• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Buddha Explains Universal Mind

atanu

Member
Premium Member
It does in the important sense that non-duality is a meditative experience and not some trans-dimensional, ultimate reality cosmic consciousness thingy.

IMO. The consciousness that runs through discernments -- of the skandhas and also of absence of skandhas, can be called transcendental. As air pervades all objects yet is distinct from all objects, the skandha free consciousness reveals all objects yet is distinct.

Suppose, all aggregate based consciousness falls away for you. What happens?
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Of course I read the post. :)

I wasn't arguing against what he taught, but was translating it into terms that I use. The later half of the post was in regards to those in this thread who minimize the importance of the self, in general, and the ego-oriented self in particular.

I agree. They only succeed in asserting a self more strongly.I fully agree with you here.

I understand that, it is one thing for Buddha to teach of ultimate selflessness. It is another thing for an ego being to assert absence of ego self, when it is plain to see that all actions for such individuals are propelled by the very self they are trying to negate.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
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!

I would love to, Oh His Holiness On High, but, alas, CC is not a belief system, contrary to your belief that it is, Oh Poor Deluded Grand Master of Pure Nothingness.:p
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
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?

Nope! I have defined 'self' as an illusory concept; now you show me how it can be real.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
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?

The universe, or Reality, is not about how you see it, but about how it sees you. It is obvious that you fiercely cling to a personal view of Reality, just as a fundie says: 'you have your beliefs, and I have mine', but that is a cop-out. The fact is that you have your beliefs, and then there is Reality.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
...and "Universal Mind" isn't just another dualistic label preferred by some?

Of course, anything can be that, but there is the description, and then there is the described. They, of course, are not the same.

First there is a mountain;
then there is no mountain;
then there is.
 

godnotgod

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

g09olvypbz51.jpg

There is no 'becoming' anything. The squirrel is neither experiencing duality nor non-duality. There is no experiencer of the experience, only the experience itself, as what you call 'squirrel' and 'nut' are a single experience that cannot be named or described, and in reality, is THAT experiencing itself as 'squirrel', just as THAT is experiencing itself as you and I, and as the entire Universe. Hence:


'The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'
Vivekenada
 
Last edited:

godnotgod

Thou art That
I understand that, it is one thing for Buddha to teach of ultimate selflessness. It is another thing for an ego being to assert absence of ego self, when it is plain to see that all actions for such individuals are propelled by the very self they are trying to negate.

nice clarification.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
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.
I stand rightfully chastised, Atanu. I let my frustration with a user colour my description of the guru in question. I should have shot my arrow with greater precision.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Nope! I have defined 'self' as an illusory concept; now you show me how it can be real.
Oh, I see, it is perfectly reasonable for you to assert something, but I must show my proof. Brilliant thinking.
What you probably don't understand is that my current ideas of personality grew out of my period when I was enmeshed in Vaisnava thought.
I certainly don't pretend to be right, though I am reasonably confident that I am, by and large, on the right track.
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
Right, in short, what we have been referring to as 'Universal Consciousness'. So you admit UC to be a reality.

No, that wasn't what I said or meant.

I'm still waiting for your definition of "Cosmic Consciousness", or is it "Universal Consciousness" now?

It's very strange that you won't provide a clear definition of "Cosmic Consciousness" because it seems to be at the core of your belief system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
Suppose, all aggregate based consciousness falls away for you. What happens?

Consciousness is one of the aggregates so I don't understand your question. Do you mean the consciousness of the sense bases falling away as in meditation, and if so are you including the mind sense-base?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
"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.}
Reflect on what you are saying....what is to let go of attachment? ..There is the non-dual reality in the one hand....and the 'I' that is attached on the other....two things! For there to be absolute non-duality, one of these two must disappear....which one? The 'I' that is attached of course! How does the 'I' that is clinging disappear? When the mind ceases thought...the 'I' does not arise in the mind and bingo....pure non-dual awareness is present...

Do you understand....it is the 'you' that is attached or not attached, is clinging or not clinging, that is the cause of duality....it is you who must cease to exist (not permanently of course} for the non-duality that the first few verses of the Hsin Hsin Ming is pointing to will be realized...
 
Top