Did he experience it? Because that is not what the people who have experienced it usually say. People from many different religions and cultures all say pretty much the same thing: they didn't lose their individuality and it was a nice experience. One person likened separateness and oneness as two sides to the same coin, another likened it to the teeth on a comb.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/realizing-ultimate.html
@Jim_Smith
I have been preparing a particular document for some time and I see that elements in this document could suffice as a response to your comment/question, Jim, but, for me, there are important
underlying matters that need to be addressed.
Here’s a draft of part of this document incorporated into the framework of your post -
Regarding the specific
blog post you provided. - I believe (recall) you have featured this before in a different post on the Skeptiko forum. I read many of the accounts and enjoyed the post. Each and every one expresses various experiences or views which can be plotted on what I refer to as the "pathway of point of view."
How I describe this approach considers a starting point which I have chosen (for myself) to be, the point of view of myself and that which I experience as an individuated being at what Alex calls, my "ordinary consciousness" experience of being. As I travel the path, whether experimentally or imaginatively, I can and
and have experienced "no-self/no-Self" which I refer to as the Absolute (whereby there is no further one can go).
In the blog post, There is this specific passage (J. J. van Der Leeuw, an advanced meditator, wrote in
The Conquest of Illusion: -
In that experience [of the Absolute] we are no longer the separate self, we are no longer what we call 'we' in our daily life. Not only are we our entire being, past and future, in that sublime experience of eternity, but we are the reality of all that is, was, or shall be, we are That.
I have encountered a book (which I will share in the next paragraph) that assists one in apprehending the difference between the Absolute and "Consciousness" (the Self); has clearly delineated between the two, that they are not the same whereas one could infer from this quote that they
are. It appears to me that J. J. van Der Leeuw is close, but misses the final piece of the puzzle. In fact, in the quote, he ends with the word
"That" which suggests the following has possibly or partially informed his views - a well known book, a compilation of talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj entitled,
I Am That.
This same sage was also the respondent of the final book of the Q/A style of dialogues with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, the compilation of talks entitled,
Consciousness and the Absolute. Over the course of the years of experiencing my own contemplative practice, for much of that time I wasn't "there yet" where I (could) intellectually grasp the difference... where I was able to reflectively recognize I seemed to
know the difference... where eventually I have concluded (maybe rightly, maybe not) that I have experienced each.
So, I now must emphasize I am only typing words which, at best, are pointers to
something which, paradoxically,
can have no point of view and which I feel I know, which I feel
is and which is the "beginingless non-begining" metaphorically but impossibly prior to Self, or certainly understood as
not-Self - the Absolute. Some (myself as one) say that consciousness is fundamental, but this is within a framework of experiential reality whereas the Absolute stands alone as it only can and could be viewed as Reality when
understood. One might wish to view consciousness (or the deified "Consciousness") as Reality but the implication of "ultimate reality" in the usage of the term Reality is underpinned by the property,
changeless, as a pointer to what is considered the Absolute.
Consciousness (Big C) is the Self. Conscious agency is the arising of a nexus of self-reflectiveness which is the experience of identity within the Identity (the Self).
Again I emphasize that the words I just wrote are poor "pointers" and sadly, inadequate on their own, lest a reader feels they have taken a leap in reading them... only then can the words be considered worthwhile and only to that reader... even if the realization comes years later or whenever beyond this life.
So, now I will strive to bring this back to why I appreciate Raimo's quote (and forum signature) and it is all about my interpretation and contemplation upon that interpretation and then agreement to take on the conclusion I arrive at through that process.
Realize, I have been framing my recent posts in this thread within the dynamic of Right Hand Path and Left Hand Path. To do so requires that I have adopted an understanding of what each of those terms mean. Based on what the term Right Hand Path means to me, I place "God" at the "pinnacle" of a framework that resembles a hierarchy. Based on that which I have accepted as the history of the creation and development of that term, "God" and "Nature" can be understood to be the same
from the perspective (point of view) of a individuated conscious agent (yes, redundant but written this way to emphasize "individual")
in that the specific conscious agent is ultimately subject to "God" or "Nature." In fact, the reason for the name is that the practice of the inventors of the terms would face east in their prayer rituals and the sun would pass to their right. Right Hand Path adherents subject themselves to the results of a cycle (represented by the earth revolving around the sun) which has a beginning and an end (a year). A great example of the development of this type of Right Hand Path framework is the concept of
Yugas. The out breath and in breath of Brahma. The end result of Right Hand Path is "self-annihilation" which renders you, as an individuated being, as finite.
So, what I would say has been implied by all the testimonies or statements in the blog post is that these are excellent descriptions of experience whereby individuation is maintained within a grander framework which is fundamentally consciousness whereby one can choose to consider oneself subject to "it" and then deify "it" as "It" or "That" and what is not considered is the ultimate underlying reality (Reality), the Absolute. And what also is not considered is that a conscious agent could choose, instead, to explore consciousness as a conscious agent with an intent to retain individuation for as long as one may wish, and this could be forever theoretically (Left Hand Path). Of course, this view also assumes one can shed their individuation
but if so, this is done by the will of the conscious agent and not determined by an exterior or hierarchically placed "third party" such as God or Nature (or any paradigm that promotes that dynamic as "what is").
So, the way I interpret the words in the quote in Raimo's signature is that "to become one with God" is to achieve the "end game" of the Right Hand Path in
permanency. All those writers quoted in the blog post may have experienced that "oneness" (I have) yet none of them rested solely, permanently
in it. And so, of course, in their experiences in extended consciousness (a journey through "It" and to "It") they are describing the journey where 'point of view' is less and less embraced and where, ultimately... as van Der Leeuw describes (which I will adjust for my point) - not only does one experience the relinquishment of individuated point of view in a sea of others who experience individuation, one "becomes one" whereby they experience All, "the entire being" - the eternal now moment as that being (the Self, Consciousness... "God" if you like), "the reality of all that is, was, or shall be" (thus still an expression that holds the property of
form, albeit form theoretically without boundaries). Yet what I can point out about each of these experiences and each of these descriptions is that they hold or point to "things" (even concepts) and as long as one is wading in those waters, one is dealing with the Self (I am) and not the Absolute. And van Der Leeuw conflates the two.
By knowing this, one (as a conscious agent) can choose whether to rest
or not within any point of view along the pathway of point of view, even if that resting place is final "self annihilation" but if one does rest in that place, they have chosen a Right Hand Path trajectory, thus result.
Even for those who experience extended consciousness with retention of individuation, they could still be choosing the Right Hand Path by holding the view that a third party conscious agent, even if that third party conscious agent is "God" (or "The All that Is" or the Self or consciousness and, if they would rather express it, Consciousness) is the determiner of your ultimate fate. Right Hand Path adherents (whether they are consciously aware of this or not) operate that they are ultimately
subject to that God (and that fate), and this is where the difference lies for Left Hand Path oriented individuals, which I would classify myself as being. It is not that I don't hold reverence for consciousness, for the experiential realms ("God's creation" or the creation of nature - in the minds of Right Hand Pathers)... it is that I allow myself to view myself as
each of these locations along the pathway of point of view whereby I then take on the responsibility to recognize from which of these am I dominated by at any particular moment of my individuated experience. This includes when I "die of the self," embrace Self and the ultimate Witness to all and then, return to the aspect of my being where individuation is a property and, most often, to the intensity of this physical reality. But I hold onto the memory of them all and that is why i think I am able to express this as well as one might,
in words.
In summation, I see myself within the grand "frameless" framework alluded to in the above words. I then adopt assumptions
knowing (accepting) they are assumptions like, 'consciousness is fundamental' within the grand Game-Scape where individuated beings play hide and seek with love or perhaps reach the pinnacle of a Right Hand Path trajectory where they find themselves sitting with God playing a harp for the rest of eternity (what I would describe as a metaphor for "self-annihilation") - not for me. So I chose to hold onto the available view point that "form is illusion," thus, the illusion of individuated identity within the grand Illusion of the Self (consciousness) and strive to experience love as a gift I might, by my very being, be "giving" to others and whereby I might experience love as received and have the goal of maintaining this experience for as long as I wish, not subject to an external third party or paradigm that promotes such. And what may be will always be regardless of what views I hold, what I believe, assume, etc. Yet by operating with the primary operational protocol within a Left Hand Path framework whereby I am solely and wholly 100% personally (individuation) responsible for every single thing I choose to own as a thought, everything I speak and write and every act I commit.
And this leaves me at a point of decision whereby I can choose a solipsistic operational view point
or I can recognize others who appear as conscious agents in that they are, at that fundamental level, a conscious agent! This has been my choice and this choice makes the Grand Game incredibly challenging, wonderful, intense, exciting, interesting, captivating and... for me, as of this moment, something I wish to continue to experience. I am
as a god - as a Left Hand Pather might say but which can be ignorantly interpreted to imply one saying
they are God or that
others are not, at their core, a god... so I hold the operational assumption that others are no more or no less a conscious agent with the same potential as any conscious agent and also, with the same personal responsibility for what they do with their opportunity to experience individuation.
And this is what makes "Earth Game" level of the Grand Game so interesting because each of us are constantly faced with the reality that at this level of our experiential being, some of us have greater capacity to survive and thrive than others. And this produces the challenge of selfishness vs selflessness. And how I have been dealing with that as I get older is by striving to make decisions from the level of my being I choose to believe (assume) continues beyond the death of my physical body, from the container of my individuation I choose to call, my soul. All of these decisions of mine are more and more informed by these assumptions based operational protocols instead of physical/material concerns
relative to how I operated earlier in this life. Could I do better maybe? I believe so, I believe so absolutely. Yet I sleep better now than I ever have in my life.
To wrap up (and regurgitate once more) -
I see myself as many points of view, one of them being "one with God" yet I don't rest there, thus I never, "forever die of the self" though I have (and can) bring myself into that experience. I interpreted Raimo's words to imply permanence and thus imply "recommending otherwise."
And so ultimately, it appears to me that everything boils down to interpretation of words and/or experiences which are confined by the limits of one's open-mindedness.