The Buddha Explains Universal Mind

YmirGF · Jun 20, 2015

godnotgod said:
I don't care where they came from. All I am asking is that you demonstrate, via argument, that the self is real, as I have argued that it is not. Put it on the table.

I was giving you a rather large clue. If you know anything about Vaisnava thought you might be able to piece it together. Non-duality does not mean quite the same thing to them as it does to you.

Twilight Hue · Jun 20, 2015

ben d said:
The human mind is the human mind...it perceives via the senses and conceives through thought processes....and the mind's identification with these that gives rise to the sense of being I, ego, self... What aspect of the mind's process do you consider dualistic?

As words can best be used,

One of the dualities can be illustrated in your post by which perception arises via the senses and for which thought processes come about by which the subsequent arising of I, self, ego manifests. I don't disagree in respect to what's put forth.

Each quality however can arise and fall independently as conditions and circumstances change altering the staticity of those emergent qualities.

Like during episodes of dreamless sleep, the mind falls into exclusion by which during the onset and duration of such sleep, the cumulative mind as we are familiar with when awake, loses it's expressive capability leaving no alternative but to relate only when waking up again, once the qualities of expression are enabled and restored.

YmirGF · Jun 20, 2015

ben d said:
Your emotional immaturity get's in the way of your sense of mental balance....

Hahahaha. Ok, Ben.

ben d said:
the word religion comes from the Latin Re again and Ligio to tie, to connect, to unite...religious practice is one meant to realize union with the Oneness...Tao...Buddha Nature...Brahman...etc... and the context I always use it is in this way.. In case you have never noticed...I am not a follower of any human religious institution....

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Are you this much fun at parties too?

YmirGF · Jun 20, 2015

ben d said:
No...dogma pal...there is no possibility in all eternity for human self conscious to realize non-duality.... If you think otherwise....please explain the process of how your dualistic mind can become one with the oneness.....or become non-dualistic?

Multidimensional reality. The art of existing in many places simultaneously. I simply do not see reality through your highly limited, on or off, one or the other, lens, Ben. If you fob this off as being inherently dualistic you really don't understand what I am meaning and I'm not sure I could explain it in a way you would understand due to your current prejudiced viewpoints that have everything neatly locked up.

YmirGF · Jun 20, 2015

godnotgod said:
Good observation! The Buddha himself emerged from Hinduism, didn't he? Were it not for being a Hindu, he might never have become realized as the Buddha.

Vivekenanda's statement is not simply a reflection of his thoughts or beliefs, but an insight into the nature of Reality. If you take the time to actually read and absorb this very cogent statement, you will SEE the veracity of his insight, and realize that it is NOT based upon belief or some superficial passing thought or conjecture. In fact, the statement itself reveals how we see Reality via conceptual thought, as compared to seeing things as they actually are, non-conceptually. Here is the point at which what Vivekenanda sees and what the Buddha sees are one and the same Reality. How can it be any different, if both are seeing correctly?

You consistently attack the pointing finger, rather than to have a close look at that which is pointed to. Are you ready for a shift in consciousness, or do you still prefer the delusions brought about by the dancing cave wall shadows?

Your arrogance truly knows no limits. If that shift in consciousness made me sound like you then I'd much rather be sitting around with the shadows of shadows...

Ben Dhyan · Jun 20, 2015

Nowhere Man said:
As words can best be used,

One of the dualities can be illustrated in your post by which perception arises via the senses and for which thought processes come about by which the subsequent arising of I, self, ego manifests. I don't disagree in respect to what's put forth.

Each quality however can arise and fall independently as conditions and circumstances change altering the staticity of those emergent qualities.

Like during episodes of dreamless sleep, the mind falls into exclusion by which during the onset and duration of such sleep, the cumulative mind as we are familiar with when awake, loses it's expressive capability leaving no alternative but to relate only when waking up again, once the qualities of expression are enabled and restored.

Ok ok...so they are part of the process...but let's cut to the chase...what is the fundamental cause of duality wrt human mind? It is self identification with form which then sees the universe outside as external and separate from itself....there it is! This perspective of I on the one hand, and that existing outside my form as being not I, is the fundamental duality that non-dualist schools are referring to when the concept of duality is raised...

If you disagree with anything...please quote precisely the part you find is in error...and explain your reason...thank you...

atanu · Jun 20, 2015

Spiny Norman said:
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?

Is there any discernment in absence of aggregates?

Ben Dhyan · Jun 20, 2015

YmirGF said:
Multidimensional reality. The art of existing in many places simultaneously. I simply do not see reality through your highly limited, on or off, one or the other, lens, Ben. If you fob this off as being inherently dualistic you really don't understand what I am meaning and I'm not sure I could explain it in a way you would understand due to your current prejudiced viewpoints that have everything neatly locked up.

Of course this is still dualism.....you mention dimensions, existing in many place, etc....a non-dual mind logically must exist everywhere at once, else it would not be non-dual.... What separates these dimensions from each other and what separates these places you exist in from other places where you don't?

atanu · Jun 20, 2015

Nowhere Man said:
To be continued.....

So, do you indicate that anatta, anitya, and dukkha continues, continues ..... Continues...... ?

atanu · Jun 20, 2015

ben d said:
Ok ok...so they are part of the process...but let's cut to the chase...what is the fundamental cause of duality wrt human mind? It is self identification with form which then sees the universe outside as external and separate from itself....there it is! This perspective of I on the one hand, and that existing outside my form as being not I, is the fundamental duality that non-dualist schools are referring to when the concept of duality is raised...

If you disagree with anything...please quote precisely the part you find is in error...and explain your reason...thank you...

Names and forms are attributes. Once self identification with form/s gets severed, one may also be many. Ymir, I think, is talking of this stage.

atanu · Jun 20, 2015

YmirGF said:
Multidimensional reality. The art of existing in many places simultaneously.

Then are you not existing as Ben? Why not?

Ben Dhyan · Jun 20, 2015

atanu said:
Names and forms are attributes. Once self identification with form/s gets severed, one may also be many. Ymir, I think, is talking of this stage.

...and many is not non-duality....such a dualistic consciousness that sees many of anything must still self identify with a form for these apparent many are not really separate....

atanu · Jun 20, 2015

ben d said:
...and many is not non-duality....such a dualistic consciousness that sees many of anything must self identify with form for these apparent many are not really separate....

I think we are talking of different stages. Suppose gold is aware and it sees all ornaments as its own form. Will that be dual or non dual? Remember that gold remains gold and in reality does not become all the forms.

The spiritual goal of Buddhism, IMO, is not to continue with anatta, anitya, and dukkha forever. And goal of advaita darsana is not to become like a homogeneous rock.

The goal of advaita is to know, experience, and abide as the non dual unborn and enjoy the passing show.

Ben Dhyan · Jun 20, 2015

atanu said:
I think we are talking of different stages. Suppose gold is aware and it sees all ornaments as its own form. Will that be dual or non dual?

The spiritual goal of Buddhism, IMO, is not to continue with anatta, anitya, and dukkha forever. And goal of advaita darsana is not to become like a homogeneous rock.

The goal of advaita is to know, experience, and abide as the non dual unborn and enjoy the passing show.

The gold is your examples is dual.... The I awareness of form...self...naturally sees reality outside the form as not I...this is the fundamental source of duality....maya results. The idea that a place over there where I am not, appears to be a different place than where I am, is still caused by the original self identification with form...
To still the mind so that the I does not arise in the mind results in realization of the underlying non-dual nature of being... There is no going anywhere in time or space, and there is nothing to do....all is being done by that further down the evolutionary ladder....the one is always at peace and in harmony....
To say as a mortal, we would die if we could still the mind permanently is not the point...of course that would be true,....but it is impossible for a student to permanently still the mind...that is a buddha....so there is nothing to worry about dying... But there is no other way to non-duality...so in one life or another...the choice to actually get off the wheel of suffering will be taken seriously....and to still the mind for the first time will reveal much.......

Makaranda · Jun 20, 2015

To still the mind so that the I does not arise in the mind results in realization of the non-dual nature of being...

Its not so, because there are countless practitioners of meditation with the capacity to silence the mind who are neither non-dualists or enlightened. Further, the Sankhya-Yoga school emphasises samadhi as a means for getting kaivalya, and yet Sankhya-Yoga is a dualistic philosophy- which is to say that Purusha and Prakriti are eternally distinct, or that Ishwara and Jivas are distinct (hence many Purushas). Silencing the mind is an aid or a means to a certain end, not an end in itself. It has to be accompanied by right knowledge.

Twilight Hue · Jun 20, 2015

ben d said:
Ok ok...so they are part of the process...but let's cut to the chase...what is the fundamental cause of duality wrt human mind? It is self identification with form which then sees the universe outside as external and separate from itself....there it is! This perspective of I on the one hand, and that existing outside my form as being not I, is the fundamental duality that non-dualist schools are referring to when the concept of duality is raised...

If you disagree with anything...please quote precisely the part you find is in error...and explain your reason...thank you...

I don't find disagreement necessarily within the set parameters of what you posted.

In fact, Alan Watts has mentioned such a view during a discussion concerning Zen Buddhism by which we habitually refrence self and I through third and first person expressions revealing the natural prohencity of thought.

Consideration must be givin as to the literalistic and arguably dualistic structure of our physical brain through which regulates and controls our specific perceptions and thinking throughout it's hemispheres. There also remains the issue of staticity by which any concept of duality vs nonduality is continually challenged, and will be subsequently altered over the course of time via the ongoing processes of dynamic change. Think old age, sickness, and death as it applies here. I would say a fundamental factor lays here.

I think the more one contemplates over the nature of dependent-arising and impermancy of all things, there also remains a tendency for the mind to magnify and diminish aspects concerning dualism /non-dualism depending upon where the focus lays in any givin situation.

Twilight Hue · Jun 20, 2015

atanu said:
So, do you indicate that anatta, anitya, and dukkha continues, continues ..... Continues...... ?

Yes and no accordingly.

atanu · Jun 21, 2015

ben d said:
The gold is your examples is dual.... The I awareness of form...self...naturally sees reality outside the form as not I...this is the fundamental source of duality....maya results. ...

That then is your understanding.

Gold as the non dual and attributeless substrate and various forms built of that non dual substrate is the standard advaita metaphor. Gold (atman) is conscious, is the basis of all forms and names yet is distinct and untouched by the changes in the forms.

Jnana, wisdom, means that the self identification with names-forms has ended. Names-forms as dance of nature may continue without tainting the wisdom of non duality.

atanu · Jun 21, 2015

Nowhere Man said:
Yes and no accordingly.

Okay. Can you please clarify the 'yes' and the 'no'?

Ben Dhyan · Jun 21, 2015

Makaranda said:
Its not so, because there are countless practitioners of meditation with the capacity to silence the mind who are neither non-dualists or enlightened. Further, the Sankhya-Yoga school emphasises samadhi as a means for getting kaivalya, and yet Sankhya-Yoga is a dualistic philosophy- which is to say that Purusha and Prakriti are eternally distinct, or that Ishwara and Jivas are distinct (hence many Purushas). Silencing the mind is an aid or a means to a certain end, not an end in itself. It has to be accompanied by right knowledge.

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?

Ben Dhyan · Jun 21, 2015

Nowhere Man said:
I don't find disagreement necessarily within the set parameters of what you posted.

In fact, Alan Watts has mentioned such a view during a discussion concerning Zen Buddhism by which we habitually refrence self and I through third and first person expressions revealing the natural prohencity of thought.

Consideration must be givin as to the literalistic and arguably dualistic structure of our physical brain through which regulates and controls our specific perceptions and thinking throughout it's hemispheres. There also remains the issue of staticity by which any concept of duality vs nonduality is continually challenged, and will be subsequently altered over the course of time via the ongoing processes of dynamic change. Think old age, sickness, and death as it applies here. I would say a fundamental factor lays here.

I think the more one contemplates over the nature of dependent-arising and impermancy of all things, there also remains a tendency for the mind to magnify and diminish aspects concerning dualism /non-dualism depending upon where the focus lays in any givin situation.

All your describing is how the mind is seen to function in the normal person in a human cultural and social environment... That functioning is by evolutionary design...dualistic...and has to be that way... I on the other hand am talking about the potential of the mind....free from all these human cultural and social demands....to be stilled so that self identity with the form does not arise! Of course i know that this can't happen if you have family, have to work, share your life with others, etc....but non-duality is not for the part timers...

The Buddha Explains Universal Mind

Bodhisattva in Recovery

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Bodhisattva in Recovery

Bodhisattva in Recovery

Bodhisattva in Recovery

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member