I’ve known about different schools of thought that teach about ‘all being one’ and others that teach separation.
And although from certain perspective there can seem to be conflict, from others there don’t have to be.
The problem is that in talking about ‘being separate’ or in ‘being one’ things are often not adequately defined. Being one with what and being separate from what, and above all whom?
I have found liberation in knowing that I -as spirit- am separate from matter (my body in particular). And no matter how ‘one’ I could become with it, I wouldn’t get better.
And I have also found liberation in realizing ‘other’ things are part of who I am. And that separating from them created troublesome conditions.
It is a matter of perspective, each time, and the borders can be thin.
I don’t think we are all one. For ‘one’ implies a material unit. I don’t think God is a unit, leave alone a material unit. I don’t think we are incomplete pieces of a whole, either.
That’s thinking in terms of the material universe. But when we talk about that which precended any universe, materialistic logic, mathematics do not apply. And this language is inadequate to express it, as well.
Is it vastly different to consider oneself as part of something, and to consider all to be part of complete being. That complete being doesn’t have to be a unit. It could be units. It could be nothing, it could be anything.