The concept of "one"
Woah93
Veteran
This is a message I keep seeing on the internet mainly. Not only in buddhism but through out all sorts of new age spiritualism and several speakers like Alan Watts, Jon Kabat Zinn and many others. Basically the idea that being separate is an illusion.
I must admit that I really have a hard time grasping this and it seems to go against all logic. I have my own body that I control with MY mind which is inhabited by MY thoughts however conditioned they are. What I do or not do is relying on my decisions which are formed out of my conditioned beliefs and personal reasoning. Even the reality and perception I experience is formed by my mind and that is in turn shaped by my experience and beliefs, which varies from person to person.
Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but how are we not separate? What is illusory about it when it's obviously there? Can anyone offer me some insight or further explanation on this?
Comments
To me, Emptiness means that there is no essential essence (Pardon the tautology!) in anything; there is nothing essentially different in me than there is in you. There is a sameness, a oneness essentially abiding everywhere.
Some may totally be out of touch with this oneness and cause a lot of trouble for everyone else, but the wise see it and are therefore enlightened.
Is that like saying humans are kind of like ants or bees where every being together in a group forms one big organism? Like a bunch of trees who are a forest?
The hive mind is probably not the best analogy, as we don't have a natural means of communication with the rest of the world. I simplify it into a "separate but equal" feeling, where I and every other living and non living thing are part of this ecology of being. In meditaiton the connections I feel with the rest of life widen, so that I as a separate being dissolve and a singleness becomes foremost. Or something like that :-)
To your point, I have felt uneasy with some of TNH's sutra interpretations to do with breathing, where the exercises pointedly use the concept of "I". As in "breathing in, I know I am breathing in." This is good for concentration but sure doesn't promote the concept of one, from where I sit.
No school of Buddhism teaches ' oneness.'
That is Vedanta/Hindu teaching.
Buddhism teaches Shunyata ..Emptiness..
Buddhist non duality teaches not two ..Not oneness.
Our sense of separateness comes from an identification with the Skandhas/khandas.
The Skandhas arise in great emptiness. Not from ' oneness.'
I suggest reading SN 12.48:
Sadhu !
TNH teaches a bit of oneness as well. More so inter-connectedness. While it may not go along with Buddhist doctrine, I don't think it's a harmful way of considering the world around us, and I wish more people would do so. Yes, you may be your own thoughts and bodily actions in that sense, but your actions and even your thoughts affect the world around you. Too many people hold views that are harmful without being willing to see how they are harmful, and how those views/beliefs/thoughts led to actions that are also harmful. So in that way, I think it can be good to consider oneself part of everything else, the web of life, so to speak, so we can see how we impact everyone around us, and how everyone and everything around us, impacts us as well. I find it fascinating to go out in the world and consider where everything and everyone came from, and with people in which ways we are all similar yet so different. We share a lot of things, and there is a certain oneness in humanity, I think. Like I said, not something I use as a Buddhist practice or anything, it's just another way to look at and appreciate the world and to be able to learn to appreciate every day things we take for granted. Things we don't even consider what place they have in our lives because we are so far removed from it.
When you think about all the processes that happen on the planet to keep everything alive, it's pretty amazing. Also pretty amazing one species can do so much to interrupt that process.
I think perhaps what you are advocating @karasti is Unity.
I think that the Vedantic idea of Oneness is a rather different matter, and is hard to reconcile with Shunyata.
We are all different and unique aspects of the exact same thing but that thing is really a process which seems both without beginning and end.
There isn't a bunch of little nouns but a process which cannot rightly be defined because it is in constant change.
We are connected through cause and effect and not just us humans but absolutely everything else. We also consist of the very same stuff as absolutely everything else which turns out isn't very much at all while at the same time being all there is.
We may feel separate from one another but we simply cannot be separate from the universe... So if we are not separate from the universe which is all there ever was, is or will be, how could we possibly be separate from each other?
Well the universe is simply a word for everything that is or has ever existed. But I wouldn't consider just having an influence on one another or being made from the same material an indication of not being seperate..
I see it like the hydrological cycle. Water evaporates, forming clouds which take form of rain drops. These raindrops fall and the cycle continues. Each drop of rain is still just the same water it's been since there has been water.
What you wrote in your post contradicts your own assertion of being separate
All the conditioning of mind/body is not 'you' nor is it under 'your' control however clever our minds are at claiming control.
I relate to the inability to grasp these kinds of things, and have been told that 'grasping' them correctly as a concept or the like is not going to happen.
There are some bits and pieces that DO hint around at 'oneness' is that our uniqueness as individuals is overrated and delusional. We all have human minds with human thoughts and the same human brain, how could we possibly be all that different where difference counts? People with depression have the same depression, although the ego does not have much to toot its own horn about unless it can insist upon its uniqueness (read: I'm so unique that your advice is worthless to me).
We have to try very very hard to be 'unique' and separate, so it's quite the cultural delusion, too. Everyone trying to make THEIR mark on the world, or carve out a special PLACE for themselves. Like, who has not already done the same damn thing a million times and thought they were unique, too? If you aren't trying to make 'something' of yourself, you are a failure but what you are making of yourself is something you are going to have to let go of!
I think we have to work hard and tell ourselves tons of lies (well worn lies that everyone believes) in order to create the shakiest sense of separateness, 'individuality', 'uniqueness'. We have to deny the reality in front of our eyes in order to proclaim our specialness.
You're definitely not overthinking it!
Firstly, look at the fundamental processes of life and the cosmos that have been uncovered by logic. Evolution reveals that all life exists along branches of a great family tree. Astronomy tells us that the universe began in a big bang, and that at one time all matter was condensed in a single homogeneous form.
These observations are outward representations of a truth that everyone can access within. At the point of their 'essential self' - Ātman.
In my personal experience, I didn't arrive at a realization of Oneness through a lot of sitting, thinking and philosophizing. Or even through a disciplined practice of meditation. But actually through a single 'religious experience'
I'll refer you to Allan Watt's definition of a religious experience (it definitely describes where I'm coming from, could be helpful) -
'Experiences in which the individual has a sudden transformation of his sense of being alive... certain states of consciousness in which you experience that everything is interconnected'
you may well have had all kinds of experiences @Simon, but they, or at least your interpretation of them, do not conform to the teachings of the Buddha , who said clearly and repeatedly that there is no essential self and no atman.
Indeed one of the basic axioms of his Dharma is an-atta ..no atman.
Yeah Simon I have had those experiences as well, however that interconnectedness is just a "feeling" when I experience it and it tends to dissipate fairly quickly as well. I do get what oneness means when in the context of an emotion, but the real concept behind it in rational thought, i can't really comprehend.
Though I think there are some comments above that also reflect this (e.g., karasti)... I asked the shonin at my temple about the oneness thing, and he said that the idea that "everything is one" is a "New Age" concept; rather, the Buddhist concept is that "everything is interconnected" is better. I found that helpful; maybe not everyone would.
sadhu!!! "from ignorance as a requisite condition comes fabrication"
oh how elegant!
mindfulness is truly "all helpful"
@citta serves you well when he says not two and not one. take this to heart.
with habit we became apparently separate beings
with practice we can become identical
.. in the most beautiful sense of that word.
Way to do down my religious experience guys!
Well @Simon, it was absolutely wonderfully significant and unique, but at the same time, nothing special.
You see if we give prominence and dominance to one specific moment, everything else we experience seems mundane, and our focus will be so fixed on that one 'religious experience' that another, actually more significant moment may pass by unnoticed.
Breathe, rejoice, accept, note, remember - and let go.
Who's to say that moment was any moment better or worse than one to come?
Nobody's 'downing' your religious experience. We've all had an 'ahaah!' moment.
We're just pointing out what we often point out - before, is mundane, after is mundane. Nothing has really changed all that much.
As I said @Simon, from a Buddhist perspective the issue isn't your experience, its your subsequent interpretation of it.
I bet when you were having the experience you weren't think of "oneness" or anything else of a conceptual nature.
But our culture does not have the vocab to articulate such experience, so we tend to fall back on things we have read from Vedanta influenced sources and so on.
Two but not two. But then not one either.
However the problem - suffering - is not caused because we mistakenly see oneness. It is because we mistakenly see separation through conditioned dualistic perception. I, me, mine becomes a filter as well as the subject for clinging. But what is really going on here is all things are dependently originated. Many, many things must come together. All compounded things lack inherent existence. Exactly where one thing ends and another begins is not so clear. As emptiness is seen, the illusory nature of appearances, the illusion of separation, becomes more obvious. Realizing dependent origination leads to great peace.
I don't think you are over thinking this. But then conceptualization will only take you so far. You need to actually see what is gong on. A meditation practice is required to develop this kind of insight.
Best Wishes
To be honest, I'm not sure how saying "all is one" is different than saying "all is interconnected" except for that one is a label and one is not... "One" maybe sounds like it's closed off whereas "interconnected" allows for growth.
I don't know.
i would suggest that " all is interconnected " is compatible with shunyata. The " all " is free of self and arises from impermanence.
" One " suggests eternalism, and is the reason why the Buddha did not advocate the use of the concept.
It's the grasping thats the problem @Woah93. & @Simon, don't let it bring you down, it's great when it's great, and its bad when its bad, and the hole is the whole.
So where are chickens when you need 'em. Hatching plans or something!
Interconnectedness is something I think I can understand. The things I see described here seems eerily similar to quantum theory in the sense that when you look closely enough things don't really "exist" in and of itself but rather as a relation to one another. @Citta but isn't awareness eternal? You can't experience not being, you can't be aware of nonexistence. So in a sense, if you always "are" isn't that the one thing that breaks impermanence? Regardless of the quality of experience?
@Woah93 are you really here in every moment?
Isn't it that just as you get the experience of being in a moment it's already gone. So what is there to cling to or grasp as an experience of something or of being.
It's all a miraculous game of smoke and mirrors. And there is no ego that can take control, because what would it be controlling.... rem itself...? Where bodes that lead you really?
In terms of your OP, these commentators are right when you take your experience of the reality you find yourself in to its logical conclusion, there is no independent I. You are not separate from your environment, you are at one and the same time both and neither, because of the principles of interdependence and interpenetration of phenomena. There is no objective reality, only relationships. So there is no universal truth. And the quantum world merely plays this out - you can know a subatomic particles velocity but you can't know it's position, and vice versa. It knows if it is observed fully, it will give the game away, and the game can't be given away completely can it? ... \ lol / ...
And particle physicists are going to keep smashing these particles together until one day they say, we can't keep up this facade any longer, or can we, let's do something radical, like become a big empty whole and blow their minds completely.
Relatively, you could say everything is one, since it's all created from the same stuff. And there is no separation between us and everything else. Or you can say that we are all separate and individual which is also true, since we are over here and they are over there, and we have our own private view of the world that no one else can share. Both are views are true.
Here is a long winded quote from Carlos Casteneda on the subject. Not Buddhism either, but I always found it illuminating.
" "We can say that the tonal is like the top of this table. An island. And on this island we have everything. This island is, in fact, the world.
"There is a personal tonal for every one of us, and there is a collective one for all of us at any given time which we can call the tonal of the times."
He pointed to the rows of tables in the restaurant.
"Look! Every table has the same configuration. Certain items are present on all of them. They are, however, individually different from each other. Some tables are more crowded than others. They have different food on them, different plates, different atmosphere, yet we have to admit that all the tables in this restaurant are very alike.
The same thing happens with the tonal. We can say that the tonal of the times is what makes us alike in the same way it makes all the tables in this restaurant alike. Each table separately, nevertheless, is an individual case just like the personal tonal of each of us. But the important factor to keep in mind is that everything we know about ourselves and about our world is on the island of the tonal. See what I mean?"
"If the tonal is everything we know about ourselves and our world, what then is the nagual?"
"The nagual is the part of us which we do not deal with at all."
"I beg your pardon?"
"The nagual is the part of us for which there is no description: no words, no names, no feelings, no knowledge."
"That is a contradiction, don Juan. In my opinion, if it can not be felt or described or named, it can not exist."
"It is a contradiction only in your opinion. I warned you before, do not knock yourself out trying to understand this."
"Would you say that the nagual is the mind?"
"No. The mind is an item on the table. The mind is part of the tonal. Let us say that the mind is the chili sauce."
He took a bottle of sauce and placed it in front of me.
"Is the nagual the soul?"
"No. The soul is also on the table. Let us say that the soul is the ashtray."
"Is it the thoughts of men?"
"No. Thoughts are also on the table. Thoughts are like the silverware."
He picked up a fork and placed it next to the chili sauce and the ashtray.
"Is it a state of grace? Heaven?"
"Not that either. That, whatever it might be, is also part of the tonal. It is, let us say, the napkin."
I went on giving possible ways of describing what he was alluding to: pure intellect, psyche, energy, vital force, immortality, life principle. For each thing I named he found an item on the table to serve as a counterpart and shoved it in front of me until he had all the objects on the table stashed in one pile.
Don Juan seemed to be enjoying himself immensely. He giggled and rubbed his hands every time I named another possibility.
"Is the nagual the Supreme Being; the Almighty, God?" I asked.
"No. God is also on the table. Let us say that God is the tablecloth."
He made a joking gesture of pulling the tablecloth in order to stack it up with the rest of the items he had put in front of me.
"But, are you saying that God does not exist?"
"No. I did not say that. All I said was that the nagual was not God because God is an item of our personal tonal and of the tonal of the times. The tonal is, as I have already said, everything we think the world is composed of, including God, of course. God has no more importance other than being a part of the tonal of our time."
"In my understanding, don Juan, God is everything. Are we not talking about the same thing?"
"No. God is only everything you can think of, therefore, properly speaking, he is only another item on the island. God cannot be witnessed at will, he can only be talked about.
"The nagual, on the other hand, is at the service of the warrior. It can be witnessed, but it cannot be talked about."
"If the nagual is not any of the things I have mentioned," I said, "perhaps you can tell me about its location. Where is it?"
Don Juan made a sweeping gesture and pointed to the area beyond the boundaries of the table. He swept his hand, as if with the back of it he were cleaning an imaginary surface that went beyond the edges of the table.
"The nagual is there," he said. "There, surrounding the island. The nagual is there, where power hovers.
"We sense, from the moment we are born, that there are two parts to us. At the time of birth, and for a while after, we are all nagual. We sense, then, that in order to function we need a counterpart to what we have. The tonal is missing and that gives us, from the very beginning, a feeling of incompleteness.
"Then the tonal starts to develop and it becomes utterly important to our functioning; so important that it opaques the shine of the nagual. It overwhelms it. From the moment we become all tonal, we do nothing else but to increment that old feeling of incompleteness which accompanies us from the moment of our birth, and which tells us constantly that there is another part to give us completeness." "
That's just it... Labeling it all as "one" suggests borders that can't be there.
I don't remember being born so in a sense it's like I've always been here and I don't know what it's like to die so being eternal is all I know. Or at least that is how it feels.
Being self aware, we distinguish between our self and the environment but that's just a trick of the brain/mind connection. We are not separate from the environment.
If you look at it from Vajrayana's point of view, I think it only exist in conventional truth, but not in ultimate truth.