All is one. Change my view.

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.
binocular
Posts: 5638
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: All is one. Change my view.

Post by binocular » Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:37 am

Meanwhile, my teeth rot.
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1739
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: All is one. Change my view.

Post by Bundokji » Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:46 pm

To what extent we can consider the three marks of existence as seeing the universal in the particular?
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: All is one. Change my view.

Post by aflatun » Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:05 pm

zan wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:23 am
I am curious as to whether or not there are any convincing arguments against this view?

Not necessarily just that the Buddha said that oneness is an extreme that he did not teach, I already know that, I am wondering if there are any actual arguments that directly refute the idea of "oneness", either from the canon or from anywhere else?
It depends on which flavor of "All is One" you are referring to. I know of a few: Plotinus, Shankara, New Age, etc.

The madhyamikas have a long tradition of rejecting sameness and difference, as well as unitary and plural intrinsic natures, in favor of dependent origination, much as SN12.48 that Retro posted does.

Also, are you referring to a theoretical construct that you find compelling...or an insight/meditative experience, or re ordering of your lived experience that you've noticed? If its the latter you might want to stay out of doctrinal disputes and proceed with personal investigation of your experience. Actually even if its the former you might want to go that way anyway :meditate:
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

dharmacorps
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:33 pm

Re: All is one. Change my view.

Post by dharmacorps » Sun Apr 15, 2018 5:08 pm

Thanissaro Bhikkhu has much to say on this:

https://tricycle.org/magazine/we-are-not-one/

User avatar
bodom
Posts: 6241
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: All is one. Change my view.

Post by bodom » Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:45 pm

dharmacorps wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 5:08 pm
Thanissaro Bhikkhu has much to say on this:

https://tricycle.org/magazine/we-are-not-one/
:thumbsup:

Beat me to it.

:namaste:
To study is to know the texts,
To practice is to know your defilements,
To attain the goal is to know and let go.

- Ajahn Lee Dhammadharo


With no struggling, no thinking,
the mind, still,
will see cause and effect
vanishing in the Void.
Attached to nothing, letting go:
Know that this is the way
to allay all stress.

- Upasika Kee Nanayan

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16460
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: All is one. Change my view.

Post by mikenz66 » Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:21 pm

It's a nice article, but this comment is very important to consider when reading comments from those who are not necessarily experts on the doctrines that they are criticsising:
Greetings, I'm enjoying the article a great deal but one important question I have is, who is it that's proposing this idea "that we are all One?" What groups or individuals are you referring to? Do they have specific doctrines, beliefs and practices around this idea of Oneness? And are you representing them accurately? Being specific in this way seems important because right now your presentation of Oneness seems a bit cliche or stereotypical. In other words, if you are not more specific about who holds this view of Oneness and if you don't articulate their position at least somewhat accurately, then your presentation of Oneness seems more like a caricature, a straw-man, that you can then punch down.
Although I agree in general terms, I offer this passage as an example of using internal/external as an approach to seeing the not-self nature of phenomena:
And what is the earth element? The earth element may be interior or exterior. And what is the interior earth element? Anything hard, solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, or anything else hard, solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This is called the interior earth element. The interior earth element and the exterior earth element are just the earth element. This should be truly seen with proper understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ When you really see with proper understanding, you reject the earth element, detaching the mind from the earth element.

https://suttacentral.net/mn140/en/sujato#sc12
:heart:
Mike

binocular
Posts: 5638
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: All is one. Change my view.

Post by binocular » Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:46 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:21 pm
It's a nice article, but this comment is very important to consider when reading comments from those who are not necessarily experts on the doctrines that they are criticsising:
Greetings, I'm enjoying the article a great deal but one important question I have is, who is it that's proposing this idea "that we are all One?" What groups or individuals are you referring to? Do they have specific doctrines, beliefs and practices around this idea of Oneness? And are you representing them accurately? Being specific in this way seems important because right now your presentation of Oneness seems a bit cliche or stereotypical. In other words, if you are not more specific about who holds this view of Oneness and if you don't articulate their position at least somewhat accurately, then your presentation of Oneness seems more like a caricature, a straw-man, that you can then punch down.
Again, the aim of the article isn't to criticize specific doctrines about oneness by specific authors or schools, but to use some popular ideas about oneness (as people are most likely to encounter them) and show where they're wrong or problematic.

Someone who is an expert on a doctrine wouldn't criticize it to begin with, because an expert is necessarily also a proponent of it, in favor of it. Because an implicit belief in religions is that only a member of a religion can be an expert on that religion.

Your comment and the one you're quoting come from the perspective that there is such a thing as neutral, objective, unbiased criticism. It's not clear that such criticism is even possible -- no matter how much it is advocated for in schools.
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

User avatar
Lucas Oliveira
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:07 pm

Re: All is one. Change my view.

Post by Lucas Oliveira » Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:48 pm

That’s how I understand your range and your light.

But there is another realm that you don’t know or see. But I know it and see it. There is the realm named after the gods of streaming radiance. You passed away from there and were reborn here. You’ve dwelt here so long that you’ve forgotten about that, so you don’t know it or see it. But I know it and see it. So Brahmā, I am not your equal in knowledge, still less your inferior. Rather, I know more than you. There is the realm named after the gods replete with glory … the realm named after the gods of abundant fruit … the realm named after the Overlord, which you don’t know or see. But I know it and see it. So Brahmā, I am not your equal in knowledge, still less your inferior. Rather, I know more than you. Having directly known earth as earth, and having directly known that which does not fall within the scope of experience based on earth, I did not identify with earth, I did not identify regarding earth, I did not identify as earth, I did not identify ‘earth is mine’, I did not enjoy earth. So Brahmā, I am not your equal in knowledge, still less your inferior. Rather, I know more than you. Having directly known water … fire … air … creatures … gods … the Creator … Brahmā … the gods of streaming radiance … the gods replete with glory … the gods of abundant fruit … the Overlord … Having directly known all as all, and having directly known that which does not fall within the scope of experience based on all, I did not identify with all, I did not identify regarding all, I did not identify as all, I did not identify ‘all is mine’, I did not enjoy all. So Brahmā, I am not your equal in knowledge, still less your inferior. Rather, I know more than you.’

‘Well, good sir, if you have directly known that which is not within the scope of experience based on all, may your words not turn out to be void and hollow!

Consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round—that’s what is not within the scope of experience based on earth, water, fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the gods of streaming radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the Overlord, and the all.

https://suttacentral.net/mn49/en/sujato

:anjali:
I participate in this forum using Google Translator. http://translate.google.com.br

http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11816
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: All is one. Change my view.

Post by DNS » Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:45 am

In that article Thanissaro uses materialism to refute the "All is One" idea; ironically since Thanissaro is not a materialist.

One who follows the All is One philosophy would say those materialist arguments are caught in the delusion that the world is real. They would argue that the world we experience is illusion and the true ultimate reality is Oneness, which we cannot see (apparently until we become enlightened). The reason there are predators eating other beings is that they are still trapped in the illusion that this conventional reality is real and when they awaken, they see the the true ultimate (divine? perhaps pantheistic) reality on Oneness. The higher ultimate reality is not material, not this body (and thus those references to food and the body are inappropriate), but the spirit according to those who advocate Oneness.

I'm not an advocate of this philosophy, but I believe that might be one way they would respond to that article.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1739
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: All is one. Change my view.

Post by Bundokji » Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:49 am

The article criticizes how the idea of oneness can go wrong, and to that extent, it can be useful. Nevertheless, it includes a lot of assumptions and language games to make his argument plausible.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

zan
Posts: 534
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: All is one. Change my view.

Post by zan » Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:14 pm

I think I agree with most of you.

Thank you for taking the time to explain.

I do not actually hold this view but it seemed the least complicated way to post the thread: as a question in which posters could present a counter to a view. Had I explained my view and then asked for counters to a different view, at least some posters would have likely read it wrong or skimmed it and posted a reply assuming they were responding to the question when they were actually responding to my held view, not the one I was asking to be countered.

At best, explaining my view and the one I wanted to have countered would have been unnecessary, at worst convoluted. So I wrote in the simplest, most direct way possible.

I hope this makes sense!
Never read anything I write as an accurate statement about anything whatsoever. Look to wiser ones than I. Look to wise texts. Look elsewhere. See my writings like word games, nothing more.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests