user14336: Very respectfully,i am very much new to this community but have always been interested in Buddhism. I know some people who are Buddhist and they often talk about being one with the universe or being the part of it, literally. How does that work? I mean are we born from universe and when we say the word "universe", what exactly do we mean?

user-1: "I mean are we born from universe and when we say the word "universe", what exactly do we mean?
The idea (or what is discovered) is that we are in a sense born from the universe (in a way this is obvious) but it may be better to say we are the universe. It could even be said we are not born at all. Even the statement 'we are' would be denied.  
If 'Universe' means 'all that exists' then this is not a Buddhist meaning of the word since it would leave out the source of existence. This source would real where all else would be created thus not metaphysically or independently real. The Buddhist 'universe' is bigger than the universe of physics since it includes the totality of Reality and Appearance or both of Nagarjuna's 'two worlds', but also smaller since space-time and its contents would be reducible. 
Hence the Buddhist Universe is a fundamental concept where the scientific concept is non-reductive. This would be why Buddhism has a coherent metaphysic while physics cannot find one. How we define 'universe' is therefore important. If we follow the scientists and say it is 'all that exists' we will have no hope of a fundamental world-theory. 

user13709: You may in fact be asking about "identity view", which is a key concept in the suttas:

For a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘identity’, so how could identity view possibly arise in them? --MN64

With identity view (i.e., "I am") comes a host of problems. Indeed, you might say that we get a "universe of suffering". MN64 discusses identity view at length. For example, with the notion of self and a corresponding need to perpetuate self (e.g., "I like chocolate") comes suffering (e.g., "GIVE ME CHOCOLATE NOW!").
Without identity view there is no longer a gap between a self and the universe. The self is found to be the gap, the hiccup, the breach in existence. Without identity view there is equanimity, which is often what folks generally mean when they say "one with the universe."

‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, cessation, extinguishment.

There still is chocolate. But the happiness of eating chocolate is no longer a mandate of craving. If you eat the last chocolate, fine. The last chocolate is eaten.

14336: <p>Very respectfully,i am very much new to this community but have always been interested in Buddhism. I know some people who are Buddhist and they often talk about being one with the universe or being the part of it, literally. How does that work? I mean are we born from universe and when we say the word "universe", what exactly do we mean?</p>
 -1: <p><em>"I mean are we born from universe and when we say the word "universe", what exactly do we mean?</em></p>

<p>The idea (or what is discovered) is that we are in a sense born from the universe (in a way this is obvious) but it may be better to say we are the universe. It could even be said we are not born at all. Even the statement 'we are' would be denied.  </p>

<p>If 'Universe' means 'all that exists' then this is not a Buddhist meaning of the word since it would leave out the source of existence. This source would real where all else would be created thus not metaphysically or independently real. The Buddhist 'universe' is bigger than the universe of physics since it includes the totality of Reality and Appearance or both of Nagarjuna's 'two worlds', but also smaller since space-time and its contents would be reducible. </p>

<p>Hence the Buddhist Universe is a fundamental concept where the scientific concept is non-reductive. This would be why Buddhism has a coherent metaphysic while physics cannot find one. How we define 'universe' is therefore important. If we follow the scientists and say it is 'all that exists' we will have no hope of a fundamental world-theory. </p>
 13709: <p>You may in fact be asking about "identity view", which is a key concept in the suttas:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>For a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘identity’, so how could identity view possibly arise in them? --<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn64/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN64</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>With identity view (i.e., "I am") comes a host of problems. Indeed, you might say that we get a "universe of suffering". MN64 discusses identity view at length. For example, with the notion of self and a corresponding need to perpetuate self (e.g., "I like chocolate") comes suffering (e.g., "GIVE ME CHOCOLATE NOW!").</p>

<p>Without identity view there is no longer a gap between a self and the universe. The self is found to be the gap, the hiccup, the breach in existence. Without identity view there is equanimity, which is often what folks generally mean when they say "one with the universe."</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, cessation, extinguishment.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There still is chocolate. But the happiness of eating chocolate is no longer a mandate of craving. If you eat the last chocolate, fine. The last chocolate is eaten.</p>
