Indications of Oneness in Basic Human Experience and Perception

[Buddha Dharma]

The idea of primitive minds when they could memorize the whole texts, whereas we have like a 3 minute attention span in comparison.

Well, well- touche

 

[atanu]

...
What indications do you suppose suggested this to the primitive mind? Without science or psychology suggesting to us our interconnection.

In my view, 'primitive mind' does not apply in this context, just as time has no place in deep sleep. As per scripture and teachings of the wise ones, word, space, time are the effects of the non dual.

 

[sayak83]

Before science told us that we were all made of the same star stuff, or contemporary psychology said that we play on one another's consciousness as external factors- there were humans that concluded we have always been interconnected.

Hinduism and Buddhism tend to non-duality. That we are all Brahman having a mortal experience, or are Buddha at our fundamental core- carrying the uncultivated seeds of Nirvana.

Mystic traditions in the monotheistic religions and some pagan philosophical thought have both suggested we're actually unified in one cosmic reality.

What indications do you suppose suggested this to the primitive mind? Without science or psychology suggesting to us our interconnection.

What do we see in basic perception and interactions in every day life that causes us to say to ourselves: there is no fundamental divide between self and other?

If things are different from each other in their fundamental essence, how can they interact with each other? This was the objection against Cartesian dualism, and can be generalized for any worldview that tries to subdivide the world into multiple ontological essences.

 

[Vinayaka]

What do we see in basic perception and interactions in every day life that causes us to say to ourselves: there is no fundamental divide between self and other?

Personally, I see very little at the external level. I think people transfer mystical ideas to places where it simply doesn't exist ... namely, the external conscious mind places in life. That is where we see differences galore. Only on a more inner level does it happen. As that inner mystical consciousnous goes in and in and in some more, the more likelihood to encounter oneness, or similar concepts.

Hence we get this overyly simplified stuff like 'all relgions are the same' when anybody with a mind can see they're not.

Nut hey if you want to think a car and a mosquito are the same thing, go for it.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

In my view, 'primitive mind' does not apply in this context, just as time has no place in deep sleep. As per scripture and teachings of the wise ones, word, space, time are the effects of the non dual.

I didn't mean primitive in a bad way. That was probably bad wording.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Personally, I see very little at the external level. I think people transfer mystical ideas to places where it simply doesn't exist ... namely, the external conscious mind places in life. That is where we see differences galore. Only on a more inner level does it happen. As that inner mystical consciousnous goes in and in and in some more, the more likelihood to encounter oneness, or similar concepts.

Hence we get this overyly simplified stuff like 'all relgions are the same' when anybody with a mind can see they're not.

Nut hey if you want to think a car and a mosquito are the same thing, go for it.

No this is a good point @Vinayaka. This is part of why I've been considering Vedanta more. I don't think I have it all figured out.

 

[Vinayaka]

No this is a good point @Vinayaka. This is part of why I've been considering Vedanta more. I don't think I have it all figured out.

This is exactly why I'm NOT a Vedantin, in particular simplistic Advaita, or neo-Advaita.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

This is exactly why I'm NOT a Vedantin, in particular simplistic Advaita, or neo-Advaita.

Well when I say Vedanta, I mean I've been considering the school that recognizes there can be difference in Brahman, but still unity: Bhedabheda. Or are you including that school in your rejection?

 

[Vinayaka]

Well when I say Vedanta, I mean I've been considering the school that recognizes there can be difference in Brahman, but still unity: Bhedabheda. Or are you including that school in your rejection?

It's not really a rejection. I agree with Vedanta at its core, just not when it's brought to the mundane. That mindset can be very dangerous. I don't even know what Bhedabheda is.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

It's not really a rejection. I agree with Vedanta at its core, just not when it's brought to the mundane. That mindset can be very dangerous. I don't even know what Bhedabheda is.

I'm still learning about it myself, but here's a brief summation from a fairly good source: Bhedabheda Vedanta | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Bhedābheda Vedānta is one of the several traditions of Vedānta philosophy in India. “Bhedābheda” is a Sanskrit word meaning “Difference and Non-Difference.” The characteristic position of all the different Bhedābheda Vedānta schools is that the individual self (jīvātman) is both different and not different from the ultimate reality known as Brahman. Bhedābheda reconciles the positions of two other major schools of Vedānta. The Advaita (Monist) Vedānta that claims the individual self is completely identical to Brahman, and the Dvaita (Dualist) Vedānta that teaches complete difference between the individual self and Brahman.

 

[atanu]

This is exactly why I'm NOT a Vedantin, in particular simplistic Advaita, or neo-Advaita.

My view.

The term ‘Neo Advaita’ is simplistic and is born of internet, and supported by people whose knowledge is not rooted in Advaita practice. It is also a part of the very ‘external’ variety you are talking of.

When an advaitin talks of the ‘non dual’, he is not talking of non duality of a table versus a chair. That is too simplistic to even occur in someone’s mind. Yet, the ‘non dual’ is that cloth on which the diversity of designs is rooted upon, and thus must be internalised as the truth at the mental level, before any success can be attained towards samadhi.

One who believes the discrete diversity to be the truth cannot meditate on the non dual. On this point, Advaita practice has well formulated steps of shravana (listening), manana (deep contemplation), and then followed by actual dhyana (meditation).

Ymmv.

 

[atanu]

I didn't mean primitive in a bad way. That was probably bad wording.

I have no doubt about that my friend.

I just wished to point out that as per Hinduism’s basic scriptures, including Gita, knowledge exists timelessly and our time is not the only time.

 

[ajay0]

Jewish mystic thought doesn't speculate about interconnection between things, or there is no school that does?

Imho, Christianity as taught by the Jewish Christ can also be seen as a mystical tradition of the Jews that taught about the nondual interconnection between things, as you put it.

'I and my Father are one.'( John 10:30) as said by Christ is oddly similar to the sufi enlightened sage Mansur Al-Hallaj's “I am the Truth.” And also the upanishadic verse 'I am He'. (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad)