The Buddha Explains Universal Mind

[atanu]

Again I don't really understand the question since in my understanding the aggregates encompass human experience.

If you could just say clearly what you think, then I can respond to it.

In the Buddhist suttas self-view arises because of identification with the aggregates, thinking of them as me or mine, eg "my thoughts", "my feelings", "my body".

Okay. When the self view does not arise due to non-identification with the aggregates what remains or what is discerned?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Okay. When the self view does not arise due to non-identification with the aggregates what remains or what is discerned?

Just experience. "In the seen, just the seen" as the Bahiya Sutta puts it.

 

[Makaranda]

I was not talking about dualist schools....I was talking about non-duality and the illusion of duality... Of course there are many people who claim all sorts of things...but so what....stories involving vanity and delusion are ubiquitous... Has your mind in meditation ever been completely free from thought?

I think perhaps you missed my point. You have claimed that stilling the mind leads to an understanding of the non-duality of reality. I replied that this is not (necessarily) the case. Why? Because the experience itself is neutral; it does not declare itself as either dual nor non-dual. We interpret the experience accordingly in conformity with our knowledge. A proof for this is the Yoga school. In yoga, the goal is kaivalya, isolation of the self (Purusha) from insentient matter (Prakriti). This is achieved through eight steps, culminating finally in samadhi, which is basically equivalent to the silencing of the mind. According to you, the Yogi should then understand the non-duality of all things, but, on the contrary, the Yogi asserts that he is eternally separated from Prakriti, which has equal ontological status. Further, he states that there are countless Purushas. Therefore, according to Yoga, in the final analysis, there is a duality of vastus, and your claim cannot possibly be true.

Hence, you cant appeal to any kind of mystical experience as proof of non-duality (or some kind of "Cosmic Consciousness"). A buddhist can silence the mind, a Yogi can, a Vedantin can, an atheist can, anybody skilled enough can, but it reveals nothing about the way things actually are, because every body will interpret the experience differently. This is why I think the Buddhists in here are taking issue with what you are saying. You are extrapolating a viewpoint from a neutral experience. Your interpretation truly comes from outside, from some teaching or other that you have heard. That is fine, but you cannot claim the experience all for yourself. Others see it differently.

Thus the experience is redundant by itself, since it is not a means for knowing anything (pramana). In other words, enlightenment (let us define it between us as a recognition of non-duality) does not come by any particular experience (alone), but by clear knowledge. This is delivered through competent upadesha from a qualified teacher, utilising the appropriate methodology for removing doubts and backed up by flawless reasoning. Its not just about having no thoughts. If it was I would recommend going to sleep, or hitting yourself on the head with a hammer.

And yes, my mind is frequently in samadhi.

-Edited

 

[atanu]

Just experience. "In the seen, just the seen" as the Bahiya Sutta puts it.

As we are talking of discernment beyond the aggregates, I ask, how can experience be had in absence of the aggregates, when such a situation is supposed to be devoid of consciousness?

1. In Buddhist phenomenology and soteriology, the skandhas (Sanskrit) or khandhas (Pāḷi), aggregates in English, are the five functions or aspects that constitute the sentient being: matter, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness.

What does 'Just the seen' mean? 'Just the seen' is all so different for different body-minds. Is the above meaningful as such in isolation? Or are you also referring to the full Bahiya sutta?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think anyone can at least approach stillness using meditative techniques such as Zazen for instance, and can be practiced any time anywhere regardless of life disposition.

That's true not only for Zen practice...but for all serious religious practice if sincerity of heart is present in the practitioner...non-dual nature has a way of correcting the errors of self identification with form...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Pot calling kettle black.....

Who asked the peanut gallery?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You have claimed that stilling the mind leads to an understanding of the non-duality of reality. I replied that this is not (necessarily) the case. Why? Because the experience itself is neutral; it does not declare itself as either dual nor non-dual.

And yes, my mind is frequently in samadhi.

I did not claim that stilling the mind leads to the understanding of non-duality....I say that stilling the mind leads to the realization of non-duality.. Non-duality is not an experience...but if that is your claim...what is experiencing it?

Samadhi means different things to different traditions....what is your definition?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You are extrapolating a viewpoint from a neutral experience. Your interpretation truly comes from outside, from some teaching or other that you have heard. That is fine, but you cannot claim the experience all for yourself. Others see it differently.

Well said. That's very much the impression I have, and I've described it as objectifying the subjective.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ben thanks. But see that we have very very still mind in sleep yet no one becomes enlightened by sleep alone.

I agree that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is an essential experience for attaining the non dual knowledge. But non dual knowledge is not same as stilling the mind.

For example, you are now arguing in a very dual environment. Does not that, as is ought to be inferred by your own standard, mean that your non duality has deserted you?

Thus, I reiterate that non duality is not equal to a stilled mind. But an unbroken abidance in the knowledge that one's nature is same as "unborn -unparted" nirvana or moksha or sachidanand, whether under stilled mind condition or not, is the result of attaining non-dual knowledge.

Of course....there is no non-duality in time or space...I didn't pretend otherwise...I have only been using time space reality to tell you that never in all eternity will it be found here...and that transcending the mind's identification with form is the way to realize non-duality...

Of course no one realizes the Turiya state in sleep... but the dreaming sleep is nearer to enlightenment than awake state, and dreamless state than dreaming, and the turiya state than dreamless... As a results of persistent still mind meditation practice....the unfoldment through the mind states to the Turiya progresses until realization in the waking state...

You are playing games...I have never claimed I am enlightened...and I certainly have made it absolutely clear that conceptualization about stilling the mind is the opposite of actual stilling the mind and non-duality...all I am saying on this forum is that if the realization of non-duality is what motivates you....don't waste excessive time here endlessly talking about it...turn the computer off and do something about it...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

As we are talking of discernment beyond the aggregates, I ask, how can experience be had in absence of the aggregates, when such a situation is supposed to be devoid of consciousness?

I still don't understand what you by "discernment beyond the aggregates" since the aggregates encompass human experience and consciousness is one of the aggregates. I thought we were talking about experience without self-view?

What exactly do you mean by "discernment" here? Are you talking about the bare function of cognition ( consciousness ), or are you talking about the process of perceiving and conceiving, or what exactly?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Who asked the peanut gallery?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Lol...

 

[atanu]

..... in my understanding the aggregates encompass human experience.

In the Buddhist suttas self-view arises because of identification with the aggregates, thinking of them as me or mine, eg "my thoughts", "my feelings", "my body".

Just experience. "In the seen, just the seen" as the Bahiya Sutta puts it.

I still don't understand what you by "discernment beyond the aggregates" since the aggregates encompass human experience......

What exactly do you mean by "discernment" here? .....

By discernment, I meant plain cognition. I had already asked you the following:

Atanu said:
As we are talking of discernment beyond the aggregates, I ask, how can experience be had in absence of the aggregates, when such a situation is supposed to be devoid of consciousness?

To clarify further, I am referring to Heart Sutra to make a point in respect of the term 'Cosmic Consciousness', which has been used in this thread and which some posters, including you, have shown great distaste to.

Below is reproduced two translations of same Heart Sutra passage:

"Therefore, in the Void There Are No Forms,
No Feelings, Perceptions, Volitions or Consciousness."

Or

“That is why in Emptiness,
Body, Feelings, Perceptions,
Mental Formations and Consciousness
are not separate self entities."

I am asking how Avalokitesvara cognises the void when it is devoid of the five aggregates, which includes consciousness (vijnana) also?

And if there is still the means of cognition present in the void, then will it be too erroneous to term it 'cosmic consciousness', especially since in void the personal identity and consciousness are gone?

 

[atanu]

....
You are playing games...I have never claimed I am enlightened...and I certainly have made it absolutely clear that conceptualization about stilling the mind is the opposite of actual stilling the mind and non-duality...all I am saying on this forum is that if the realization of non-duality is what motivates you....don't waste excessive time here endlessly talking about it...turn the computer off and do something about it...

Lol. Not playing games. Just trying to arrive at a common understanding. Sorry if you felt that I was playing games.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

“That is why in Emptiness,
Body, Feelings, Perceptions,
Mental Formations and Consciousness
are not separate self entities."
I am asking how Avalokitesvara cognises the void when it is devoid of the five aggregates, which includes consciousness (vijnana) also?

I think the Heart Sutra is pointing to the conditionality of the aggregates, their lack of essence or independent existence - that's what "form is emptiness" means. Clearly experience continues.

I don't see the Heart Sutra as supporting "Cosmic Consciousness", which sounds like a religious belief, a sort of new-age take on Advaita. I say "sounds like" because we still have no definition or clear explanation, despite my repeated requests.

 

[atanu]

I think the Heart Sutra is pointing to the conditionality of the aggregates, their lack of essence or independent existence - that's what "form is emptiness" means. Clearly experience continues, clearly there is still consciousness.
......

I think this would constitute a common understanding that all posters here may be willing to agree.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

This discussion is all very serious, any song requests?

 

[atanu]

 

[atanu]

I think the Heart Sutra is pointing to the conditionality of the aggregates, their lack of essence or independent existence - that's what "form is emptiness" means. Clearly experience continues, clearly there is still consciousness.
......

I repeat that this should be acceptable to all. I also take this opportunity to reiterate that translation of vijnana (knowledge based on subject - object division) as consciousness (as is vijnana tranlated in most english translations of Buddhist sutras) is fully correct. As prajnana (consciousness prior to subject-object division) is also consciousness.

I don't see the Heart Sutra as supporting "Cosmic Consciousness", which sounds like a religious belief, a sort of new-age take on Advaita. I say "sounds like" because we still have no definition or clear explanation, despite my repeated requests.

I agree. The Heart Sutra is talking of a consciousness beyond all aggregates, including all forms. Cosmos is form, so the consciousness of void is not same as the 'Cosmic Consciousness'. The so-called Cosmic Consciousness cannot also be a take on advaita, which teaches:

Katha Upanishad
15. 'The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor these lightnings, and much less this fire. When it shines, everything shines after it; by its light all this is lighted ...

(I have replaced 'he' by 'it' in above para in order not to offend delicate Buddhistic sensibilities.)

So, the consciousness that the Heart sutra points to or that which the Katha upanishad is pointing to is not 'Cosmic' in the sense that 'Cosmos' is a form -- an aggregate.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I agree. The Heart Sutra is talking of a consciousness beyond all aggregates, including all forms. Cosmos is form, so the consciousness of void is not same as the 'Cosmic Consciousness'.

I'm still not clear what you mean by a consciousness "beyond" the aggregates, given that consciousness is itself an aggregate.