One With Everything? An Atman Project
April 28, 2008 by Chris
I’d like to start to working on the next video. As it will be part of the series on the sevenfold constitution, it will focus on the principle of atman.
To that end, I invite your comments on the question, ‘What does it mean to be one with everything?’
Chris
Govert
Pablo
katinkaspiritual
latebrake
mitdyob
I think there are levels of being one with everything. On the emotional level it isn’t good to be too much of an empath. If you can’t see the difference between your own emotions and those of someone else, you can’t add anything new to the situation. There has to be an awareness of the other, without being pulled in.
On the mental level the same thing is true: going along with the thoughts of the world will not get you wisdom - but not being aware of those thoughts won’t bring wisdom either. There has to be a sensitivity.
I feel that sensitivity is, at its purest, founded in Atman - in the ultimate unity of all. Through that ultimate unity we can feel our way to the other person and to the sorrows of the world as well.
Katinka,
It is useful to distinguish the different levels at which the phenomena of unity appears to manifest (particularly so since this post is in preparation of the next installment of the series exploring those very levels).
I hadn’t thought to explore the idea of ‘being one with’ in terms of intentionality and direction, but you’re right, you can feel ‘one with’ another through feelings (or physically through sex), or a group through shared mental constructs.
Unity at the ultimate level is my particular area of concern, specifically the idea of an atman principle in human beings. One of the primary tropes of new age thought is ‘You are one with everything’, generally spoken in a breathy whisper while singing bowls hum in the background. I have a sense of what it means/feels then. But what about right now?
I’m writing this from a cafe in downtown Chicago. Looking around at the human beings all around me, just imagining the diversity of their life stories is overwhelming. To fully realize my essential oneness with all of them . . . what does that mean? Is it just an idea? A feeling? How would such a realization alter my relationship to them? How do we balance recognizing unity and honoring individual expression? Is it possible to function in light of knowing such unity? And what about the dogs walking on the street, the bugs crawling through the sidewalk planters, the flowers, the concrete street, the railway above, the rain falling on all of it?
Yes… it’s a difficult subject.
Certain sense of unity usually comes unexpectedly, triggered by small or insignificant things. But I’d like to examine whether we can do anything to invite that feeling.
First of all, I think, we have to investigate in ourselves the primary source of separation.
We have the identification with the body, which is a huge obstacle. Have you ever tried imagining yourself being someone else? With a different face, a different name? Even with a different sex…? It’s kind of awkward, but it’s very interesting.
And yet, one discovers that the identification with our personal identity has its roots in our mind and memory.
If we sit quietly and stop thinking, seeking, trying; if we can just be, completely relaxed, be now, then we find a “vibrating sensation”, I don’t know how to describe it. There is a feeling of being but, since there are not thoughts, that feeling is not “I’m this or that”. There is only a pure, super-conceptual feeling of being. It is hard to remain in that point though, because thoughts arise and carry our perception away from that feeling.
Several Jñanis pointed out, however, that if we just stay in that point, if we go back to it patiently, we will eventually transcend our identification with the personality and perceive unity.
I think that is what Blavatsky referred to when saying: “When the individual consciousness is turned inward, a conjunction of Manas and Buddhi takes place.”
Buddhi, as we know, is the vehicle for Atman, and the principle responsible for the perception of unity.
I believe that Atma is only individualized by the uphadi of Buddhi. Without Buddhi, there is no monad. Atman is Brahman.
Now, the ‘perception’ of unity requires (an awakened) Manas. This completes the ‘higher’ Self. Without Manas, there is no perception as we understand it. Unity without perception.
Can kama-manas percieve unity? One can conceptualize unity, imagine unity, act ‘as-if’ one is at one with all-there-is. I think unity can be actually perceived by Buddhi-Manas only, intuitively.
However, a video recently popular on the web as forced me to question the inability of lower manas to percive unity. If you have not seen this yet, it is worth the watch.
Think about what Dr. Jill Taylor says about her ‘right brain’ experience.
http://www.ted.com/speakers/view/id/203
But what about differentiation? And nivritti and pravritti? aren’t these things connected?
Following latebrake (and I’m sure Chris knew this was coming), what about difference? As my pragmatic wife often replies to these discussions about one-ness, “If everything is one, what does that do for us? What’s the point?” It’s like saying “everything IS.” If that is so, then so what? Does it have any explanitory force? Does it do anything practical for us? As far as I can tell in theosophy, existential unity only exists at the Atman level. So, a palpable feeling of unity must either be false or is something else functioning at a lower level.
Think of it this way: If we are separated individuals at the moment when buddhi manifests, that means that at a very elementary level we are all different. What seems fascinating to me, though, is that although we are all (in)dividuals, we all participate/interact in the in all the same realms of reality. Although different in content, we all have the same constitutional framework. Maybe it’s that familiarity at the meta-level which makes us feel so close to one another when we somewhat lift out of our particularities.
Hi dean, it’s nate
“my pragmatic wife often replies”
she is a Taurus? or am i wrong. sounds like an earth sign person.
Back semi on topic.
In general i don’t think it is all that meaning full to think much about either buddhi or atman, as i think we simply have no clue about them. one of the things i like about the ideas we find in ts writings is that they feel natural to me. we see a structure that has some sort of rationality to them (at least i think so.) One simple thing we can take away from them is that life follows patterns and that we, as individuals, are in no way outside of those patterns. there may be some wiggle room, (created by personal efforts,) but on the whole, we are in this together and are basically in the same states more or less.
if there is truth to this, than i think it is silly to try to jump ahead too much. we are products of nature and are therefore constrained by the situations currently in place. if the earth is in such in such a state, than our state as part of that earthly system is also in a corresponding state- does that make sense. in other words, only when nature has evolved to a certain point will we have first hand experience of atma and buddhi in their fullness. if ts structures are truthful, this will not happen for many, yugas-when we find ourselves in the 6th and 7th rounds of this chain/time period.
and i continue to have the grammer of a five year old. sorry about that.
I believe that we are one with everything, insofar as we are all composed of the same energy. We are uniquely differentiated from each other on the material level, but we are one at the energy level.
Unity doesn’t deny differentiation. It denies separation. Is that of any help to our reflection?
Is unity different from oneness then? Or is unity the same as oneness?
There is so much paradox in spiritual language. Everything = Every Thing. A thing is a separate identifiable object. Things are separate. You can’t be one with a thing. or with every thing. Unless you are not a thing yourself. This points back to the main question - what are you? If there is any thingness in your answer, then you are stuck with separateness. and lose oneness/unity. So what could you be that is not a thing?
We are all one energy. All material ‘things’ are composed of one energy.
The metaphor most helpful to me is the notion of figure and ground.
The figure can recognize the ground without annihilating its figurehood (I love making up words).
And to answer Dean’s challenge, the evidence from all the world’s religions, and my own personal experience, is that recognizing the ground provides the figure with greater authenticity, freedom and responsibility.
Further, to say that everything ‘is’ can be rather profound. To truly recognize the ‘is-ness’ of being is to experience the ecstatic wonder at the very root of philosophy.
If anyone in this discussion is tech-savvy, feel free to create a short video contribution and email it to me to incorporate into the video I’ll be making. It would be wonderful to have some non-Olcott people included.
Last night, in our youth theosophists’ meeting at Olcott, we were talking about this all this.
When we examine what we are, we first notice our body. That body is different and separated (although completely connected to and dependent on) the rest of the physical world. The bodily entity has the same name (”our” name) but the body itself changes. No one particle is the same in our body after some years. Yet, we still feel there is a single entity behind the transformations of the body.
It is the same when we come to our emotions and thoughts. They are “personal”, my emotions and thoughts, they are different from the rest. But these also change, every minute. There are big differences between our thoughts and emotions now, and those of our childhood. Yet, we feel there is a continuity behind their changes, an entity that endures.
What is the source of the feeling of continuity in spite of all the changes? Is there anything permanent in us that gives us this idea of being a single entity? If it exists, such a source has to be beyond the body, emotions and thoughts, since they are changeable.
Have any of you investigated what is behind the thoughts? Have you ever asked “If I’m not the body, emotions and mind, Who am I?” and wait in silence, watching at yourself, disregarding your physical, emotional and mental identification?
When we do that for a while, we come to perceive that there is a certain feeling of pure “I am-ness”, of being, of existing. That feeling is prior to concepts, it doesn’t say “I’m Pablo, I’m the thinker, I’m this body”. It is not “I am this or that”. It is only a feeling of BEING.
That “I am-ness” feeling is there in every person, in our pet, in the bird, in the ant… That feeling of being, when overshadowing an animal, acts through instinct, when overshadowing a human being, acts through thoughts and emotions. But every creature feel their existence.
The pure feeling of I am-ness is universal, undifferentiated, only one in the whole universe. The only thing that changes is its vehicle of manifestation: insects, animals, different human beings, and probably even plants and rocks. When we come to that feeling, it is not difficult to see how we all are, essentially, one.
By the way, dwelling on that pure feeling of “I am-ness” is, according to many gñanis and sages, the door to enlightenment.
Pablo -
My own meditation sessions generally occur in four stages:
1. Firstly, there is a focus on the sensations of the physical body. Most specifically the isolation of pain/injury areas of the body, for the potential purpose of triggering new healing energies and/or siphoning energies from the healthier organs into the unhealthier organs in a context of cellular regeneration.
2. Secondly, any unprocessed memories/engrams of the recent day/night begin to circulate themselves in the brain for re-prioritization/re-categorization to be stored in different brain locations, much like unprocessed files which are eventually processed and then relocated.
3. Thirdly, the dream state is broken into in a context of wake-dreaming. Drug-free sensory deprivation is most effective for generating a healthy transitional effect.
The dream state is triggered when the psyche is not yet functionally acclimated to the reality/existence of the finer ethereal/material dimensions. The body has fallen asleep while the psyche remains conscious, albeit still disjointed/confused due to the transition of focus from our common material plane to focus upon other dimensions existing along other ethereal/material frequencies.
Basically, when the average psyche gets confused during the transition of focus from one dimension to the next, it begins to project a protective veil of dream distortions, until it may otherwise potentially acclimate itself to alternate dimensions in a climate of psychological security.
However, I’ve witnessed that for some people, their psyches get stuck in a distorted dream state between two planes, failing to reconcile the differing scientific principles between multiple dimensions (for example, the law of gravity), and therefore suffer psychical damages in a failure to accomplish safe and secure transition (as is common among those unwise enough to use illegal/illicit drugs as artificial developmental accelerants that damage the brain’s cellular integrity). These people are then treated for hallucinogenic psychiatric conditions by medical doctors, and are left with quandries about the existence of our physical reality. Some get confused (such as the drug-users), even if others do not (such as we few who have chosen purer drug-free paths from early youth).
4. Fourthly, when the psyche is securely acclimated to the the ethereality/materiality of alternate frequency dimensions, the protective dream veil vanishes away completely, and direct perception is accomplished within such dimensions, wherein dialogues with other-dimensional entities may occur. Hopefully, the entities encountered there will have ceased dreaming also, lest they themselves continue projecting dream distortions themselves as evidence of their own lack of secure psychological acclimation to the astral planes.
From there, psychically cleared astral educators will at times establish telepathic communication/intimacy at a much deeper level than what I’ve found available with mortal educators, who are themselves otherwise limited to psychological distortions in a context of their material focus. In my personal experience, these entities tend to be much clearer of the psychic poisons and/or ideological distortions that I commonly encounter with educators of our mortal realm, and are therefore much less dangerous than common mortal educators in the lessons that they present.
Responding to Pablo, I am reminded of Kant’s “transcendental unity of apperception,” which in short is that higher mental function which synthesizes all sensory perceptions and those ideas generated wholly within the mind (e.g. algebraic formulas). I think this works pretty well with the “I-am-ness” that you are talking about. Of course, “I-am-ness” more directly relates to the ahamkara (literally, “I-maker”
of Sankhya-Yoga (and borrowed by many other schools of thought).
I return, though, to the point latebrake brought up, namely: is this “I-am-ness” principle just a pattern we all share? If it is just a pattern, it’s not as if we are all participating in the same, universal x-ness. For example, chemistry tells us that the whole material universe (I’m not counting anti-matter or sub-atomic particles right now, just for the sake of this argument) is made out of atoms. However, this does not mean that we all participate in some universal, Platonic-form-like “atom-ness.” We can still theorize a universal being-ness, it’s just that everyone having a sense of “I-am-ness” alone doesn’t seem to prove that there’s an underlying being-ness to all things.
I also want to ask chris what he means by “ground” in this instance. It’s not totally clear to me. Also, I’m still not convinced that, “To truly recognize the ‘is-ness’ of being is to experience the ecstatic wonder at the very root of philosophy.” If truly EVERYTHING “is,” then there is nothing that we have ever known or experienced that “is not.” So, unless you thought something “was not,” saying “everything is” shouldn’t be shocking or wonderous, would it? Unless your term “is-ness” is implying something deeper that simple existence.
Apart from the philosophical technicalities, I am intrigued by the “sense of connection/unity” that people do/can feel towards other people, beings, objects or settings. Does this feeling correspond to some external reality apart from one’s personal, inner feeling state? If so, it must be at work somewhere much lower on the cosmological/subtle-constitution scale than Atman.
I suspect this has something to do with prana, chi, or some energy that flows easily within and among beings. As prana and chi are both said to be tied to one’s vitality and more basic, nearly physical energy, it would not be surprising that with meditation or if something else lifted us out of our day-to-day concerns, we would quickly bump into a sensation of this vitality and its being shared with other things near us.
Am I wrong to connect this feeling to prana instead of Atman?
Hi deanuddin,
You say, regarding the sense of unity: “it must be at work somewhere much lower on the cosmological/subtle-constitution scale than Atman”.
I think that the answer is yes and not. Atman is also present in the physical plane, at the first subplane (Theosophically speaking), the homogeneous one. If I remember right, according to Annie Besant, the first subplanes of every plane are connected, and you could ascend through them directly to the source. What is means is that the feeling of unity while in our physical, waking consciousness, might be the connection with Atman in this plane.
“Am I wrong to connect this feeling to prana instead of Atman?”
HPB sometimes refers to the highest principle as Jiva, instead of Atman, and she says that Prana is the personal or illusory aspect of the universal Jiva:
“Prâna, on earth at any rate, is thus but a mode of life, a constant cyclic motion from within outwardly and back again, an out-breathing and in-breathing of the ONE LIFE, or Jîva, the synonym of the Absolute and Unknowable Deity. Prâna is not abstract life, or Jîva, but its aspect in a world of delusion.” (CW 12, p. 607)
So there could be a connection between Prana and the sense of unity, but only when transcending Prana (our personal life) to perceive Jiva, the universal life.