Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The we are one idea/reality
shanyin
Novice YoginSault Ontario Veteran
Hello everyone.
I've been hearing a lot of people talking about everybody being one, throughout my spiritual practice.
Does this oneness have anything to do with the annata (not-self) 'idea', that the aggregates of a human are all not-self? Or the philosophy that we are not all separate and that the idea that we are separate is ignorance?
Did the Buddha say anything about oneness?
Just wondering about the philosophy of it all.
I've been hearing a lot of people talking about everybody being one, throughout my spiritual practice.
Does this oneness have anything to do with the annata (not-self) 'idea', that the aggregates of a human are all not-self? Or the philosophy that we are not all separate and that the idea that we are separate is ignorance?
Did the Buddha say anything about oneness?
Just wondering about the philosophy of it all.
0
Comments
Palzang
I guess depending on the interpretation it could be compatible with Buddhist practice. If the view means that we're all in this together as suffering beings in Samsara then I think most Buddhists would agree with this. This view could give rise to compassion and loving-kindness for others because we see the similarities that we share with them.
Other interpretations could include pantheistic views where everything and everyone is god and god is everything. This also could give rise to wholesome states such as compassion and loving-kindness, but perhaps it could just as easily give rise to indifference: i.e. if all is one then even the negative stuff is okay and therefore its okay for me to be negative towards others, its just god/tao/whatever, right?
Palzang
In that case, would illusory you mind giving illusory me the illusory number to your illusory bank account, so Illusory I can have illusory your illusory money?
Thank you sir
Hi Shanyin
Often as Buddhists we are recomended by our peers not to "get philosophical" but this is one area of Dharma where all there is is philosophy. It is one of the most basic aspects but also it can be confusing.
There are three foundations to Dharma and these are total. Most dharma just deals with human experience but down at the bottom everything (all conditioned things) are subject to it.
I like to think of this in terms of "things". So when we use these concepts like anataman and sunnata they can be seen pretty clearly.
Emptiness and and Interconnectivity are one and the same. Things are empty because there are no ontological boundaries, the lack of boundaries entails total connectivity.
Consider:
All things are connected to all things.
All things contain interconnected things.
These two statements capture (I believe) the essence of what at more human levels we think of as egolessness and oneness. Anything that you can think of will be subject to these two conditions.
They are the same thing, one is a foundational truth - a mark of Existance, and the other is ignorance about this truth.
Oneness, emptiness, interconnectivity; they are all the same. Personally I find "oneness" a bit misleading as it implies there is an thing that is distinct from the things it is composed of, which there isn't. Maybe "noneness" would be a better term:)
I urge you to check out the three marks and see how important they are to the wisdom part of the path. I dont think the suttas really do a good job of explaining the play between "dukka" as true of all things and dukka as true of all human experience, but I think the answer is available when you understand dependent origination.
I wish you many exiting and moving times ahead as you perfect your own Right View!:)
namaste
This thread is temporarily out of order due to technical problems. Please stand by. Please stand by. Please stand by...
I'm not sure that Buddha intended people to abandon all notions of selfdom, but rather to discard the notion of a permanent unchanging self (anatman) and replace it with a concept of self that is a process, a fluid matrix of perception and reaction. And then from that basis to analyse that fluid self during our daily interactions and discern where the seeds of suffering find ground to germinate.
Yeah, I think so.
Palzang
Hi Shanyin,
Yes, this is a topic that has been frequently misunderstood.
On the way to realising non-self, i believe that a possible stage to pass through is the experience of subject fusing with the object.... a sense of non-separation from everything else, or that the universe is acting through one, or such kinds of interpretations of experiences.
It is just an experience and not a realisation and one has to go further to realise non-self and emptiness. It is important to get the view of non-self and emptiness right so that one does not just stop somewhere on the way of walking a path.
That is also why a teacher is important. Becos it is easy to mistake and make wrong conclusions.
Hope my explanation helps.
You ask if the "oneness" doctrine has anything to do with the Buddhist "anatman" doctrine. But, in Hinduism, the "oneness" doctrine has everything to do with the Hindu "atman" doctrine. So, it seems best to forget about this "oneness" doctrine in our Buddhist practice to avoid confusion. This is just my opinion.
Yes, do we have room for 10 volumes of material here? :rolleyes:
Actually it's not that complex. "Self" is a delusion, a deluded belief in "self" and "other". Actually there is no such division. It is a delusion that we recreate every instant of every day because if we didn't, we think we would cease to exist. It's sort of like moving pictures. On screen it looks like real movement of figures, but in reality it's just a series of photographs taken very quickly so that when they are run through the projector it looks like real movement. But it's not, it's a delusion. Just like self.
But this is a very, very ancient delusion. We've been maintaining it since time out of mind, probably longer than this particular universe has even existed. So it's very ingrained, a very habitual tendency you might say. It's our habit to identify our self as separate from everything else, even though when we examine "self" closely the delusion falls apart because in reality there is nowhere where the self ends and other begins (if you don't believe me, try it some time). But it's so ingrained that we don't even think about it. It's just automatic. It's wired into our brains. Still, in reality it's a habit.
So what's so bad about that? Is it so bad to imagine a self? No, it's not about good and bad really. But the thing about having a notion of self is that when you do, then desire arises. When there is no notion of self, then there is no desire because if you are not separate from anything, how can you desire anything? Desire arises ipso facto from the notion of self as opposed to not-self. And as the Buddha taught, desire is the cause of all suffering. So maybe it's not such a good idea to maintain the habit.
It's this same habit that keeps us on the wheel of death and rebirth also, by the way. We have the habit of taking rebirth because we identify so strongly with this self. That may seem farfetched to some, but I've found it to be true, and it is what the Buddha taught as well (believe it or not!). And the way to break the habit is to practice the path taught by Lord Buddha.
So that's the cereal boxtop version of what I meant. Does that make any sense?
Palzang
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Palzang
Which is another illusion.
If we just do a little thought experiment, imagine a man is hit on the head and loses his sense of distinct self. How would he operate in the world?
If he lacks a sense of self, he would also lack a sense of other, so when he comes across a person in the street he thinks is attractive, what stops him stripping them naked to have a better look? When he's driving and comes across a stop sign, why would he think the sign is meant for him? What stops him taking food from the supermarket without paying, or entering other peoples homes and sleeping in their beds?
What stops him drowning in the sea, or electricuting himself, or setting himself on fire?
Doesn't ethics rely on the dualism of self and other? I mean, we don't experience the pain another feels when they are stabbed. So that must mean we acknowledge that they aren't identical with us, and the ethical reason we don't go around stabbing others is because we recognise that even though we don't feel the pain, they will and we don't want to cause them harm.
Am I making any sense?
Palzang
Palzang
Havent read everything carefully but it sounds like Chrysalid is confused.
The self that is false, is an assumption, a kind of silent operating system that organizes body mind around a supposed core experiencer. This core experiencer is given the attributes of immutability and agency. It is basically a metaphysical principle or monad. It is a fiction.
The self which is not false is the psycho-social persona, or ego, which is not a trancendent metaphysical principle, but a resilient pattern that is part of the function of bodymind. A healthy integrated sense of self is important. This is why I don't discuss anatta in any depth with my twelve year old, because he is still in the process of developing a healthy self sense.
Buddhazombie: "....ciiiiiittttaaaaaa...." (instead of "....braaaaaaiiiiinnnnss....")
Actually, Chrysalid's rather extreme point makes me think too, although I'm sure there are some other fundamental things missing - I don't think that behaviour results from dropping the illusion of self. I'd hedge my bets with a "middle path" reference, without any understanding of the topic myself. Palzang's cereal box version was a good thinkeroo.
I have thought and reflected a lot about this ... From my experience with both my children, the children I have had the most opportunity to watch and interact with ( and also influence :-/ ) as they develop, they seem to intuitively know the falseness of a seperate sense of self and normal development involves becoming conditioned to think in very set ways and to have fixed ideas about what is real and what is not.
As we develop our egos, we take on board dictates from the environment around us about what is real and what is not, what is right and what is wrong, and we then begin to interpret the world through these fixed perceptions.
I think that is what is so great about spending time with children: they still see the world with the intuitive mind that is not yet conditioned.
As robot mentioned above I also have found Nagarjuna's writings contain valuable insights.Without the benefit of a teacher iti s a very confusing area to explore for me. I was fortunate enough to attend HHDL's public teaching Awakening the Mind, Nagarjuna's commentary on bodhichitta in Sydney Australia last December and have been continuing this study with my teacher in a small group since.
I guess if I am confused, then you are as well because I agree with everything you have said.
I get anatman, I understand that there is no permanent, unchanging self "substance" that endures at the core of my identity.
What I was disagreeing with, and attempting to discuss, was Palsang's notion of self and other as delusion. As, from my point of view, I cannot fathom how an autonomous agent like a human being, could possibly function if it lost all distinction between itself and its environment.
Thus, I can only postulate that an enlightened mind would maintain this basic distinction between agent (self) and environment (other) whilst simultaneously recognising the ephemeral and interconnected nature of all phenomena. And so, seeing things for what they really are, they would lack the desire for them to be other than what they are.
This is only a postulation though, and I am open to the fact that I may be very wrong. If Palsang or someone else would do me the favour of pointing out the mistakes in my thinking, that would be great.
This though... while true, does nothing to further my understanding of the subject in hand.
On a social level I as a person am an agent. Yet, within this agent no agent can be found.
Sure ...everything is everything else, and everything co-arises, but still, I don't confuse the bottle of bleach under the sink with the apple juice in the fridge.
...... maybe you like chocolate ice cream, and I like vanilla.
Anatta (or more generally emptiness) doesn't erase these distinctions.
Actually it's not something that can be understood; it's something that has to be experienced. Buddhism is not an intellectual exercise; it is an experiential one. That's the key. The path taught by the Buddha works, it has worked time and time again, and it's not actually necessary to know if it's working or not. It will work if you follow the method. Enlightenment doesn't come with a bang, the universe doesn't rock, and the stars don't fall out of the sky. It just happens (or so I am told
Palzang
We are not one, but neither are we two,meaning that we humans or let's say sentient beings are interdependent. We are separate by our very own points of view and our very own personal way of viewing reality. But we are not separate when it comes to our own biology ( I saw a documentary about the so called 'mirror-neurons' that I think apply to the idea of oneness) and our conciousness.
I think it is both. And a moral exercise...
lmao