Integral Theory

You're right, I read that from Wilber and had lost sight of it. You know, I like the logic of Taoism, I think it fits well with integral. Well maybe logic is the wrong word since that would be a linear mode of thinking, but I guess for me personally Taoism fits better. I was reading last night about the spiritual path of balance between "danger" and "opportunity". It was so relevant to events in my life right now.

 

I'm going to find some stuff on Sri Aurobindo. I intended to before now, just haven't.

 

I hope you will reconsider and continue to post, I have been thinking on your perspective throughout this discussion. I haven't studied "the oneness" long enough to say much about it, but I am interested in what you have been sharing.

 

First point I'd make is that 'oneness' does indeed reject certain ideas - 'twoness' or even 'threeness' for example.

Second point, as limited beings moving on the surface of an obscure planet, how much do we know about the universe as a whole (I assume we can regard the universe as one thing, or a oneness)? Not very much, so our so called knowledge of oneness is fragmentary to say the least.


Third - separation is necessary. This is how the universe comes to know itself, through generating separative fields of relatively independent consciousness.

No matter how far you go into oneness or feelngs of a non sparated consciousness, the facts remain that you are only conscious of the one body. You can't tell if someone else feels pain or pleasure in a given part of their body as you can in the case of your own. Generally you can't even say what is happeneing in your own body on the cellular, atomic or sub atomic levels.

I can't know the entire universe as my body in any authentic or meaningful way. Humankind doesn't even know the actual structure or size of the universe in any detail, and in fact it is only through the empirical knowledge derived from separate beings that we are beginning to know.
None of those seers who saw oneness prior to the 1960's saw DNA for example, so they couldn't have been seeing the whole in every respect.

 

Hey Bill,

Just one point came to mind with this. "Oneness" when experienced is categorized as non-rational, or transrational. So it has less to do with knowing and more with being. Direct states of perceiving or awareness. Some do describe the experience of feeling another's pain, seeing through another's eyes. So the experience of "knowing" the entire universe isn't exactly knowing every object, but being every object and no object. Or even permeating through all objects, yet no particular one. So sages may not witness DNA strands and galaxies at the other end of the universe, yes, true, but they can to some extent experience non-duality. When speaking of non-dual states it's difficult to clarify terms, as even the notion of oneness, as you said, implies the rejection of twoness, etc. Yet in these non-rational states, rational-state thinking can still be witnessed, but without necessity. For instance, you still experience "things" and duality of the universe. Your body, your emotions, your overall self, but the point of view is not from the self, it's what is often called "witnessing." Where there is suddenly another awareness that is not your own . . . Again, this is somehwhat difficult to describe, so I hope it's coming across at least decently.

 

Sri Aurobindo spoke of a faculty higher than mind which he designates 'supermind' or 'the supra-mental'. This is not just being, intuition or a kind of feeling, but a faculty which to mind is utterly indefineable and incomprehensible.A higher level of manifest being. But of course, it is unmanifest as well.


This is what he saw as being the next step of evolution. The supra-mental being would be as far above human awareness and power as we are above the amoeba.

IMO this is somewhat speculative, although both Sri A and his yogic partner Sweet Mother (Mira Alfassa) claimed to have experienced it. They were clear that it is on a level beyond where mystics of the past have been.

I'm afraid this is a complex subject which I don't think I could adequately express in a few words.

 

How come?

The simple is in the complex. The complex is in the simple.

This is similar to the analogy of the universe in a grain of sand...

 

It seems we're speaking of the same thing in different words.