New Age "One" Belief = Spiritual Borg?

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Okay guys. Bear with me. I'm obviously not as intellectually capable as most here, but am interested in the topic and wanted to put out my thoughts.

I often think about things at the atomic and cellular level, to get a broad perspective of who I am. If everything is consciousness, then all levels have some bit of awareness. An atom is conscious enough to serve it's function and contribute to something greater than it can comprehend. This holds true for the cell, tissue, organ, system, and so why not expand all the way out passed a human being? Why would it just stop with us?

Is it that we have enough awareness to simply perform our functions as human beings? Are we part of a greater entity which we can't begin to comprehend? Much like a cell, or atom?

I'm not sure. I just know some of what you guys said really interested me, and other things were over my head. Feel free to school me if I said an obvious fallacy.




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


I understand what you are saying.

But from what I understand the new age belief is that we are all one means that we are only one being.

I understand what you are saying about subatomic particles and the human bodies. The cells are all working together to sustain human bodies. We can be a part of an organization.

We can be members of an organization but we can never be the organization.

Basically they are pushing a belief that we all are one. This is how dictatorship works.

New Age movement is a conspiracy.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
If for one moment the mystery is solved, everything would collapse into nothingness. What fun is that?


Believe it or not, I've considered this potential "hazard" as well and find it motivating. First one there is a...well, it won't matter.


What is interesting about this notion, if you have studied the work of Dr. Thomas Campbell where he describes the existence and evolution of the one consciousness where it/us starts as a dimly lit awareness he called "Absolute Unbounded Oneness" which was the original start of all of existence.

That through a process of repeating patterns and processes manifested a manifold. He then calls that AUM or "Absolute Unbounded Manifold"

He states that this being is not immortal, and should it ever cease to exist. Everything that exists within it [yes that means us] will also cease to exist.

Which is interesting as so many people believe that we are infinite and eternal, but his description is that we are more universally organic and could one day eventually expire out of existence forever en mass.

Dr. Thomas Campbell also talks about how AUM started creating virtual reality simulations which this experience inevitably is. A virtual reality system created by this absolute unbounded manifold.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
I often think about things at the atomic and cellular level, to get a broad perspective of who I am. If everything is consciousness, then all levels have some bit of awareness. An atom is conscious enough to serve it's function and contribute to something greater than it can comprehend. This holds true for the cell, tissue, organ, system, and so why not expand all the way out passed a human being? Why would it just stop with us?

Is it that we have enough awareness to simply perform our functions as human beings? Are we part of a greater entity which we can't begin to comprehend? Much like a cell, or atom?


As bizarre as it may seem, I think you are definitely onto something.



Ever seen that?

Seeing things like that really makes me wonder.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by redwoodjedi
 


Actually no anger. Disrespect perhaps but I have the annoying tendency to speak my mind. But neither was intended. I think perhaps your are projecting here. It was a discriptive term for those that would gladly give up their individuality and in fact welcome it. No individuality = hive mind = drone, the progression is simple and without emotionality on my part. If it bothers you, well, as passive aggressive as this may sound, there is nothing I can do about that.
Also, it's worth noting that there is a certain hubris in declaring oneself's "enlightened" or hinting to it without using the word as you do. And, I find it rather dishonest *perhaps even to yourself* to in one moment claim to know something then in another part to claim that you do not while still claiming that you do. Which is what you did with this little line:

By the way...I have no beliefs. Those are concepts. I enjoy the floundering solace of not knowing anything. Back into the void from whence I came. Full and Empty at the same time.

We all have beliefs *what we call truth or the nature of our reality*, to attempt to pass yours off as a non-belief and thusly truth is MASSIVELY dishonest.

That being said, believe what you wish. Just don't expect me to agree with you.



[edit on 19-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


That my friend, I believe, is the point. How we attempt to understand the enigma defines who we are IMHO and makes us even more an individual. I am not sure we can solve it though. Well on this side at least. Most likely because there are multiple answers, as many as their are conscious creatures in this reality IMHO.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by redwoodjedi
 


Actually no anger. Disrespect perhaps but I have the annoying tendency to speak my mind. But neither was intended. I think perhaps your are projecting here. It was a discriptive term for those that would gladly give up their individuality and in fact welcome it. No individuality = hive mind = drone, the progression is simple and without emotionality on my part. If it bothers you, well, as passive aggressive as this may sound, there is nothing I can do about that.
Also, it's worth noting that there is a certain hubris in declaring oneself's "enlightened" or hinting to it without using the word as you do. And, I find it rather dishonest *perhaps even to yourself* to in one moment claim to know something then in another part to claim that you do not while still claiming that you do. Which is what you did with this little line:

By the way...I have no beliefs. Those are concepts. I enjoy the floundering solace of not knowing anything. Back into the void from whence I came. Full and Empty at the same time.

We all have beliefs *what we call truth or the nature of our reality*, to attempt to pass yours off as a non-belief and thusly truth is MASSIVELY dishonest.

That being said, believe what you wish. Just don't expect me to agree with you.



[edit on 19-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]


The only reason there is contradiction and oxymoron in my writing, is because one cannot know the unknowable. As soon as a single word is written on it's behalf it has then become conceptualized and objectified and that.....that is not it.

This is why when one hears gurus, vedics, sadhus and pandits speak, it is usually in funny circular and metaphorical lines of reason. It is because the nature of true nature is nonconceptual.

I don't expect you to agree with me. I wouldn't want you to. The journey is your own to take to where ever and whatever that may be if not for just the journey's sake itself.

Hubris? perhaps. I'm human. Like YOU! Enlightened? Naaaah. Or.....Who isn't?

I am enjoying the conversation. 18 years of sitting on the cushion as a student of Zen. You probably guessed by my writing style. I am also a Ken Wilber student. You probably guessed by my writing style.


Thank you for your responses. Most kind.

Cheers,

Erik



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by redwoodjedi
 


Yet, once again. Here you are commenting on what you percieve to be fact. All the while admiting that it's unknownable. To say that you know that we are truly are "all one" is to make a claim no matter how you qualify it. And it is made annoying *mildly* when you speak down to me and tell me that I do not know what I am talking about as to the nature of existance with your unspoken, "You haven't done what I have done so thusly you know nothing.".



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by redwoodjedi
 


Yet, once again. Here you are commenting on what you percieve to be fact. All the while admiting that it's unknownable. To say that you know that we are truly are "all one" is to make a claim no matter how you qualify it. And it is made annoying *mildly* when you speak down to me and tell me that I do not know what I am talking about as to the nature of existance with your unspoken, "You haven't done what I have done so thusly you know nothing.".


I speak to you only as an equal. Perhaps I can try, if you permit me, to speak from a different angle.

You are saying that I speak from a place of knowing. I must in order to speak at all as we all do. The true nature of things as I perceive them (is that better?) is nonconceptual. No thought. It just is. I no longer perceive things on this side of my face unless I choose to. I AM the Witness as well as all that I AM witnessing. A complete death as there is no life. It is prior to life. Prior to death. Prior to time. Prior to distance. There is nothing that I AM not.

I did not say nor imply that you have not done what I have done or undone as it were. If you have, wonderful. If you haven't also wonderful. Doesn't matter. I am not teaching. I am sharing. It is the nature of this thread, yes? Or is only one view permitted? If so, I will gladly leave at your behest. Seriously! I don't want to waste your time or mine.

Freedom, as I perceive it, is choiceless. One is inherently free by nature. Whether one chooses to experience it's fullest potential or not is still a choice and exercise in that freedom. Bound it. Open it. Box it. Expand it. All free choices to be made anytime, anywhere and anyway.

Again, I am enjoying myself. Please do not be annoyed at me. I am sure, that with the subtlety inherent in human speech with all of it's nuances over a nice cup of coffee or tea, you might think and perceive me as quite a gentle and ineffectual soul. Harmless by practice. Loving by nature. A simple human with nothing special about him whatsoever. The Buddhist propensity for debate is almost nefariously insatiable. It's one of many ways that we ground our existence.

Just this...

Cheers,

Erik



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by redwoodjedi
 


Hm, I think the problem I percieved is semantic and mostly based with me, perhaps, benefit of the doubt should always be rendered when dealing with others IMHO. And as for the drone stuff, well, it still fits in the context of the simularities between collectivism and the Star Trek race known as the borg.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by redwoodjedi
 


Hm, I think the problem I percieved is semantic and mostly based with me, perhaps, benefit of the doubt should always be rendered when dealing with others IMHO. And as for the drone stuff, well, it still fits in the context of the simularities between collectivism and the Star Trek race known as the borg.


Well, as with anything, there is a perceived negative aspect or perceived positive aspect to everything. Very rarely it seems is something considered entirely one or the other unless we start speaking about archetypes or mythology.

There are actually attributes that the Borg Collective exude that to me are admirable. The Oneness factor and the Collective Mind is quite attractive to me. Where the Borg fall short in my humble opinion, is they lost contact with what Zen would call Big Heart. They are all Mind and no Heart thus effectively silencing emotion, compassion and lovingkindness. The other major flaw is the choiceless assimilation process. The enslaving of others' ideals and beliefs through mental and physical reconstruction thus leaving behind only a remnant or shell of the previous occupant such as with Picard to Locutus.

In some ways, the phrase "Resistance is futile" has, as with anything, some truth to it. However, I am not implying in any way that how they are using it is correct. But again, the age old adage of "Whatever you resist, persists" is absolutely steeped in truth in it's basal form.

So, I guess we Buddhists exude some Borg-like qualities as far as the acceptance of a Collective Consciousness is concerned but that is gratefully where those similarities end. We aspire to an altruistic practice of simple lovingkindness. Nothing more and nothing less. The moment always seems, in my perception, to present itself to my willingness or sad lack thereof in this regard. I try to make a constant and concerted effort moment to moment to practice lovingkindness and bodhichitta whenever I can but sadly I am all too human and stumble more often than not. What helps me is if I let others, such as yourself, be my mirror, my reflection. In this way I can break and shatter my heart countless times through constant forgiveness of myself and others to let the light of bodhichitta and lovingkindness shine through.

Thank you so much and most kind of you again for the response and fine conversation.

Cheers,

Erik



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by redwoodjedi
 


That is largely where we divurge. I do not believe forsaking one's individualism is a necessary or even a very good thing. But in the end like most everything I think it comes down to choice, some choose to return to source, I do not. And I know the arguments for individualism being an illusionary and mostly *not always* bad thing though and simply disagree.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by redwoodjedi
 


That is largely where we divurge. I do not believe forsaking one's individualism is a necessary or even a very good thing. But in the end like most everything I think it comes down to choice, some choose to return to source, I do not. And I know the arguments for individualism being an illusionary and mostly *not always* bad thing though and simply disagree.


I think there may be something more to it than just returning to "Source" as it were. I think that in this instance there may be an opportunity to exist as Source and Individual simultaneously. To what end? I cannot presume. But it feels like that to me. No loss of identity per se as One finds value in it's expression through the individual and it's unique and beautiful journey. One feels it's Self, in my opinion through life in it's many myriad forms. So, you still have a choice in the matter, perhaps, as to how you choose to experience and express in countless ways and unlimited formats. Thoughts blooming other thoughts begetting yet again infinite ideas that all look to you the same way you look to Source: in Lovingkindness and Adoration. Amazing!

Cheers,

Erik



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by redwoodjedi
 


From a certain point of view..... You are correct. Excuse the tangent please, but isn't it funny how everything and nothing *and all points inbetween* is correct based on your point of view?
But, suffice it to say I think you over accentuate the ties that currently bind us into a melding. But, I am speaking from my point of view and thusly maybe incorrect * or mayeb not, perhaps my point of view shapes my reality and we only truly share a reality in the sense we can interact*.




[edit on 19-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Love this quote from the OP's original article.

"They appear as angels of light, however their intentions are actually to get well-intentioned people to willingly surrender their souls by misleading them into thinking that this is the highest spiritual act."

Too true.

Ego is not a bad thing, but in these so called faux-spiritual gatherings they wish to extinguish the ego.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by redwoodjedi
 


From a certain point of view..... You are correct. Excuse the tangent please, but isn't it funny how everything and nothing *and all points inbetween* is correct based on your point of view?
But, suffice it to say I think you over accentuate the ties that currently bind us into a melding. But, I am speaking from my point of view and thusly maybe incorrect * or mayeb not, perhaps my point of view shapes my reality and we only truly share a reality in the sense we can interact*.






[edit on 19-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]




I think there is a whole lot more truth in that wonderfully intuitive statement than we all can possibly know. The intricacy of the weave and the tightness of the weft in this delicious and interactive fabric we seemingly cocreate could be more malleable and more attributable to the constructive desires of human or sentient thought than is comprehensible at any given moment. Almost to the point of perhaps a slight anticipation in the cocreator's next line of thinking. All the more reason to do so from an altruistic and heartfilled mind set! Ha!

Cheers,

Erik



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
The basis of God in the OP's source is silly. It goes on and on about fusing yourself to a greater being like a virus, yet it still speaks of God as being some sort of diety. The two opposing thumbs are fighting with each other.

The first thing the author fails to understand that the larger being that people come attached to is consciousness which make up everything around us. Human beings have become so obsessed with the idea that Gods are dieties with super powers is beyond common sense.

Second, every living thing can replicate the same pattern on several different levels of scale and consciousness. We are the creators, man, woman and child and the human race is 'one' through consciousness.

We are literally universes unto ourselves and the pattern varies, but it is also infinitely repetitive providing a limitless amount of possibility.

Most monotheistic believers fail to see this observation and make sense of it. Because they fail to view from a non-monotheistic belief system.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by 12.21.12]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Yeah, that just seems like hog-wash to me. All levels are existing at all time. An atom is it's own being, much like a cell or a human. At the same time, it is part of a larger whole. Who's to say that any level is superior to any other? All is needed for anything to properly function.

I think we don't have to surrender our individuality to be part of this unknown larger whole. Does a cell or atom forsake it's identity to be part of a larger group? No. It just keeps on doing what it's doing, and unbeknown to it's self, contributes to something it can't even comprehend.

Without our individuality, we are as good as dead.

I am interested to see if you have any sources backing up the notion that new-age cult is conspiracy. Is their actual elite ties into the making of this?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


The "elites" as you concieve them does not need to be a part of it for it to be a conspiracy.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by 12.21.12
 



The basis of God in the OP's source is silly. It goes on and on about fusing yourself to a greater being like a virus, yet it still speaks of God as being some sort of diety. The two opposing thumbs are fighting with each other.


Um, are you sure you read the blog/article? But as for the rest, you need not cease being an individual to be part of a greater whole.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join