The Buddha Explains Universal Mind

[Ben Dhyan]

Me? I was certain that I had a one on one with the Holy Spirit.

That is your normal dualistic mind...you and God...and is what would be expected initially. But God can only ever reveal God to God...so if your conceptual mind were to cease thinking of the ultimate reality as being external to itself..the possibility of merging results and if realized...there is only Oneness...non-dual reality.. Do you already understand this and thus say..."So whatever, I adopt non-dualism because it kind of make sense."?

 

[YmirGF]

Why do you think that such concepts as cosmic consciousness are designed to further a given narrative in the context of our exchanges and what exactly do you believe the purpose behind it is meant to achieve?

My first introduction to so-called "cosmic consciousness" was at the Transcendental Meditation Centre in Vancouver in 1974. "CC" was billed as the possible outcome to following a plan of regular meditation and observation to the other things on the TM menu as provided by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. It was a pretty slick sell and the Maharishi's personality was really the icing on the cake for me. I've never regretted spending the $125.00 Canadian for it.

My comment above is in a similar vein and is not necessarily a negative observation as a narrative is "a spoken or written account of connected events; a story." That story is not necessarily one that is "made up" though it certainly can be. I am meaning in the sense of the ongoing story given by yourself and godnotgod. It could be made up and it could be quite factual, from your standpoints, but I'm thinking it's likely a combination of the two due to the inherent difficulties of language in expressing these ideas. Hence, the repeated barking "at the moon".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

My first introduction to so-called "cosmic consciousness" was at the Transcendental Meditation Centre in Vancouver in 1974. "CC" was billed as the possible outcome to following a plan of regular meditation and observation to the other things on the TM menu as provided by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. It was a pretty slick sell and the Maharishi's personality was really the icing on the cake for me. I've never regretted spending the $125.00 Canadian for it.

My comment above is in a similar vein and is not necessarily a negative observation as a narrative is "a spoken or written account of connected events; a story." That story is not necessarily one that is "made up" though it certainly can be. I am meaning in the sense of the ongoing story given by yourself and godnotgod. It could be made up and it could be quite factual, from your standpoints, but I'm thinking it's likely a combination of the two due to the inherent difficulties of language in expressing these ideas. Hence, the repeated barking "at the moon".

Yeah....given your age...Maharishi, Yogananda, Jiddu Krishnamurti, and other eastern religious schools that were directed at the goal of union, rather than the goal of gaining dualistic heavenly salvation through merit.....were our introduction to non-duality....though speaking for myself....it was still a long way off in time before that became evident.. For, because of mind's dualistic expectations, these new teachers from the east merely replaced Jesus as the one who would help us realize truth...

A lot has happened in the mean time....but it is mostly vanity to talk about it.....everyone has their own story... What is important is humbly surrendering to the ultimate truth of what and who we really are. What is meant to be conveyed here on this thread is not the 'moon'...for it has been explained to you every time you imply such things as barking "at the moon", that non-duality can not be conveyed by duality....but that if duality is removed...what is left is non-duality... Now this explanation that....."non-duality can not be conveyed by duality....but that if duality is removed...what is left is non-duality.".......in the context of the metaphor "the finger pointing at the moon"....is not the moon, it's the finger pointing....got it?.

Now having said that, you are free to reject or dismiss this explanation out of hand without the need of explanation...but if you reject it because you claim the explanation is meant to provide some idea of what non-duality is....then your misconception will continued to be addressed...

 

[YmirGF]

Yeah....given your age...Maharishi, Yogananda, Jiddu Krishnamurti, and other eastern religious schools that were directed at the goal of union, rather than the goal of gaining dualistic heavenly salvation through merit.....were our introduction to non-duality....though speaking for myself....it was still a long way off in time before that became evident.. For, because of mind's dualistic expectations, these new teachers from the east merely replaced Jesus as the one who would help us realize truth...

A lot has happened in the mean time....but it is mostly vanity to talk about it.....everyone has their own story... What is important is humbly surrendering to the ultimate truth of what and who we really are. What is meant to be conveyed here on this thread is not the 'moon'...for it has been explained to you every time you imply such things as barking "at the moon", that non-duality can not be conveyed by duality....but that if duality is removed...what is left is non-duality... Now this explanation that....."non-duality can not be conveyed by duality....but that if duality is removed...what is left is non-duality.".......in the context of the metaphor "the finger pointing at the moon"....is not the moon, it's the finger pointing....got it?.

Now having said that, you are free to reject or dismiss this explanation out of hand without the need of explanation...but if you reject it because you claim the explanation is meant to provide some idea of what non-duality is....then your misconception will continued to be addressed...

That is heartening, Bed. I don't think I've ever disputed "the moon", but rather I dispute the narrative rendered thus far. We simply seem to have such wildly different views of what is perhaps the same thing - that it is endlessly amusing.

Yep, I remember Yogananda well, but it was more the stories about Babaji that caught my attention and those proved to be pivotal in my early excursions into inner reality.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Seems to be a strawman you have conjured up there NM....else your reading comprehension is impaired....please point to any example of denial of duality on thhis thread?

I could have sworn duality for awhile was a swear word or something like that. ........

Eh. My bad.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The practice of Buddhism, meditation, is all about consciousness. Without consciousness present by default, you cannot meditate, you cannot count your breaths, you cannot breathe, you cannot suffer, you cannot focus on suffering, you cannot find release from suffering, you cannot practice Buddhism.

No. Meditation is focusless. There is no central paradigm to speak of.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I could have sworn duality for awhile was a swear word or something like that. ........

Eh. My bad.

No...not at all is duality seen as something inappropriate for functioning in the material world....what is being said is that a mind functioning in the duality state can not apprehend non-duality. But there is no intent when saying this, that another should accept it on faith...the realization will come in due course as a natural unfoldment of mind...it does not require a preexisting belief...

 

[serp777]

I fail to see how a theory of the universal mind, which is untestable, unfalsifiable, lacks any predictions, explains nothing, and yet adds vast complexity is useful whatsoever. The speculation is entirely flaccid and explains or justifies nothing. Its just new age spiritual mumbo jumbo. Its literally something deepak chopra would say--the mind is a superposition of infinite possibilities. I mean do you want me to generate more meaningless new age garbage?

Then, in response, people get so smug and tell you that you just don't understand, like an argument from credulity was a good argument. Materialism can explain everything on the other hand--subatomic particles, their constituents, and the laws of which they follow are capable of providing any explanation about any observable phenomena. Its testable, and falsifiable, and predicts ways in which phenomena can be explained. Why would we drop a perfectly rationale explanation for something which, is at best, a complete guess. We can place it in the same category as Zeus, or thor, or apollo. There's nothing besides arrogance that would let you suggest a guess without evidence is superior to the alleged dead Gods of ancient Greece. Either way the point is that why should your religious beliefs about the universal consciousness be better than someone's beliefs about Zeus or Thor?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Materialism can explain everything on the other hand--subatomic particles, their constituents, and the laws of which they follow are capable of providing any explanation about any observable phenomena. Its testable, and falsifiable, and predicts ways in which phenomena can be explained.

Fine then...let me ignore all of your irrelevant strawman rhetoric about Deepak Chopra, Zeus, etc., and just ask you a few simple questions about the physical stuff you apparently know can be explained so precisely...

What is an electron constituted of?
What is the space between electrons constituted of?
What is dark matter constituted of?
What is dark energy constituted of?

 

[godnotgod]

I fail to see how a theory of the universal mind, which is untestable, unfalsifiable, lacks any predictions, explains nothing, and yet adds vast complexity is useful whatsoever. The speculation is entirely flaccid and explains or justifies nothing. Its just new age spiritual mumbo jumbo. Its literally something deepak chopra would say--the mind is a superposition of infinite possibilities. I mean do you want me to generate more meaningless new age garbage?

Then, in response, people get so smug and tell you that you just don't understand, like an argument from credulity was a good argument. Materialism can explain everything on the other hand--subatomic particles, their constituents, and the laws of which they follow are capable of providing any explanation about any observable phenomena. Its testable, and falsifiable, and predicts ways in which phenomena can be explained. Why would we drop a perfectly rationale explanation for something which, is at best, a complete guess. We can place it in the same category as Zeus, or thor, or apollo. There's nothing besides arrogance that would let you suggest a guess without evidence is superior to the alleged dead Gods of ancient Greece. Either way the point is that why should your religious beliefs about the universal consciousness be better than someone's beliefs about Zeus or Thor?

Maybe because Universal Consciousness is not a belief system, as you think it to be.

Your discriminating mind with which you have just spoken is possible because of the background of Universal Consciousness out of which it comes. Your mind, your thoughts, have to begin somewhere, just as wave forms emerge from a formless sea. UC provides the formless background for your thoughts, your mind, your very identity, but you don't notice it's presence because you are focused on the foreground of existence, just as the fish in the sea does not know he is in the ocean, as his focus is on the foreground of his existence, namely, food and predators.

What you are calling 'materialism' is not so 'material' after all. Recent findings show that all of the mass of the atom is actually virtual in nature, the result of fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs fields. IOW, all 'reality' is virtual.

 

[Nakosis]

That is your normal dualistic mind...you and God...and is what would be expected initially. But God can only ever reveal God to God...so if your conceptual mind were to cease thinking of the ultimate reality as being external to itself..the possibility of merging results and if realized...there is only Oneness...non-dual reality.. Do you already understand this and thus say..."So whatever, I adopt non-dualism because it kind of make sense."?

I felt it and ran away from it. Back to duality. Funny, it, duality, was immediately there and comforting. I'm still attached to some idea of self. I was afraid of not being able to find my way back to duality. So I don't know it, but feel I've maybe experienced the edge of non-duality. I still have doubt as to what that experience really is.

 

[Nakosis]

I fail to see how a theory of the universal mind, which is untestable, unfalsifiable, lacks any predictions, explains nothing, and yet adds vast complexity is useful whatsoever. The speculation is entirely flaccid and explains or justifies nothing. Its just new age spiritual mumbo jumbo. Its literally something deepak chopra would say--the mind is a superposition of infinite possibilities. I mean do you want me to generate more meaningless new age garbage?

If it makes you feel better. That is to me what belief is about, quality of life. I can pretty much believe whatever I want, whatever makes me happy. I've had experiences which materialism alone can't explain. I don't have the resources to verify scientifically every experience I have.

Then, in response, people get so smug and tell you that you just don't understand, like an argument from credulity was a good argument. Materialism can explain everything on the other hand--subatomic particles, their constituents, and the laws of which they follow are capable of providing any explanation about any observable phenomena. Its testable, and falsifiable, and predicts ways in which phenomena can be explained. Why would we drop a perfectly rationale explanation for something which, is at best, a complete guess. We can place it in the same category as Zeus, or thor, or apollo. There's nothing besides arrogance that would let you suggest a guess without evidence is superior to the alleged dead Gods of ancient Greece. Either way the point is that why should your religious beliefs about the universal consciousness be better than someone's beliefs about Zeus or Thor?

I place it in the same category as the belief in materialism. You question all of these other beliefs, I question one more than you do.

 

[godnotgod]

I felt it and ran away from it. Back to duality. Funny, it, duality, was immediately there and comforting. I'm still attached to some idea of self. I was afraid of not being able to find my way back to duality. So I don't know it, but feel I've maybe experienced the edge of non-duality. I still have doubt as to what that experience really is.

Non-duality and duality are not different. They are not two separate worlds. Duality is simply a manifestation of Non-Duality, but it is Non-Duality that is the real, duality, or the idea of it, is illusory. Yin and Yang are actually inseparable aspects of the One. It only seems as if they are two.

But in the ultimate sense, there is neither duality nor non-duality, because to conceptualize non-duality, is to also conceptualize duality. These are still relative to one another, whereas the real state of the Totality is not only absolute, but The Absolute.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I felt it and ran away from it. Back to duality. Funny, it, duality, was immediately there and comforting. I'm still attached to some idea of self. I was afraid of not being able to find my way back to duality. So I don't know it, but feel I've maybe experienced the edge of non-duality. I still have doubt as to what that experience really is.

Yes....this is a part of the natural initiatory process....important thing is to keep giving yourself to non-duality....it will wax and you will wane... I mean in terms of experience....the experience will go from you having an edge of non-duality experience to an experience without you being present as the experiencer... To help facilitate non-dual realization....it is important never to claim the experience as your own...(mind you, we all do this at the beginning)...Those that claim to be Self realized are still in delusion and will not make real progress until they develop the humility to accept that they can't ever, as an aspect of oneness, experience the totality of oneness..

 

[godnotgod]

Those that claim to be Self realized are still in delusion and will not make real progress until they develop the humility to accept that they can't ever, as an aspect of oneness, experience the totality of oneness..

There are two things to consider here:

One, is that the limited self cannot claim Realization as in: 'I am realized', because there is only Realization.

Two, the truly realized can see themselves as realized and as the One, in the sense that:

'You are not just the drop in the ocean; you are the Mighty Ocean itself'
Rumi

and...

Realization is getting rid of the delusion that you haven't realized.
Ramana Maharshi

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There are two things to consider here:

One, is that the limited self cannot claim Enlightenment as in: 'I am enlightened', because there is only Enlightenment.

Two, the truly enlightened can see themselves as being in the state of Enlightenment, and as the One, in the sense that:

'You are not just the drop in the ocean; you are the Mighty Ocean itself'
Rumi

and...

Realization is getting rid of the delusion that you haven't realized.
Ramana Maharshi

Yes....the distinction you make it correct.. and in the second, such an entity would know that it was not their personal self that was seeing the ultimate light... The sense of being one with the oneness means something completely different than that of me experiencing the oneness...the latter in truth is the ego self experiencing, to use the phrase of Nakosis...the edge of non-duality...but still duality nevertheless. That is why many get trapped by ego into genuinely imagining this edge of non-duality experience to be the ultimate state of mind....but in fact is still far from it as the transcendence of self is yet to begin in earnest....

 

[serp777]

If it makes you feel better. That is to me what belief is about, quality of life. I can pretty much believe whatever I want, whatever makes me happy. I've had experiences which materialism alone can't explain. I don't have the resources to verify scientifically every experience I have.



I place it in the same category as the belief in materialism. You question all of these other beliefs, I question one more than you do.

Being happy or not as a result of a theory is irrelevant to its truth. Its not about making me happy so thats a red herring.

Materialism can explain whatever experience you've had. The same experiences can be generated with magnetic fields or certain drugs. Your personal experiences cannot possibly suggest universal consciousness either. Its extremely arrogant to say though, that because you experienced or felt something, therefore it must be true; its like you're suggesting that somehow your brain and physiology and feelings are the most reliable sources of information into the truth of the universe. Yeah right. Your experiences and feelings can be wrong, and if they cant be wrong then go pick the winning lottery numbers based on your feeelings. The point is that your feelings and experiences are not 100% reliable and if you're just going to say that you know truth because you have felt or experienced something, which therefore informs you that you are truth, is just irrational and circular and i cant possibly argue with something like that which is completely unfalsifiable.

Please question materialism. The advantage of the theory is that it is falsifiable. You haven't actually questioned anything in materialsm except your mostly irrelevant experiences, and I can give you an explanation based on chemicals and neural structures in the brain. It would be a plausible theory.

 

[serp777]

Fine then...let me ignore all of your irrelevant strawman rhetoric about Deepak Chopra, Zeus, etc., and just ask you a few simple questions about the physical stuff you apparently know can be explained so precisely...

What is an electron constituted of?
What is the space between electrons constituted of?
What is dark matter constituted of?
What is dark energy constituted of?

First of all you don't know what a strawman is, and you should be aware of what a word means before you use it. What you're implying I did is a red herring, which is a distraction from the main point. I couldn't have made a strawman since I wasn't making a counter argument against anyone in particular, I was making my own separate argument in a post that didn't reply to anyone. And it isn't irrelevant; the point just flew right over your head. The point was that this theory has no evidence or rationale that would make it any better than a belief in Zeus or a belief in Deepak chopra's new age infinite possibility consciousness nonsense. its just more new age assertion nonsense.

You still haven't defended your beliefs really, at least not nearly as much as im about to defend materialsm. There still hasn't been any logical or rationale defense or any evidence. But ill address concerns about materialism.

One thing i should mention, and if you're competent you'll know it, is that materialism doesn't claim certainty unless science has provided a vast amount of empirical evidence to support it; it merely offers a material explanation about something to show that a supernatural explanation is unecessary and superfluous. There's no need, as the scientific progress of the 21st century shows, to posit a supernatural explanation when there is a material one. We investigate the material explanations before reverting back to some mumbo jumbo about a magical vodoo sea of consciousness. I specifically said materialism can explain everything with some possible explanation, not that it does explain everything, although you seem to be positing your own strawman against me ironically enough, which makes sense considering you dont know what a strawman is.

Also you should look up these questions yourself or ask someone familiar with physics, because many of these questions are in fact addressed by physics and well known science.

But there are many theories about what could constitute an electron. String theory is a solid candidate. Quantum physics describes the electron as a wave and is very successful. Quantum physics also posits that electrons are formed by quantum fields described by complicated mathematics. But it would be a fallacy to keep saying well what s a quantum field composed of? Because then ill just ask, what is God composed of, or what is universal consciousness composed of? I can also say that string theory posits a smallest particle that is composed of a two dimensional vibrating string. it can't get any smaller than that.

The space between electrons? Why electrons specifically? Its just space rofl. But anyways space is also made of quantum fields and a kind of quantum infrastructure that has a size of about 10^-34 meters, also known as the planck scale, possibly the smallest increment of distance. You don't need God or universal consciousness to explain this.

Dark matter is hypothesized to be composed of weakly interacting massive particle, know as wimps.

Dark energy a result of the energy of empty space which increases as the universe expands, therefore leading to an increasing expansion rate. It could also be a long range reversal of gravity which would then be composed of the graviton.

But anyways the point is that just because science hasn't demonstrated something yet doesn't mean materialism is wrong. Materialism provides a framework to show that everything can have a materialist explanation. Again, I highlight that asking me the constituents ad infinitum will get you no where because ill just keep posting possible explanations. Let me ask you--why do you need a supernatural explanation for these things?

 

[serp777]

Maybe because Universal Consciousness is not a belief system, as you think it to be.

Your discriminating mind with which you have just spoken is possible because of the background of Universal Consciousness out of which it comes. Your mind, your thoughts, have to begin somewhere, just as wave forms emerge from a formless sea. UC provides the formless background for your thoughts, your mind, your very identity, but you don't notice it's presence because you are focused on the foreground of existence, just as the fish in the sea does not know he is in the ocean, as his focus is on the foreground of his existence, namely, food and predators.

What you are calling 'materialism' is not so 'material' after all. Recent findings show that all of the mass of the atom is actually virtual in nature, the result of fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs fields. IOW, all 'reality' is virtual.

Its not a belief? So you don't believe it. Ok then. So what is it then, besides a complete blanket assertion without evidence or rationale?

Your discriminating mind with which you have just spoken is possible because of the background of Universal Consciousness out of which it comes.

This is a circular argument. There is a universal consciousness, therefore my mind exists because of the universal consciousness, therefore the universal consciousness exists due to the fact that my mind proves it.

UC provides the formless background for your thoughts, your mind, your very identity, but you don't notice it's presence because you are focused on the foreground of existence, just as the fish in the sea does not know he is in the ocean, as his focus is on the foreground of his existence, namely, food and predators.

This is just an assertion. I'll give you a perfectly valid material explanation which is consistent with the fact that damaged brains lose certain aspects of what you would call a soul. Neurons transport information in the form of electrical signals through advanced biochemical reactions. Expert systems exist in sections of the brain coordinate with each other to evaluate conditions based on experience. One example of these expert system im talking about is the prediction expert system. So you make a prediction, and the result including the decisions you made get stored in the brain. This happens many many times, and when a new experience comes along, the closest previous experience is evaluated with respect and the brain makes a similar decision. The result is stored and whether a good or bad result occurs makes the brain decide one way or another. A vast database of conditions are produced over time which is traditionally referred to as wisdom. When an entirely new experience occurs that is completely unfamiliar, instinct fight or flight or submit responses kick in or emotional responses dictate the result. The interaction between all the expert systems in the brain which interact with memory produce what we observe as consciousness. The expert systems are also subject to chemical states in the brain, as well as the neural structure itself, therby being able to change dynamically based on environmental conditions which are also subject to genetics and phenotypes.

For instance, there's nothing suggesting that simulating a neuron is impossible, in fact its been done including any chemical and electrical simulations. Therefore, if you scale up the number of neurons as well as the chemical and electrical interactions, you can produce a brain that identically resembles a naturally human brain and copies its functionality, thus demonstrating that consciousness is entirely material based and the result of fundamental laws. You'd have to somehow say that this computer interacted with UC somehow, or you'd have to prove that you can't simulate consciousness.

What you are calling 'materialism' is not so 'material' after all. Recent findings show that all of the mass of the atom is actually virtual in nature, the result of fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs fields. IOW, all 'reality' is virtual.

This argument is all moot. First of all, atoms are not virtual. You can use an electron microscope to take pictures of them, so they're no more virtual than the moon. Subatomic particles however, I just recently learned from one of the members Legion who also disagrees with materialism, is that sub atomic particles are composed of quantum fields which are abstract mathematical entities.

All that changes is the definition of matter. Matter is just that which is composed of subatomic particles and by extension quantum fields. So you think you made this great point t, but its completely worthless in fact because the definition of matter can change based on the laws of physics. What's key in materialism is that everything can be explained by mathematical and logical laws; thats the key understanding that you don't seem to get. So materialism isn't defeated just because our knowledge of what material is increases. You seem to think that materialism is committed to this ancient Newtonian physics, which just isn't the case. All those quantum things you describe follow laws and compose what is observed as material. You have to show that something doesn't or cannot depend on a natural law, but rather that it follows something supernatural--that is beyond natural or logical or mathematical laws. Following static fundamental laws is the key in conclusion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Also you should look up these questions yourself or ask someone familiar with physics, because many of these questions are in fact addressed by physics and well known science.

Now you made this claim....."Materialism can explain everything on the other hand--subatomic particles, their constituents, and the laws of which they follow are capable of providing any explanation about any observable phenomena. Its testable, and falsifiable, and predicts ways in which phenomena can be explained."

i responded to your challenge with these questions.....

1. What is an electron constituted of?
2. What is the space between electrons constituted of?
3. What is dark matter constituted of?
4. What is dark energy constituted of?
And your answer is to ask me to look it up myself....or ask someone familiar with physics...you really are a case...

Look buster...that is how it works....you make the claim...you back it up...you are free never to show your face here again but so long as you do, you are required to be rational and show some honesty and sense of responsibility for your mouth.. Now scientific hypotheses do not count as scientific fact....nor does any other speculative narrative...if materialism can explain everything as you claim ...surely it's not too much to ask what one of the most abundant sub-atomic particles in the universe is constituted of...particularly since that was your brag....

Now so we can proceed simply and methodically, I suggest you ignore questions 2, 3, and 4 for now until we get to the bottom of question 1...for if materialism can't explain that...then it's all over ***** cat...

ps...I have underlined the type of response that will not pass muster wrt backing up your claim..so don't waste your time with obfuscation....






.