Arguments against Oneness and The Ego

[Maponos]

I've been looking for the such arguments against these concepts and haven't found much.

I have been debating many concepts lately, and oneness and the ego have come up quite often with Buddhists and some Hindu philosophy.

I am wholly against the idea of 'becoming one with the universe' as I do not believe one becomes 'one' with anything without sacrificing who or what they are. The concept of being one does not seem plausible to me, so I would like arguments made in that case to back up my position.

Sorry for the vague-ness of this post, I'm in a hurry.

 

[Kirran]

I suppose you've gotta address the question of what it is that makes you who or what you are.

 

[idav]

The concept of being one does not seem plausible to me, so I would like arguments made in that case to back up my position.

I think you posted a pretty decent argument. To provide an example what if all humans just knew all that has ever happened and what anyone and everyone is thinking at any given moment.

I might argue that oneness doesn't really take away from the ability to be autonomous, it would still be similar to the idea that god is always watching and always knows what going on. Another way of saying God is already one with everything but our ego allows us to not realize it.

 

[Falvlun]

Perhaps it's like a puzzle. The piece is still itself but it's now part of the big picture. And it makes much more sense as a part of the whole rather than on its own.

But, disclaimer, I don't have any real belief in Oneness. I'm just speculating.

 

[crossfire]

I've been looking for the such arguments against these concepts and haven't found much.

I have been debating many concepts lately, and oneness and the ego have come up quite often with Buddhists and some Hindu philosophy.

I am wholly against the idea of 'becoming one with the universe' as I do not believe one becomes 'one' with anything without sacrificing who or what they are. The concept of being one does not seem plausible to me, so I would like arguments made in that case to back up my position.

Sorry for the vague-ness of this post, I'm in a hurry.

Well, to be quite honest, oneness/herd mentality is very susceptible to malignant delusion that can spread quite rapidly within the collective. Greed, hatred, and delusion can overcome individuals' minds and can rapidly spread throughout the collective from individual to individual.

Sentience is based upon having a subjective mind which can be conceptually separated from "objective reality" whereby abstract thinking can occur. Therefore, non-delusional intellect requires a strong ability to discern between subjective abstraction and objective reality.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I've been looking for the such arguments against these concepts and haven't found much.

I have been debating many concepts lately, and oneness and the ego have come up quite often with Buddhists and some Hindu philosophy.

I am wholly against the idea of 'becoming one with the universe' as I do not believe one becomes 'one' with anything without sacrificing who or what they are. The concept of being one does not seem plausible to me, so I would like arguments made in that case to back up my position.

Sorry for the vague-ness of this post, I'm in a hurry.

Try jumping out of your own skin. ;0)

 

[George-ananda]

I've been looking for the such arguments against these concepts and haven't found much.

I have been debating many concepts lately, and oneness and the ego have come up quite often with Buddhists and some Hindu philosophy.

I am wholly against the idea of 'becoming one with the universe' as I do not believe one becomes 'one' with anything without sacrificing who or what they are. The concept of being one does not seem plausible to me, so I would like arguments made in that case to back up my position.

Sorry for the vague-ness of this post, I'm in a hurry.

I buy into the Oneness teaching and believe it to be true.

Look at it from the bottom up. You are becoming God/Brahman/Oneness in gradual enlightening small steps. Any static state of being for an eternity would become unbearable torture. As long as you are still desiring individual ego experience you will have that. It's all a good thing.

 

[Maponos]

I buy into the Oneness teaching and believe it to be true.

Look at it from the bottom up. You are becoming God/Brahman/Oneness in gradual enlightening small steps. Any static state of being for an eternity would become unbearable torture. As long as you are still desiring individual ego experience you will have that. It's all a good thing.

What is 'becoming' 'God/Brahman/Oneness'? What are these beings? How does someone define an 'ultimate reality'?

Change happens, of course. It's the natural cycle of life.

Reality itself seems directly opposed to being one with anything.

 

[psychoslice]

We and everything is one with the cosmos, we are all one big soup, with all the ingredients within the soup, take any of the ingredients out of the soup and it wont be the same soup, enjoy the soup and don't worry too much of what is within the soup or you wont enjoy it. We are one with the planet, one with the sun, without both we wouldn't be here, and so it goes on and on, our universe wouldn't be here if we were not one with the Galaxy, and on it goes right to back to the big bang. Yes we were with the big bang, we were there potentially waiting to be here today asking these question, so hi.

 

[George-ananda]

What is 'becoming' 'God/Brahman/Oneness'? What are these beings? How does someone define an 'ultimate reality'?

Change happens, of course. It's the natural cycle of life.

Reality itself seems directly opposed to being one with anything.

A non-dualist (god and creation are not-two) understanding takes a fundamental recalibration of our general dualist thinking.

Brahman/God is the only ultimate reality; not the ever-changing material universe. Brahman is our core. Brahman is beyond our full understanding and has best been described as pure consciousness; being-bliss-awareness. In this view the universe is all a play/drama of Brahman where in Act I, he separates himself from himself (incarnating finite forms) and in Act II, he returns himself to himself (realization of the essential Oneness).

 

[SpiritQuest]

Oneness with the Totality of Existence cannot be experienced as a concept but it can be experienced like a shift in consciousness during meditations, prayer, being in nature, and helping others.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I am wholly against the idea of 'becoming one with the universe' as I do not believe one becomes 'one' with anything without sacrificing who or what they are. The concept of being one does not seem plausible to me, so I would like arguments made in that case to back up my position.

I think you posted a pretty decent argument.

I don't. The argument is "I don't like the idea, therefore it can't be true." How we feel about reality is irrelevant to reality.

Try jumping out of your own skin.

I can, but it'll hurt something awful.

 

[Liu]

My religion being both quite focused on individuation and being the western equivalent of Vamacara-Hinduism, the question how to combine the quest for self-deification and the belief in the pre-existing divinity of self is not entirely new to me.

Understanding oneness seems easier to me when thinking in terms of Shiva-Shakti-dualism.

What you truly are, and what is the same in everything, is consciousness/awareness/Shiva.
The outer world, the body, but also all your thoughts and feelings on the other hand are ever-changing and take on a multitude of different forms, making it difficult to assume them all to be ultimately one.
That doesn't make this aspect of reality any less divine, though, on the contrary. Without this Shakti-aspect, only Shiva would exist, and Shiva alone is mere nothingness.

So the task isn't to merge with any deity outside of self. It rather is to become more and more aware of the fact that one already is that deity, and to use that knowledge for working with and shaping the Shakti-part of yourself (e.g. your ego and your subconscious) in a way that is good for both sides. Only by doing so you can find out what you truly are.

That's just my take on it, I haven't yet found it out either

 

[Maponos]

A non-dualist (god and creation are not-two) understanding takes a fundamental recalibration of our general dualist thinking.

I do not agree with that at all. There is not mythological support for such an argument either.

Brahman/God is the only ultimate reality; not the ever-changing material universe. Brahman is our core. Brahman is beyond our full understanding and has best been described as pure consciousness; being-bliss-awareness. In this view the universe is all a play/drama of Brahman where in Act I, he separates himself from himself (incarnating finite forms) and in Act II, he returns himself to himself (realization of the essential Oneness).

What is ultimate reality? Is the Brahman stagnation, then? If you can't answer any of these questions, then how can any two people experience the same thing?

How does one even 'realize' this?

Oneness with the Totality of Existence cannot be experienced as a concept but it can be experienced like a shift in consciousness during meditations, prayer, being in nature, and helping others.

What you're describing sounds like being in a tranquil state and nothing beyond that.

 

[George-ananda]

I do not agree with that at all. There is not mythological support for such an argument either.

Mythological support? No non-dualism comes from the experiences of those that have quieted the active mind and experienced the base of reality.

What is ultimate reality? Is the Brahman stagnation, then? If you can't answer any of these questions, then how can any two people experience the same thing?

Brahman is pure being-awareness-bliss. The universe is his creative emanation (which is really the opposite of stagnation).

How does one even 'realize' this?

Through various practices traditionally the devotional, meditative, and knowledge paths called yogas.

 

[YmirGF]

Well, to be quite honest, oneness/herd mentality is very susceptible to malignant delusion that can spread quite rapidly within the collective. Greed, hatred, and delusion can overcome individuals' minds and can rapidly spread throughout the collective from individual to individual.

Sentience is based upon having a subjective mind which can be conceptually separated from "objective reality" whereby abstract thinking can occur. Therefore, non-delusional intellect requires a strong ability to discern between subjective abstraction and objective reality.

This is a very high quality post, imho. @crossfire

The sweet spot is that this nicely fits into my own views on the subject. For "objective" reality to be perceived an occultation in perception would HAVE to occur regardless of perceptions of inherent Oneness. Perhaps it is a peculiarity of our type of consciousness that allows the dual perspective to exist harmoniously and seamlessly. Aside from this, I still am at logger heads with the popular notion of being "one with The Universe" but have no problem with the idea of "being at one with the universe of the self (the larger identity)". My strange view offers an important difference and distinction.

Given the extents of "self", as seen by the "larger identity", it is little wonder that many THINK they are looking at The Universe! As they tend to underestimate the extent of personality itself and confuse its enormity with All That Is.

 

[SpiritQuest]

What you're describing sounds like being in a tranquil state and nothing beyond that.

Yes, the word tranquility can certainly be included as a part of the description for that which cannot be completely enunciated and communicated via spoken language.

Consciousness is the final frontier...

Consciousness : The Final Frontier
Synopsis: The exploration of inner space, our own consciousness, is ultimately connected to our discovery of outer space. Just as the world becomes a smaller place with increase in communication and transport technology, so the universe becomes a smaller place with the increase in meditation technology!

 

[crossfire]

This is a very high quality post, imho. @crossfire

The sweet spot is that this nicely fits into my own views on the subject. For "objective" reality to be perceived an occultation in perception would HAVE to occur regardless of perceptions of inherent Oneness. Perhaps it is a peculiarity of our type of consciousness that allows the dual perspective to exist harmoniously and seamlessly. Aside from this, I still am at logger heads with the popular notion of being "one with The Universe" but have no problem with the idea of "being at one with the universe of the self (the larger identity)". My strange view offers an important difference and distinction.

Given the extents of "self", as seen by the "larger identity", it is little wonder that many THINK they are looking at The Universe! As they tend to underestimate the extent of personality itself and confuse its enormity with All That Is.

Isn't refusing to propagate greed, hatred, and delusion into the collective actually participating in the larger identity? ("The buck stops here" sort of thing?)

 

[1137]

I've been looking for the such arguments against these concepts and haven't found much.

I have been debating many concepts lately, and oneness and the ego have come up quite often with Buddhists and some Hindu philosophy.

I am wholly against the idea of 'becoming one with the universe' as I do not believe one becomes 'one' with anything without sacrificing who or what they are. The concept of being one does not seem plausible to me, so I would like arguments made in that case to back up my position.

Sorry for the vague-ness of this post, I'm in a hurry.

I believe the theory of forms to be sound, and it argues for a type of pluralism. Simply the mind not being reducible to the brain gives us two separate things right there, rejecting oneness. We can know our isolate self directly, "I exist" is an axiomatic statement. To reject the self is then to contradict logic, and oneness does not allow for "I exist" to be anything more than illusion.

 

[YmirGF]

Isn't refusing to propagate greed, hatred, and delusion into the collective actually participating in the larger identity? ("The buck stops here" sort of thing?)

Certainly, it would be, even if done somewhat innocently and not consciously. IE. The individual just does the "right" thing due to their inherent nature.