The concept of being one with the world

[sh]

When I first heard the idea of "being one with everything," I thought it meant thinking or believing that I was one with all.

So, that's what I did.

After a while, I noticed that nothing had really changed at all. I thought that perhaps because I didn't really know if I was one with all, or not, I couldn't really think or believe such a thing.

So, I tried to convince myself that I was one with the universe. I told myself over and over that I am one with all.

This didn't work either. Nothing changed.

I didn't give up though. I really felt like I had to try everything to find this oneness. And I did, everything I could.

The day it actually happened, I realized that there was much more to this oneness concept than just thinking one thing, or believing something.

I would say, that being one with the world is a state of being. I would describe this being by saying that one is no longer confined to seeing the world through theirselves eyes'. It is a state when one can see through any eyes that exist in the world.

I remember when I first thought about all these concepts, I thought that what they call seeing the world through an animal's eyes, another man's eyes or the earth's eyes, must be some kind of strange euphemism for imagination or visualization.

I even thought that I knew exactly how to imagine myself in another person, or an animal's shoes.

Today, I distinguish between this seeing and imagining/visualizing. IMO, They are two completely separate and unrelated things.

And yet, we as humans, have all these abilities, and plenty more too as far as I can see, and we can use them all just as we use imagination or thought.

IMHO, the simple way to explain "oneness" is that it is an inner skill that one can learn. I would say it is knowing how to detach yourself from yourself.

I believe there are two kinds of 'oneness.' One is a spontaneous detachment of self from self, caused by outside means. This could include psychedelics, near-death experiences, illness or no apparent cause at all. Two is a volitional and intentional detachment of self from self, as a practical task. A practical, yet inner task I would say. This is, IMO, something that one learns and develops, not something that anyone could ever be gifted with.

Thinking is, I believe, a skill we develop when we are young. It is our only inner skill today, IMO.

I really do see that our possibilities are endless. And I'm pretty sure I'm not imagining it.

-f

[karlsie]

I have a tendency to see each of us first, from a microscopic perspective of being. We have at the core, the central Id, and though we do much to expand it by surrounding it with layers of self importance, it's really quite small. When we remove all the layers, it's simply a pitiful plea to be loved.

I say pitiful because this Id knows all the reasons why you shouldn't love it; all its selfish motivations, all its wrongful actions, all its secret desires; but it begs to be loved anyway. In the collective conscious, this acceptance of the central Id is necessary. It needs to be recognized and embraced, not for its separateness, but for its common drive. We remember ancient wisdom with love for the speaker. We remember people who have made great sacrifice with love for their idealism. We remember a kindly grandparent who has passed away, or a child who died prematurely, and our hearts are gentled with love for them. That bonding of love is what makes us aware of the Universe around us and how precious and beautiful it all is. A flower responds to love. Praise the bud and watch how wonderfully it begins to open up and bloom for you.

That is my perception of oneness; a bonding with all that completes the cycle of life and celebrates its renewal. On the opposite end, there is the counter balance of death and destruction, of fear and alienation. In every step on our journey into awareness, we choose between one or the other. We tear down the walls of the Id that so desperately desires unity, or we build more walls around it so it will not appear weak or flawed.

[grainnerhuad]

I really do not like giving names to the self like "Id" or "Ego" or "Super Ego" they are I think simplifications of a larger picture and an immature attempt to explain the great vastness. (Immature on the part of the Author of that theory"

There is so much more than the "Id" and those who rely on it give themselves excuses as to why they cannot or do not or will not.

The vast oneness is also a confusing concept because we still feel ourselves, judge others and act accordingly.

Also there are some people I think who cannot for whatever reason be it damage in birth defects, lack of nurture, abuse, etc. obtain an ability to see other selves. They just can't there are very special people who can, and not all of those use it to good ends.

[karlsie]

I like definitions as they give concrete values to abstract concepts. I see and label the "Id" much as you might do a basic element, like oxygen, hydrogen or helium. It is the square root; the particle that can't be broken down anymore. Like an element, as its molecules bonds with others, its composition changes. The Id bonds with its parents. It bonds with its environment. It fluxes and changes as new layers of association are painted over it.

Each of these bonds create part of the collective consciousness of the Id. The Id hears internally the voices of his mother his father, his sister, a best friend, and attaches their behaviors and personality traits to his knowledge base, sometimes assuming these traits are his own. They become part of self; that complex entity absorbing data, spontaneously reacting to emotional stimuli, summoning the skills of logic and reason, but the Id remains a basic element. The Id is the examination of life through a microscope. The collective self is scanning the Universe with a telescope. They are both part of the process toward awareness.