The Oneness Experience

[mansman]

Are you still talking of Oneness? I dont think so.
You (ya'll) are talking (writeing is truer) about if things REALLY exist (as compared to just appear to), right?
I can add a few things, one problem I see with your idea is similar to:
if A then B
doesnt force, then if B then A, does it?

You say (you know who u are)- Without you observing, your observed boundaries dont exist (also the things observed dont). No indepencence.

Ok, even if "logically sound" let me ask you to think hard: How this proves ANYTHING about possibility of OTHER things (and boundaries) existing??? (independent, eternal, whatever)

See what I mean?

Just because "makes sense" you or "feels right" is not sufficient arguement.
That not "logical proof".

Who can say about isolated things existing?
We guess, right.

2, also topic is Oneness, I can add here:

Agree that it is a "feeling", the Oneness experience?
Is not a feeling?
Seems so to me.
Question can be, How does feel to you (who experience it)?
response can be interesting.

end,
be brave!

M

[mikiel]

Nick Treklis wrote:
Carl G wrote:
Just curious, why cannot the Totality not be conscious of itself? I have posed this to Kevin on a couple of occasions and have never gotten an answer.


Because for something to be conscious in any meaningful sense, it must in fact be conscious of something. Which means it must be able to make distinctions between itself, and something else. So, when it's the Totality we're talking about, and there is nothing aside from it, it is impossible for it to be conscious being that there's actually nothing to be conscious of. Even if we can imagine the Totality did all of a sudden become conscious, that means it would immediately begin making distinctions, simultaneously making itself less than the Totality. It's just the nature of consciousness that it must be finite in order for it to have any kind of useful meaning

.

Time for another lesson in "consciousness without an object"... this time from Wiki on nirvana:

Nirvāna is meant specifically - as pertains gnosis - that which ends the identity of the mind (citta) with empirical phenomena.

(Nirvana is) Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around.

A passage in the Majjhima Nikaya likens it to empty space

For liberated ones the luminous, unsupported consciousness of nibbana is directly known without mediation of the mental consciousness factor in dependent co-arising, and is the transcending of all objects of mental consciousness.

Yes ("Virginia") consciousness can and does exist independently of its content, the concepts, perceptions... "objects" which arise into consciousness.

Here again is my nutshell version of meditation as it pertains to consciousness becoming aware of itself, sans attachement to any and all objects which arise within awareness.

http://www.consciousunity.org/med.htm

[mikiel]

"Unity can only be manifested by the Binary. Unity itself and the idea of Unity are already two."

-The Buddha.

I have a collection of such quotes on a floopy disk. I keep it handy for these occasions.

True if you are a computer or a bio-robot. Not true if you are an awakened one who knows the Truth that sets us free...
"I Am One."
Non-dual awareness is the usual name for It, tho I state it in the positive as conscious unity, the title of my website (.org)

[mikiel]

So the Buddha was a computer or a bio-robot? Or, alternatively, he was lying to the audience?

Maybe, if you were a little less floopy and a little more seriouly ingaged in pursuit of Truth you would realize that "ultimate reality" is unified and relative reality, as it manifests is polarized into positive and negative (atomic structure, for instance... male/female, yin/yang... you know... the basis of all that is manifest.

So..."Unity itself and the idea of Unity are already two."
The idea of unity is a concept in the human mind whereas "unity itself" is Ultimate Reality. So there is your duality.

I would be interested in your source/context for your quote above attributed to the Buddha. I suspect that the word "binary" was not actually a direct quote. Sounds more like a floopy-ism from a computer geek who thinks enlightenment is just another video/mind game.
But I give you too much credit... You are probably just another drive by shooter.

[Nick]

consciousness can and does exist independently of its content, the concepts, perceptions... "objects" which arise into consciousness.

What you're saying is that one can be conscious, but not actually be conscious of anything. What you fail to understand is that if one is not conscious of something, then they aren't conscious at all. Which makes what you just said here pure insanity and make believe.

[mikiel]

consciousness can and does exist independently of its content, the concepts, perceptions... "objects" which arise into consciousness.

What you're saying is that one can be conscious, but not actually be conscious of anything. What you fail to understand is that if one is not conscious of something, then they aren't conscious at all. Which makes what you just said here pure insanity and make believe.

See my post above on Nirvana. Then review previous links to Merrell-Wolff's work on "Consciousness Without an Object."
Then get back to me if you can formulate any intelligent questions about that which obviously still remains beyond you horizons of comprehension.
I really shouldn't hqave to repeat it all again just to cater to your level of stupidity.
What you fail to understand is that I have experienced nearly four decades of being conscious, in meditation, without being conscious "of something"...
And it ain't just me, bud. All mystics experience "the Light of consciousness itself" transcending whatever it might shine on.
Don't take my word for it. You want some more links or what?

Your lack of such experience does not actually invalidate it.
See what I mean, Vern?

[Blair]

Buddy, you haven't experienced one second of consciousness.

When you have, believe me you will know.

[Jason]

I think your floopy realization has some bad sectors.

Have you ever experienced a Guru Meditation, floopy?

[Jason]

It's possible I've experienced one while in a drunken stupor, lying passed out in a pool of floopy disks and Doritos.

That's quite possible.

[Jason]

Ah!

Back in those days, I was an Apple IIe type of guy. :)

My condolences. :)

[Nick]

What you fail to understand is that I have experienced nearly four decades of being conscious, in meditation, without being conscious "of something"...

I don't doubt that for a second. Hilarious!

[mikiel]

What you fail to understand is that I have experienced nearly four decades of being conscious, in meditation, without being conscious "of something"...

I don't doubt that for a second. Hilarious!

What's really funny is the image of you with your foot in your mouth.
You are totally clueless about meditation as the High Path to enlightenment and emptiness as the fertile void, the ground of Being from which all phenomena spring.

I've taught meditation for many years. Here again is my nutshell version of it in case you missed it:
http://www.consciousunity.org/med.htm

[mikiel]

Buddy, you haven't experienced one second of consciousness.

When you have, believe me you will know.

Hear Ye all forum readers:
For the truth about what mikiel has and has not actually experienced, please consult prince. He has the real scoop.

Perhaps he will do us the honor of re-writing my "Journey to Awakening" page to put the record straight.
Here it is again for easy access, oh all-knowing-one:

http://www.consciousunity.org/MyJourneytoAwakening.html

[mikiel]

Mik, your brand of enlightenment sure is confrontational.

What's all this claptrap about "relative reality" and such? Don't you know that reality is just reality? The ordinary infinite? The everyday absolute? Language-games don't substitute for experience.

I think your floopy realization has some bad sectors.

Here's a quote from Ken Wilber's intro to a book by his buddy Andrew Cohen (founder of "What Is Enlightenment" Zine.)
I've shared it here before and have actually mellowed since my heyday here using primarily the persona of the 'rude-boy-sage'... but 'cuz you are a newbie, here it is again:

" If you want encouragement, soft smiles, ego stroking, gentle caresses of your self-contracting ways, pats on the back and sweet words of solace, find yourself a Nice Guy or Good Girl, and hold their hand on the sweet path of stress reduction and egoic comfort. But if you want Enlightenment, if you want to wake up, if you want to get fried in the fire of passionate Infinity, then, I promise you: find yourself a Rude Boy or a Nasty Girl, the ones who make you uncomfortable in their presence, who scare you witless, who will turn on you in a second and hold you up for ridicule, who will make you wish you were never born, who will offer you not sweet comfort but abject terror, not saccharin solace but scorching angst, for then, just then, you might very well be on the path to your own Original Face."

But, of course, since enlightenment is just a mind gaming farce to you, the above, and my whole website (www.consciousunity.org) will be lost on you until you grow up and get serious about "Ultimate Reality" and the place of "relative reality" as manifesting from It.

[divine focus]

The Totality is like a point; it has no dimensions and is unlocatable. How wide is a point? What can you say about it accurately? You can't see it, but trust that it's there. It makes life easier.

Why would you question me in a discouraging tone about deciding/concluding about what is infinite/unending and then go on to do just that?

Looks like you can't talk about something without concluding something about it. I see your point, but there are things you can think about besides the Totality itself that might be more helpful. You can't really distinguish the Totality from anything, so why try?

There is nothing that is not the Totality. You and I must be the Totality.

[Nick]

You can't really distinguish the Totality from anything, so why try?

I can distinguish between myself and the Totality just like I can distinguish between a bicycle and the parts that comprise it.

There is nothing that is not the Totality. You and I must be the Totality.

We are an infinitely small piece of the Totality.

[Jason]

We are an infinitely small piece of the Totality.

If you, as a whole, are an infinitely small piece of the Totality, then how would you describe a part of you - like your hand? A super infinitely infinitely small part of the Totality?

[Nick]

We are an infinitely small piece of the Totality.

If you, as a whole, are an infinitely small piece of the Totality, then how would you describe a part of you - like your hand? A super infinitely infinitely small part of the Totality?

What we, and anything else you can imagine, are at any one moment is an infinitely small piece of the Totality because there have been infinite moments before it, and there will be infinite moments after it.

[Jason]

We are an infinitely small piece of the Totality.

If you, as a whole, are an infinitely small piece of the Totality, then how would you describe a part of you - like your hand? A super infinitely infinitely small part of the Totality?

What we, and anything else you can imagine, are at any one moment is an infinitely small piece of the Totality because there have been infinite moments before it, and there will be infinite moments after it.

So, an "infinitely small piece" can still be divided into yet smaller pieces, according to you? Odd definition of "infinitely small piece" you got there. I reckon, perhaps, that you just like saying/writing the word "infinite", and now it's a bit out of control. Hehe.

[mansman]

You boys are forgeting that since every moment is of a set duration in time none not even the tinyest ones are the least bit infinite.

[Loki]

According to Nick's logic, all things, whether a galaxy, a planet or a grain of sand, are all infinitely smaller than the infinite totality.

Really, to say something is infinitely smaller than the totality is a bit redundant, since all things are infinitely smaller than the totality.

But how can we know for certain that the totality is infinite? That's still not clear to me.

[Loki]

To be honest, I'm not even sure it makes sense to make a statement about the size of a thing by comparing it to something that has no size. Size, as a phenomenon, needs duality. Therefore, if something is to be judged as small, we must ascertain what is big.

The totality, according to Nick's definition, is not big.

[Nick]

But how can we know for certain that the totality is infinite? That's still not clear to me.

Because it is logically impossible for it to have a beginning or end. If it did, then that would mean nothing would have had to exist at some point, and if nothing were to exist, then it's definitely not a nothing, and is in fact a something.

To be honest, I'm not even sure it makes sense to make a statement about the size of a thing by comparing it to something that has no size. Size, as a phenomenon, needs duality. Therefore, if something is to be judged as small, we must ascertain what is big.

The totality, according to Nick's definition, is not big.

Right, but I can still, for practical purposes, differentiate between myself and the Totality. I think, when discussing the Totality, the best word to describe it would be boundless, and since we do have bounds, we will always fall infinitely short of what constitutes Totality in a that sense.

Keep in mind that these are just a couple ways of looking at things and are only meant to provide flexibility when it comes to breaking down our mental blocks in order to give us a clearer understanding of what we're dealing with.

[divine focus]

You can't really distinguish the Totality from anything, so why try?

I can distinguish between myself and the Totality just like I can distinguish between a bicycle and the parts that comprise it.

I think that would only work if the Totality was the sum of everything. Can you sum up to infinity?

[Nick]

Sum has nothing to do with it, it's just a matter of distinguishing between a part and the whole.