Oneness
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. |
Quote:
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! :wink: 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? :icon_eek: 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. :biggrin: |
Nice post, David.
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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." |
Quote:
“No man ever steps into the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man!” (Heraclites) |
your perception respected
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
In my view, It is really all just One Gargantuanly Creative, Multi-Dimensional Blob-Thang! :smile: |
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums