He who initiated this discussion is no longer with us. He said, simply, I and my father are one. He was right, of course, it cannot be otherwise. All is One, thus the two cannot be apart. Not really. Not if you accept that there really only is One—that there is a single consciousness, which manifests in infinite diversity. Cosmos beyond cosmos, worlds without end. Yes, all expressions of a single consciousness. The Progenitor of them all.
It used to be that we thought the ‘visible’ stars constituted our universe. Now, according to the astronomers, they represent only 4% of the physical reality. The rest is “dark matter”, and mostly “dark energy”. One day they’ll discover that the universe they perceive is all illusory, that reality, the true reality, is only consciousness.
So what of ‘I’? What of my own individual expression of the omnipresent consciousness?
There is a well know saying that you are where your attention is. When you and I regard anything, when we place our attention on anything, anything at all, we do so from a single or singular point of view. By being omnipresent, the One can do so from infinity of viewpoints. Thus the expression of the infinite in us is always unique. Yet we, by looking out, so to speak, offer individuality of vision that is equally unique. No one can see what we see in exactly the same way. Thus, the two abide in indispensible, indivisible union. We truly are One.
I’d written an essay on the subject of: “I and my Father” in 1997. I read it today. Nothing has changed. In the field of consciousness, time is very relative. As with mathematics, it often stops. The stasis lingers for a little while—then starts again. We are suspended in that fleeting moment between the two chronological movements. Or, if you prefer, we move between the two moments of stasis. Your choice, depending on the scale.
If interested, the essay #13 in my collection is titled “One”, and is part of Beyond Religion volume II. In it I cite a statement by Daryl Reanney. He said: “…what the egoless mind sees is unity.” It is from a book he wrote, After Death, A new Future for Human Consciousness. It is a strange title, one might think, as Mr. Reanney was a distinguished molecular biologist, teaching at universities on New Zealand and Australia.
No priest I ever met said or implied such a thing. It took a scientist. A very rare scientist.
Nevertheless, I think he was right.