For Discussion: How Pure of Thought are Experiences of God?

[Sunstone]

There seems to be an experience of the oneness of all things that comes about when subject/object perception abruptly ceases while some form of experiencing continues. Subject/object perception is a trait of normal waking consciousness in which the psychological self (The "I", "Me", "Ego", or whatever you wish to call it) is perceived as distinct and separate from all other things. So, for instance, I am aware of the tree outside my window, and at the same time, I am aware of the tree as being not-me. When that sort of awareness (i.e. normal consciousness) breaks down or is suspended, then we can perceive the oneness or unity of all things. This experience of oneness is sometimes -- but not always -- identified as an experience of "god".

For the purposes of this discussion, please assume that the above is true.

Now, it seems to me that all conscious thought is fundamentally symbolic in the sense that, while I might idly see the tree outside my window, the moment I begin consciously thinking about the tree, I begin thinking of it in terms of symbols. These symbols, of course, are not the tree itself as I experience it. That is, I do not, for instance, actually experience the tree as a beech, but instead merely symbolize it as belonging to the category of "beech trees".

Furthermore, it seems to me that my thoughts about the tree can over-ride my actual experience of the tree. That is, in sometimes very subtle ways, when I think of the tree as a beech, I expect the tree to have certain traits -- and even if and when these expectations are true -- I am no longer responding to the tree as merely my actual experience of it, but as more than my actual experience of it.

Taking into account all of the above, when I have an experience of the oneness of all things, to what extent, if any, can my experience be influenced or mingled with any concepts of oneness that I might harbor?

 

[YmirGF]

Always, I'd say, Phil. You are never outside your sphere of understanding.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

whatever your actual perceptual and emotional response to an experience, your mind will try to relate it to what you know--memories, learned and inherent responses, your thoughts, and your mind will try to make sense of it so it can remember the experience, and so will make relationships and memories to go with all your others...

 

[Orbit]

There seems to be an experience of the oneness of all things that comes about when subject/object perception abruptly ceases while some form of experiencing continues. Subject/object perception is a trait of normal waking consciousness in which the psychological self (The "I", "Me", "Ego", or whatever you wish to call it) is perceived as distinct and separate from all other things. So, for instance, I am aware of the tree outside my window, and at the same time, I am aware of the tree as being not-me. When that sort of awareness (i.e. normal consciousness) breaks down or is suspended, then we can perceive the oneness or unity of all things. This experience of oneness is sometimes -- but not always -- identified as an experience of "god".

For the purposes of this discussion, please assume that the above is true.

Now, it seems to me that all conscious thought is fundamentally symbolic in the sense that, while I might idly see the tree outside my window, the moment I begin consciously thinking about the tree, I begin thinking of it in terms of symbols. These symbols, of course, are not the tree itself as I experience it. That is, I do not, for instance, actually experience the tree as a beech, but instead merely symbolize it as belonging to the category of "beech trees".

Furthermore, it seems to me that my thoughts about the tree can over-ride my actual experience of the tree. That is, in sometimes very subtle ways, when I think of the tree as a beech, I expect the tree to have certain traits -- and even if and when these expectations are true -- I am no longer responding to the tree as merely my actual experience of it, but as more than my actual experience of it.

Taking into account all of the above, when I have an experience of the oneness of all things, to what extent, if any, can my experience be influenced or mingled with any concepts of oneness that I might harbor?

Even in normal consciousness I feel on some level that the tree and I are one, and that I am one with other people. Maybe after years of thinking like this my Ego has loosened it boundaries--I don't seem any the worse for it. In other words, I think "perceiving oneness" can be learned, not by reading but by trusting your experiences. You can call it "God" or "cosmic consciousness" or your "higher self"-- to me those are all just different words for the same experience. I think meditating regularly puts you in this frame of mind more easily. Or you could take drugs to the same effect but that's kind of like shooting yourself out of a cannon to see the stars. There are other ways to do it.

 

[mystic64]

In my opinion relative to subjective experience over the last sixty years, God (as the profoundly powerful force with a conscious mind) is a slippery sucker ! And to me "oneness" with a tree, an animal, another person or persons, or God is an "empathic" experience. All living things give off EMF energies (including God) and these energies can be felt/experienced if one has the sensitivity (born with it) or developes this sensitivity through meditations to feel these energies. I was six years old when I found out (was told) that other people can't hear your thoughts. It turned out that that information wasn't exactly correct , but it did make me feel good at the time. As an example, as a rule of thumb, consider all women psychic and be careful what you think around them. Men, they are pretty zip for that way . "Oneness", quiet your mind and then allow (feel) the energies of your target to become your energies. "Oneness", quiet your mind and then listen to the thoughts that pop into your mind. To you it will seem like they are your thoughts, but they are not because you are not thinking. To me the question of what is "oneness" has never been a question because I was born highly empathic. To me the question always was, "How do you shut it off?" Others that I have met that are like me all agree that that is your first challenge, because if you do not learn how to do that you will go "nuts". From there you learn how to turn it on just a little bit because you are nosey . And a stable state of "oneness" with the profoundly powerful force with a conscious mind (God/Absolute) takes a lot of practice and persistence for most of us, because It is really old, really big, and It does not think or experience things the same way we do. It does seem to have a sense of humor though if you do not watch your step .

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There seems to be an experience of the oneness of all things that comes about when subject/object perception abruptly ceases while some form of experiencing continues. Subject/object perception is a trait of normal waking consciousness in which the psychological self (The "I", "Me", "Ego", or whatever you wish to call it) is perceived as distinct and separate from all other things. So, for instance, I am aware of the tree outside my window, and at the same time, I am aware of the tree as being not-me. When that sort of awareness (i.e. normal consciousness) breaks down or is suspended, then we can perceive the oneness or unity of all things. This experience of oneness is sometimes -- but not always -- identified as an experience of "god".

For the purposes of this discussion, please assume that the above is true.

Now, it seems to me that all conscious thought is fundamentally symbolic in the sense that, while I might idly see the tree outside my window, the moment I begin consciously thinking about the tree, I begin thinking of it in terms of symbols. These symbols, of course, are not the tree itself as I experience it. That is, I do not, for instance, actually experience the tree as a beech, but instead merely symbolize it as belonging to the category of "beech trees".

Furthermore, it seems to me that my thoughts about the tree can over-ride my actual experience of the tree. That is, in sometimes very subtle ways, when I think of the tree as a beech, I expect the tree to have certain traits -- and even if and when these expectations are true -- I am no longer responding to the tree as merely my actual experience of it, but as more than my actual experience of it.

Taking into account all of the above, when I have an experience of the oneness of all things, to what extent, if any, can my experience be influenced or mingled with any concepts of oneness that I might harbor?

I think there is something to be said for this sort of subjective meditation, that it is possible to generate your own feeling of oneness with God's creation in this way- especially something that is intended to be enjoyed by you, trees, bird song, sunsets, etc
(Is it possible to have this experience with your new lawn tractor? I don't think so!)

but that this is entirely distinct from an experience of the creator of these things, involving the aspect of a more subjective purposeful communication

 

[Sunstone]

I think there is something to be said for this sort of subjective meditation, that it is possible to generate your own feeling of oneness with God's creation in this way- especially something that is intended to be enjoyed by you, trees, bird song, sunsets, etc
(Is it possible to have this experience with your new lawn tractor? I don't think so!)

but that this is entirely distinct from an experience of the creator of these things, involving the aspect of a more subjective purposeful communication

Sounds like you're speculating without, however, checking your speculations against your own experience of this sort of thing (which I would guess is zilch) or the accounts of other people's experiences of this sort of thing.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

We can only speculate since none of us have completely dissolved our ego. We cannot consciously induce a state of oneness despite what past experiences may seem.

If you've experienced a 'spiritual awakening', then it's my understanding that there is a momentary glimpse into the experience of complete oneness, but it passes quickly and the euphoria after -- while the feeling of connectedness is profound -- is merely the residue of that fleeting moment. So, I would be cautious about accepting anyone's opinions on this subject.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sounds like you're speculating without, however, checking your speculations against your own experience of this sort of thing (which I would guess is zilch) or the accounts of other people's experiences of this sort of thing.

That's based on my own experience which seems to be similar others' in this sense, though obviously I can't speak for them.

But I think most people make this same distinction; between the 'everyday connection' with God, nature, creation, the universe etc which can be summoned at will to some extent as you say...

... and the profound life changing experiences, where we feel God has reached out to us, often with an explicit compelling communication of some kind,usually entirely unexpectedly.

 

[mystic64]

We can only speculate since none of us have completely dissolved our ego. We cannot consciously induce a state of oneness despite what past experiences may seem.

If you've experienced a 'spiritual awakening', then it's my understanding that there is a momentary glimpse into the experience of complete oneness, but it passes quickly and the euphoria after -- while the feeling of connectedness is profound -- is merely the residue of that fleeting moment. So, I would be cautious about accepting anyone's opinions on this subject.

Hi Treasure Hunter and wecome to the message board! I can completely dissolve my ego at will and I can consciously induce a state of oneness at will. But then I have been at this stuff for a little over sixty years now with thousands (and thousands) of hours of meditation experience. And should you be cautious about accepting anyone's opinions on this subject? Absolutely yes ! And the hard part is getting around one's ego, the part of one's personallity programming that lies in the automated part of the mind (the subconscious mind). Ultimately you reach a point where the ego is not real or necessary and from there you learn how to just shut it off or to step out of it so to speak. Also if your personallity programming is crumby you do modify it a bunch so that it is more functional when it is in play relative to interacting with others in the day to day world. And another thing that is fun is that you reach a point to where you can shape your ego to fit the situation and the folks that you are interating with. I am Frank when I am in New York city and I am Ernest when I am in Chicago . I can't be pinned down because there is nothing to pin down. If I wish, my personality/ego can become nothing but "smoke and mirriors" . At the sametime I do respect the reality that normal folks live in and I have no desire to be disruptive with it. We are all just trying to get by.

 

[Windwalker]

When that sort of awareness (i.e. normal consciousness) breaks down or is suspended, then we can perceive the oneness or unity of all things. This experience of oneness is sometimes -- but not always -- identified as an experience of "god".

A couple of points to make here. The experience of God can also be known in dualistic ways, and most often is. The absolute unity of all things is one type of mystical experience of the divine. And then there is the experience of nonduality beyond that even, which sees and experiences the divine as one and many.

The other point is that it really is not a matter of "normal" consciousness breaking down or being suspended. It's really more a matter of transcending it, or moving beyond it, breaking free from its constrictures and so forth. It's not a breakdown, but a supersedence. What is "normal" is really just the conventional norm of that mode of consciousness shared in the collective. "Normal" is best described as "Consensus Trance". Someone moving into these "Altered States of Consciousness", as they become called, are really just shifting awareness that moves beyond the limitations of the current mean average mode of consciousness. In time, the "altered state", can in fact become the norm. And if you are part of a community where these modes of consciousness are shared, it becomes the new collective standard.

For the purposes of this discussion, please assume that the above is true.

Only with these additional understandings.

Now, it seems to me that all conscious thought is fundamentally symbolic in the sense that, while I might idly see the tree outside my window, the moment I begin consciously thinking about the tree, I begin thinking of it in terms of symbols. These symbols, of course, are not the tree itself as I experience it. That is, I do not, for instance, actually experience the tree as a beech, but instead merely symbolize it as belonging to the category of "beech trees".

True.

Furthermore, it seems to me that my thoughts about the tree can over-ride my actual experience of the tree. That is, in sometimes very subtle ways, when I think of the tree as a beech, I expect the tree to have certain traits -- and even if and when these expectations are true -- I am no longer responding to the tree as merely my actual experience of it, but as more than my actual experience of it.

Or rather, you are responding to your idea about the tree and experiencing that, rather than the tree itself. Your experience of reality is tied to your expectations of reality.

Taking into account all of the above, when I have an experience of the oneness of all things, to what extent, if any, can my experience be influenced or mingled with any concepts of oneness that I might harbor?

Here's where it gets interesting. In a mystical state the mind can become so opened that the raw experience so overwhelms it that thoughts have to play catch up with it. Since the experience is so transcendent in this way, the result can be that it leaves the structures of reality we have previously built up more or less in ruin. Which is good, in certain cases. Under other conditions, a mystical experience can actually reinforce the concepts we had previously, solidifying the structures even further. There are two things going on here. But first there is something to look at here.

William James described what happens in normal experiences like this. An experience happens and is itself just simply an experience without meaning attached to it. What happens, basically in a nanosecond, is that the experience splits into two parts: object and subject. The experiencer immediately processes the experience into these two questions, "What was that"? (object), and "What does it mean?" (subject). The frameworks of our language and culture as well as our own personalities and value structures will largely determine where and how we place these things into the constructed world of our waking conscious minds. So there is really three things in our experiences; the raw experience itself before thought, and the objective and subjective translations of these.

Where the mystical experience can overwhelm these structures can depend on a few factors. The nature of the structures themselves, whether they are rigid and well-defined structures, how well they are established in the individual, or if they are inherently more fluid and dynamic structures open to new points of view. As well as the condition of the person themselves, their satisfaction with the structures; i.e., are they in some sort of existential crisis where a radical realigning of the structures needs to occur. I'm quite sure I can think of other variables here, but the point is for example, someone having a transrational experience while their structures are the mythic-literal structures of their religion they are well-established in, can walk away from it with the point of view that they just experienced the literal God of their religion's symbolic structures. But another person, at say the postmodern structures may take it as an experience of the transcendent God who shows up in all religions.

I'll leave it here for the moment.