Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Inderias Dominic Bhatti on February 27, 2010 at 10:54pm

Dear Maynard,

Peace and blessings from Lahore Pakistan!!!

I also affirm "harmony" is preferred to "unity".


Inderias Bhatti,
Lahore,
PAKISTAN

Permalink Reply by Maynard on February 28, 2010 at 9:07am

Dear Inderias,

Welcome to the group and I praise your understanding.

I have come, or gone, so far as to assert that we don't even want "oneness". We don't want to, nor can we ever become, a monoculture. These are the tools of imperialists and colonizers and globalization. All life in the biosphere, including the planet upon which we thrive, are the consequence of random mutation generating diversity.

Consider the historic, and present, human cultures of the east and the west, of the arctic and the equatorial forests. These cultures have been completely independent of one another, only so long as they don't interfere with each other.

The lesson we should learn from evolutionary history is to how to get along with each other and to create even more diversity, and more harmony. We should learn to avoid assimilation as much as being assimilated, for they are the same event.

We're not even "one planet". We only exist on the planet which supports us because of its diversity among other planets, in one solar system and one galaxy amongst infinite others of which we have scarce knowledge other than the fact or probability of their existence.

We can "integrate" with, honor and respect, each other, without becoming "one". The sure way toward extinction is the lack of "genetic vigor", which is the act of creating more diversity and integration. This is clearly demonstrated in agriculture and the important events of species adaptation common to all currently living forms.

Enveloping it all, there *might be* one singluar unity, perhaps a God or Allah, but whether He created all this, or we invented Him as a construct by which we could envision it, will never be known, and we should not bother fighting about it. We can know that harmony is our highest potential, both individually and collectively, and we are fully empowered to pursue it, with collaboration, not by assimilation.

in Peace,
--Maynard

Permalink Reply by Inderias Dominic Bhatti on February 28, 2010 at 9:47am

Dear Maynard,

While being our college basketball team there had been many conflicts between one of my co-basketball player “SAMUEL” and me but while playing as team against other colleges both of us were called the “SUCHI JOORRHI” (A Punjabi word meaning “hearty pair”).

In the same way in life there can be many personal differences which can be settled with acceptance, understanding and tolerance (like our basketball team) which can pair the diversity like “SUCHI JOORRHI” (A Punjabi word meaning “hearty pair”).

In conclusion I am of the opinion to demonstrate diversities with mutual acceptance instead of moving to “ONENESS” can make us one in heart and mind; which is one of the ways forward to social collaboration and communal harmony.

What do you think???

May God continue to bless you with all the worldly and divine sanctions!!!

With Prayer and Blessings, I am,

Inderias Dominic Bhatti,
Lahore,
Pakistan

Permalink Reply by Ron Krumpos on February 28, 2010 at 10:46am

Maynard,

I agree that "harmony" is a more practical approach to this life, in this world, than "unity" or "oneness." Living in harmony with other people, between nations, among other living beings, and with Nature itself produces a better life for each of us and for all of us.

The United Nations has failed in uniting all nations and can never, in its current make-up, lead to one government for our planet. It has, however, made some notable accomplishments, especially in the work of WHO, UNICEF, and WFP.

On a personal level, my mind and body, my arms and legs, don't always work in harmony, but there is a unity and oneness about them.

Permalink Reply by Maynard on February 28, 2010 at 2:08pm

Inderias Dominic Bhatti said:

... make us one in heart and mind...

I would say together in heart and mind :-)

Ron, yes, there is a oneness of the parts of a whole, or the contents within an envelope, but do not the envelopes prohibit oneness between the contents of other envelopes?

Affectionately,
--Maynard

Permalink Reply by Ron Krumpos on March 1, 2010 at 8:56am

Sorry, Maynard, I can't resist a play on your example of envelope.

One essence (spiritual, divine, vital) envelopes all of Life. Individual lives, seemingly packaged in separate envelopes, become united when we open the envelopes and accept that universal message contained within all. That may sound like nonsense to most people, but it is common sense to mystics.

Permalink Reply by Maynard on March 1, 2010 at 9:39am

That's a very good point, Ron, and it does make sense to me. Relating back to my post yesterday in this thread, where the concluding paragraph begins with "Enveloping it all, there *might be* one singluar unity", I can say that for me personally I can subscribe to, if not affirm, this unity.

I can see from this discussion, and I thank you all for this, that my point is more focused on what we should be doing with our lives; that we should not be attempting to *create* any unity, but should rather be *creating* harmony. For indeed the unity already exists. I'm not sure that it matters that we spend energy to *discover* that fact, or that we work to focus others' attention to that possibility for them, because it may steer people away from creating or joining in (participating) wiith the harmony to which that unity invites us.

I suggest that it is more important for us to focus on the harmony than on the unity. For some people, I'm sure that their discovery of the unity will lead them to harmony; others will join the harmony on their way to discovering the unity.

The question to ponder now in thsi discussion becomes whether there can be one without the other, or if there is a dependency of one upon the other, or if there is a primacy of one over the other.

I'd say that the unity exists whether we acknowledge it or not, and that harmony depends upon our creating it, and should therefore be the focus of our attention and efforts. It is also less easy to conflate harmony with assimilation than it is to conflate unity with being assimilated into something we cannot understand and may carry a negative association with [anti-]religious sentiment. (which I do not have)

I'd also say that people who are new to this will be able to join the harmony without affirming the unity; while to affirm the unity without creating more harmony is maybe good for their inner spirit, it does little to improve the common condition.

Again, thank you all for the stimulating discussion which is certainly contributing to the harmony.

in Peace,
--Maynard

ps. If we're going to open and dispose of the envelopes, should we open and dispose of them ALL, rather than all but one? .... /smile/

Permalink Reply by Rajendra Shelke on March 4, 2010 at 8:25pm

Diversity: A Manifestation of a Singularity

Nature nurtures diversity. One cannot find traces of “Oneness” even in the building blocks of the matter, including fermions (fundamental particles like electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, etc.) and quarks (elementary particles that make protons and neutrons). Pauli’s Exclusion Principle explains nature’s preference for diversity over oneness in more clear terms. Pauli says: no two identical fermions may occupy the same quantum state in a single atom. It means that only dissimilar fermions are allowed by the nature to co-exist in a given quantum state of an atom. Based on this principle, one may formulate a new law for natural co-existence that refuses to favor oneness in macroscopic physical world.

Interestingly, this diversity starts merging into oneness, as we go deeper into microscopic world in search of a root cause of fundamental constituents of the matter. The merging of diversity into oneness becomes evident in the laboratory experiment on “Annihilation of matter”, in which electron (particle) and positron (anti-particle of electron) annihilate into pure energy in the form of photons or electromagnetic waves. This experiment demonstrates that diversity is the manifestation of Oneness. If we go even deeper and extrapolate backward, one can reach to a true “Singularity” via Big Bang. In Vedic description, this singularity is called “Prakriti”, one of the eternal causes of the universe. It is thought to be not created by the Almighty God (who is also eternal cause), as it is argued that one cannot create “something” out of “nothing”.

Based on this and clear analysis of Maynard, some rules can be formulated. They are:
1. Diversity is the manifestation of singularity.
2. Worship diversity of macroscopic world in order to co-exist peacefully, respecting differences. This works well to avoid religious conflicts and establish global peace.
3. Oneness is the theme of microscopic world, as diversity merges into true singularity. This theme works well in spiritual world. The sadhak (i.e. a person practicing spiritualism) sees Tatva (i.e. soul) in every living being of the nature, instead of looking at shapes and forms. Unless he/she sees oneness in diversity, he/she cannot progress spiritually.

Permalink Reply by Ron Krumpos on March 4, 2010 at 10:51pm

Diversity in Unity / Unity in Diversity

I fully agree with Rajendra, but would go a few steps further. What you and I see daily as a macroscopic world full of diversity, again posits a singularity in the Universe. Quantum physics and astrophysics, microbiology and astrobiology deal with worlds quite beyond what our unaided senses can perceive. Micro singularity and string theory see a scientific - albeit theoretical - oneness.

When you view life through an electron microscope or through a reflecting telescope - most notably the Hubble Space Telescope - your whole concept of life on Earth changes. The atom, while not the smallest particle of matter, is often represented as a microcosm of the Universe. All of matter is made up of atoms which are constantly in motion. Matter itself can be viewed as either particles or waves, the latter considered energy. 20th Century astrophysics determined that dark matter is 25% and dark energy 70% of the critical density of the Universe. They cannot be perceived by any current instrument. That means that science can now study only of 5% of the Universe.

Rajendra mentioned Prakriti, Sanskrit for primal matter, which is juxtaposed with Purusha, pure consciousness in the teachings of Samkhya-yoga. Given a Vedantic twist, Brahman (ultimate Reality or Eckhart's "God beyond God") is Prakriti-Purusha, matter and consciousness. In my e-book I joking referred to it as a divine formula and revised Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to be Essence (divine, spiritual or Brahman) equals universal Matter and cosmic Consciousness. Nonsense to most people, sensible to theoretical scientists and common sense to mystics.

Permalink Reply by Maynard on March 8, 2010 at 11:26am

Friends, I just came across this ... [emphasis mine]

"Adi Da’s core argument is that the orientation of trying to find or create unity and peace out of all the divided interests of separate groups of people is “not it”— and is, in fact, no longer workable. Rather, what humankind desperately needs today is a profoundly new paradigm, which is summarized here as the principle—and working-presumption—of “prior unity”.

Prior unity is not just a philosophical concept or ideal. It is the structure of existence itself, as ancient seers have declared and even modern physics has demonstrated. To experience and presume prior unity obviates the search to “cause” or “create” unity or peace. The work becomes one of enacting and magnifying the prior unity that is already the felt reality. It is to enable the inherent prior unity of people to come forth on all levels of the world stage. It is a profoundly different context within which to work."

.... from http://www.globalcooperationproject.org/lee.htm

Permalink Reply by Inderias Dominic Bhatti on March 8, 2010 at 7:08pm

Thanks Maynard while being affirming you I personally think that in this world of countless divides moving towards respecting differences and moving towards collaboration on some attainable point or points is more realistic than to move towards "UNITY and ONENESS"

Permalink Reply by Maynard on March 29, 2010 at 9:15am

"The Lord leads all the people in the whole of heaven as though they were a single angel." (Emanuel Swedenborg)

Of course all things must be taken in context.

"... the variety of good in different societies is not harmful, but beneficial, for the perfection of heaven is therefrom.

"It is hard to explain this in such a way that it can be grasped without resorting to expressions usually found in academic circles and using them to explain how a perfect whole is formed from a variety of elements. Every perfect whole arises from a variety of elements, for a whole that is not composed of a variety of elements is not really anything. It has no form, and therefore no quality. However, when a whole does arise from a variety of elements, and the elements are in a perfected form in which each associates with the next in the series like a sympathetic friend, then it has a perfect quality. Heaven is, then, a single whole composed of a variety of elements arranged in the most perfect form; for of all forms, the form of heaven is the most perfect." (ES [Source])

I wouldn't interpret "series" as being single connection or linear, though I do take the meaning here to be consistent with the understanding that while there is a "unity" which exists essentially beyond space and time, within our frame of reference and operation, variety is an essential ingredient.

So, while we may acknowledge a unity, over which we have no control, this acknowledgment is not essential, for the unity exists whether we acknowledge it or not. Our essential responsibility is to perfect our variety through empathetic harmony. In this way, and perhaps only this way, we can experience being a part of the unity.