i see oneness or unity as being on a different level than duality. we began as the absolute-oneness without any opposite. then as an amoeba splits we split into duality as a result of entering a grosser plane of existence. we exist on all planes now, but our attention is stolen by this world of the senses where duality becomes a riddle to solve.

that's the simplest way i can phrase my own thoughts about it.

i like your description of the way they are teaching you to think...what year or grade standard class are you in now? and in what class is it you are discussing these questions?

What if "oneness" were just a handy and useful assumption on our part, a linguistic or conceptual formality? One might well ask the same question about "dualism." Dualism seems to imply difference and oppositeness---and if this were only a convenient assumption, one of the "rose coloured glasses" by which we give meaning to events and occasions?

Hi Annie,

Well, this is the million dollar question isn't it?

Philosophers such as Heraclitus and Lao Tze (Dao De Jing), talk about everything starting as one (The Dao or Logos), and then it becoming more than one (I imagine it as the One turning into itself and causing spirals upon spirals upon spirals).

Bentov, on the other hand talks about the Void being the opposite of what is. He imagines it as that point in a pendulum swing, at the top of the swing, where everything stops for an instance, before it begins to move again.

Rich

Annie are you ok, are you OK annie?

Okay now that the Micheal Jackoson song is out of the way.
Oneness is not so much as a state as an understanding. You are already one with the universe, or rather the entire universe is one things and you are an intregal part of that one thing. The term oneness refers to the enlightened understanding of that fact and its ramifications.

So yes you can be in a state of anti-oneness insofar as you may have not yet been enlightened to it. As all definitions have an a negative to them. I would not say dual because it is not necessarily opposite. But if it isn't the defenition it isn't the definition. Whatever is not a dog is not a dog. This is an experiential form of the semantic. Yet as a matter of existence and oneness there is no negative or opposite to oneness, because all is one, and all is everything. which has a semantic opposite (nothing) but not a material extant opposite or even a negative. Because everything is an absolute as is oneness.

Hi Annie,

It is an excellent question. Did you have any follow-ups?

Rich

Annie

The unity spoken of in mysticism is not numerically one, and cannot be properly opposed to Two or Many. Thus the term advaita, as used in mysticism, means not-two, but does not mean one.

Your question is a good one and indicates a keen analysis, for if 'oneness' is the opposite of 'manyness' then this is just another undecidable antimony. If, however, 'unity' is used with a different meaning this problem does not arise.

The thing to remember is that mysticism is a neutral metaphysical position and makes no selective claims about the universe as a whole. In no case would it be true to say that the universe is this as opposed to that, or has this property as opposed to that. (This would be why all theories for which the universe is this or that are found to be logically indefensible - a result which is considered to be a problem in western academic metaphysics, but which could be interpreted as a proof of mysticism).

Making sense of this view is a struggle, but the principle is easy to grasp, and it does away with the One-Many problem. Mysticism, like Kant's psychology or Hegel's logic, is the transcendence of all categories. There would be no such thing as a metaphysical dilemma.

boy if you get to discuss universal consciousness in class, I wish I went to your school! Are you at Naropa?

Heyyy everyone! Thanks for your replies =D I really appreciate your comments, they help me clear things up a lot =]

salima: Haha thank you I am currently in grade 10 English Honors, and my teacher brings in really interesting extra materials that talk about these type of things. These type of discussions started during our Transcendentalist unit. By the way, i really like what you posted up - that makes a lot of sense. So really, there isn't an opposite to oneness, because opposites were created by oneness and so therefore does not apply to oneness?

jgweed: oooh... So the oneness and duality that i talked about here are actually just a "conceptual formality"? That's kinda like putting a label on something that is hard for us to describe, right? Like what we learned in class - putting a label on the "essence." but do you believe that we are all essentially one, or entirely separated entities? Or do you believe that none of that really matters?

richrf: WOW your comment reminds me of this packet that i read - "Spiral Dynamics", as well as the pendulum concept. The temporary "stop point" - is that the oneness? I'm not sure I understand fully Mr. Bentov's theory :O could you please elaborate?

GoshisDead: Haha my PE teacher used to sing that when he sees me in the halls xD. So oneness is really prevalent throughout the universe, and the oneness that i'm speaking of is when we realize and fully understand this connectedness betw everything? So there really is no escape from this central oneness - but we can BELIEVE that there is if we are not yet "enlightened" to this oneness? (wow i sound so repetitive! :O)

Whoever: wow that is an really intersting concept... yes, the term "oneness" can be misleading in this sense then :O unity. I like that could it be that all the assertions about the universe have the "essence" in common, but just different ways of expressing it?

Sorry for the wait guys! Follow up is here =D
A lot of htings in this world are subjective - some even say that the truth is subjective, and it is a very debatable point of view. Really, the "truth" that we're struggling so hard to define, would be a product of the mind, right? because the mind is the thing that owuld label something as the "truth". What is true for one person may not be true for another - Bob may believe that God exists, while Billy may believe that there is no God. It's all very dependent upon one's own choice. So then... If truth and reality is subjective - dependent upon our own selves - then how is there an UNIVERSAL truth? A universal oneness?

---------- Post added at 08:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 PM ----------

jeeprs : Haha I know what you mean - I was so happy when we reached this unit. It was an eye-opener, and certainly did open up the world for me. I wished that everyone would have the privilege to take htis class too! I think my teacher is going to help advocate this idea to the education system throughout the world. But nope, I am not a Naropa :O I'm not even sure where that is! haha

Annie - Please pass on my compliments to your English teacher, who must be an unusual example. You seem to have taken to the issues like a duck to water. And thanks for taking so much trouble to respond to those who replied to your question.

What makes you say that the truth is always subjective? Is it because you see mind as the final arbiter of truth, and therefore the data as liable to subjective interpretation? Perhaps it has to do with the 'theory-laden' nature of our sensations and perceptions. It is a reasonable objection, but it fails if we have unmediated access to the truth, as would be the case if the universe is a unity. It can only be a unity if mind and matter are emergent and therefore capable of being transcended.

You might like to check out Kant's idea that both our minds and the universe itself originate in a phenomenon that is beyond the categories, for it would follow that the universe is a unity and that we are it. Or, it would in my opinion, and in Hegel's.

Hi Annie,

Glad to hear things are going well. You are certainly having some very incisive thoughts.

Bentov has some very interesting views, and you may find this short interview which was taken just before his untimely death, very interesting:

The Evolving Universe | My Meaning of Life and Philosophy

It is a very playful, amusing take on life.

Bentov basically believes everything in the universe is oscillating. He goes in detail in his book, how he comes to this view. He uses a bit of Relativity Theory to explain that at the point that the oscillation reaches its maximum (the top of the pendulum swing), then all motion stops and because of this (and using Relativity) matter becomes infinite. It is explained here:

Using Itzhak Bentov's 'Stalking the Wild Pendulum' to Expose Classical Analyticities' Failings in Attempting to Describe Quantum Reality

but you have to have some understanding of Relativity in order for this to make sense.



Here, you are wandering into some very controversial areas of philosophy that have been debated since the written word. There are many threads going on right now about "Truth" for example, that talk about the questions you are raising. I personally am more or less in your camp. And, as an investigator of life, I think it is wise to place yourself in a position, so that you can begin to understand the contradictions and issues that your position presents to your own mind. It is the way it grows.

Have a great day Annie!

Rich

We as a singular are never one, or in the sense, "oneness". We are the combination of the duality of our parentage, expressed in our quirks and characteristics. I can understand using emotional aspects in an exercise to express an idea but to consider that the opposite of love is hate is absurd. For it would mean that if one is not loved, that one is hated, when in fact one is simply unloved. The opposite of up is down but is the opposite of north south, or is it north. Test it with a magnet to be sure.
I do not understand the idea of duality, the Ying and Yang of things. An artist will say that everything in nature comes in odd counts, as do some mathamatical geniuses, so where is the duality in that. We in all good senses have five such things. Though the body tries to mimic the oneness in each of its applications, the variation between each use is never singular. Our two eyes do see a duality in picture, we simply sense a oneness, like in lonliness and solitude.

Naropa is the main Buddhist University in the U.S. It was started by the famous teacher Chogyam Trungpa.

Annie Fu
Perhaps I might provide a bit of food for thought;

The term 'dualism/duality' is a poor (and obsolete) term for what might be better understood these days as 'context'.
Where 'duality' implies seperate and different (and 'oppositional') 'stuff', 'context' implies no such thing. It implies a 'complete whole' (which is what the Universe is) with various 'features' (what we each perceive), like a single tapestry with innumerable patterns and textures perceived by all (unique) Perspectives (us = Conscious Perspectives = souls).

To be sampled along with;
"The complete Universe is defined/described as the sum-total of all Perspectives." - Book of Fudd (3:16)

The nature of a Perspective (you and I) is that we are necessarily limited (to one extent or another) in our 'scope' of perception. Hence the 'sum-total' of all Perspectives defines the complete Universe. We are all 'real' features of Reality/the Universe. "Everything exists!" Existence is context (not 'duality')! Everything exists in 'context'!

The last tidbit is;

The First Law of Soul Dynamics; "For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - Book of Fudd (9:02:10)

Chew slowly and thoughtfully and meditatively to enjoy the full aroma and flavor.
Enjoy!

It's a new world, Annie Fu!

Peace

Hmm. Useful idea that, the whole being the context.