who I'm writing about oneness

Here’s the Thing…oneness-infographic

The only stories on the Internet about Oneness these days are the ones telling us to work together in order to create one world with one heart and one mind. Oneness is rarely spoken about in terms of what is already present.

I created this site to talk about my Oneness Experience not as a goal, not as a practice or set of rules that lead me toward better outcomes, but as an everyday-ness.


Everyday Oneness

This everyday-ness of a oneness experience, goes by many names. Allowing. Surrender. Emptiness. Compassion.  Names that have been bastardised and commercialised up the yin-yang. Names that have been fetishised and fantasised until we no longer recognise ourselves in the picture. Which is perfect.

After all, i’m not here to bring down the ways other people do oneness. I’m simply here to share my perspective, or should that be perspectives? You see, I was born with an interesting set of instructions. That is, I was born with more than one soul or purpose, however you want to understand that.

Male-Female Gender Wholeness

I was born with the identity-spirit of my unborn brother as well as my own. As such, I grew up believing I would somehow become a boy, even though I did not know exactly how that might happen.

This gave me an interesting perspective on gender and wholeness. The truth is I never felt male or female. It was more a sense of being unable to draw a line between male-female-ness. Which meant my experience of gender was undivided.

I cannot tell you which parts are female and which parts are male. That would be like pouring two glasses of water together and asking which drops are from which glass.

But this is not the only omni-perspective experience I’ve had.


I said earlier that I was born with more than one soul. That’s not entirely accurate.

In my experience of the world, there is no separate part I can point to that is my soul. For lack of vocabulary, I continue to use the word but the truth is, for me there is only one field.

In a traditional sense, the thing we call a soul, is said to house the essence of who we are, as if there are various aspects of self that can be known. Aspects such as mind, body and spirit.

For me, these are simply arbitrary labels we use in an attempt to draw lines between “self” and “other”. Lines that do not really exist, except in the stories we tell about what’s going on. Stories that rely on an account of the world in separation.


When I look for the boundary of “self”, I see an ongoing alchemy of all that is. I see a sea of churning change, inseparable and unknowable from any one fixed perspective.

In all my scientific and historical research, I have found the body to be not so much shaped by the world, as part of its fabric. The mind, not a mental artefact but a tide within the ocean of all that is. And the spirit akin to a mountain we revere for the strength it imparts without ever being truly outside (or inside).

Our notions of “self” and “other” as fixed and bounded identities with separate souls that possess individuality, are based on particular assumptions about the world.

Assumptions of a dualistic universe that answers to the laws of physics. Except none of these laws can consistently be applied in all places at all times. And instead of seeking to update the laws according to the evidence, we have built a universe of exceptions!

One Field Physics

Most people talk about the world in terms of layers and circles. Auric layers, for example. And while I can see what other people point to, I have a unique perspective on what it all means.

Instead of separate fields of energy that interact with one another, I see-feel-know a single phrase, a single focus, a single mystery – and we are all living masters.

All our penchants for privilege and presence. All our choices and churlishness. All evidence of a singular-ness that stretches as far as our forgotten pasts and beyond anything we can or cannot know. The world we label and the world we leave behind. All one.

In this I am not alone.

Sankara’s Non-Dualism

The Philosophy of Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta by Shyama Kumar Chattopadhyay, tells a similar story to my own.

Not the two-souls, one-gender story. The one field physics of a singular mystery.

In Advaita Vedanta it’s called Brahman, and it is sarvagata (all pervasive) and nityaptasvarupa (its nature being eternally self-complete).

When I found Chattopadhyay’s explanation, I was elated! The prospect of not being alone in my pondering was fantabulous. Even if it was attached to a religion and considered “philosophical” within that religious practice rather than instructive, the very fact I was not the only writer of oneness without exception, lifted my spirits.

Eclectic Exegesis

Until this point, my reading and listening had led me to many intriguing and inspiring thinkers such as:

Richard Bach‘s Jonathan Livingston Seagull + Illusions

Lyall Watson, still my favourite science writer, despite the 100th Monkey debacle. Neophilia remains one of my top ten favourite books of all time.

Mindfulness guru Philipe Goldin

Mark Nepo, author of 7 Thousand Ways to Listen.

…but none of these fully encapsulate my understanding of oneness.

Even when I started writing for Dennis Waite’s blog @ Advaita-Vedanta.org, it was evident my sense of oneness was unique (and my comprehension of Chattopadhyay was considered remarkable).

Unique. Remarkable. Unconventional.

These are all labels we adopt in comparison. It’s as if we look for understanding and settle on an explanation that puts us all in spaces above and beside one another, when there’s a version of what’s going on that keeps asking questions. A version that tells us we are already one.

“Oneness is not about converting the herd to a single perspective. It’s about standing in the perspective where everything is sacred.”

In my perspective, everything is sacred. Everything is one. Everything, everyone and every moment is, what is. That’s all.

We can make up stories about what is, and it will still be what is.

We can try to get out of our mindset or attempt to convince one another of a better way, and still it will be what is.

We can separate it into good-bad, beauty-ugliness, inhumane-compassionate, male-female, here-there, and still, not in spite of our efforts but as a function of what is, it remains simply what is.

This is the thing I see. In all my research, in all my reading and wondering how it came to be this way, I see an endless thread leading wherever what is leans at this point. I see a swirling ocean, a see-saw, and a perfection that cannot be known – only trusted and experienced.


Language is a funny thing.