can be 'seen'. Its omni-presence as the formative/active 'agent' can only be inferred.

The idea that our 'source' (i.e. conscious 'energy') is 'unchanging' and 'immutable' (as stated in "It is Eternal, All-pervading, Unchanging, Immovable and Most Ancient. It is named the Unmanifest, the Unthinkable, the Immutable. Wherefore, knowing the Spirit as such, ..." The Bhagavad Gita, Ch.2) is questionable, Why? Because we know that physical energy is always 'changing' its 'forms' and 'ways' of interaction. Maybe, those notions (expressed in the Gita and elsewhere) derive from 'wishful thinking', from people wanting to think of and believe in something being basically permanent as a result of being overwhelmed by the flux they 'see' often overriding the course of their and others' lives. That's a hypothesis (that the Gita proclaims some 'false' ideas) worth considering at least. Western 'religious' believers believed in the immutablity of the 'heavens' for a long time - 'religiously' resisting/rejection the notion that earth itself could be moving and that humans could be product of 'evolution' for a very long time!

We are always 'aware' - but that fact doesn't mean that that which is 'aware' is unchanging, IOW.

Originally Posted by davidsun

Let me attempt to augment understanding of the idea.

Taking current 'understandings' of physical 'energy' as an analogy:

The Universe is the expression of one 'source', i.e, 'energy', which energy may take many 'forms' (matter) and inter'act' in many 'ways' (gravitationally, electrically, magnetically, weak-nuclear-force-ly, and strong-nuc;ear;force-ly.

In this analogical model, every 'nodule' and 'amalgam of nodules' (of energy) is conscious in its own right, in its own way.

All nodules and exchanges of energy between them are an integral part of one gargantuan ever-ongoing Flow-process.

Hence the idea of 'oneness' applies both to the thang, i.e. the energy, that Flows and to the process, i.e. to the Flow as well.

Though 'energy' can 'observe' (how else could in interact with 'other' 'aspects' of energy?), energy itself cannot be 'observed' directly - only its 'forms' and 'actions' can be 'seen'. Its omni-presence as the formative/active 'agent' can only be inferred.

The idea that our 'source' (i.e. conscious 'energy') is 'unchanging' and 'immutable' (as stated in "It is Eternal, All-pervading, Unchanging, Immovable and Most Ancient. It is named the Unmanifest, the Unthinkable, the Immutable. Wherefore, knowing the Spirit as such, ..." The Bhagavad Gita, Ch.2) is questionable, Why? Because we know that physical energy is always 'changing' its 'forms' and 'ways' of interaction. Maybe, those notions (expressed in the Gita and elsewhere) derive from 'wishful thinking', from people wanting to think of and believe in something being basically permanent as a result of being overwhelmed by the flux they 'see' often overriding the course of their and others' lives. That's a hypothesis (that the Gita proclaims some 'false' ideas) worth considering at least. Western 'religious' believers believed in the immutablity of the 'heavens' for a long time - 'religiously' resisting/rejection the notion that earth itself could be moving and that humans could be product of 'evolution' for a very long time!

We are always 'aware' - but that fact doesn't mean that that which is 'aware' is unchanging, IOW.

Here's my take on it and the disclaimer is I'm not a mathematician nor a physicist though I have contemplated this long and deeply.

So we have the four fundamental forces we are certain of. Electromagnetism, the nuclear weak force, the nuclear strong force and gravity. I'm not going to speak to dark energy because we don't have the slightest clue what it is.

There's already the electroweak theory for which two Nobel Prizes were awarded and it proves both electromagnetism and the nuclear weak force arise/appear from/within the electroweak force. So in this context the two forces do not have inherent existence but the one force does. The two cannot exist without the one but the one can exist without the two.

Further down the road is unifying the nuclear strong force and electroweak force (GUT), however to tease it out would require a particle accelerator 10,000 light years in diameter. Beyond that is unifying GUT and gravity into a theory of everything (TOE) and I'm pretty sure there's not enough energy in the known universe to tease out it's secrets/proofs, not to mention gravity must first be quantized. Oops!

So what's at the bottom of reality describing the Unified Field which is the supposed fountainhead of objective reality? Is it Superstring Theory, M-Theory or something else even beyond that, and how can it be proven?

Of course my intuition informs me science and spirituality seek the same Ultimate Reality just using different experimental methodologies. What's the true nature of that Ultimate Reality? I'm certain we not only will never know objectively speaking, but can never know.

However it's great entertainment to contemplate the possibilities.

[Moondance]

Nice post, David.

Originally Posted by davidsun

The idea that our 'source' (i.e. conscious 'energy') is 'unchanging' and 'immutable' (as stated in "It is Eternal, All-pervading, Unchanging, Immovable and Most Ancient. It is named the Unmanifest, the Unthinkable, the Immutable. Wherefore, knowing the Spirit as such, ..." The Bhagavad Gita, Ch.2) is questionable, Why? Because we know that physical energy is always 'changing' its 'forms' and 'ways' of interaction. Maybe, those notions (expressed in the Gita and elsewhere) derive from 'wishful thinking', from people wanting to think of and believe in something being basically permanent as a result of being overwhelmed by the flux they 'see' often overriding the course of their and others' lives. That's a hypothesis (that the Gita proclaims some 'false' ideas) worth considering at least. Western 'religious' believers believed in the immutablity of the 'heavens' for a long time - 'religiously' resisting/rejection the notion that earth itself could be moving and that humans could be product of 'evolution' for a very long time!

I agree with you here. I think that the idea of the unchanging and unmoving Absolute comes about from a certain sleight of logic.

Logically - on face value - the One (or the Absolute or the All) is, by definition, other-less. What could be other than IT? What could IT be relative to? On what could IT be dependent? Where could IT go? How could IT be other than what IT is? What could IT transform into?

But this analytical train of thought is reductive. It argues logically for the concept of the Absolute without allowance for the nature of the Absolute - ITs qualities and capacities.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Though 'energy' can 'observe' (how else could in interact with 'other' 'aspects' of energy?), energy itself cannot be 'observed' directly - only its 'forms' and 'actions' can be 'seen'. Its omni-presence as the formative/active 'agent' can only be inferred.

The idea that our 'source' (i.e. conscious 'energy') is 'unchanging' and 'immutable' (as stated in "It is Eternal, All-pervading, Unchanging, Immovable and Most Ancient. It is named the Unmanifest, the Unthinkable, the Immutable. Wherefore, knowing the Spirit as such, ..." The Bhagavad Gita, Ch.2) is questionable, Why? Because we know that physical energy is always 'changing' its 'forms' and 'ways' of interaction. Maybe, those notions (expressed in the Gita and elsewhere) derive from 'wishful thinking', from people wanting to think of and believe in something being basically permanent as a result of being overwhelmed by the flux they 'see' often overriding the course of their and others' lives. That's a hypothesis (that the Gita proclaims some 'false' ideas) worth considering at least. Western 'religious' believers believed in the immutablity of the 'heavens' for a long time - 'religiously' resisting/rejection the notion that earth itself could be moving and that humans could be product of 'evolution' for a very long time!

We are always 'aware' - but that fact doesn't mean that that which is 'aware' is unchanging, IOW.

While immutability of heavens is still right, opposing the notion that physical earth is not moving based on that is wrong . Heavens was never a physical location and is not even now . Heaven is abode of God and it was , is and will remain same forever.

The same way Geeta's claim of immutability and unchangeability is perfect. Only the attributes , adjectives and attachments change NOT the source.

I will give an example whereby anyone can experience aforesaid fact.

If one shows one's 6-7-year-old-2ft-high photo to any body (when one is now 6ft high 40+ years ) else , one will say it one's own photo. Now technically the individual in the photo and individual now are totally different (in looks , height , weight , makeup ,experiences ,likings ,dreams ,in cells that make up body) , still one say it's me . The reason is there is this one constant unchanging immutable self in the image in the photo and the individual existing now . This is the same way God is constant unchanging /immutable existing in the world and universe.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

While immutability of heavens is still right, ...

Hello HS -

I appreciate that you see things differently, but in my 'view' (theory?) everything is ever-changing (including what you reference as 'heavens') - so nothing is 'immutable'.

From my treatise: "For those who have reached the point where they are capable of dispassionately pondering such matters, I submit that “The Father is in me, and I in him” (John 10:38) which Jesus added in the same speech-sequence (as “I and my Father are one”) clearly shows the John 10:38 understanding to be what he actually meant to communicate. Notwithstanding the meta-truth that every ‘feature’ of Creativity (Life, God, Reality, Being – however you wish to view and reference It) is an inseparably integral aspect of one all-inclusive phenomenon, in light of which any and all conceptual ‘divisions’ which distinguish aspects of It one from another may be 'seen' to really just be navigational aides at best, this saying indicates that Jesus ‘saw’ that there was a dynamic, two-way flow-connection between the primally progenitive soul of ‘the Father’ and the consequentially co‑generative soul-constellation of ‘the Son’, such that the outflow from one functions as inflow in relation to the other in continuously ongoing outflow→inflow→ad infinitum fashion. Readers capable of engaging in abstract thought experiments may appreciate the kind of experience an observer walking lengthwise along the seemingly two‑sided ‘surface’ of a mobius strip would have and, if reasonably intelligent, sooner or later grok as analogically explaining the never‑ending ‘story’ of [the process of] ever-ongoing Father↔Son Creation."

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

The same way Geeta's claim of immutability and unchangeability is perfect. Only the attributes , adjectives and attachments change NOT the source.

I will give an example whereby anyone can experience aforesaid fact.

If one shows one's 6-7-year-old-2ft-high photo to any body (when one is now 6ft high 40+ years ) else , one will say it one's own photo. Now technically the individual in the photo and individual now are totally different (in looks , height , weight , makeup ,experiences ,likings ,dreams ,in cells that make up body) , still one say it's me . The reason is there is this one constant unchanging immutable self in the image in the photo and the individual existing now . This is the same way God is constant unchanging /immutable existing in the world and universe.

This statement is function of 'faulty' logic, IMO, because one's 'self' is ever-changing (notwithstanding the fact that people refer to their changed/changing 'self' by the same 'me' preposition due to the continuity between the past-present-and-future 'self' constellations - plural reference!).

“No man ever steps into the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man!” (Heraclites)

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by davidsun

This statement is function of 'faulty' logic, IMO, because one's 'self' is ever-changing (notwithstanding the fact that people refer to their changed/changing 'self' by the same 'me' preposition due to the continuity between the past-present-and-future 'self' constellations - plural reference!).

“No man ever steps into the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man!” (Heraclites)

We can't have love and joy and feel the life flow really if everybody holds same opinion . Life-flow has tremendous capacity to hold and nurture multiple views and perceptions . These are mere small differences.

Originally Posted by davidsun

I appreciate that you see things differently, but in my 'view' (theory?) everything is ever-changing (including what you reference as 'heavens') - so nothing is 'immutable'.

From the Advaita perspective Heaven(s) and God(s) are not immutable because they are dependent existence. Only Brahman is immutable with inherent existence so technically speaking Brahman cannot be God (take your pick).

Here's where it gets interesting. Both Sri Ramakrishna and Vivekananda had a "thing" for worship of Kali, yet both were non-dualists. The two concepts are not incompatible (God is an avatar of Brahman and a recognizable figurehead for Bhakti/devotion).

EDIT: By the way, Sri Ramakrishna also took a detour into devotion to Jesus and had several visions of Jesus.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Of course my intuition informs me science and spirituality seek the same Ultimate Reality just using different experimental methodologies. What's the true nature of that Ultimate Reality? I'm certain we not only will never know objectively speaking, but can never know.

However it's great entertainment to contemplate the possibilities.

Yes, possibilities galore! I only used current conceptions in the field of physics as being analogically suggestive - 'energy', in this case, representing fundamental Dynamic-Essence 'reality'. I personally do not go along with the idea of there being some kind of 'ultimate' reality because said 'fundamental' reality (in this analogy = 'energy') pervades and both sustains and activates the entirety of Creation.

In other words, It is ubiquitous and omnipresent and so ever-accessible and available to be tapped into 'in' everything - in fact nothing could/would 'exist' or 'move' to begin with without it. It is not some 'ultimate' realization or attainment. That you think in such terms, in terms of there being some kind of ultimate reality, shows how far apart our respective ways of conceiving of, understanding and personally navigating the 'field' of 'reality' actually are, JASG.

I hope you can begin to 'see' through the 'spectacles' I look through and grok how what I 'see' makes sense (to me at least) at some point.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

From the Advaita perspective Heaven(s) and God(s) are not immutable because they are dependent existence. Only Brahman is immutable with inherent existence so technically speaking Brahman cannot be God (take your pick).

That is your projection, which I understand. However, please register the fact that I am sharing the view that 'Brahman' (what you think of as 'ultimate' reality) is the same (in terms of being ever-growing, ever-developing, and so ever-changing) as eveeything else which you dualistically label 'dependent', JASG. As I have previously quote-said and mean literally: "Actually, Jesus’ vision was even more penetrating and far-seeing than even the statement “The Father is in me, and I in him” implies. Presaging that wave-ripples of awareness and spiritual espousal of what he ‘saw’ and articulated would spread and become so mutually validating and reinforcing as to eventually peak in a worldwide crescendo, continuing to identify with and so speak in the ‘persona’ of The Entity of all Creation, he then went on to say, “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father [.e. Source/Brahman], and ye in me, and I in you.” (John 14:20) Such statement cannot possibly be made sense of using simple, linear A→B→C logic, of course, but how aspects of the identities of personal and transpersonal beings (beingnesses, really) can operationally be ‘in’ one another becomes readily understandable when and as one realizes, as more and more people are now doing, that our existential reality is a matrixially interwoven, dynamically living (that is, creatively growing, developing, evolving, etc.) system wherein the output of every personal and transpersonal component of said system functions as input in relation to any and all other components which, because of constitutional similarities and/or complementary affiliations, are vibrationally ‘attuned’ thereto, such that the process of every singular or compound element thereof, ‘from the least to the greatest’, ultimately directly or indirectly affects and is affected by the process of every other aspect of Life." This includes what you call 'Brahman' which you seem to believe is something 'separate' from in the sense of existing 'above and beyond' and so being 'independent' of the rest of Creation.

In my view, It is really all just One Gargantuanly Creative, Multi-Dimensional Blob-Thang!