All is One - what does it mean to you?

[Marblehead]

In accordance with a previous post: The concept of all-is-one is senseless intellectual babble. My mind tells me, the concept may be an ultimate truth that is impossibly represented through words and impossibly understood or grasped by the analytical mind BUT how can I be certain?

 

I can't, intellectually.

 

Yes, that is a problem, what you are speaking to. Regretfully, I think that this concept cannot be grasped on solely intellectual terms. Even I, the Master Materialist, must sometimes go beyond my physicality and look at things from the "not me" point of view. Granted, this is not easy but it can be done.

 

But remember, even when we say "All is One" we should not confuse the Manifest plane of existence with the totality.

[zerostao]

f.h. bradley in his book Appearance and Reality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._H._Bradley

 

"reality is above thought and above every partial aspect of being, but

includes them all. each of these completes itself by uniting with the rest,

and so make the perfection of the whole. and this whole is experience,

for anything other than experience is meaningless."

 

imo bradley attempts to reach reality by intellectual analysis and discovers that

there is limitation of attainment inherrent in rational thought.

rational thought is a neccessary step toward the attainment of reality,

but reality itself is above rational thought and above every partial aspect of being.

it is rather by experience , or as bradley says , " a higher immediacy by

which we grasp the nature of reality"

 

this higher immediacy is the wholeness of experience, which , as he says,

must be immediate, like feeling but not like feeling. immediately at the level below

distinction and relation. in the process approaching reality we inevitably reach

a stage which is beyond intellectual thought , where mere intellection becomes

helpless, and we can only intuitively experience it.

 

in the conclusion of Appearance and Reality, he says,

"reality is one experience , self-pervading and superior to mere relations.

its character is the opposite of the fabled extreme which is barely mechanical,

and it is, in the end, the sole perfect realization of spirit.

we may fairly close this work then by insisting that reality is spiritual."

 

what is this realization of spirituality of which bradley speaks?

is it not the process of the awakening of a new consciousness?

 

imo , for the chinese this new consciousness is not new at all.

it is the self-consciousness to be realized to the depths, that is ,

consciousness turning inwards into itself.

there is a zen expression, it is the seeing of one's own "original face"

before one is born.

therefore(imo)the realization of spirituality as one experience or

"awakening" of a new consciousness is simply the consciousness coming into

its own unconsciousness.

 

taoist expression might be , the former is T'ai Chi or ultimate and

the latter , Wu Chi , or the ultimateless.

this realization of spirituality as one experience , is it express by Lao Tzu

as a "return to the ultimateless" ?

[3bob]

Hi Friends,

 

As the topic suggests: What does the term "All is One" mean to you?

 

"All is One" is a term which I often come across both on TTB and in literature I read. At the same time, it is a term which I often struggle to understand the true meaning of. Therefore I thought I would ask for your opinions. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas to help me understand. Thank you for your attention to this question

 

One is the transition between none and two. Also none is connected to one and one is connected to two and two is connected to three, etc..

[Marblehead]

... is it express by Lao Tzu as a "return to the ultimateless" ?

 

Chapter 16, Henricks translation, Lines 3 - 7

 

The ten thousand things side-by-side they arise;

And by this I see their return.

Things [come forth] in great numbers;

Each one returns to its root.

This is called tranquility.

 

 

I think "tranquility" is a pretty good word for the concept of 'the final rest'.

[Vajrahridaya]

I think "tranquility" is a pretty good word for the concept of 'the final rest'.

 

Sure, I'll buy that for a dollar.

[Marblehead]

Sure, I'll buy that for a dollar.

 

I think you guys have a concept similar to that?

[Vajrahridaya]

I think you guys have a concept similar to that?

 

Yup.

[steve]

The concept of all-is-one is senseless intellectual babble. My mind tells me, the concept may be an ultimate truth that is impossibly represented through words and impossibly understood or grasped by the analytical mind BUT how can I be certain?

 

When you feel it you will know.

[Vajrahridaya]

When you feel it you will know.

 

The Buddha explained that the sensation of oneness is actually just the mind expanding due to experiencing emptiness, but mistaking the sense of expanded mind, penetrating everything as an excuse that all things are actually one substance, when in fact, all things are just equally empty, not one substance. Which is why the Buddha denied that all things are one. Just like he denied that all things are a single Self or a single God.

 

There are jokes in the West about Buddha going to a hot dog stand and saying, "make me one with everything." But, that's actually not the goal.

 

I've experienced this many times, and I used to go around saying, "When you feel it you will know." But, then I studied what the Buddha taught and gave it a chance, and realized through direct experience beyond my mistaken assumption of experience... that I was fooling myself through the tendency for "self" clinging merely expanding past the individual sense of self into a sense of self equals all-ness, but it's really just due to the fact of emptiness that this is a possible experience. Though all things are not one, they are merely connected due to the fact of emptiness and inter-dependency. This is why the Buddha did not support the, "all is one" cosmology as quoted by me earlier in this thread.

 

EDITED: For clarity

Edited June 19, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Aaron]

Hello guys,

 

I liked Mythmaker's post in the mythological sense (pun intended), but I do have doubts that God and Tao can be interchanged. In my opinion God is everything, including Tao, Tao is an aspect of God, so it's hard for me to interchange the two.

 

Aaron

Edited June 19, 2011 by Twinner

[Stigweard]

Hello guys,

 

I liked Mythmaker's post in the mythological sense (pun intended), but I do have doubts that God and Tao can be interchanged. In my opinion God is everything, including Tao, Tao is an aspect of God, so it's hard for me to interchange the two.

 

Aaron

Actually if you thought about it God, a reified divinity, would by rights be an aspect of Dao. But then again who cares right?

 

 

Edited June 19, 2011 by Stigweard

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually if you thought about it God, a reified divinity, would by rights be an aspect of Dao. But then again who cares right?

 

Exactly!! Beyond this fighting crap. Eh...

Edited June 19, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Hello guys,

 

I liked Mythmaker's post in the mythological sense (pun intended), but I do have doubts that God and Tao can be interchanged. In my opinion God is everything, including Tao, Tao is an aspect of God, so it's hard for me to interchange the two.

 

Aaron

 

But then, even if one has the need to include the concept of god, god would be an aspect of Tao, not the other way around.

 

But I do agree with you, even though many have done so I believe that interchanging God with Tao is invalid.

[Marblehead]

But then again who cares right?

 

Why are there four swords when it is the "Three" Musketeers?

[mYTHmAKER]

Hello guys,

 

I liked Mythmaker's post in the mythological sense (pun intended), but I do have doubts that God and Tao can be interchanged. In my opinion God is everything, including Tao, Tao is an aspect of God, so it's hard for me to interchange the two.

 

Aaron

 

I said you can substitute tao for god in order for those who don't believe in god not to immediately shut down.

I use god as a metaphor for whatever it is that is really is and i have no idea

of what it is. You can use the word "stuff" or "energy" well. All that is happening is calling the same thing by many names.

As Steigweed said "who cares". Well to me it's obvious who cares - El Ego.

So IMHO it is just mental masturbation to accept one, believe in one, over the other.

Something might or might not be there and our minds will never know.

Edited June 19, 2011 by mYTHmAKER

[ChiDragon]

But then, even if one has the need to include the concept of god, god would be an aspect of Tao, not the other way around.

 

But I do agree with you, even though many have done so I believe that interchanging God with Tao is invalid.

 

Chapter 4 - The obscure Tao

1. Tao is vacuous,

2. And its function is inexhaustible.

3. Abyssal,

4. It's the origin of all things.

9. Invisible,

10.Yet obscure.

11.I don't know who he is the son of.

12.It seems to be existed before the heavenly god.

[Marblehead]

 

12.It seems to be existed before the heavenly god.

 

Special attention need be given to this last line.

 

Actually, the only thing (non-thing) that could have existed when Tao was in the condition of oneness (Singularity) would have been Tzujan. (Tao follows Tzujan, its own naturalness.)

[Aaron]

Chapter 4 - The obscure Tao

1. Tao is vacuous,

2. And its function is inexhaustible.

3. Abyssal,

4. It's the origin of all things.

9. Invisible,

10.Yet obscure.

11.I don't know who he is the son of.

12.It seems to be existed before the heavenly god.

 

 

In the context of Chinese God's, then I think it's obvious in that mythological pantheon, then Tao would've existed before, but in the context of say, Vedanta or other Eastern religions and their concept of what God is, which is different, then I don't think Tao would've existed before "God". Of course it doesn't matter, as Mythmaker said earlier, it's all opinion, ego stroking, and here say.

 

Aaron

[ChiDragon]

Special attention need be given to this last line.

 

Actually, the only thing (non-thing) that could have existed when Tao was in the condition of oneness (Singularity) would have been Tzujan. (Tao follows Tzujan, its own naturalness.)

Last line of Chapter 25

道法自然。

dao4 fa3 zi4 ran2.

Tao follows zi4 ran2.

[ChiDragon]

In the context of Chinese God's, then I think it's obvious in that mythological pantheon, then Tao would've existed before, but in the context of say, Vedanta or other Eastern religions and their concept of what God is, which is different, then I don't think Tao would've existed before "God". Of course it doesn't matter, as Mythmaker said earlier, it's all opinion, ego stroking, and here say.

 

Aaron

LaoTze was an atheist; and so am I. He mentioned god(small g) is because a non believer still may use the term for an illustration.

 

This is not my opinion. I'm just translating the TTC as close as possible, impartially, to reveal the actual saying.

Edited June 20, 2011 by ChiDragon

[thelerner]

In accordance with a previous post: The concept of all-is-one is senseless intellectual babble. My mind tells me, the concept may be an ultimate truth that is impossibly represented through words and impossibly understood or grasped by the analytical mind BUT how can I be certain?

 

I can't, intellectually.

 

Ditto,

 

also 4rth sword is D'Artignan .

 

TMTOMH

[devoid]

Hi Friends,

 

I would like to take a moment to thank you all for your insights on this question. I really appreciate the time each of you took to respond and I am thrilled at the many insights into what people mean when saying 'all is one'.

[strawdog65]

Hi All!

 

Interesting conversation!

 

My only interjection is...

 

To me the all is one thing is real and actual.

 

It is all about level upon level of interconnectedness.

 

The reality of separateness is the non- reality.

 

There is no such thing as empty space... space, all space is occupied

by particles and energy. And we exist with this fabric ever present

and ubiquitous.

 

So all IS one.

 

Seems impossible to grasp, but since everything is actually

connected to everything else, it is in fact true.

 

The signs of this interconnectedness are all around us...

Cause and effect, action and reaction, the list goes on.

 

As we learn more about physics and the quantum nature of reality,

it is clear that the reality is stranger than we could even conceive.

 

Peace!

[dwai]

Hi Friends,

 

As the topic suggests: What does the term "All is One" mean to you?

 

"All is One" is a term which I often come across both on TTB and in literature I read. At the same time, it is a term which I often struggle to understand the true meaning of. Therefore I thought I would ask for your opinions. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas to help me understand. Thank you for your attention to this question

To me it means when all apparent appearances disappear, that which remians is indivisble and is the fount of all those appearances that disappeared

[C T]

I think space is empty - yet full of potentiality.

 

Even particles and energy move within space.

Without space nothing can connect - no thing will birth.

 

I also think not all is one.

 

Only space is one.

Space is that which permits the cause to rise.

Cause and effect in turn allows the manifestation of diversity.

Its hard to imagine the diverse forms as all one.

That is confusing the matter.

 

Diversity is many.

Space is one.

 

From one the many arise in relative forms,

again, thru cause and effect.

When the energy of effects run their course,

the relative many again return to one.

 

Everything is not connected to everything else

while existing in diversity, experienced by the senses.

If indeed all is one, how can experience arise?