The Translucent Revolution

Wooo Hooooo !!!!!!!

Yes, I look forward to his latest book and the writings by his wife that you mentioned, too!!

Yes, there is a perfection of overwhelming magnificence, if we can but perceive it, but it is perceivable more by the heart than the mind. (And not either-or.)

Thanks so much for the advance peek, Siona!!!!!

Love, OM Bastet

Delightful!! I have one friend like that too. A disgusted, discouraged Osho Sunnyasin. I keep telling her she's a lot further along than she thinks she is; she's in what I call “radical self-acceptance” because she is no longer giving a shit about whether she gets to enlightenment, and is accepting of her “programming” instead of constantly at war trying to get rid of it!!

Yeah, this particular video is highly compatible with what Adyashanti describes, especially the “never done” aspect.

Thanks for stopping by and leaving your comment! Love you too !!!

OM

Thanks for passing that along, Mascha. That's a great idea, a box of hugs to Adya. I too think he is doing a great job!! I can really relate to what your friend said. And I'm not setting myself up as a superior know-it-all. I expect other people to simply observe that I am one!!! ROTFLMAO !!!!!!

Lucienne, I don't know enough about Rajneesh to comment. Most gurus SAY those kinds of things, but in practice, most of them convey that there is a fundamental difference betweeen them and their disciples, and that they the guru are necessary and essential to the disciple's “progress.” IOW, they are inconsistent in their teachings. But I don't know him well enough to say.

Ramana Marharshi said it very succinctly in the quote you gave above, very beautifully. Yet there are two challenges I have with that. One, the formulation and description is IMO too cognitive; those who only have a conceptual realization, not an embodied realization, could fully “get” it.
Second, SOMETHING changes, we always were awareness, yes, but there is realization or not realization of that. I am stretching my talent for putting the ineffable into words, to put my finger on precisely and exactly WHAT changes. I have heard many descriptions so far of what changes, and none of them capture it, for me. That's why I eat up stuff like Centria's blog. Looking for that nugget in ordinary words that speak to the whole embodiment. 

I'm so happy you came here and left your thoughts and inspirations. Thank you!!

Blessings, OM 

Grinning. That's the kindest spin on what I said. Yes, it is within the kaleidoscope of my beingness that I feel sometimes like a SUPERIOR know-it-all, but other aspects of me know that I am not superior, nor do I KNOW it all. 

But what you said, that's truth: life is much more wonderful when we recognize one another's divinity and allow the whole kaleidoscope of one another to reveal itself and be met with compassion, even if not with eager embrace, haha.

Hugs, OM

Wonderful, Lucienne, I love what he said about surrending to life or to a stone. Of course, different people mean different things by that term, but I do have a meaning for it that's meaningful to me……

I stand corrected, or at least made more precise. It would be a conceptual understanding, not a conceptual realization. 

A lot of wisdom in this that you said:
We all project, and if it's not to a guru we are very clever in doing it onto everything else.
It's pretty amazing how we give our power away. I am constantly finding the subtle ways I do this. 


I totally resonate with your whole last paragraph, especially this, so well-put:
True acceptance of what is happens through our whole being not as a thought but as consciousness.


That was a pretty valuable input, I'd say a lot more than 2 cents' worth, haha!!

Happy you came by, Doug. I don't understand why Ken would write the Foreward and then trash the book (subtly and indirectly) by saying that these people are experiencing only STATES. I thought that was very snobbish, and actually inaccurate. Did you catch that in his Foreward??

And now that I am reading the book, while it is stupendous, it's also a lot preachier than I would wish, and tremendously GREEN (those readers here who don't understand that reference, don't worry) rather than IINTEGRAL. Do you remember well enough to have an impression about that?

Blessings, OM

Ah, thanks Dear Translucent One. I normally add the link as well as the embedded version, as some people have easier access to that. But I forgot this time!!

Thanks for being here and reading and participating!

Hugs, OM

You participated by leaving a comment, that's what I meant.
And yes, you are living it, for sure!
Hugs, OM

Hey Barbara, delighted you stumbled in, haha, and thanks for your comments. I guess a lot depends on one's definition of “seeking.” One of the hallmarks of a Translucent is they are NOT “spiritual seekers.” Because they have realized the “always already here now” nature of the transcendent. But “seeking” defined as never-ending opportunities for expansion and Becoming ever-more, then, enthusiastically, yes to that.

It's so true, I agree, we'll never run out of great things to read, watch, hear, or experience, from all the great leads here in Gaia. 

Perhaps I'll just mention I resonate a lot with the Quakers too, and for those who don't know, the Transcendentalists were 19th century American folks/philosophers like Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and others I consider “enlightened.” Is that right?

Blessings, OM

Oh thank you Doug, for reviewing and getting back here with your comments !!!!!!!!!!

Need to affirm I don't regard Wilber as a person to be snobbish or inaccurate. Even when I read him. 

You picked out some crucial sentences from his Foreward, the ones I thought most powerful, as well. 

The sentences I was objecting to include:

“The book particularly explores variations on a unity state or an awakened state of consciousness….” while his next paragraph is about stages.

He differentiates them this way: states are passing, stages are permanent traits or stages of competence acquisition. “Not that you always live up to it but that you always have access to it (which is what makes this an awakened stage and not just an awakened state.)” p. xvi. 

But then he says “This book does not deal with stages of consciousness, which might seem a deficiency, given the book's claims. But I think that, although the criticism is valid, it is beside the point for what this book is trying to do.” p. xix.

I really beg to differ. The people described are MOSTLY in a stage, not a state. It's pretty damned clear to me. I call him snobbish and inacccurate for not seeing what I see, pending of course, that he should defend his opinion, not present it as the God's Truth on the matter !!!!!! WHY does he think the book isn't dealing with stages???????

Of course, he goes on to say marvelous things, brilliant things, encouraging things. That's why I love him, and why so many love him !!!!

The Foreward as a whole is clear, simple, brilliant, and sooo uplifting. I highly recommend it all by itself!!

Thanks again, Doug. 

Blessings, OM 

Hey, starlight, thanks for stopping by and commenting. I too find the existence of this book, and its contents, of enormous comfort and reassurance!!! And encouragement when I get pessimistic!!
OM

I'm not sure I can shed any light unless there is a more specific question. One could write a book. 

The concept of Oneness is conceptual. Obviously. The living as Oneness is not conceptual, but does not eliminate having the concept of Oneness in one's mind, just like other concepts. 

Does that address what you're wanting to hear more about??

Whether you or I “think” “people” can or can't live oneness in this world, we really can only speak for ourselves. I wouldn't tell people they can't truly live oneness with the village that just got blown up, because I am quite sure some of them do. Are you saying you believe it is impossible for anyone?

The whole point of Oneness is Oneness. Everything. No one said it was comfortable, though. No one said it was easy. And no one said in Oneness you can't take passionate actions in the world. In fact, in Oneness, passionate action is far more effective, IMO.

I'm not sure what you were trying to say, so perhaps you can elaborate. I won't be reading more til tomorrow, though. 

Namazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzte,
OM

Ah, Albert posted while I was writing. Somehow I begin to see what the issue might be. A classic misunderstanding of what Oneness means/is.

Here's the way I see it:

All stars, galaxies, and planets are made of star-stuff, and one can look at the entire universe as a single field of star-stuff, with various sizes and densities and configurations of clumps of stuff/atoms. We can distinguish these clumps, but really their boundaries are fuzzy, and one can easily be aware of the universe as One field of star-stuff, within which portions are clumps and other portions are nearly empty.

The metaphor is quite exact. We are One, does NOT mean there are no differences, or that the differences are insignificant or that they OUGHT to be insignificant to us. The differences are considerable. So while we are aware of (speaking loosely) being Oneness, we are simultaneously aware of the fact that Orion is not Earth, and Earth is not the Milky Way, and Earth is not Mars, etc. And so we are One with the village getting blown up, but obviously we are not blown up.

It's that danged thingy of holding paradoxes, or levels of awareness, or tracks of awareness. 

Is this relevant at all?

OMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Well, and you posted while I was writing that one. Oh well, I don't have to set the alarm tomorrow morning……..

For many many many many people, it IS conceptual, surface, meaningless, empty, a facade, a pretense, an ego-thing. That's for danged sure. Most people who mouth “We are One” haven't a clue about the reality of it. I'm with both of you on that. And in fact, on the merely conceptual level, it is quite a dangerous perspective, IMO. Dangerous for self and others.

For me, realization of Oneness does NOT imply a “fixed state of enlightenment.” For me, any fixed state is NOT within my definition of enlightenment, haha. So that's one reason I don't think realization of Oneness is “impossible.” That's a pretty drastic claim, that it's “impossible” in real life. I don't know how one would go about proving it. I think one counter-example would disprove impossibility. And from my perspective, there is more than one person I believe is a counter-example.

I'd love to hear why you think there is a necessary (logically necessary??or just psychologically frequent??) conenction between [realization of] Oneness and a fixed state of enlightenment.

I too believe in waking up to being human at ever deeper levels. On one of those levels, “being human” involves being One with everything. I don't see any impossibility. Just improbability that the average We are One mantra-sayer has the least notion of that level. 

I hasten to clarify that in saying the differences are important, I don't mean that the differences need to give rise to judgments, such as would exclude the Integral BDSM conversation Albert mentioned as nonexisting!!

Hugs, OM  

Bondage domination sado-masochism. Or something like that. Not something that “integral enlightenment” would illuminate you as to the meaning of, LOL !!!!

I kind of agree with a lot of what you said, star, but not with what I see as over-generalizations.

to be fully one with the blown up village, you would have to know what it was like to be blown up with them…that is my point…


I don't agree that “you would have to know” that to be fully One with them. Not “know that” in the conscious human mind, anyway. You do know it on some level. But not on every level of yourself. Besides which, most of us old souls do indeed know what it's like to be blown up, from our own past experience. And burned at the stake and boiled in oil and a variety of other gory things. 

all this oneness and we are light and only light stuff is misleading…it captivates and misconstrues reality…it is allowing for countless humans to remain in fantasy land…they cannot accept the facts of real life…they want no part of negativity…and think that all these problems that humanity is facing can be prayed away…or say, lets just send them our light…nonsense i say…


I am in total agreement. MUCH is misleading and a misconstruing, but not ”all of this Oneness” is. I am not willing to make that generalization.


Oneness is not at all compatible with opting for one side of a polarity. We are light AND dark. Negativity is part of the Oneness. Light that is “only light” is not the basic Light of Being. Someone more eloquent than I made that clear in elegant words I can't recall right now, but that was the gist of it. I think she said there is light which excludes and is the opposite of dark and there is Light which includes both light and dark. 


I agree many of these people who opt for just-light are in fantasy land, unable to accept the facts of life, and impotent in dealing with the real challenges of humanity. “Just send them our light.” I say, send it, but not “just.” More is needed.

we need real solutions for real problems…all this spirituality oneness stuff is just a pretty way of escaping reality…


We do need real solutions for real problems but I have difficulty going along with “ALL” or “just” in your statement. I can't dismiss every focus on Oneness by every person. Some talk of Oneness is crap, some is not. Some is a way of escaping reality, but some is not a way of escaping.


Appreciate and resonate with your perspectives, Albert. Dealing with the differences keeps us busy and challenged. But it actually helps us if we realize the underlying Unity. It's an empowering realization that facilitates solution-finding, IMO. 


Hugs, OM

starlight, it seems to me that your experience of oneness is not necessarily the same as others' experiences, and is not, IMO, what I am referring to by Oneness. You say you can't live in that state of oneness you experienced, and I would agree, because experiences do move on, yes. 

 The Oneness I am talking about is something quite different. It is the natural underlying reality of humans and everything else, and we live in it whether we are aware of it or not, and nothing is more natural than living in awareness of it. There is nothing about it which precludes concern for human life and wellbeing. Far from it; the opposite in fact. Passionate concern arises naturally from that realization of Oneness. 

I don't think I am “making something more” of your experience. That would indeed be a troubling thing to do. I am talking about something different, something which is not an experience. And the belief systems that are built around the concepts are very different from what I am trying to speak of, and the books flying off the shelves. I suggest you not paint all with the same brush; there are distinctions to be made. There is a baby in the bathwater, LOL !!!!!

My “ideas” about Oneness are just ideas? I'm not sure how you would know that. Is that some statement about my reality or my inner experience which you have some access to? My words are words, for sure. Concepts are concepts, for sure. Ideas about Oneness are ideas, but Oneness, and what I am trying to point to through the words, is not an idea or a word or a concept. I'm not able to understand how you might be able to say what it is, for me in my life.

You seem to believe that your experience of oneness is “it,” and everyone who uses the word is describing the same thing you experienced. I don't think that is true. I can see based on your description how you could arrive at an either-or, of human concern or floating around in the stars. My “Oneness” doesn't have that either-or. It doesn't even have a “both-and.” It IS both-and.

Thanks, Albert. All I can add is that I don't see respect and appreciation, and the “drawing of red lines” as on different “sides.” I see them as both expressions of the same “Oneness.” LOL !!!

Thanks, starlight, for this illuminating discussion. I appreciate knowing more about where you are coming from and how you are viewing these things, and what you are evoking from me in words and in better understandings.

And now it's 7 AM and I am going back to bed for a nap, dammit. I got up to do two things, and now it's two hours later sitting at the computer!!!!

Hugs, OM 

I meant to add, star, that what you and I share is a passionate concern for the betterment of (and acceptance of the nitty-gritty of) human life, and a concern about anything which would diminish that concern shared by others. We seem to be coming to our valuing of human life from different places, so it has different flavor, but there is also a profound commonality I see.

And of course Albert shares that concern too. Albert's devotion and passion in that concern are quite awesome to me.

Hugs, OM 

Touche, star, sorry if I implied I can know anything about your experience except what you described. I don't think I “know” anything, but I was able to make sense of your words, in the normal way of interpreting meanings. And I don't remember implying that you CAN'T understand my perspective. If I did that, it was from the following perspective, not a personal statement about you.

It seems that you are not commenting on my personal experience because you are coming from a logical deduction: this particular instance cannot happen because in principle it is impossible. So, in effect, there is nothing for you to “know” or “understand.” That is a perfectly logical position. Stated another way, isn't it truly “impossible” for us to understand a perspective we hold as impossible?. That's a perfectly logical position

I have carefully avoided saying (and I hope even implying) I myself consciously live in Oneness realization. So it isn't there for you to “get” that I am, from my words. Whether I am or not from my own perspective is a very private matter to me. Whether another person regards themselves as in a position to conclude for themselves from just my words whether I am or not, depends on them.

I don't “believe in” enlightenment, either. So we quite agree on that. And IMO it cannot be universally defined, either.

Ariela, how delightful of you to join in, with those two marvelous images and your take on Oneness. I often use the human body as a metaphor, too, and my goodness! that starling display was awesome. 

I have heard the mathematical scientific explanation of how they do it, which is meant to debunk the “field of consciousness” other-dimensional explanation, but man, I dunno. It doesn't feel as if each starling is simply monitoring one ahead of them and six others, with the “prime directive” to have no one directly in your path, and those two factors are sufficient to account for all that happens. Could be. But I dunno……

How wonderful that the guy who posted the vid lives near there and sees all this on a daily basis and is in appreciation of it! That's a wonderful consciousness I appreciated as much as the starling pictures!!

Hugs, OM

Hi Star, boy these online conversations can get very complex. Makes me wish I could use colors to mark out sections to make responding easier. I'll try to make do here. I haven't tried indenting in the new text editor; it might work better than it used to.

It's such a pleasure to interact with such an intelligent person, Star, and I appreciate your feedback!!! I'll try to clarify what I understood and what I meant, and ask more about what you meant. It would be so much easier in person, sigh. 


But it's always a worthwhile endeavor to dig below surfacey conversations and try to have a real exchange of meanings and understandings. So I'm glad we are trying. I would like to move “closer to understanding each other.” I'd like to see how close we can get.

In further conversation to do that, I'd like to adopt the procedures recommended by communication teachers, and make “I” statements rather than “you” statements. I have the impression that both you and I endorse the idea that we cannot know what's going on inside someone else, is that right? If so, then we'd be extra careful to be speaking about ourselves and how things appear or come across to us, not about how the other person IS or what they intended or what is (or is not) going on inside them.

If we use that policy, would you be willing to rephrase these things?
“How arrogant of you” might be “Boy, that strikes me as quite arrogant. That's my feedback to you, my impression that you are arrogant. Is that something you are aware of, or did you intend that?” [Not saying that's how you would rephrase it. That's just an example of the policy in action.]
“You are sarcastic/you are hammering…” might be “I'm feeling like the butt of sarcasm and I have the impression you are actually hammering on this idea. Is that your experience of what you are doing?” [Again these are just examples.]

And I would be saying, instead of “It seems to me that you are….” something more precise which is “I have the impression that you mean….. Is that what you mean?” I regret the statements you found offensive which would have been much better communicated as questions, to check out my impressions, even though I tried to convey they were just “it seems” or “IMO.” I see now that wasn't adequately clear communication.


BTW, by “touche” I meant “You have a good point. I believe I agree with what you are saying. It changes me.”


I have to be away from the computer for awhile, but I'll be thinking about how to have a conversation about our conversation. What do you think would move us closer to understanding one another?


Hugs, OM

Sniffle from gladness.

Can't wait to get back from my errands!!
Hugs, OM

Star, I'm wanting to continue the conversation here in this blog, if that's OK with you, rather than private email (which is theoretically a possible place, though neither of us has suggested it. Some people in our situation here might decide to move their conversation to email.) 

I like here better, partly because we could get the benefit of others' input, and partly so we can serve as an example of people trying, each to the best of our ability, to deepen our communication and understanding of our differences (and similarities.) Is it OK?

I'd like anyone reading this conversation to realize that part of the context for it is the simultaneous interchanges Starlight and I are having on Centria's blog over here. To me, anyway, our interchange there is an important part of our relationship, and therefore an important part of the context of this conversation. I don't think conversations/words can be adequately understood apart from the people involved. Ah, more precisely: I think understanding of words and conversation is greatly improved to the extent one knows who the people involved are.

OM (P.S. Those are initials, that's why I capitalize both, but the O is for Om, so I answer to either, haha.)

Star, what a great beginning to this endeavor !!! Thank you !!!! I so resonate with a lot of what you said.

Argh, I sat down to start off writing, and got a phone call that ate up my window of time here. So will return later.

However, I do want to say that I'm in fairly new territory in this “conversations about conversations” aimed at deeper understanding, so I'll be faltering and feeling my way, and I'm realllly wanting this to be a community endeavor, with lots of folks inputting along the way to help me out, and I imagine you might feel the same way, Star, so it would be helping “us” move toward more understanding. Kinda like we are guinea pigs in a community experiment, I see it maybe that way.

Well, since I resonate so strongly with what you just said, I'll say maybe it's not just a community experiment but a HUMAN endeavor, toward relating the way we'd like to see more people/all people relating, does that resonate for you?

Like this!
If we can continue to experience the space inbetween our limited judgments…where knowing is alive and waiting for us to create it in this moment of being…then the honesty will flow and the knowing will arise without limitations…

and your goal of helping humanity reach its potential, that's my goal too !!!!! So I dedicate my stumbling efforts here to that goal.

If I can think when I get home later today, will post more. Sometimes asynchronous communication is marvelous because we can go at a slower pace!!!

Blessings, OM

OK let's see what I can get done before my brain goes to sleep, haha. 

Star, I'm not sure I can do justice to two intense conversations with you going on simultaneously in two different threads, here and Kathy's blog, so for the time being I'm going to focus on this one.

I read down the thread and I found the first place that I can see a problem emerging. If you see a problem before that, with something I said, then please point me to it and we can talk about that. But in the interest of keeping our conversation bite-sized for my own sake, I'll just focus this post on this item/issue.

I am not sure what you are referring to by this sentence:

i don't see how you can think that you have an understanding of my experience but that i cannot have an understanding of yours…

Can you point to what led you to say that I OM think you Star cannot have an understanding of my OM's experience? I can't find anything I said that I meant that by, or that I would interpret that way. In fact, I do NOT think you cannot have an understanding (at least of some kind or other) of my experience. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. It's not what I think. I'd love to know what gave you that impression.

I said “You seem to believe…..” and I'm wondering whether that is what you mean by “you can think that you have an understanding of my experience.” Was it that, or something else I said???

Actually I don't think I have an understanding (a complete or extremely good one anyway) of your experience. If I thought I understood your experience I would have said “You believe xyz…” I was sincere when I said “seem to.” Lots of people are not sincere when they say that, but I am. It always means “This is how it appears to me, but that's just my interpretation and I might be wrong. Please tell me if you see it differently.” In fact, generally when I say “seems” I am actually asking, implicitly, the question: Am I right or wrong here? But we haven't talked that much so you wouldn't know that about me.

Does knowing more about what I meant when I said “You seem to believe….” make a difference for you?

If I were to re-word that sentence in a better way, I might have said “I get the impression that you believe everyone who uses the word “oneness” is describing the same thing that you experienced. Is that true? Do you mean that? If not, please tell me a more accurate statement about what you believe.”

If I had said it that way, would your response have been different? Would you have felt less like I was saying I could understand your experience? Does that seem to you like it would have been a better wording?

It appears likely we're in the same issue later when you say:

Om said: starlight, it seems to me that your experience of oneness is not necessarily the same as others' experiences, and is not, IMO, what I am referring to by Oneness.

(you get the big O, and give me the little…LOL…hilariousnessness)

in this statement you conclude that my experience of oneness is not what you are referring to by (capital) Oneness…

I wish you had said “It appears to me you have concluded,” rather than “You conclude….” because you can't know what I concluded, just as I can't know what you concluded……… I think we go down the rabbit hole back and forth on stuff like that. :)

Again, I said “it seems to me….” and “not necessarily,” and “IMO,” three qualifying phrases, which is not a conclusion. I would have said “your experience is not the same as others'….” if I had concluded that. So you said “You concluded….” but in fact I tried to be clear that I was tentative. I put it forth as “seems,” which, again, to me, means “This is how it appears to me, but I might be wrong, and correct me if I am.”

Well that's all kind of repetitive because the sentences and thoughts get pretty complicated when trying to talk about talk. Am I even being understandable? Do you see things differently from this? I'd like to know your perspective on the above.

And as far as big or little O's, my intention was to follow the format we had been using.To the best of my recollection while I was writing, I thought I had been capitalizing and you had not. So this was not meant as any kind of comparison statement. Just trying to be clear as to whose oneness was which, LOL !!!!!

Well, that's my feeble first attempt to be clearer, to explain what I meant and ask what you meant, in this conversation about the conversation.


In general, what I am learning, is to not make any declarative statements about what is or is not (or can or can't be) in another person's mind, because that's all really unknowable. Instead, I'll ask questions. That'll probably make for more interesting exchanges !!!!!


I'm also learning that even better than qualifying with “it seems” or “IMO”, or “from my point of view,” is to ask questions like “Do you mean this or that or something else, please clarify?” I'm really happy to have this conversation really letting those new procedures sink into my daily habits of communicating.

If it just seems a ridiculous exercise, please let me know, and show me what would be a more meaningful step forward. I really need some help in all this, from ya'll.

Potential. Humanity. Yes, plugging away at that…..

Hugszzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, 
OM

Drafting a reply, but had a long and busy day, already went to sleep, and just got up to get a drink of water, then back to sleep. Catch ya' tomorrow.

Hugs, OM

Kathy and Barbara, I am so delighted you will be reading !!! That's why I wrote the blog, so I feel satisfied!!!

And Barbara, so glad you are back on Gaia, and thanks for adding your perspective, and sooooo glad the words speak to you. Isn't it true that most discussions bog down not necessarily because opinions are different but because the very words don't mean the same to both parties !!!! I hope you left yourself some hair, LOL !!!!!

I am feeling lousy physically, and am extra busy. Am just about done drafting a reasonable next post here, and we'll see how tomorrow goes. Been go-go-going or down flat, nothing else much getting done. No flu, just my back is out and painful, and consequences of that for the rest of the body.

Blessings, OM

All the good wishes and good energy have had their effect. I finally have time, and enough physical comfort and enough mental clarity, to continue here!!!!

I hope to say more later, but will say these things for now. 

I'm responding here to Starlight's invitation:
Let's just go back to this idea of Oneness…let's see if we can come to a closer understanding of what the other means by it…k?


And Star, please now tell me more about your idea or perspective on the matter, too!!!!


I'mm gonna be as brief as possible here.


“Understanding” and “mind” and “meaning” and “knowing” are super-challenging when we are talking about O/oneness. I can tell you about the taste of apple pie, or the experience of listening to a symphony, but nothing I can say will give you an understanding of it, or help you “know” it. If I'm good enough with words, and you've tasted the pie or listened to a symphony, you will RECOGNIZE what I am pointing to, but the words will be just triggers, not maps that put you into the territory, or symbols that actually give you the reality of their referent.


So whatever I might try to say, it's probably going to end up sounding to our conscious minds, including mine, as nonsense, ridiculousness, poetry, imagination, paradox, gibberish.


That is all my way of saying what spiritual teachers say about talking/wording/languaging about “the Ineffable.”


But I would venture to guess that your experience that you described, of “oneness,” Star, is something like that, too. Not really conveyable in words, right? So perhaps we are aligned on that aspect of the conversation, is that so??


OK, can I go beyond the best shot I gave it above, in helping someone get some idea/concept what I am pointing to which is not a concept, which is the territory, not the map? 


Well, with a little help from my friends. I've been listening to Adyashanti's CD set Diversity of One, and he does a magnificent job of pointing to “oneness” using words. I don't have time to write down exact quotes, but I have listened several times, and here's the gist of it. (starts near end of Track 4, for those who have the CD's.)


When people introspect deeply, or self-inquire layer after layer after layer down the rabbit hole (that's my image) of Who/What/Where am “I?” – inquire deeply into what he calls the self-sense, or sense of being a “self,” most of them seem to end up at some fundamental sense of “I am.” Just existence which is awareness. 


I'd elaborate on that as: “I am that I am,” in the Judeo-Christian lingo. Awareness, just awareness as such, just the process or phenomenon of being aware, not a “self who is aware” or a self who “has awareness.” And this is sensed as irreducible. Not able to turn around and look at “itself” any further. The ultimate of “isness” is just “awareness.”


Later, he says that in this “awareness” of “I amness” in which there really isn't an “I”, there is the recognition that if any other person or sentient being or existent were to dive down the rabbit hole that far, they would end up at the same “I am-ness” and they would recognize it's the SAME “I amness” as everyone else's “I am-ness.” That their “I am” foundational awareness/beingness is not different or other than my own. IOW, “it” is/”I am” “all one.” 


He conveys to me that this sense of oneness (and again, “sense of” is a very inaccurate term as are all the terms I am using) is simply what I might call “self-evident” at the bottom of the rabbit hole.


Many people who haven't gotten to the bottom of the rabbit hole and are trying to work with concepts about “oneness” reject the idea because they see the variety in the world. Their minds can't reconcile “many” and “one.” And indeed that reconcilation only comes as some kind of “recognition.” 


But I can tell you how my own mind approaches that paradox, without rejecting either oneness or the many. They are simply applicable on different levels. Or they are different ways of seeing the same thing. Or “We are one in some ways, and not-one in other ways.” 


Like the stars and stardust metaphor above. When you are looking from the perspective of seeing stardust, it's all one big field, everything is included in the one field. When you are looking from the perspective of seeing the clumps, then there are “many,” and each one is distinct, unique, different. But not, strictly speaking, “separate” because there is the possibility of the “one field of stardust” perspective, and the boundaries are only approximate anyway.


I'm reading Ken Wilber's Sex, Ecology, Spirituality and he's talking about the people who insist on the “many” perspective because they don't want to lose valuable distinctions, don't want everything collapsed into a homogeneous blob, a “flatland.” He points out this is not a necessary consequence of seeing a whole or oneness. (Chapter 2, discussion of Tenet 8.) We can expand our own consciousness's ability to accept both, rather than (in my words) set up a false alternative, one OR many.


Well, gotta go do other things. Hope this was at all interesting or meaningful. Your turn, Star, to tell me more about your view!!! Or respond to what I've said. I reiterate that I won't insist on the truth of anything I've said, as words are inadequate and my level of certainty about anything I say is not absolute, it's very open.


Blessings, OM

Hi Star, I didn't say or imply that this “oneness” limits infinity; in fact I sorta implied the opposite. And I certainly didn't say or imply that it's the “end all of all things.”

Are you saying that because we have a word for it, there can be no referent for the word?? Because we dare to speak with reference to it, it cannot be other than a concept??? I'm not sure of the logic of that. Plenty of things we talk about and have words for are regarded as “real” independent of what we say or don't say about them, that's my understanding of language and how it works. So I am puzzled what you mean. You seemed to be saying that just because I am talking about it that proves it is JUST a concept. Am I misinterpreting your meaning?

And I didn't talk about enlightenment and didn't intend to. And I specifically didn't say or mean to say or imply that this “oneness” is a FEELING. It is NOT a feeling. Nor is it “an experience.” But we have no good words for the kind of thing it is (and it isn't even a kind of thing, that's why we can't talk about it coherently.) Strictly speaking, there is no “referent” of the word/concept in the ordinary sense, because this is not a mind-thing at all. It is not a concept, not a word, not a feeling, not an experience, not a thing, and we can't understand it nor talk coherently ABOUT it, our words can only point.

Or are you saying that because I can't talk about in a way that you understand, that's what proves it is ONLY a concept for me?? I'm not clear.

But I align with what I think you are implying, correct me if you aren't, that you object to people pursuing this “oneness” thingy to the detriment of caring about human life. I'm totally with you in that. First because it can't be attained or found as a result of any behavior or mental activity, so IMO pursuit is a waste of good energy better spent on living life, and second, because IMO nothing spiritual is worth much if it doesn't focus us back on the quality of human life, all lives, in fact, all of the Earth and all of the Kosmos. To me, it's gotta do that or it's not genuine spirituality.

So again our basic alignment shows up, it seems to me. 

Again, I am wondering whether you are saying that because we DO talk about oneness, that's ALL it is, just talk, that it cannot possibly be anything else, because we are talking about it? I don't see the logic in that.

But I do see the logic in passionately endorsing no split between spirituality and human life !! I get the impression you think we must choose between, and I think the opposite: they actually go together, but not the kind of spirituality we see around us, that most people are engaged in. You are calling it right, in my opinion, in describing what you see. I am just saying in my world there is more than what (as I interpret what you say) you see in your world or what you see in mine, more than what you seem to be saying is even possible.

I can't prove what I am saying, it is outside that realm of proof and argument. How can anyone prove anything to someone else about what's “real” for them? I don't see THAT as possible, LOL !!!! So it appears we are doomed to disagree about “oneness.” I can't say or do anything which would “convince” you of anything. I can't, and it's not even relevant to try, IMO. 

Gotta go again. Thanks for writing back so clearly!!

Blessings, OM 

I've been trying to get back here for days, and even now I don't have time. 

Barbara thank you for your comment and that wonderful quotation from Robert Langan. I hadn't heard that before!!

The difficulty with metaphors – ya can freeze in 'em. Fortunately, it's only a metaphorical death, LOL !!!!

I don't have time yet to study your response above, Star, but I said at the beginning that when we try to talk about this in language, it's going to sound contradictory and illogical and nonsensical and at best paradoxical to the human mind. 

Not an experience, not a feeling, then what? Well, perhaps a reality??

Thanks for asking as a question, I'm not saying humans can have experiences that are not human, but I am saying there is something beyond “experience” that humans have – what word? apprehended? recognized? There simply is no word. At the very least, it's consciousness beyond cognition, beyond the mind.

how can you KNOW something so intimately as you claim you can, if you don't even know what it is or how to articulate it??? 

Because I don't KNOW it. It's not a knowing, not conceptual, not mental, not languaged. And as far as I have ever heard, no one has been able to articulate it, because it's beyond mind and therefore beyond language. Everyone (that I've ever heard of) who's discovered it (inaccurate word) says so. 

More to address, but I swear I don't have 15 minutes in 3 days, to be here!!!

Clearing up something some readers might have picked up on. I said Adyashanti suggests people who inquire into the sense of “I” deeply enough can arrive at “I am” and can realize there is only one of those, common to everyone. Then I also said First because it can't be attained or found as a result of any behavior or mental activity,  That sounds like a  contradiction. However, it isn't, because engaging in that inquiry doesn't at all guarantee the realization. And when the realization does come, you don't experience it as something your human self achieved or did. The mental activity he suggests is quite powerful, however, and very worth doing for the expansiveness and freedom it can bring. 


OK, squeezing in one more response, to
Or, are you saying this realization of OneNess is a state or stage along the path of enlightenment???  hmmmmm…

 I'm not saying that, thanks for asking as a question, and right now, I don't know what I would say about that. Mostly because “enlightenment” is a very slippery term, means too many different things to different people. Not useful to talk about. Actually the realization isn't too useful to talk about either. 


Actually, Centria/Kathy has the best solution: silence. No need to talk about any of this. No one HAS to do anything or go anywhere or be anything they're not. So we can all just relax. But now and then, we get the urge to talk…..


Gotta run, will get back as soon as I can. Anyone else want to chime in?????
Hugs to all,
OM 

Thank you a zillion Kathy for that input!!!! I hope it's clear from what I have been saying all along that humanity is no less important for me. I think I said it pretty strongly recently. I am not of the “Ascender” types Ken Wilber talks about, who are “up and out.” For me it's more like “down and into.” 

And that isn't just for now, at least, it's been my approach for a long long long time!!! Try 3 billion years, haha.

Love, OM