Perchance

I'm not sure how many religions actually share this idea. I've heard variations of it haunt Buddhism, various farms of Paganism, and a few other religions. So I suppose anyone who answers will probably do so from the standpoint of personal experience and opinion, which is fine.

Why do people want to feel they are one with everything in the universe? I wonder, simply because it seems that would imply at least two things that I find personally unattractive:

1) We are one even with the disgusting stuff, such as air pollution, child molestors, and the smell of wet dog fur.

2) How can it allow for any individuality? Does the self become something to be despised and crushed out?

I do find some things disgusting, and I am an individualist. I've also rarely found the answers to these problems from anyone I've talked to who believes this. The attitude seems to be that things like air pollution are "a disturbance in the cycle" (how can they be, if they're the natural products of things like factories that are also part of the cycle?) and that the self is of no importance compared to the universe.

They still think it's important enough to suggest that other people would be happy following their personal choice of belief, though .

So. Any ideas?

-Perchance.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

Hugo Holbling

Not quite. The "idea" is concerned more with the the subject/object dichotomy, and whether or not it is experientially valid. That is, does experience consist of a subject (the "self") being acted upon (by "objects"), or is it instead a continuum of hermeneutic interplay in which the dichotomy is perhaps not necessary?

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain,

Then there is.

gsx1138

There is good and bad in everything. Christian (for the sake of example) try to remove themselves from such things thus removing any responsibility. They place the source of all evil as a physical entity removed from their world in order to see it from afar. When it comes to Buddhists and Pagans there is nothing to blame but ourselves. From the Pagan persepective we all have some good and bad but evil is a choice. There isn't any supernatural force acting on us "making" us do bad. There is also no outside force that is going to judge us for eternity because of a set of circumstances placed on us in our short lifetime.

I don't know Buddhism well enough to comment. My understanding of Paganism is that we define our individualism through our actions. While we are all part of the same energy as humans we are given the ability to distinguish ourselves.

I see this as part of human nature. You find something that makes you happy and you want other people to be happy as well. The first time I started taking Wicca more seriously I was told to go study other religions first. I had to make sure I really wanted to take part or not.

Air pollution is a "disturbance" in the fact that we are producing far more than would be naturally produced. I think you'll find the most important part of Paganism and Buddhism is balance. Also, there is no belief that we were "placed" on this planet to subjegate it to our will.

All that being said, there are many Pagans that believe that technology is the enemy of nature. I think this is utter crap. Technology and nature are not mutually exclusive. Just my little rant.

Heathen Dawn

Ah, pantheism.... that wonderful world of word-games where all is one and one is all. Puts everything under an orderly classification.

- "We're all brothers and sisters!"
- "Would you have sex with your sister?"

We're all one, but if you give yourself a pinch you hurt only yourself. Tat tvam asi.

monkey mind

In Buddhist philosophy, there is the one, the myriad of things, both and neither. They all exist depending on your viewpoint.

Feeling "one with the universe" is an antitode to feeling that your trapped in a society that is too complex to understand and the paranoia/alienation that results.

If you always label some things as good and some things as disgusting without ever questioning 'why' then you will spend your whole life clinging to what you deem good and running from what you deem bad.

What is your "self"? Is it your mind? Your body? is it permanent and fixed? In Buddhism, it is not a matter of despising yourself. It's just coming to come to an understanding that any differences between your "self" and others are mind made and thus essentially meaningless.

Of course, you need to consider a self apart from others to function on earth. You just have to realize it's true nature and not become attached to it. When we become attached to the idea of "I" then there is the "other" then we group together with like minded people and it is "us" and "them". We seek out the "us" and avoid "them". Then "us" is "right" and "them" are "wrong". It all starts with us being attached of there being a real permanent "I".

Whats the problem that your looking for an answer to?

It seems to me that so far you've only been exposed to a very shallow version of Buddhist philosophy. If you are interested in it, I would suggest checking into the Yogacara school, you might find it of interest. You might want to start with a general introduction to Buddhism first though. A good one is "Fundamentals of Buddhism" which can be found online. I think the Author is Peter DaSilva, but I'm not totally sure. It can be found on <a href="http://www.buddhanet.net." target="_blank">www.buddhanet.net</a> If you really want to delve into this stuff full force, then check out the "Flower Adornment Sutra" and a commentary.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: monkey mind ]</p>

Perchance

Why does experience have to consist of either? Why are there only two options? After all, if I can accept myself as a perceiving subject, then why not accept others as perceiving subjects if they demonstrate ability of that? Because I have never seen a rock demonstrate an ability to perceive outside influences, the most I can do is retain an open mind regarding it. I don't consider myself as close to the rock as I do to other humans or (on less of a shared perception scale) animals, because I don't think of it as a subject.

Of course, I will probably never be able to know exactly what someone else perceives, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't try to find out... or torture myself with the idea that I have to consider myself part of everything, even those things I find myself incomprehensible.

I've heard that before. I don't understand it. The person I heard quote it claimed to understand it, and also to understand the appeal of the poem "This is just to say."

Do you?

-Perchance.

Perchance

I agree that people should accept the consequences of their own actions. However, I don't think there's some mystical source that will punish us if we don't, which is why I disagree with the concept of karma and the Threefold Rule.

Some people accept the consequences of their actions, and some people don't, and often those who don't get away with it. It sucks. But there you are.

That's one idea that makes me wonder about the Threefold Rule. In some conceptions I've read it's more like a law of nature than a punishing force- but it still fits human requirements and romantic thinking to a T, which makes me suspicious.

Also, I don't accept the existence of objective evil, and come close to the idea that evil doesn't exist at all; we have just chosen to invest some actions with 'evil' meaning, just as I have chosen to find some things disgusting.

But why? Who gives us that?

Yeah, I've read the rantings of a few fundy Wiccans with their own version of the End Times ("Patriarchy is collapsing! The planet will be destroyed in two years!") that would end if only everyone would accept Wicca .

But why balance? Why is nature automatically good? How can someone say with the same breath, "I am one with all" and "There are things about the all I want to change?"


I understand you completely. The funniest things are Pagans ranting about technology on their Internet sites..

-Perchance.

Perchance

Hi Heathen Dawn,

Yes, exactly. My sister tried to promote the idea for a while that every time I ridiculed some stupid comment she made, I was really hurting myself because of karma or something. (She is a weird, mixed-up theist). I told her that I was willing to risk the pain .

-Perchance.

Perchance

I see. Venturing an analogy here...

The way that a room can exist either as itself- walls, door, and so on- or as the walls, door, and so on plus all the things that are in it?


What puzzles me most is that many people seem simply to declare this rather than attempting to attain the understanding- as if what frightens them most is not the society itself but the effort of trying to understand it. Our society is complex, but not, I think, incomprehensible. It seems to me the fun would lie in trying to understand it.

But then, I like complex and uncertain things.

Clinging to pleasure and running from pain. Doing what makes me happy and not wanting to get cancer, though having to deal with it if it happens.

What's irrational about that?


Then why does that perception of difference exist? If it's a result of cultural training, then so could any other perception be.

Why is the perception that one is the same as everything else more real or true than the perception that one is different? I suppose that it could be more psychologically helpful to some people, but then the perception that the self is different could be the same thing.

I don't have much fear of that happening. Every time I start considering myself part of a group, I find out the rough edges. There's always something that doesn't match perfectly. By the strictest definition, I can't be liberal because I don't agree with some of their political goals, a feminist because I don't agree with everything that acknowledged feminist leaders do, a potential mother because I don't have any maternal instincts, and so on.

Not really a problem. I'm trying to understand what the "one is all" concept adds to someone's life in the same way that I would try to understand what the "Trinity" concept adds to a Christian's life.

Most of my contacts have been with the "Pagan/Mother Nature" kind- but they could have been influenced by a shallow version of Buddhism, certainly.

Thank you for the link. Something new to read!

-Perchance.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

Amos

We want to feel one with the universe because we are one with the universe and once we do feel as one with the universe we will first know who we are as individuals within the universe. I think Augustine here said that "our hearts are restless unit we rest in thee," wherein "thee" is who we are as the continutiy of God within the universe.

We will be above all the disgusting stuff because our even our sins will be remembered no more.

It is good to have a dream to live and we must live out our own dream as individuals. Once we have done this would it not be best to compose this into a song and sing this song instead of living like a dreamer without a dream?

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>