Who think about the fact that we are one with the universe

>>19062843
I am one with your mom. Every single night.

File: tenor (1).gif (96KB, 169x90px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 169x90px

>>19062843
The universe suffers from bad grammar.

File: 1399855034240.jpg (6KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x250px

I think about it often. Makes me feel better about the short period of time I'll spend as this individual organism.

Pretty miserable individual anyway.

>>19062843

Every moment, only then can I be sure that i am.

File: 1495629034738.jpg (144KB, 980x490px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 980x490px

>>19062843
>The Fact
Sure hope not

>>19062843
>fact

"All is one" is a delusion.

The universe is a wrapper and doesn't share a homogeneous nature with you as as a conscious agent.

There is no singular, substantially existing, ontological essence to things.

The truth is that all beings have a heterogeneous nature, and though like fire's heat and warmth, all fire's have this nature, there is no all pervasive or universal fireness by which all fires are mystically "the same fire" or "one fire".

In other words:
"the 'fact' that we are one with the universe" is nothing more than the tight grip of the ego, delusive, and empirically wrong.

>>19062941
Calculated..

>>19064326
While there are divisions between us, they dissapear in higher dimensions. And they become even stronger in lower dimensions.

>>19062843
It's not as mystical as you think..
We're literally made out of dead star stuff. The universe is half way through its life atm

>>19064672

Higher and lower dimensions are ultimately nothing but a mass of useless concepts. Total delusion.

>>19064762
Good. End this pointless shit existence.

>>19064797
/x/ can't into proper dimensional theory

Like M theory and superstring etc

>>19065666
You have lessons to learn, the ride never ends. The beginning is the end, the end is the beginning.

Also, checked

File: Pete_in_garden_chair_01.jpg (819KB, 700x933px) Image search: [Google]

819KB, 700x933px

>>19062843
Start small and build your way up

Do you think about how each atom is made up of subatomic particles.
How every element is made up of atoms.
How most elements were created in a solar furnace and released into the cosmos during that stars death panges.
How you are a 3.8 billion year old unbroken chain of life on one planet circling one star in a universe with trillions of stars.
How you are made up of billions of cells.
How the oxygen you breath came from a plant. How the water you drink came from a cloud.
How the nutrients you have eaten now make up your tissue, blood and bone.
How the energy of the sun processes its way through the ecosystem into you.
How every person born into the world is helpless, whose survival through infancy is totally dependent upon others.
How children who are severely neglected have developmental problems
How people trapped on deserted islands eventually go insane from the isolation.
How isolation is used as punishment in the prision system.
How your friends, enemies, family, community, country and world frames your identity.
How people who are about to die prioritize in importance the people they have bonds with not their careers or possessions.

All is One

>>19065747
>All is One

This conclusion doesn't follow from your belabored premises, if you mean anything else by it, it boils down to a delusive platitude.

>>19065685
The biggest problem is equivocating theoretical physical with new-age jargon. It is intellectually dishonest in the end logically incoherent.

File: HiGttsT_d.jpg (21KB, 640x218px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 640x218px

>>19064326
There's a reptile in my footwear

File: Screen Shot 2017-05-28 at 01.11.25.png (146KB, 497x489px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 497x489px

>>19062843

where ever there is a current there is a magnetic field

remember our brains, hearts and nervous systems are all electricity, and out bodies create small magnetic fields

this is not LARP, and may be worth studying/investigating more. what happens when magnetic fields interact with one another, with other humans, with natural magnetic fields

you have to wonder

>>19067094

this is actually thought provoking, really,

>>19067078
In the end, all science is logically incoherent.

Checkmate anon.

I like to think of it in a way, that as we are a consciousness that was made out of this universe, and the atoms of our bodies were forged in stars billions of years ago, we are just a way of the universe to experience itself.

>>19064326
How do you explain the phenomenon that photons can be in two places at once?

>>19067289
magnetic fields

>>19067275
We participate in this conversation in bad faith? What is the point?

I don't accept your proposition that "all science is logically incoherent", but even if I did it doesn't justify the equivocation.

>>19067289
First, I want to make clear that this phenomena has no direct bearing whatsoever on what is being discussed.

As to your question, what is there to explain? One interpretation straightforwardly suggests that the wave-function defining this phenomena never fully collapses, meaning particles are never fully particles they are really just highly vectored waves.

Therefore the if we accept the appearance of a photon two places at once, then we can say it is merely the case of two vectors of a localized wave.

In this case it is the same entity and its place is not really two places at once in any non-trivial sense.

>>19062843
That's pretty much a fact, dude.

>>19067087
kek

>>19062843
What do you think about the fact that pedos, murderers, thieves are also the universe. And what does that say about the creation behind it.

>>19062843
What's the actual proof that we are one in the universe though apart from others spiritual blue pills

OP, I think Buddhism would like to have a word with you, since it rejects this "all is one" nonsense wholesale.

>>19062843
You might like the Law of One/Ra material book series! It is kinda crazy, but that's the central message in the books.
Their official site is llrresearch.org
Searchable version: lawofone.info

>>19068553
*llresearch.org

>>19068458
Free will is s way for the one to experience itself through separation, even if separation is an illusion? That's the explaination I've heard that makes sense to me.

>>19068525
no it dosnt

>>19068587
Yeah it does.

File: 184411-atom.jpg (41KB, 777x878px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 777x878px

>>19062843

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLigBYhdUDs

>>19068587
Yeah it really does, "all is one" entails a subtle object of experience, while Buddhism is concerned with nonconceptual direct perception.

Meaning there is nothing by which or to which "all" or "one" could even be designated.

Trungpa Rinpoche translation of Jigme Lingpa’s The Lion’s Roar (Trungpa, 1972):

"“Some individuals will be able to use both thoughts and the absence of thought as meditation, but it should be born in mind that that which notes (i.e. notices) what is happening is the tight grip of Ego.”"

E. Capriles, a trained SMS teacher under Ch.NN and who spent 6 years in retreat under Ch.NN and DKR comments on this in his Trungpa's statements:

"If we are noticing that there is as “a sense of freedom, a sense of liberation, a sense of release from the terrible constriction of identifying with these puny little finite objects, your little body and little mind and little ego, all of which are objects that can be seen,” then this is a manifestation of the “tight grip of delusion” rather than rigpa"

>>19064326
>>19064797
>>19067074
>>19067078
Stop being a faggot about it and such a seperatist in this time of great need for compassion and unity, goddamn I know it ALL research.

Be it true or not, it is a good concept that if put to use and understanding would end a lot of suffering and even convert a lot of people, you fucking cocksucker version of me

>>19070705
>>19070705
http://creepypasta.wikia.com/wiki/An_Egg

inb4 hurr durr basing opinions on a pasta because thats not the matter here

>>19070689
Furthermore, in another of E. Capriles works Buddhism and Dzogchen, part one, he goes on to elaborate a bit from Trungpa and surprise surprise, explicitly targets "all is one".

Footnote 187 on page 269 goes into extensive detail and is worth checking out, but passage it is a note to on pg 75 is clear enough:

"In particular, as shown while considering the First Noble Truth, in thought-tinged, samsaric transpersonal states,the delusory identification with a subtle, intuitive conceptualization of oneness, or with a concatenation of discursive thoughts such as “all is One,” etc., may give rise to pleasant sensations that cause the individual to adhere to those thoughts, making it almost impossible for him or her to recognize samsara as such. It is therefore possible that the
individual may succeed in making such conditioned states stable and come to believe that
by so doing he or she has gone beyond the ego—in which case he or she might go so far
as to attain what Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche called “the totally demonic state of
complete egohood.”

Buddhism in no uncertain terms considers "all is one" a delusion.

>>19070705
You don't overcome separatism by spreading delusion, a delusion that often results in problems for people down the road.

> it is a good concept that if put to use

I generally don't agree.

>would end a lot of suffering

I totally disagree.

>and even convert a lot of people

Convert a lot of people? To what? Who says that is a good thing or desired? I'm not trying to convert anyone and think such ulterior motives are pathetically self-interested. Shame on you.

>goddamn I know it ALL
>you fucking cocksucker version of me

You sound deluded, hmm, I wonder why?

>>19062843
'sneet

>>19070689
>>19070725
Holy shit where have you been and why haven't you been posting this in all the Monist threads? I had no idea Buddhism still held such thinkers; every time I've looked into it all I get hit with is "Everything is Oneness" crap.

The first post especially shows the nice distinction between impersonalism and monism. An impersonalist removes self through lack of attention, putting everything into the field of knowledge and nothing into the knower of the field. Perception without judgement, design, or label. The Monist is the opposite, FORCING their knower of the field onto everything, and stamping it with their label of "One."

>>19072903
>I had no idea Buddhism still held such thinkers; every time I've looked into it all I get hit with is "Everything is Oneness" crap.

That's not buddhism. That's new age fucks that haven't ever opened a text or read mantras or anything.

>>19070689
I wonder how the "Right action" stuff is justified with this nonconceptual idea.

>>19062971
Na-nani!? I can't see John Cena!

>>19064326
>The truth is that all beings have a heterogeneous nature

All beings.....

What is a being? You? You are a singular entity? Why do you say that? Your physical body is composed of trillions of different organisms, which are themselves composed of even smaller stuff. What makes you think that this mass of organisms, this living ecosystem full of different kinds of creatures with different functions all working and interacting with each other, is one thing? Is "a" being?
Just as your own body is a world of smaller organisms, so too is the Earth, and (for all we know) the galaxy, and the entire universe.

Where is the magical line drawn between "one" and "many"?

>>19064326
>There is no singular, substantially existing, ontological essence to things.
What is 'empty space'?

>>19073245
>Where is the magical line drawn between "one" and "many"?

The Greeks did this ages ago. I've been thinking about doing a thread on it but /x/ would just shit all over it.

>>19064326
>The truth is that all beings have a heterogeneous nature, and though like fire's heat and warmth, all fire's have this nature, there is no all pervasive or universal fireness by which all fires are mystically "the same fire" or "one fire".

But all fires require that all other fires exist to exist. The delusion is the illusion of separation we undergo right now.

>>19073316
Do it anyway, sounds interesting. I think I remember learning about that in one of my philosophy classes in college, but it's been years so I can't remember for sure.

>>19073316
You mean the ontological aristotelian dualistic explanation of conscience nature?

>>19072903
>every time I've looked into it all I get hit with is "Everything is Oneness" crap.

That is a real shame.

>>19073030
Often yeah. Even worse is when people drag preconceptions into it and allow it to utterly subvert what they are actually reading or hearing.

>>19073144
Very basically: In those moments where one is actively subject to conceptual proliferation, one intentionally engages in (conditioned) right action. When one rests in moments of pristine consciousness, this engagement falls away in favor of naturalness.

There is a very precise reasoning to all of this involving the nature of mind and a self-reflexive 'knowledge', but I don't think I can gloss it very well in English in just a few sentences. Tibetans in particular have developed an incredibly precise vocabulary for all of this.

>>19073245
>What is a being?

An individual conscious agent. Where my inner experience/sense-data continuum ends and yours begins.

>Where is the magical line drawn between "one" and "many"?

Ontologically undecidable yet clearly apparent.

>What is 'empty space'?

A concept.

>But all fires require that all other fires exist to exist.

"All fires" isn't a thing that exists or appears, it is just a generalized abstraction.

>>19073539
>An individual conscious agent
What is consciousness?

>Where my inner experience/sense-data continuum ends and yours begins
But as I said, "you" are made up of other organisms which each have their own inner experience/sense-data continuum. So are they separate entities? And if so, how is it that multiple separate entities, when combined, make a new singular entity? And if this is in fact the case, what reason is there to believe we aren't each separate entities which together make up a new singular entity, as well?

>>19073539
>Ontologically undecidable yet clearly apparent

Something being "clearly apparent" counts for absolutely nothing. It's clearly apparent that the Sun moves through the sky, yet we know now this isn't the case.

Your other replies weren't to anything I said, so I'm not sure what that was about.

>>19073539
>"All fires" isn't a thing that exists or appears, it is just a generalized abstraction.
Language is an exercise in generalized abstraction. A single fire doesn't exist as an object, it's a pattern.

>>19073589
>So are they separate entities?

If they have their own inner experience, they are distinct conscious-continuums.

>And if so, how is it that multiple separate entities, when combined, make a new singular entity?

Separate conscious-continuums don't themselves combine to make a new conscious-continuum.

>Something being "clearly apparent" counts for absolutely nothing.

Sure it does, 'yet clearly apparent' here refers to what remains after ontological-scrutiny.

>>19073694
>A single fire doesn't exist as an object, it's a pattern.

A fire is a process that exists conventionally.

"All fires" doesn't appear or exist at all.

>>19074005
>If they have their own inner experience, they are distinct conscious-continuums.

Cell mitosis of gut bacteria is an inner experience.

>>19074072
I can't tell anymore who is posting in good faith.

>>19074115
Heh

>>19062843
Everything has an impact on its surroundings which has an impact on its own surroundings,....
Of course we are one with the universe

>>19068458
It says that good can't exist without evil

>>19074072
If for some reason you're serious, I don't accept that gut bacteria have qualia.

>>19074287
That something influences something else doesn't suddenly mean that all things are one thing.

>>19074308
Good and evil are post-hoc imputations. Neither "exists".

>>19072903
This is me, the anti-Monist guy.

>>19073449
>>19073539
>>19074005
>furious note-taking

>>19074115
PLEASE don't stop this discussion.

>>19074397
>I don't accept that gut bacteria have qualia.
Even if they did, how would that counter the idea of the conscious-continuum? Does the proximity or connectivity of the physical system affect the qualia? I would think yes, but how much? Does a parasite like a tapeworm have its own inner experience? What about conjoined twins?

>post-hoc imputations
Ooh, nice phrase. I always used the term "value judgements." Boiled down, saying something is good or evil is just declaring an opinion on desirability which can be applied across a culture.

In other words, it's backwards to think that nobody desires rape because it is evil. Rape is considered evil because so few people desire it.

>>19074005
>Separate conscious-continuums don't themselves combine to make a new conscious-continuum

That's exactly what they do. That's what we're talking about--multiple organisms with their own sense-data continuum, together creating a new organism with it's own sense-data continuum. Your sense-data continuum is the product of the organisms that make up your physical body, your brain and your skin and your eyes etc. are all composed of individual organisms, which have their own sense-data continuum.

You seem to just believe what you believe and are trying your best to reason your way to your preconceived conclusion, and when you don't have an actual argument you just state your belief as fact.

>>19075073
>your brain and your skin and your eyes etc. are all composed of individual organisms
Are you suggesting the individual cells that make up something like an eye are separate beings each with subjective experience? Because that is NOT what anon, science, or Buddhism claim.

>>19075111
Science doesn't have a universal definition for what consciousness or subjective experience are, and it's something we don't fully understand--if at all. These are terms we created, and different people use the terms in different ways. If we're talking about a sense-data continuum as the original anon I was having this discussion with said, and using that as the definition of consciousness or subjective experience (which I don't think is a bad definition, at least for the purposes of this conversation), then cells most certainly have that. Cells sense and react to things, which means they have their own sense-data continuum, which means they have their own subjective experiences. One cell will not have the same experience as another cell because they will not only be physically different in slight ways, and so they will process and react to information in slightly different ways, but it's also true that no two cells will have the exact same information to sense and process and react to because they are two distinct "things" at different points in space.
So, yes, science does technically say that cells have subjective experiences, if we take "subjective experiences" to mean a unique sense-data continuum.

>>19075179
>If we're talking about a sense-data continuum as the original anon I was having this discussion with said
Out of context. These are the full answers:
>An individual conscious agent. Where my inner experience/sense-data continuum ends and yours begins.
>If they have their own inner experience, they are distinct conscious-continuums.

The answers are quite clear we are talking about individual conscious agents, not a semantic exercise in making the data input = subjective experience.

>So, yes, science does technically say that cells have subjective experiences
No, it doesn't. Because science doesn't take "subjective experiences" to mean a unique sense-data continuum.

You have created a strawman where you've equated sensory input with consciousness. No one but you agrees with this. The "sense-data continuum" anon spoke of was equated with "inner experience" and consciousness, not sensory input.

>>19075298
>he answers are quite clear we are talking about individual conscious agents, not a semantic exercise in making the data input = subjective experience.

Then what IS "subjective experience"? What IS "consciousness"? Whether you intended to or not you equated consciousness to a sense-data continuum. But if that isn't the definition you want to use, than provide a different one. You have been discussing all of this without actually defining your terms. The definition of "consciousness" is not axiomatic.

>Because science doesn't take "subjective experiences" to mean a unique sense-data continuum

"Sense-data continuum" isn't even a scientific term. None of this is a "semantic exercise", you seem to think that you can just throw out terms and concepts without defining them and then use them in your argument. You can't. If you are going to make the claim that "science doesn't take "subjective experiences" to mean a unique sense-data continuum", you need to define those terms. Show your work. You haven't done that a single time during this whole discussion, and it's starting to make it seem like I'm wasting my time talking to you.

>You have created a strawman where you've equated sensory input with consciousness

Are you kidding? It's not a strawman, it's an argument. I laid out a simple line of reasoning for it in my last comment. But considering that you haven't made an actual argument yet in this entire discussion, maybe you just don't understand how arguing works. As I said already, you can't just state claims as fact, using terms that aren't axiomatic. You need to provide arguments/reasoning for your claims, and clearly define your terms.

>>19062843
Is that the soul that is part of the space/time fabric?

>>19075430
Back up and recognize the person you responded to there is not the one you were originally talking with. When you respond to this post, I will address what you said.

>>19075474
Wow, I'm sorry, that's my mistake. I should have read closer. I'm running on very little sleep so I'm a bit out of it.

Knowing this now, though, I have another question
>>19075298
>The "sense-data continuum" anon spoke of was equated with "inner experience" and consciousness, not sensory input.

You're saying that "sensory input" and "sense-data continuum" aren't the same thing? The term sense-data continuum seemed to me to mean an organism having the ability to sense and react to data/its surroundings. Is that not equatable to "sensory input"? Or am I misunderstanding you there?

>>19075513
Thank you. This is fun and I hope the anon comes back to elucidate.

>You're saying that "sensory input" and "sense-data continuum" aren't the same thing?
That was my impression. I don't really know what to make of sense-data continuum.

For my own thought, "sensory input" can be declared in systems commonly understood to not have subjective experience. A computer program also senses and reacts to external stimulii.

(And so very sorry on the delay, I was pulled away and forgot this wasn't sent.)