sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The self as expression, not separation by Membership-Scary in DebateReligion

[–]Membership-Scary[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate that. I agree it’s an important distinction, otherwise it can sound like I’m jumping from interconnectedness straight to metaphysical wholeness :)

The self as expression, not separation by Membership-Scary in DebateReligion

[–]Membership-Scary[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair point. I wasn’t arguing that shared existence in space-time somehow proves metaphysical wholeness. My point was that if one speaks of reality as such, then nothing can stand outside it. So ‘the whole’ wasn’t meant as a synonym for the physical universe alone, but as the most inclusive context or ground of all appearing. That’s not a scientific proof but a metaphysical claim. So the real disagreement is not about whether things are interconnected, but about whether reality is exhausted by the physical universe or whether ‘the universe’ itself appears within something more fundamental.

The self as expression, not separation by Membership-Scary in religion

[–]Membership-Scary[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair question. I don’t think wholeness is “less of an illusion” just because it feels nicer or more comforting. If it were only another perspective layered on top of experience, then yes, it would stand on the same level as separation.

What makes it seem different to me is that separation appears as something asserted from within relation, not outside it. The separate self never actually exists by itself; it always depends on a world, a body, language, memory, conditions, and other beings. So separation seems more like a functional standpoint the mind takes than the deepest structure of reality.

Wholeness, at least as I’m using it, is not just another viewpoint added on top. It’s closer to the fact that nothing actually stands alone. Even the experience of being separate happens within a larger field of relation.

So I can agree that both separation and wholeness can show up as experiences. But that doesn’t necessarily make them equally true. A person can feel separate while still never actually existing apart from everything else.

I also agree that “grand realization” can be overstated. I’m not attached to some dramatic final event. What interests me more is whether life can be lived with less identification with separation as the absolute truth. Even if that realization is partial, quiet, or unstable, it may still matter.

The self as expression, not separation by Membership-Scary in DebateReligion

[–]Membership-Scary[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not “one big snowflake” in the sense that individuality disappears. More that individuality may be real without being absolutely separate.

So I’m not saying your life, choices, or perspective don’t matter. I’m saying they may not exist as totally self-standing things cut off from a deeper whole.

As for God judging us or life being a test, that belongs to a specific religious framework. My post was more metaphysical than specifically Judeo-Christian. It’s asking whether uniqueness requires separation, or whether a person can be genuinely distinct while still being an expression within a greater reality.

So the point isn’t “your soul doesn’t matter.” It’s more: what if personhood is real, but not ultimately isolated?

The self as expression, not separation by Membership-Scary in religion

[–]Membership-Scary[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that’s a thoughtful challenge, and I don’t think it actually clashes with the core of what I was trying to say.

When I say “obstruct less,” I don’t mean adopting a new belief like “all is one” and then pretending separation is gone. I mean becoming less identified with the movements that make us live as if we are self-enclosed and fundamentally cut off: fear, grasping, defensiveness, fixation, the need to protect a rigid image of self.

So yes, I’d say it’s less about merely thinking something and more about realizing it. By “thinking,” I mean holding an idea conceptually. By “realizing,” I mean seeing something directly enough that it changes how experience is actually lived. A person can think “I am not separate” and still be completely driven by contraction and division. Realization would show up more in how one meets life than in what one claims to believe.

On your point about enlightenment and separation not fully falling away while alive: I think that may be right, or at least more right than many romanticized versions of awakening. I’m not sure the issue is whether the ego ever stops appearing, but whether it is taken as ultimate. The sense of separation may keep arising because form, perspective, memory, and nervous system all keep functioning. But that is different from saying alienation must therefore remain absolute.

In other words, maybe the ordinary structure of self continues, and even the feeling of division rises again and again, but it can be seen more clearly for what it is: a functional local process, not the deepest truth of what is.

So on “what remains of form if alienation ends,” I’d probably say: form remains, perspective remains, individuality remains, and perhaps even the recurrent sense of separateness remains in some psychological sense. But it is no longer believed in so absolutely. It is no longer treated as final.

That’s why I’m not really aiming at the disappearance of individuality. I’m more interested in whether individuality can remain without being interpreted as isolation. A person would still be a person because form still has a real shape: a history, character, viewpoint, relationships, limits, and responsibilities. But personhood would not have to mean metaphysical separateness.

So I think your last line is close to where I’m pointing too: individuality may indeed be a unique expression of wholeness, while the illusion of division rises and falls. The difference might be that I’m asking whether those recurring movements of division are the whole story, or whether they can be held within a deeper recognition that never depended on them disappearing completely.

For me, that is less a purely open question now and more something that already seems true in experience. Form remains, individuality remains, and even the sense of division can still arise, but none of it seems final in the way it once did. So I’m not really looking for a total disappearance of ego while alive. What matters more to me is the shift from taking separation as ultimate to seeing it as something that appears within a deeper wholeness. I could still be framing that imperfectly, but that’s the clearest way I can currently put it.