user13763: As I was meditating this morning I asked myself the question, "If I am destroyed would the universe also be destroyed?". I answered, "No." Then I asked, "If the universe was destroyed, would I be destroyed?" I answered, "Yes."
My question: how are I and the universe one in the same if I depend upon it, but it does not depend on me? 
Disclaimer: I am completely new to Buddhism (less than 5 months of practice)

user254: I think that a Buddhist view is that thoughts of self aren't helpful and lead to suffering.
This includes thoughts like:

"I exist"
"I don't exist"
"I am what I see"
"I am something other than what I see"
etc.

I think this doctrine is called or summarised as anatta (i.e. "not self" or "non-self").
One of the "wrong views" related to that is Sakkaya Ditthi, for example mistaking "form" for self or "perception" for self etc.
See topics on this site, like, How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?

Then the question of whether or not the universe continues might be one of The unanswered questions -- see MN 63 and MN 72 for details.

how are I and the universe one in the same if I depend upon it, but it does not depend on me?
I think Buddhist doctrine is that the "aggregates" exist.
I'm not sure there's a universe apart from these aggregates.
It could also be argued (see e.g. "Sabba Sutta") that what exists is what's perceived by the senses (including the so-called "sixth" sense i.e. "the intellect").
That doctrine might sound (or might risk being) solipsistic, except that solipsism is an example of just the kind of "self view" or "I-making" that Buddhism warns against.

What I wrote above is more-or-less philosophical or metaphysical.
I think there's more to Buddhism that that (i.e. than metaphysics), e.g. Buddhism teaches ethics and generosity (and, perhaps, avoiding getting trapped in sensuality).

Also you might be making a category error when you talk about "the universe" -- is there any such single thing?
Instead I think that Buddhism teaches that things are "dependently originated": they exist when they're caused or when the right conditions exist.
This dependent origination is true for forms and true for sensations too.
Saying that "the universe is independent" may be a mistake, instead everything in the universe may itself be "dependently originated" (and therefore "empty" in the sunyata sense of that term).

user-1: There is a technical conflict between your question and Buddhist world view because of the doctrine of 'no-self' but there is an easy way to understand your koan.
how are I and the universe one in the same if I depend upon it, but it does not depend on me?
Think of yourself as a drop in the Ocean, the drop depends on the ocean for its existance if the drop evaporates ocean is still there but if the entire ocean evaporates the drop evaporate too....
So how can how can the drop and the ocean one in the same?
Because, how can you ever save the drop from getting evaporated...
By dissolving it in the Ocean.
That is so...
Does the dog has Buddha nature?
Joshu said ," Mu"

user8157: I never read Buddhism teaches you & the universe are one. This sounds like Hinduism.

user13375: First of all, the material parts of you cannot be utterly destroyed ie., made non-existent. The physical universe is governed by the laws of conservation of matter and energy. What does this mean? It means that the total amount of matter/energy in the universe cannot be altered, just rearranged in different forms.
So if you were destroyed all that would happen to the universe is that it would be in a different arrangement of matter and energy. However, this is what happens for every moment of the universe. It is constantly in flux. No moment of the universe is the same as any other moment. The universe is constantly rearranging itself from moment to moment.
The truth of the matter is that you are a part of the universe in the same way that your nose is a part of your body. Consider: if your nose was destroyed would your body also be destroyed? If your body was destroyed would your nose be as well? No and yes, right? However, can you alter one without altering the other? No. They are interdependent in this way. The same is true of you and the universe. And richly so... the interdependencies go far beyond this trivial level. See if you can't figure out some other interdependencies :)

In general, we sentient beings are absurdly overly confident in our own independence. Truthfully, we are so utterly dependent that any notion of independence is really foolish and comical. :)
Consider the ways in which you are dependent upon others... You are dependent on your mother, father, and their mothers, fathers, etc, going back (at least) millions of generations for your very life. Each one of those people was dependent upon myriad acts and people to sustain their lives long enough to produce offspring that eventually produced you. You depend upon countless people to produce the supply chains of food for your daily nourishment. You depend on countless construction workers and supply chains for your daily shelter. The water you drink is made possible by countless engineers and people responsible for maintaining the aquaducts and reservoirs used to provide fresh water. When you go to the grocer you depend upon all the people who worked to stock those shelves and produce the food and the packaging and the huge supply chains that went into it. Your clothing is produced by the people working the fields for cotton and other fibers. The machines used to harvest that fiber was itself designed and manufactured - by engineers and inventors - and required ore and other raw materials that itself took huge supply chains to produce. All the people above were similarly dependent on their parents for their lives. And all were dependent upon education in the various trades on their teachers. The teachers were also dependent through and through. The dependency graph is so thorough with so many nodes utterly replete with dependency that it boggles the mind!
That bug in china and you are not one. You are separate beings. However, both of you are utterly suffused with dependency and there are undoubtedly countless nodes in common between the dependency graph of that bug and your own dependency graph. It takes just a little imagination to come up with numbers of ways in which your story and that bug's are interrelated and mutually dependent.
Maybe, "you cannot alter one without altering the other" is not the definition of interdependent, but it sure seems a necessary condition! Any two things where you can truthfully say, "you cannot alter one without altering the other" you can be darn sure are interdependent :)

Another way of thinking about your question is trying to understand the relationship between a whole and the parts that make it up. Consider a car. Is a car dependent upon the things that make it up? Does the car depend upon the tires? Does it depend upon the brakes? Does it depend upon the windshield? The engine?
Say you start taking parts away from a car... at what point or at what part that you take away does it make the car no longer a car? This is a great question to consider and has been contemplated very deeply by Buddhist masters for thousands of years. Of course, earlier generations of Buddhists considered chariots not cars. The greeks considered ships.  What's your answer? :)
Hope this helps!

13763: <p>As I was meditating this morning I asked myself the question, "If I am destroyed would the universe also be destroyed?". I answered, "No." Then I asked, "If the universe was destroyed, would I be destroyed?" I answered, "Yes."</p>

<p>My question: how are I and the universe one in the same if I depend upon it, but it does not depend on me? </p>

<p>Disclaimer: I am completely new to Buddhism (less than 5 months of practice)</p>
 254: <p>I think that a Buddhist view is that thoughts of self aren't helpful and lead to suffering.</p>

<p>This includes thoughts like:</p>

<ul>
<li>"I exist"</li>
<li>"I don't exist"</li>
<li>"I am what I see"</li>
<li>"I am something other than what I see"</li>
<li>etc.</li>
</ul>

<p>I think this doctrine is called or summarised as <a href="/questions/tagged/anatta" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;anatta&#39;" rel="tag">anatta</a> (i.e. "not self" or "non-self").</p>

<p>One of the "wrong views" related to that is <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/sakkaya-ditthi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sakkaya Ditthi</a>, for example mistaking "form" for self or "perception" for self etc.</p>

<p>See topics on this site, like, <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/15898/254">How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn&#39;t?</a></p>

<hr>

<p>Then the question of whether or not the universe continues might be one of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The unanswered questions</a> -- see <a href="https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 63</a> and <a href="https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 72</a> for details.</p>

<hr>

<p><strong>how are I and the universe one in the same if I depend upon it, but it does not depend on me?</strong></p>

<p>I think Buddhist doctrine is that the "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha" rel="nofollow noreferrer">aggregates</a>" exist.</p>

<p>I'm not sure there's a universe apart from these aggregates.</p>

<p>It could also be argued (see e.g. "<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sabba Sutta</a>") that what exists is what's perceived by the senses (including the so-called "sixth" sense i.e. "the intellect").</p>

<p>That doctrine might sound (or might risk being) solipsistic, except that solipsism is an example of just the kind of "self view" or "<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">I-making</a>" that Buddhism warns against.</p>

<hr>

<p>What I wrote above is more-or-less philosophical or metaphysical.</p>

<p>I think there's more to Buddhism that that (i.e. than metaphysics), e.g. Buddhism teaches ethics and generosity (and, perhaps, avoiding getting trapped in sensuality).</p>

<hr>

<p>Also you might be making a category error when you talk about "the universe" -- is there any such single thing?</p>

<p>Instead I think that Buddhism teaches that things are "dependently originated": they exist when they're caused or when the right conditions exist.</p>

<p>This dependent origination is true for forms and true for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatana" rel="nofollow noreferrer">sensations</a> too.</p>

<p>Saying that "the universe is independent" may be a mistake, instead everything in the universe may itself be "dependently originated" (and therefore "empty" in the <a href="/questions/tagged/sunyata" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;sunyata&#39;" rel="tag">sunyata</a> sense of that term).</p>
 -1: <p>There is a technical conflict between your question and Buddhist world view because of the doctrine of 'no-self' but there is an easy way to understand your koan.</p>

<p>how are I and the universe one in the same if I depend upon it, but it does not depend on me?</p>

<p>Think of yourself as a drop in the Ocean, the drop depends on the ocean for its existance if the drop evaporates ocean is still there but if the entire ocean evaporates the drop evaporate too....</p>

<p>So how can how can the drop and the ocean one in the same?</p>

<p>Because, how can you ever save the drop from getting evaporated...</p>

<p>By dissolving it in the Ocean.</p>

<p>That is so...</p>

<p>Does the dog has Buddha nature?</p>

<p>Joshu said ," Mu"</p>
 8157: <p>I never read Buddhism teaches you &amp; the universe are one. This sounds like Hinduism.</p>
 13375: <p>First of all, the material parts of you cannot be utterly destroyed ie., made non-existent. The physical universe is governed by the laws of conservation of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass" rel="nofollow noreferrer">matter</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">energy.</a> What does this mean? It means that the total amount of matter/energy in the universe cannot be altered, just rearranged in different forms.</p>

<p>So if <em>you</em> were destroyed all that would happen to the universe is that it would be in a different arrangement of matter and energy. However, this is what happens for every moment of the universe. It is constantly in flux. No moment of the universe is the same as any other moment. The universe is constantly rearranging itself from moment to moment.</p>

<p>The truth of the matter is that you are a part of the universe in the same way that your nose is a part of your body. Consider: if your nose was destroyed would your body also be destroyed? If your body was destroyed would your nose be as well? No and yes, right? However, can you alter one without altering the other? No. They are interdependent in this way. The same is true of you and the universe. And richly so... the interdependencies go far beyond this trivial level. See if you can't figure out some other interdependencies :)</p>

<hr>

<p>In general, we sentient beings are absurdly overly confident in our own independence. Truthfully, we are so <em>utterly dependent</em> that any notion of independence is really foolish and comical. :)</p>

<p>Consider the ways in which you are dependent upon others... You are dependent on your mother, father, and their mothers, fathers, etc, going back (at least) millions of generations for your very life. Each one of those people was dependent upon myriad acts and people to sustain their lives long enough to produce offspring that eventually produced you. You depend upon countless people to produce the supply chains of food for your daily nourishment. You depend on countless construction workers and supply chains for your daily shelter. The water you drink is made possible by countless engineers and people responsible for maintaining the aquaducts and reservoirs used to provide fresh water. When you go to the grocer you depend upon all the people who worked to stock those shelves and produce the food and the packaging and the huge supply chains that went into it. Your clothing is produced by the people working the fields for cotton and other fibers. The machines used to harvest that fiber was itself designed and manufactured - by engineers and inventors - and required ore and other raw materials that itself took huge supply chains to produce. All the people above were similarly dependent on their parents for their lives. And all were dependent upon education in the various trades on their teachers. The teachers were also dependent through and through. The dependency graph is so thorough with so many nodes utterly replete with dependency that it boggles the mind!</p>

<p>That bug in china and you are not one. You are separate beings. However, both of you are utterly suffused with dependency and there are <em>undoubtedly</em> countless nodes in common between the dependency graph of that bug and your own dependency graph. It takes just a little imagination to come up with numbers of ways in which your story and that bug's are interrelated and mutually dependent.</p>

<p>Maybe, "you cannot alter one without altering the other" is not the definition of interdependent, but it sure seems a necessary condition! Any two things where you can truthfully say, "you cannot alter one without altering the other" you can be darn sure are interdependent :)</p>

<hr>

<p>Another way of thinking about your question is trying to understand the relationship between a whole and the parts that make it up. Consider a car. Is a car dependent upon the things that make it up? Does the car depend upon the tires? Does it depend upon the brakes? Does it depend upon the windshield? The engine?</p>

<p>Say you start taking parts away from a car... at what point or at what <em>part that you take away</em> does it make the car no longer a car? This is a great question to consider and has been contemplated very deeply by Buddhist masters for thousands of years. Of course, earlier generations of Buddhists considered chariots not cars. The greeks considered <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ships.</a>  What's your answer? :)</p>

<p>Hope this helps!</p>
