"Oneness" is bollocks

[alisa2]

WT, you ask a lot of questions. The mind is the seeker, the experiencer, the perceiver, the questioner, etc. It seeks to continue.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/XAy7_LF7F7g

15:20 … When the whole process comes to an end, when the search comes to an end—not that you arrive at a point or destination—but the search comes to an end because the seeker disappears—the perceiver, the observer, the experiencer, the self, [the mind] or whatever word you want to use—they are all variations of the same entity inside of us—so when that entity comes to an end, what is left is a body—the physical body, and the senses operate in a tremendously sensitive way.


From the Quora Digest:

There are 3 questions here.

What is a mind?

No one really knows. I like to call it the theatre of experience, but ultimately that is a circular definition. The word ‘experience’ is meaningless without presupposing an ‘experiencer’, i.e., a mind.

Is it a separate organ from the brain?

We don’t know what it is, but it seems pretty clear that it is not at organ. An organ is a physical thing — it can be extracted from a dead body. There is no evidence that a mind can be extracted from a dead body. In fact we have no idea what would even count as evidence for mind extraction/ uploading/ transmigration.

Can the mind exist in the absence of the brain?

There is no scientific evidence for this. No one has ever encountered a disembodied mind, unless you count ghosts. And mainstream scientists do not count ghosts as anything other that hallucinations, wishful thinking, or outright fraudulent phenomena.

[white light]

Originally Posted by alisa2

WT, you ask a lot of questions. The mind is the seeker, the experiencer, the perceiver, the questioner, etc. It seeks to continue.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/XAy7_LF7F7g

15:20 … When the whole process comes to an end, when the search comes to an end—not that you arrive at a point or destination—but the search comes to an end because the seeker disappears—the perceiver, the observer, the experiencer, the self, [the mind] or whatever word you want to use—they are all variations of the same entity inside of us—so when that entity comes to an end, what is left is a body—the physical body, and the senses operate in a tremendously sensitive way.


From the Quora Digest:

There are 3 questions here.

What is a mind?

No one really knows. I like to call it the theatre of experience, but ultimately that is a circular definition. The word ‘experience’ is meaningless without presupposing an ‘experiencer’, i.e., a mind.

Is it a separate organ from the brain?

We don’t know what it is, but it seems pretty clear that it is not at organ. An organ is a physical thing — it can be extracted from a dead body. There is no evidence that a mind can be extracted from a dead body. In fact we have no idea what would even count as evidence for mind extraction/ uploading/ transmigration.

Can the mind exist in the absence of the brain?

There is no scientific evidence for this. No one has ever encountered a disembodied mind, unless you count ghosts. And mainstream scientists do not count ghosts as anything other that hallucinations, wishful thinking, or outright fraudulent phenomena.

I ask questions because statements are generally bogus.

It's a form of saying stuff without the burden of truth or falsehood, things one is unlikely to find in "Nothing".

[alisa2]

Originally Posted by white light

I ask questions because statements are generally bogus.

Ask bogus questions and you'll get bogus statements.

Here, Rich Kelley tells you what your life is like when the mind ["you"] is not here.

8:10 What is your life like when you're not here?

[white light]

Originally Posted by alisa2

Ask bogus questions and you'll get bogus statements.

Here, Rich Kelley tells you what your life is like when the mind ["you"] is not here.

8:10 What is your life like when you're not here?

I didn't say that my questions were bogus. Your bogus statement to it is irrelevant. Lol.

[alisa2]

Originally Posted by white light

I didn't say that my questions were bogus. Your bogus statement to it is irrelevant. Lol.

I know you didn't say that your questions were bogus. I said they were because you implied my statements were bogus when you said, "I ask questions because statements are generally bogus."


Anyway, I don't know why I am having so much difficulty logging in. I log in and it immediately logs me out. I have to do this 4 or 5 times before it finally sticks

[alisa2]

I know you didn't say that your questions were bogus. I said your questions were bogus because you implied my statements were bogus when you said, "I ask questions because statements are generally bogus." Ask bogus questions get bogus answers.


It's not even letting me edit my posts.

[white light]

Originally Posted by alisa2

I know you didn't say that your questions were bogus. I said they were because you implied my statements were bogus when you said, "I ask questions because statements are generally bogus."

Not yours specifically.

Does statements being bogus mean that questions are?

Could it be that questions take you closer to "Nothing" and statements invent a narrative that takes you further from "Nothing"?

.

[takhisis]

I also do not believe we are all one bullocks i think the globalist want us to believe we are all one so they can keep us in the hive mind mindset that is what facebook and all those social media sites are about is conditioning for everyone to think the same and like the same things no doubt in my mind its conditioning of humanity you can see it in almost everything today , people that have no idea about facts just jumping on the most popular opions

[white light]

Originally Posted by takhisis

I also do not believe we are all one bullocks i think the globalist want us to believe we are all one so they can keep us in the hive mind mindset that is what facebook and all those social media sites are about is conditioning for everyone to think the same and like the same things no doubt in my mind its conditioning of humanity you can see it in almost everything today , people that have no idea about facts just jumping on the most popular opions

If that's the case then the globalists can't be the ones engineering division and discord.

[fudgetusk]

no no no. The globalist hive mind is satire on how things are in heaven, a kind of hive mind mentality. Satan is a satirist.

[white light]

Originally Posted by fudgetusk

no no no. The globalist hive mind is satire on how things are in heaven, a kind of hive mind mentality. Satan is a satirist.

That's a bit vague.

[alisa2]

Originally Posted by white light

Could it be that questions take you closer to "Nothing" and statements invent a narrative that takes you further from "Nothing"?

The Self = Nothing

Excerpt from the book Winning Through Enlightenment. You'll have to buy the book if you want to read the whole chapter.

THE SELF

Before I write anything about the Self, let me say that it can’t be done. By its very nature, the Self cannot be described. It is, in fact, all that is not describable. Whatever you think it is, you can be sure of one thing: that is what it is not.

Nothing could be without the space to be in. I don’t mean “vacuum,” which is just another mind concept “thing.” We are accustomed to taking for granted that there is a space in which life exists. But think of it. Is it to be expected that there would be this space? As you look at that, you realize that it is not reasonable to expect the space in which to exist to be. That space where no thing is, which is continuous with all the rest of no thing space in the universe in which you live, is the Self. It is the containing context for what we ordinarily think of as “life.” What we ordinarily think of as life is actually content. The Self contains your life and is infinitely larger than the content. Furthermore, Self doesn’t exist in time. It exists out of time and is the container in which time is contained. Nor does Self exist in a place, or, said another way, Self exists in all places and in no particular place.

The concept of No Thing Thing boggles the mind, jams the circuits. Add to that No Place and No Time and the mind is truly at a loss to comprehend. You can’t get this with your mind; you’ll have to get it with your Self. So the Self is that out of which life is generated, which has no aspect of thing, place or time. Only a fool would attempt to describe such a what-ever-you-want-to-call-it in words. And yet words are what we have to communicate with, so here goes the fool.

Context contains what is. Context is not a what-is itself, however; otherwise it would be more of what is contained instead of the container. Context is the space which contains what is, except when we say it is a “space,” it becomes a thing also and so the description breaks down. True Context is not a thing. You can’t go somewhere and see it, and it exists in no time, past, present or future. It doesn’t even exist now, like everything else. ...[rest omitted]

[decode reality]

I have to say this.

There's a tendency on this forum to automatically presume all this "oneness" stuff or anything spiritual-leaning (i.e. that isn't Christianity) began with "the globalists" and "the new age movement" - two very recent (and Western) constructs. If you're looking at those things, and social media, and equating them with 'oneness' when they're anything BUT expressions of unity, then you're effectively showing your unfamiliarity of what oneness is, and the expressions of it in human history.

Let's put it like this. To pass a judgement on spiritual ideas which go back many millennia, that were repackaged as 'new age vagueness' by the Club of Rome a little over 50 years ago, is no different to looking at the current music industry and saying "This is how it is, this is how it's always been." But this is what people are doing time again, as though 'oneness' began sometime in the 60s. Come on!

The historical reality is, societies such as African, Native American, Indian, Chinese etc that are outside of the Western sphere have been organised in a unified and holistic way, and successfully so. Such a mode has never been the basis of the way that Western societies are organised - neither in the past, and certainly not in the present. The nearest you get to it is the pagan tradition, but that was pretty much crushed by the march of the church and Western industrialisation. This is historical fact, not a put-down - just fact.

Now, if that's your only cultural reference point, fine. However, regardless of how alternative to the Western mainstream you might be, it's more accurate to say that "oneness" is a concept historically alien to the West in general, and as such, there's little or no awareness in the Western world of these ideas as they're expressed in 'non-Western' cultures.

[alisa2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVpssAXBFXQ&t=529s


8:30 “Some people try to talk about the infinite and they would call it infinite love, and that, I suppose, has some merit, because oneness and love seem to be the same thing—togetherness and oneness—But...

[decode reality]

Originally Posted by decode reality

I have to say this.

There's a tendency on this forum to automatically presume all this "oneness" stuff or anything spiritual-leaning (i.e. that isn't Christianity) began with "the globalists" and "the new age movement" - two very recent (and Western) constructs. If you're looking at those things, and social media, and equating them with 'oneness' when they're anything BUT expressions of unity, then you're effectively showing your unfamiliarity of what oneness is, and the expressions of it in human history.

Let's put it like this. To pass a judgement on spiritual ideas which go back many millennia, that were repackaged as 'new age vagueness' by the Club of Rome a little over 50 years ago, is no different to looking at the current music industry and saying "This is how it is, this is how it's always been." But this is what people are doing time again, as though 'oneness' began sometime in the 60s. Come on!

The historical reality is, societies such as African, Native American, Indian, Chinese etc that are outside of the Western sphere have been organised in a unified and holistic way, and successfully so. Such a mode has never been the basis of the way that Western societies are organised - neither in the past, and certainly not in the present. The nearest you get to it is the pagan tradition, but that was pretty much crushed by the march of the church and Western industrialisation. This is historical fact, not a put-down - just fact.

Now, if that's your only cultural reference point, fine. However, regardless of how alternative to the Western mainstream you might be, it's more accurate to say that "oneness" is a concept historically alien to the West in general, and as such, there's little or no awareness in the Western world of these ideas as they're expressed in 'non-Western' cultures.

At the same time, not everything in the 'pre-Colombian' world was unified and idyllic. In some cases it was nothing of the sort.

[jake_ball]

Originally Posted by decode reality

At the same time, not everything in the 'pre-Colombian' world was unified and idyllic. In some cases it was nothing of the sort.

So the "oneness" didnt work....

[white light]

Originally Posted by jake_ball

So the "oneness" didnt work....

It's not a philosophy; religious, political or otherwise.

That's like saying "You are a human being. How is that working out for you?"

.

[decode reality]

Originally Posted by jake_ball

So the "oneness" didnt work....

Yes it did work, there are many examples of it. The point I was making was that each of the pre-Colombian societies I mentioned varied in their level of civilisation and social organisation. Some were peaceful and cultured, some were warlike.

Though I have to emphasise again, the societies that attained a high level of development, peace and prosperity did so with a system of organising themselves that created unity amongst the different institutions and most importantly, among the population. That was the secret of their success, their unity. So it wasn't just "a belief" to make them feel good, nor was it a theory, it was something that was lived, practiced. Which is to say they had activities and procedures, a working structure in place that made their societies function on a day-to-day basis.

This is to be distinguished from the latter-day definitions of 'oneness'/'unity' i.e the pseudo-mystical feelgood belief that we find in the new age movement - a belief system that doesn't have the tools to be able to run a society.

Nor can the ancient model be equated with the current type of political systems we're familiar with which pay lip service to 'unity', but in reality preside over nations that are riddled with disconnection in every sphere.

In saying all that, J.B, I also see the value in having the ability to rely on one's own inner resources. But 'no man is an island' - and in a society where things are so fragmented and lacking in community, that can be very difficult.

[lewi]