The Buddha Explains Universal Mind

[godnotgod]

So you don't know what "Cosmic Consciousness" is? Why do you keep going on about something if you don't know what it is?

Not to worry. My Grand Master knows all, sees all. As I said, the moment he reveals the secret of secrets to me, I shall be here, Johnny on the Spot to provide you with your request.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Not to worry. My Grand Master knows all, sees all. As I said, the moment he reveals the secret of secrets to me, I shall be here, Johnny on the Spot to provide you with your request.

So can I ask him direct? Will he be preaching this Sunday at the Church of Cosmic Consciousness?

 

[godnotgod]

So can I ask him direct? Will he be preaching this Sunday at the Church of Cosmic Consciousness?

Of course! His name is His Holiness, Rev. SpinDoc Normy. You can ask him directly and kiss his feet if you wish.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nonduality means "not two" or "no preference." You let go of like and dislike. (not two) Reality is then unbiased by attachment or aversion. Nondual does not mean One. It means "not two." (See the Ch'an Hsin Hsin Ming)

some snippets:
The Great Way is not difficult, for those who have no preferences.
Let go of longing and aversion, and it reveals itself.
Make the smallest distinction, however, and you are as far from it as heaven is from earth.
If you want to realize the truth, then hold no opinions for or against anything.
Like and dislike is the disease of the mind.
When the deep meaning (of the Way) is not understood the intrinsic peace of mind is disturbed.

<...>

Although all dualities arise from the One, do not cling even to this One.
​

Ah...at last we are close to resolving this long lasting exchange....The Verses of the Faith Mind is a teaching for seekers....all teachings about non-duality are metaphorical fingers pointing to the way of oneness....when I say that it is necessary to still the mind....it is a metaphorical finger pointing at the moon...

But before we can proceed...we need to correct an error of understanding....in your first paragraph you say..."Nondual does not mean One"....but in your last sentence, you say.."Although all dualities arise from the One....." Seriously...of course the concept of non-duality means precisely the same thing as one....yes?

Next you say.."...do not cling even to this One." Here we agree....but do you not see that that you can not cling to the One...for a clinger and that clinged to implies duality... Clinging to the One is an oxymoron....what you really mean is...do not cling to the concept of One...






.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Of course! His name is His Holiness, Rev. SpinDoc Normy. You can ask him directly and kiss his feet if you wish.

Oh how quaint! But seriously I am still waiting for your definition of "Cosmic Consciousness" and your explanation of how it differs from Advaita. Surely you can provide this basic information about your belief system. Something clear and succinct, free from random quotes and video clips. I'm looking forward to it!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

While we wait here is a squirrel experiencing non-duality, becoming one with his nut:

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And a piglet experiencing "Cosmic Consciousness" TM

 

[crossfire]

But Mara is still of the dual mind; of the particular mind, because here there is still the notion of 'self and other', in this case, 'Mara'. Isn't Mara actually just a projection of the self onto an 'external' image?

...and "Universal Mind" isn't just another dualistic label preferred by some? (Attachment and aversion being the duality?)
I see Maara as the cultural egregore. (I came across some Tibetan texts about creating tulpas that referred to the collective thought form as a Maara and as an egregore, which confirmed my suspicion of Maara being the memetic collective herd mentality/egregore of a given population, as Maara always speaks through another, never directly, and can jump from person to person.) As for Maara being a projection of self onto an "external image:" this might fit the Tibetan creation of a tulpa, if there is a collective of minds doing so. However, Buddha stressed that the means by which one resists Maara is by becoming a strong individual who has good self-control. (Dhammapada 1 is one text that comes to mind regarding this.)

 

[crossfire]

Our true nature is that of the universe itself. There is no difference. We have always been one with the universe, whether we think ourselves as a distinct self or not.

I agree that we are all interconnected. However, this interconnectedness does not necessarily constitute "Universal Consciousness."

 

[crossfire]

Ah...at last we are close to resolving this long lasting exchange....The Verses of the Faith Mind is a teaching for seekers....all teachings about non-duality are metaphorical fingers pointing to the way of oneness....when I say that it is necessary to still the mind....it is a metaphorical finger pointing at the moon...

But before we can proceed...we need to correct an error of understanding....in your first paragraph you say..."Nondual does not mean One"....but in your last sentence, you say.."Although all dualities arise from the One....." Seriously...of course the concept of non-duality means precisely the same thing as one....yes?

Next you say.."...do not cling even to this One." Here we agree....but do you not see that that you can not cling to the One...for a clinger and that clinged to implies duality... Clinging to the One is an oxymoron....what you really mean is...do not cling to the concept of One...






.

"Clinging" is longing or attachment, no? The first few verses of the Hsin Hsin Ming refer to letting go of the duality of longing and aversion, no? {attachment/aversion is duality. Letting go of attachment/aversion would then be non-dual in this respect.}

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I agree that we are all interconnected.

In what sense?

 

[YmirGF]

Non-dual in the religious context means unity....no out of this world or in the world, no subject or object, no seer or seen, no inner or outer, no here or there, no past or future, no god or not god, no I or not I, no you or not you....got the picture?

In a religious context? Why would I give a crap about a dogmatic religious context, Ben? You asked me for my definition. I told you... and you seek to "correct" me, LOL. That is too rich... Obviously, you cannot fathom what I tried to express. Got the picture?

 

[YmirGF]

Oh, is it? Let's travel further down into the subatomic world, where all of the mass of the atom is constantly being created and recreated by fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs fields as virtual mass. As virtual mass, it means that all 'physical' reality is virtual reality.

But the point of the metaphor is that, like the drop of water, we have no real individual identity as the self. What we call 'self' is a collection of past experiences, images, titles, achievements, etc. that we freeze into a concoction we think is our 'self', when, in fact, it is pure illusion. Only the consciousness behind the mask of the self is real. It is not born; it does not die. It is outside of time or space. That is its nature.

No, godnotgod, let's get something straight. What you call self. You have to remember that I DO NOT see self as being an illusion so your assertions above are relatively meaningless to me. Is that clear enough?

 

[crossfire]

In what sense?

Dependent co-arising, as well as the fact that we can interact and communicate with each other.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I agree that we are all interconnected. However, this interconnectedness does not necessarily constitute "Universal Consciousness."

Too bad not everyone realises the case as it plays out.
.
Easily demonstrated using a room, table, chairs,
drinks, and a chess board (or checkers) and a good buddy.

or

Threads like this.




.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No...non-duality or oneness can only mean the absence of duality...pure unity...one without a second...

Whenever I walk to my zafu and sit down, I make a distinct realisation that my legs have suddenly dissapeard. There are no more legs. Then I get up and walk away.

 

[atanu]

I don't whoheartly disagree with the words of your Guru Shri Ramana in principle in your response here to YmirGF , yet it seems there is a persistent point being made by way of establishment. Mainly in refrencing one's true nature through the lens of static universalism.


Universalim is a deterministic position even if taken in a context by which it's identified to be hence "universal."

To explain a bit as to where I'm coming from, try examining the application of fractals based on consistency through mathematics. It eventually becomes quite an eye opener by which the static notion of universalism coincides, and arguably is simultaneous through dynamics involving fluidity. There is a distinctive correlation involving. the use of fractal mathematics and what is directly present in nature.

That's primarily why I don't share in any type of notion involving statisity through a permanent unchanging venue as many of the arguments allegedly have put forth and maintained.

I don't know so many words. I know that different stages of meditation provides different levels of succour to mind for different periods -- shorter or longer. The freedom, called Nirvana in Buddhism and Moksha in Hinduism, however, is attained only and only on abidance as the unborn.

Some may like to attribute tsunami like changefulness to the UNBORN. IT IS THEIR MIND.

 

[atanu]

Say what? You really are serious, aren't you. LOL.

Who said he was right though? Can it not been seen as a somewhat dogmatic insistence? You make it sound as if it is beyond question that the musings of Vivekananda are concrete truths, proven beyond a shadow of doubt. It's just the thoughts of yet another, less than stellar, guru foaming at the mouth to his nodding followers.
.

Ha ha. You are the only one who is right, though. Ha.

 

[YmirGF]

Ha ha. You are the only one who is right, though. Ha.

I rarely claim to be right, Atanu. That doesn't mean that I cannot see through weak ideas when I see them.

 

[atanu]

I rarely claim to be right, Atanu. That doesn't mean that I cannot see through weak ideas when I see them.

That is correct. It is one thing to find error in someone's understanding of Vivekananda's teachings. And it is another matter to claim that Vivenkananda was Guru frothing in his mouth.

I have often seen some poster erroneously use name of some Guru to support his pet notions. But that does not mean that the cited Guru needs to be trashed.