Some thoughts about what oneness is, and isn't

Oneness comes in for quite a bit of discussion in comment conversations on this blog.

Not surprisingly, there's no consensus about whether oneness exists or what form it takes. That's to be expected, since debates over whether reality is inherently marked by unity or duality have been raging for thousands of years. 

Though I've written a book called "Return to the One," which describes in a lot of detail the teachings of Plotinus, a 3rd century Neoplatonic Greek philosopher, I don't feel like I have anything genuinely wise to say about oneness. 

Nonetheless, here's some non-genuinely-wise thoughts on the subject. They really don't have anything to do with Plotinus, or at least very little. In fact, my current attitude toward oneness is at odds with Plotinus's teachings on the subject in this sense:

Plotinus believed that this physical realm was marked by multiplicity, while the supernatural spiritual realm demonstrated much more unity. Well, that presumes that such a realm exists, so obviously I don't have anything cogent to say about it, as my experience is only of this world.

So let's consider how much oneness there is in the physical reality we all inhabit. There's quite a bit, actually. 

For example, science knows that quantum fields pervade the entire universe. In fact, quantum fields are the universe. No quantum fields -- such as electromagnetism and the nuclear forces -- no universe. 

This was made clear in a provocative article in a recent issue of New Scientist, Volatile cosmology. The teaser after the title says, "The universe as we know it could vanish in an instant. What does our continued existence tel us about the reality we can't see, asks Miriam Frankel." 

A couple of paragraphs gives the gist of the article.

Quantum fields are the fundamental building blocks of the universe, which then give rise to the more familiar particles and forces of the standard model of particle physics. Chief among them is the Higgs field, associated with the Higgs boson, which permeates the universe and gives elementary particles their mass.

The Higgs had been hypothesized for decades, but we were in for a surprise when the particle was finally measured at CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) near Geneva in 2012. The result suggested that the Higgs field isn't stable because it isn't in its lowest possible energy state. We know that objects like atoms or particles tend to want to minimize their energy, so in theory the Higgs could suddenly drop to its lowest possible state in a process known as a phase transition.

This is similar to the phase transition that occurs when liquid water boils to make steam. If you look inside a saucepan of near-boiling water, you will see tiny bubbles of gas nucleating at the bottom. Similarly, a phase transition in the Higgs field would create bubbles of its lowest possible energy.

Those bubbles would contain very strange physics. As a bubble formed, the quantum fields would suddenly shift, effectively rewriting the laws of physics and creating chaos. Terrifyingly, the bubbles would expand at light speed, swallowing everything around them.

Fortunately, this is just a hypothesis, albeit one founded on some solid science. I include it because I think the notion of the universe as we know it dissolving through a phase transition of the quantum field that gives particles their mass is pretty damn cool. I've got more pressing things to worry about, of course.

There's a unity to our universe, as is clear from the "uni" in both words, and the possibility that the universe could swallow itself, so to speak, by the Higgs field undergoing a phase transition. Thus we don't have to look beyond the reality in which we live and breathe to experience a certain oneness. 

For we humans are made of quantum fields, as is everything else. It isn't that we inhabit the universe; we are the universe. How could it be otherwise?

Our conceptions of duality or multiplicity are just that: concepts imagined by the fertile human mind, which has evolved to be capable of fantasizing things that aren't physically real, unless we consider neurons firing in a brain to be physically real, which they are in a limited sense that most of us wouldn't view as genuine reality.

This is where I feel most "spiritual" discussions of oneness go awry. I readily admit that I contributed to this in my book about Plotinus. While I used some concrete examples of oneness -- most of us prefer the unity of love to the division of hate, for example -- I also embraced the other-worldliness of Plotinus's philosophy.

Absolute oneness would be extremely boring. Nothing would happen there. Nothing could happen there.

Any happening would involve change, as all change is from one state to another state, duality. Plotinus recognized this when he noted that it would be crazy for a seeker of oneness to have to fail to exist in order to be one with oneness, for then he or she would lack the ability to experience oneness just when it was at hand. 

Thus oneness can't exist in an absolute form. If it did, like the Higgs field causing all that we know to vanish in an instant, absolute unity would have no entities within it capable of knowing that unity.

So let's be content with the glimpses of unity we enjoy in our better moments where the world seems to hold together in a pleasing sense, and we feel like we're an integral part of the world, not someone looking out upon it from an imaginary vantage point in a separate reality that doesn't exist.

Comments

[October]

Quantum bubble is an interesting thing. Does such a thing really exist?

IMHO, Quantum phenomena is Real. i believe it has been so far proved at micro scale. But the real question is can a bubble exist as large as 2 m and 2m width?

In my experiences, you can manifest quantum bubble as such then apply the tool of imagination to where to go,close eyes, and realize. you are just there.

may seem like BS, but only Humans can have such a power if they progress wisely and peacefully.

[Ron E.]

It’s easy to make complicated the fact of oneness: simply introduce a mentally constructed metaphysical idea portraying anything from separate souls, self’s’, minds or consciousness and were off to la la land, a land which effectively separates a human being from him/herself and from the rest of the world and universe.

Without such divisive constructs, it doesn’t take a genius to look at the world around to see (and experience) the interconnectedness of which we are a part. It has long been said, and today we can witness the effects of overly interfering with the long-standing interdependence of species and the environment whether it be the land or the oceans – so intricately are we all connected.

It’s a sad state of affairs that we crave to imagine or believe that there is something about being a human being that is more special and superior than the rest of the natural world. Yes, we have the more evolved intelligence but it is not enough in that it is easily dominated by the egoistic need to preserve and make secure the illusory idea that we are a separate, self-sufficient and separate special creation.

[Osho Robbins]

Oneness is misunderstood.
giving a detailed explanation even doesn't seem to clear up misunderstandings.

i'll give a few pointers.
first, it is not a theory.
second, it lays no claim for it's existence
(i.e. that ONENESS exists)
third - it has nothing to do with "we are all one"

so what the heck is it?
is it a religious belief?

again no.

first forget oneness. start with duality.

The world we live in is duality.
everything has an opposite.
we are born, live, die.
we have a mind, a body.
we are here for a while then we are gone.
this is time/ space reality

if i propose, just for entertainment,
that perhaps, maybe there is another reality.
in that reality, there is only ONE substance that exists. This thing is limitless, has no boundary and is not limited by space or time.
it cannot think (because thought require time). it doesn't DO anything because doing doesn't exist (no objects)

I definitely cannot PROVE it's existence because that is simply silly.

why?

because
1) i am specifically and categorically Denying it's existence. why? i'll explain shortly.
2) since i am saying it does NOT exist, i have no burden of proof

so this is the interesting part:

what is EXISTENCE?

an object exists if
it has SOME characteristics.

ONENESS has NO CHARACTERISTICS
hence it does NOT exist.

what does that mean?

it means, I can point to oneness
I can't describe it,
i can't experience it
i can't know it.

well that's it then, it doesn't exist!

which i have been saying all along.

I am not saying:

There IS THIS THING called ONENESS
and I have met it / experienced it.

in fact if anyone says that - they are lying.

ONENESS is non-existent because it ticks all the boxes for a non-existent thing

i will stop here
enough to confuse everyone

[Appreciative Reader]

"enough to confuse everyone"

Nope. Not everyone. Just you.

[777]

"oneness exists or what form it takes.

It is the LOVE

Once you are exclusively LOVE you will "remember" any real LOVE
and forget ALL other

777
ps
You are already but actually hindered by what you build. over the years, eons, cosmoses . . . . in and ex-carnations
by using Quantum Entanglement
including what we write here, EXCEPT PURE LOVE

ALL except THIS LOVE NEVER HAPPENED

[777]

again OSHO said
"ONENESS has NO CHARACTERISTICS
hence it does NOT exist."

SO you say : " LOVE DOES NOR EXIST "

How dare U

777

[777]

again OSHO said
"ONENESS has NO CHARACTERISTICS
hence it does NOT exist."

SO you say : " LOVE DOES NOR EXIST "

How dare U

777

[777]

About the Masters absence at the time of death

Because Power of KAL is a 99^9 IQ Cyborg, . . not a Soul

It s so easy for A Param One to push it aside at the third Eye
At Initiation GOD takes his place

SO HE IS AND WAS ALREADY THERE
( ON THE QE level <<< )

[Appreciative Reader]

OR: "enough to confuse everyone"

AR: "Nope. Not everyone. Just you."

Incoherence does not equal profundity, OR.

That your verbiage is clearly the former, and not the latter, has been clearly and unassailably demonstrated, OR, in our series of exchanges, culminating in the whole exchange we signed off on before the holidays.

Given that, I find it difficult to grok how on earth you can return to flogging the same old yet again. Seriously: Has nothing actually penetrated through to you?

You've recounted your personal history, of someone truly, desperately seeking the truth. I resonate with that. How, then, can you knowingly continue to lie in the arms of falsehood, despite the falsity of what you embrace having been clearly and unassailably demonstrated to you?

...The Urban thing, maybe? *shrugs*

----------

Apologies. Couldn't stop myself saying that, despite now knowing the barrenness of this particular font, and therefore the fruitlessness of this exercise. Won't again. ...Or at least, will try not to again.

[Osho Robbins]

let me continue......

i had to stop mid-flight last time because of "time-constraints" (in other words I got busy. my friend is plastering the lounge and i was assisting him).

so.....

let me continue......

my last words were......

=======================
what is EXISTENCE?

an object exists if
it has SOME characteristics.

ONENESS has NO CHARACTERISTICS
hence it does NOT exist.

what does that mean?

it means, I can point to oneness
I can't describe it,
i can't experience it
i can't know it.

well that's it then, it doesn't exist!

which i have been saying all along.

I am not saying:

There IS THIS THING called ONENESS
and I have met it / experienced it.

in fact if anyone says that - they are lying.

ONENESS is non-existent because it ticks all the boxes for a non-existent thing

i will stop here
enough to confuse everyone
==========================

first a few points of clarity.

we have a thing called "exists"

we use this to nagivate our world.

If i call you and say i am coming over for dinner tomorrow with a few friends, you may ask "how many?"
I say "well, three normal ones and ten invisible ones"
"shall i set the table for 3 or 13?"

"3" i say "because the invisible ones can't be seen and don't eat"

Now let's say you already know i am a little crazy. Like children who may have invisible friends they play with.

There is no problem, you set the table for 3 friends. we all eat.

then one of the invisible ones say "I want to eat too. I will make myself visible."

and he does, using his powers of manifestation. Suddenly he appears out of thin air.

He eats and goes invisible again.

Now you will begin to think that maybe i was not making it up.

why? because you have evidence.

our life, our beliefs, our conclusions are based on evidence.

if that person did NOT become visible, there was no evidence and you would correctly say I was crazy and just humour me.

If i INSISTED that the invisible people are REAL, you would seriously think I have lost the plot.

Now I am just going to go into theory for a while, religious beliefs, if you will.

Advaita vedenta proposes:

All we see and experience is part of the three states: brahma (born) vishnu (sustaining) Mahesh/Shiva (death)

A new baby is born (Brahma)
he grows up (vishnu)
he gets old and dies (shiva)

all we have done is split life into three stages. same applies to in-animate objects.

Today i build a house (birth)
200 years later, the new owner decides to demolish it and build a new one. shiva is the death/destruction of the house. Then a new one is built - every death may be the beginning of something new.

Now let's look at the possibility that there MIGHT be something that is OUTSIDE of birth/sustain/death.

just an idea.

This thing, is never born and never dies. It never changes. It stays the same.
It doesn't occupy any space. it is ETERNAL because that is the definition of eternal.

if something changes, moves, thinks, does anything, or is born, then it is not eternal.

Religions propose a God. Then they proceed to describe his attributes. one example "I am a jealous God"

This is impossible. As soon as you add any attribute, the God becomes a non-God.

So all the Gods of all the religions are false.

This is not an opinion. This is based on logic.

The only way ETERNAL can apply to a God is: that God has to be changeless,

all change happens within TIME.

so if a God speaks, thinks, creates, destroys, or does anything at all, then He CANNOT be God.

Why? because he has broken the rules, the criteria that applies to ETERNAL.

So a personal God cannot be eternal, because the moment you add attributes you enter time/space.

Now we have the dilemma with Sat Purush in the traditional RS teachings.

i'll go VERY slowly.......

Sat Purush is described in Sar Bachan.
He is a being of light. Every hair on his body has the light of 1000 suns.

Pretty well illuminated - better than the blackpool light at christmas.

He is associated with a certain shabd - bagpipes. He has FORM.

From this, we can conclude that he cannot be eternal. Anything that has FORM is not eternal.

So Sat Purush is not eternal. Neither is Jehovah. Neither is any personal God.

If God is not eternal, he loses the criteria for being God. that means he dies (not eternal) and was born.

So we can safely conclude that any God who is described with attributes is not eternal and is not God.

so who is the real God, if there is one?

it has to be one who has no attributes. No shape, no form, neither good, nor bad. neither love, not hate, neither big, nor small, neither existent nor not-existent.
neti neti - neither this nor that.

you CANNOT see him. you cannot EXPERIENCE him. you cannot MEET him.

Now this is where the awakening happens.

You look at all the ridiculous claims - and say "this is nonsense"

You are NOT replacing the nonsense with a new nonsense, because you are not making a claim.

you are NOT saying "I have experienced a DIFFERENT God... who has no attributes"

Instead you are saying: the only possibility is: this God cannot be seen.
there is no subject -no object.
God cannot be experienced or known.

This is what the SGGS is saying. The very attempt to try to know is the trap. So Nanak says "everything is in hukam".
just means that there is nothing you can do to fix things, because nothing needs fixing.

no God to meet, no karma to overcome, no sach khand to reach. nothing.
all is already achieved. no goal, no striving.

this is the same as zen. zen says no goals, nothing to attain.

BUT .......

the goal oriented mind takes these teachings and tries to understand. it wants to attain, achieve enlightenment,

the same trap is again created.

zen takes you out of that trap.

you have to drop the seeker.

buddha dropped the seeker under the bodhi tree.

buddhists are TRYING to do the same.
That is the trap - trying - because now nirvana is a goal, and you have to achieve it. you have to strugge to attain - to do.

zen say stop - your struggling is the trap.

enlightenment is not a claim. the doer, the claimer, the seeker, the one who wants enlightenment collapses. Then enlightenment IS. nothing was attained.
Now from that state speak - and you are a zen master a.k.a. a madman because nobody will understand - they are trying to understand from duality, which cannot succeed

[Jim Sutherland]

This audio was developed from my 2017 post reported here after I returned from India. I didn’t add any thing. I only copied a couple of my posts from here, and gave it to Notebook.

https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/55d7e441-0900-408f-8272-7dcc4dce6574/audio

Jim Sutherland

[Osho Robbins]

continuing on.......

this is not another belief.

how can I make this statement?

because if it's a belief, tell me what i am believing?

that there is a thing which has no-attributes
and cannot be seen or experienced.

that is a claim, until i add the final part.

I am saying it does not exist.

why am I saying this?

because to say
1. it exists
or
2. it doesn't exist

both are unfounded statements

1. is a lie because the criteria for "exists" is not met
2. is a truism - like saying 1=1. the criteria for 'not exists' is met - hence it cannot exist

but now delve a little deeper

so what if i say it doesn't exist?
it just means that is a limitation of my definition of exists.

dogs can hear different sounds outside of our range of hearing.
I cannot hear those sounds, so i say those sounds don't exist.
I am rigth - they don't exist FOR ME.

the square i draw on a paper says the cube next to it is another square.

"square" exists in two dimensions. Depth or height doesn't exist in it's world.

no amont of debate will convince the square that the 'square' next to it is a cube.

pointless to even try because even if i do manage to convince the square, all i have done is given it a belief.

if a sound is outside my range of hearing, all i can say is it is "outside my range". if i am honest, i have to say, maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't - i don't know. i can only know if i get a device that increases my range of hearing and i hear the sound.

then i know, otherwise not.

so far i have made no claims. i have not claimed the existence of ONENESS.

what I have done is shown that ONENESS cannot be known or experienced.

so can I assert there is such a thing as ONENESS?
if the answer is no, then no claim is made.

if the answer is yes, then and only then, you can say I am making a claim.

in my next comment, i'll explain if i am claiming that ONENESS exists and if so, how i can make that statement and what evidence i am relying on.

[Jim Sutherland]

The Guru’s Laser Eyes debunked!

https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/6756e0b0-7c57-4ccf-afd3-f3fbf5d9fa09/audio

Jim Sutherland

[Jim Sutherland]

Jim Sutherland’s Peak Meditation experience, posted years ago, and even published in a Magazine. Now Commentaries by ??

https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/4f702ebf-b675-48ab-8e32-4bf8d666b6dc/audio

Jim Sutherland

[Osho Robbins]

okay, here goes...
am i claiming ONENESS exists?

First i want to start with IDENTITY.

Who am I?

IF i am the body/mind, then there is no ONENESS.

but Maybe i am not the body / mind.
which means I HAVE a body, but it is not me. just as i have a car, but the car is not me.

if I am not the body, but I HAVE a body, then WHO am I?
The scripture answer is "you're a SOUL, which is a particle of God, and you take ob various bodies until one day you merge with God"
If I go with that, it's a belief. The SOUL is a claim. I have no evidence that there is such a thing as a SOUL. It would be an unsubstantiated claim.

I am not interested in making claims.

hence I make no claim that there is a SOUL.

If i am the body, then body will die one day and that is the end of ME. finished burn the body, cremate it, whatever, but ME is gone.

What happens now? do i reincarnate?
well, no, unless i am a soul.

so with the death of the body, it's the end of me.

that which is born must die.

That which is NOT born, will never die.

it cannot, because it is neither born, nor dies.

does it exist? i have already explained the question cannot be answered because it is out of scope.
anything eternal is outside time / space.
i cannot say anything about it.

so forget if it exists or not.
why? because even if it does, i cannot find it, meet it, experience it.

That which comes and goes - birth / death is the unreal. Unreal just means it changes and is not forever. my definition.

Then, is there a real? is there something that doesn't come and go, and remains the same?

if there is, maybe that is the REAL me.

IF that is ME, then I am ETERNAL

so now a little investigation

i go to sleep. A dream begins. The one sleeping in the bed, appears to disappear. I have no conscious awareness of the one asleep on the bed.

instead i enter a DIFFERENT reality. All these people appear out of nowhere. All these things appear out of nothing.
things HAPPEN. The whole thing APPEARS to be real. i laugh, i cry, because it seems real - as real as my waking life.

Then as quickly as it was created, just as quickly, the dream ends. i enter dreamless sleep.

just darkness. no content. emptiness.

then another dream starts, then back to dreamless sleep. a few cycles like this, and i wake up back in my body.

Now i say, "it was just a dream"
how do I know? because it ended.

everything that ends is not real and is like a dream. it APPEARS to be real, but it's not.

in the waking state, the dream seems unreal.
in the dream state the waking life seems unreal, because i know nothing about it and the dream seems real.

so wherever my attention, my awareness goes, i make it appear real (really happening)

So who is this ME that makes whatever i experience appear to be real?

consciousness or awareness. maybe that is the real me. just a proposal at this time.

I don't know who i am.

when awake, i think this is me. dreaming, i think i am the dream character. in deep sleep, i am nothing.

so who am I really?

the awake person, the dream character or the nothing. i identify with all three at different times.

is there a ME that is doing the identification?

The one that does the identification - the witness - the seer - one who watches - the one that is reading these words right now.
who is that?
when the body sleeps, that awareness is aware of dreams. is the dream real at that moment?

what is real?

whatever the consciousness witnesses, appears to be real.

The consciousness is the REAL you. now investigate.

if you discover this is the case, then that is your personal discovery.

if you don't discover it, then who are you.

this is an investigation

[Jimmy]

Jurgen Ziewe has a new video out.

[Jim Sutherland]

@Osho,….if your going to accept your prior comment to add my Audio you already posted on YouTube , to your EXISTING Audio/video of You and Gurinder, adding my audio and photo Brian sent you, …….PLEASE don’t add all of this new material you have been posting to that YouTube Video, as that would not be fair, and it would be cheating by moving the initial Goal Post mid stream.

Thanks
Jim Sutherland

[Jim Sutherland]

Another Deep Dive , taken from a few posts shared here in Dec. 2024

https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/7a3cac4b-9b64-416c-bbbb-af9e12006410/audio

Jim Sutherland