It isn't ONE Self it is Self that is all there is ..

[God-Like]

Hi Guy's ..

This seems to be the sticking point in many conversations regarding what you are that experiences life .

There are obviously many levels to what we are but fundamentally speaking from the premise that there is only what you are that can encompass all life as we know it .

All of creation as we know it .

Now what seems to be the case in non duality terms is that there is only ONE .

This is my eyes doesn't mean that there is only ONE Self in a way where ONENESS is one dimensional (excuse the pun).

One is the many and the many is one in this regard, that is why there can be individuality while still retaining fundamentally the sameness that is of all things .

Oneness put across in such a way where anything that relates to twoness must mean separation of oneness is incorrect in my eyes .

There is the incorrect understanding of oneness to begin with which creates a premise of there cannot be twoness .

I welcome your thoughts ...

(I didn't post this in the non duality section in order to captivate a larger audience and perspective).

Of course from a hard core non duality standing pointing there is no one here to have any thoughts on this and yet thoughts do come to the fore within awareness of your very self lol ..

Does anyone else find these type of statements bonkers?


x daz x

Originally Posted by God-Like

Does anyone else find these type of statements bonkers?

Hey there Dazza


Bonkers is one word for it, yes, and discussions like these typify Spirituality, where people embrace Spirituality whole-heartedly and try to deny the human aspects of themselves. Equally one-dimensional. It has less to do with Spirituality and more to do with thinking patterns and often duality vs non-duality - or any discussion of 'this' vs 'that' - is simple binary thinking.

It's called the Vesica Pisces and is the basis for the Christian fish symbol and the ancient Egyptian Eye of Ra, the pre-Taoist alchemists called it Triplex Unity and it forms the basis for the Buddhist Flower and Egg of Life. Draw a circle, call it Oneness. Draw an overlapping circle, call it Separation. In the relationship - relationship NOT vs - between Oneness and Separation the eye appears. In the relationship between Spirituality and 'being human' another eye appears - Spiritual is one dimension, human is another and the relationship is a third. Being able to embrace/encompass that is a fourth dimension of consciousness - then consciousness itself 'above' that, from the perspective of the being creating the relationship - is the fifth dimension.

What we end up with is the Buddhist Flower of Life where everything is related, where Oneness can only exist with Separation. What many people don't seem to understand is that Oneness can't exist without separation, Spirituality can't exist without the human, non-duality can't exist without duality.

[Busby]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Hi Guy's ..

There are obviously many levels to what we are but fundamentally speaking from the premise that there is only what you are that can encompass all life as we know it .


x daz x

All of these many levels are all embedded in oneness.

Each leaf on a tree, ants, elephants, thoughts, cities, you, me, stars, and so on reflects the state of being. This world started when you came into it. You created yourself in your mother's womb to be able to partake and experience a world outside yourself.
You, as an aspect of oneness rely upon all that you experience to create feedback to the universe in order to know that you are here.

There's not much more to be said; except that what you do with what we call life is up to you.

[bobjob]

bonkers? maybe There are many things we say that might be considered that way.

The fundamental aspect is that many of the words we use may be understood one way by some individuals and another way by others. I've often been accused of employing semantics but words - and groups of words - can mean very different things to different individuals. Over my life soon approaching its end I've come to acknowledge and accept that our words will always be inadequate to describe what by definition - is indescribable in words.

Whatever word or phrase you use in an attempt to exactly nail what you're getting at there will be somebody for whom the word or phrase means something different. We're on a hiding to nothing!

You may just as well ask why 'Spirituality' (or whatever) was written using upper case letter S. For the user there presumably is a significance whereas for someone else it looks bonkers.

duality, singularity, Oneness, oneness, ONENESS - get my drift?

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Hey there Dazza


Bonkers is one word for it, yes, and discussions like these typify Spirituality, where people embrace Spirituality whole-heartedly and try to deny the human aspects of themselves. Equally one-dimensional. It has less to do with Spirituality and more to do with thinking patterns and often duality vs non-duality - or any discussion of 'this' vs 'that' - is simple binary thinking.

It's called the Vesica Pisces and is the basis for the Christian fish symbol and the ancient Egyptian Eye of Ra, the pre-Taoist alchemists called it Triplex Unity and it forms the basis for the Buddhist Flower and Egg of Life. Draw a circle, call it Oneness. Draw an overlapping circle, call it Separation. In the relationship - relationship NOT vs - between Oneness and Separation the eye appears. In the relationship between Spirituality and 'being human' another eye appears - Spiritual is one dimension, human is another and the relationship is a third. Being able to embrace/encompass that is a fourth dimension of consciousness - then consciousness itself 'above' that, from the perspective of the being creating the relationship - is the fifth dimension.

What we end up with is the Buddhist Flower of Life where everything is related, where Oneness can only exist with Separation. What many people don't seem to understand is that Oneness can't exist without separation, Spirituality can't exist without the human, non-duality can't exist without duality.

Hey there Greeny ...

I think certain folks (non dual illusory folks) would say there is only the appearance of separation .

In a way there is no separation if we simply relate to what we are as being all there is .

It's a common understanding that relates to oneness isn't it . So although there can be an experience had of an elephant there can be also an experience of a mouse
there is no fundamental separation between the mouse and the elephant but there is an individual experience had that relates to them .

What is inferred in non dual terms is that there cannot be individuality because there is oneness so what appears to be individuality is false and illusory .

What is apparent though is that no matter how hard a non dualist states their claim they don't appear to live by it and that is the dead giveaway in my eyes .

I agree that everything is related in what you say regarding the flower of life .

Thanks for the history lesson ;)



x daz x

[Starman]

Oneness in the sense that we are all connected, we are all one, does not necessarily imply the existence of two-ness or the many. In my opinion words could never accurately interpret this.

I used to say that God is me but I am not God, then I went to the Walt Disney example; Walt Disney was Donald Duck, Goofy , Mickey Mouse, etc., but those characters were not Walt Disney; they were only aspects of Walt Disney.

Today I see myself as a Center of Expression from the Primal Will, or Source of Life. A projection that really can not ever be separate from the Primal Source. So I use words like One Source, or Primal Source, in place of us being One. But for me it is beyond words and mental constructs.

This discussed in German, Polish, or some other language, would be a lot different than discussing it in English. I used to converse in five different languages but I have since lost my fluency in all but English because I rarely use those other languages that I once knew.

There are words in some languages that do not exist in other languages, and the language we use, or speak, effects how we think. Thoughts may also effect our perception. Yes, it is bonkers.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Busby

All of these many levels are all embedded in oneness.

Each leaf on a tree, ants, elephants, thoughts, cities, you, me, stars, and so on reflects the state of being. This world started when you came into it. You created yourself in your mother's womb to be able to partake and experience a world outside yourself.
You, as an aspect of oneness rely upon all that you experience to create feedback to the universe in order to know that you are here.

There's not much more to be said; except that what you do with what we call life is up to you.

I get what your saying and I agree that all these levels are embedded in oneness .

I think oneness means different things to different folk, even though to some there are no folks that are here because as said to Greeny above that would imply separation and oneness doesn't cater for separation .

There is no mother's womb for a babe to experience, no real life for an adult to experience, no other's to love and to cause sufferings too .

The foundation is dreamy and illusory with noone here that actually experiences it .

Even the so called masters that speak about these theories are not actually here and are equally apart of the illusory dream ..

In my eyes it's all contradictory and counter productive to be an illusory spokesperson for non duality while pretending not to be here being a spokesperson .


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by bobjob

bonkers? maybe There are many things we say that might be considered that way.

The fundamental aspect is that many of the words we use may be understood one way by some individuals and another way by others. I've often been accused of employing semantics but words - and groups of words - can mean very different things to different individuals. Over my life soon approaching its end I've come to acknowledge and accept that our words will always be inadequate to describe what by definition - is indescribable in words.

Whatever word or phrase you use in an attempt to exactly nail what you're getting at there will be somebody for whom the word or phrase means something different. We're on a hiding to nothing!

You may just as well ask why 'Spirituality' (or whatever) was written using upper case letter S. For the user there presumably is a significance whereas for someone else it looks bonkers.

duality, singularity, Oneness, oneness, ONENESS - get my drift?

Sure enough, folks see different meanings in words and that is part of life isn't it .

I think it's safe enough to say that there is a clear dividing line at play here between either being here as an individual or not .

What you are is either having a unique individual experience within oneness or one is no more than a dreamy illusory appearance that has no real substance ..

Even self verification within awareness would not be self evident enough for the hard core non dualists, because it's all illusory .

This is similar to flat earther's when there is evidence to the contrary but is then suggested it's all faked deliberately ..

It's an odd energy at play in these instances ..



x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Starman

Oneness in the sense that we are all connected, we are all one, does not necessarily imply the existence of two-ness or the many. In my opinion words could never accurately interpret this.

I used to say that God is me but I am not God, then I went to the Walt Disney example; Walt Disney was Donald Duck, Goofy , Mickey Mouse, etc., but those characters were not Walt Disney; they were only aspects of Walt Disney.

Today I see myself as a Center of Expression from the Primal Will, or Source of Life. A projection that really can not ever be separate from the Primal Source. So I use words like One Source, or Primal Source, in place of us being One. But for me it is beyond words and mental constructs.

This discussed in German, Polish, or some other language, would be a lot different than discussing it in English. I used to converse in five different languages but I have since lost my fluency in all but English because I rarely use those other languages that I once knew.

There are words in some languages that do not exist in other languages, and the language we use, or speak, effects how we think. Thoughts may also effect our perception. Yes, it is bonkers.

Yes, I like your Disney analogy it works well from that perspective . I guess like in all instances context is key here this is why I speak about fundamentally there is only what you are . We can call that Source, God, Consciousness, Awareness etc, so from this perspective there is no separation from what we are fundamentally .

What you have implied is similar in regards to Walt Disney but for some, all the Disney characters are illusory and cannot exist as individuals .


x daz x

[Jyotir]

There is only One Self.

Unity is not exclusive of multiplicity: both are still aspects of One Being.
Any aspect of One Being is still One Being. It is merely an illusion that a grain of sand or drop of water is not the entire Universe - it truly is.

Differentiation is only a conditional instrumentalization of the One Being, which includes the dynamic process of individuated becoming within the interdependent multiplicity which is also the One Life of One Being.

That any differentiation of One Being may realize itself as Identical to the One Being - in all forms, poises, and statuses, is the significance and opportunity of human life. The individuated being is not separate from, but actually IS the One Self.

~ J