Of the Universal, the Particular and Oneness

What is oneness? Does the oneness of the universal and the particular negate the existence of the particular? When a river flows into the ocean, does it cease to exist?

I have been thinking about these questions quite a bit in the last few weeks. These thoughts got triggered primarily from three sources. The first was an exploration of the 'dvaita', 'advaita' and 'vishitadvaita' schools of thought. The second was the Gospel of John in the Bible, especially John 14: 20 ("On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you"). The third was Hegelian Metaphysics that talks about the synthesis of the thesis and the antithesis. 

So, what is my 'final conclusion'? Thank God, I no longer have any compulsion to arrive at any such 'final conclusion'. I have come to realize that, especially in matters like this, it is much better to let my questions and answers evolve (and to observe how and why they evolve in a particular manner). I guess, my recent explorations on the 'Philosophy of Science' also helped a lot. The nature of 'truth' in science is always tentative - based on the available data at a particular point of time - and it get revised (if required) as more data becomes available.

So, let me just share my 'current thinking on this matter': 

To me, the particular (e.g. the individual) and the universal ('God') are integrated - in the sense of being of the same essence (same nature) - though this does not totally negate their separate existence. The particular is the universal without ceasing to be particular. 

There are two types of oneness, oneness among the particular entities and oneness between the particular and the universal. Individuality (and diversity) at the level of the particular is indeed possible, while maintaining the essential unity (like 'each apple from the same apple tree can be slightly different - while very much remaining as an apple - and as the fruit of the same apple tree'). We must remember that the 'synthesis' of 'oneness and otherness' is much more than a simple 'negation' (as it also includes the element of 'preservation').

'Inseparable' doesn't necessarily mean 'indistinguishable'. 'Togetherness' (thou art with me) can also be a form of oneness. "I am in you and you are in me", doesn't necessarily mean the 'you' and the 'I' are totally indistinguishable. Yes, they are deeply integrated, and, to me, Jesus is a perfect example of this integration (of 'being fully human and fully divine at the same time'). I also feel that the main purpose of Christianity is to be more like Jesus Christ (to enable us to develop our human nature and our divine nature at the same time and to integrate them)! 

This also brings to mind an interesting fact about the famous 'Sabarimala Temple' in my home state Kerala - that the deity and the devotees (pilgrims) are called by the same name ('Ayyappa'). One needs to observe 41 days of 'vratham'(severe austerity measures) before undertaking the pilgrimage. Also, the traditional route to the temple was through a dense forest where one had good chance of being attacked by wild animals. So, when the devotee reaches the temple after observing the 'vratham' and after the dangerous and difficult journey through the forest (keeping one's mind focused on the deity all the while), the devotee 'becomes one with the deity'. This is also amplified by the words 'tat tvam asi' ('thou art that'), written on the temple indicating that the devote has become (one with) what the devotee was seeking!

Yes, I do feel that 'oneness' is the cornerstone of religious experience!

Any comments?