You guys missing the point, and the science, that seems to back this.
Isn’t your whole point that you’re the universe, and that each of us ‘guys’ is also actually the universe, which means — carry the one — you’re missing the point?
42
No you guys are. You asked me where I got it from and I showed it, you asked me to explain it and I did. So far no one is able to refute these things I posted.
Additionally I think it’s rooted in that you don’t exist independently of anything else, hence being connected to everything or in this case being an expression of the universe. There is no you just the “one”, or so they say.
No one needs to “refute” what you posted. Your stated position eventually boiled down to, oh, hey, no, it’s not literally true; there’s no reason to “refute” that, it’s already the correct response: if someone claims that you are the universe, you now stand ready to “refute” that by saying, uh, that’s literally not true.
But I posted those two paragraphs that explained it on more scientific terms and not the “wooey” sort of nonsense that just leave questions.
Since I bothered to wade through the last page, of the thread I’ll contribute the Universes two cents worth.
The theory seems to be everything is connected so nothing is separate therefore we are all one. I see no way to refute this if you could believe it. If the suns rays touching me make me part of the sun then the sun never sets since I am always on the side of the planet I’m on.
In the end I’m not sure what to do with this information. Obviously the sun sets or I can fit in side my house and we can’t all be the sun or there is no definition to anything. You are not the tiger because you can kill the tiger and go on living and the tiger is not the strawberry because you can destroy the strawberry yet the tiger continues. With this frame work you have two choices assume the bus is part of you and won’t hurt you when you step in front of it or assume the frame work is crap and stay on the sidewalk.
I don’t think that’s what the two paragraphs are saying. I know that is what that annablat guy is saying, but all I have is his says so. I can imagine what it feels like to believe that but that doesn’t make it true for me.
But that’s just it: what makes the original statement interesting is the read of it that, at worst, can seem like a “wooey” sort of nonsense. But as soon as you start explaining that you merely mean there’s a universe where a twig and the moon and some dead fish are each part of that universe, it’s an uninteresting statement.
Now, you can create some interest by saying that the twig is figuratively the moon or metaphorically those dead fish or whatever — because that makes it seem like you’re on the brink of saying it’s literally those things. It’s as if you’re about to say each of those is, literally, the universe. That would be an interesting claim, as it’s the sort that’d normally be followed by a guy noting that no, that’s not literally true.
But if we start by slowly and patiently saying, no, it’s not literally true, then a guy can already roll his eyes and tap his foot and check his watch as “more scientific terms” get trotted out to support a claim that, again, is blandly uninteresting.
Did you read the links? It starts by saying that atoms aren’t discrete solid objects but excited states.
I saw the bit that goes: “Atoms are not discrete balls floating in space. They are more point-like excitations of a field.” I thought, to myself:
-
Uh, so what?
-
Say a woman is wearing a golden ring that’s made of, y’know, atoms; some folks may think of those gold atoms as discrete balls floating in space, but think instead of them as point-like excitations. Say, too, that some ice is on Mars; and think that each hydrogen atom and oxygen atom there is point-like, rather than a discrete ball. Say the ice gets broken, while the gold ring on another world remains unbroken. Say that woman then removes the ring and heats it until it melts as she watches, while the ice she’s unaware of neither heats up in general nor melts in particular. First, think of the atoms in the ice and the ring and the woman as point-like. Then, think of those atoms as discrete balls. Then ask: so what?
-
…no, that’s pretty much it: so what?
If only we’d listened to that boy, instead of walling him up in the abandoned coke oven.
Saying I am connected to the universe, or an expression of it, does not establish that there is no “me”. Just the opposite, in fact. Different aspects of the universe are different, therefore I am not the universe - I am an aspect of the universe that is different from individual atoms or whatever.
Plus, I don’t see how any of this matters. Suppose I give up the idea of happiness or utility, and thereby avoid samsara. So what? It can’t make me happier or a better person, or more in tune with the universe - I have already given up happiness and utility. Now I am just like waves on the ocean. Before, I was just like waves on the ocean. It’s a distinction without a difference.
They are trying to sneak in the idea of happiness without admitting it. I become detached, and thereby avoid suffering. That’s utility under a different name.
If everything is pointless, then saying “everything is pointless” is pointless, and everything about enlightenment and realizing you are the universe is pointless, and saying changes nothing.
It refutes itself. Either enlightenment is real, and the enlightened are different from the rest of the universe, because they are enlightened and the rest of the universe is not. Or enlightenment is not real, and happiness and utility are real - and the universe has not been proven to be pointless.
OTOH, and to be honest, I don’t think the problem is that this kind of thing hasn’t been refuted. It’s that you tend to fret over nonsense even when you know it is nonsensical. Of course, if the universe wants to observe itself fretting over nonsense, who am I to complain?
Regards,
Shodan
yes and no.
If by “I” you refer to yourself in the 1st person singular, which is certainly the default assumption when a person uses “I”, you’re making a truthful statement when you say “I am not the universe”.
If on the other hand being connected to and/or an expression of the universe is compatible with a sense of self that is all-inclusive (universal, if you will), a correct answer to “are YOU the universe” could authentically be “yes”, just not in the first person singular sense.
You’re 100% correct in asserting that there is still a “me”, that however real this universal sense of self might be, it doesn’t contradict the existence of your individual self.
That is also true in the other direction though. The undeniable realness of the “me” level of self doesn’t mean the other can’t be real as well.
Because if there are no discrete units then there is no “me” and if there is no “me” then there is no other. It everything is just “one” then that renders all actions pointless. Because any achievement or thing you would want to do would essentially be “done” because you are the universe. My wanting to climb the mountain would not matter because I “am” the mountain and I "am"already there. Wherever you go, there you are.
It’s a scary prospect for me.
The point they are getting at is that you are the ocean, not the wave. If you are the ocean then nothing you do matters because it’s all “you”. There are no friends, good, bad, anything because it’s just “one”. It renders life utterly pointless if there is no “you” or “Actor” doing deeds.
And we’re back to the same place as every single one of the OP’s threads. Life is meaningless, nothing matters, woe is me.
Woe is the universe.
Well, now you know why the entirety of That Which Is, the universe, bothered to be all this other shit and have diverse experiences.