• 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

Tathagata

Freethinker
While it is blatantly the case that the Buddha is an Atheist (see here: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...101720-buddha-not-silent-god-metaphysics.html), the Buddha still referenced what he called Universal Mind. It's a concept that is foreign to Theist, Deist, Pantheist, and Atheist philosophical positions. It's not personal, it's not a "thing" that can be impersonal, nor is it complete absence of a God/Absolute.

In the Lankavatara Sutra, the Buddha explains Universal Mind and our relation to it. It's not easy reading and requires deep philosophical contemplation and focus to comprehend.

"Then said Mahamati to the Blessed One: Pray tell us, Blessed One, about Universal Mind and its relation to the lower mind-system?

The Blessed One replied: The sense-minds and their centralized discriminating-mind are related to the external world which is a manifestation of itself and is given over to perceiving, discriminating, and grasping its maya(illusion)-like appearances.

Universal Mind (Alaya-vijnana) transcends all individuation and limits. Universal Mind is thoroughly pure in its essential nature, subsisting unchanged and free from faults of impermanence, undisturbed by egoism, unruffled by distinctions, desires and aversions.

Universal Mind is like a great ocean, its surface ruffled by waves and surges but its depths remaining forever unmoved. In itself it is devoid of personality and all that belongs to it, but by reason of the defilements upon its face it is like an actor a plays a variety of parts, among which a mutual functioning takes place and the mind-system arises."

-- the Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]

The rest of his explanation can be found here: http://www.purifymind.com... (Ch.5 The Mind System)

I find this to be a rather unique perspective, one which most haven't been exposed to yet, and one that I believe to be the best and most sophisticated explanation as to what Ultimate Reality is.


.
 

839311

Well-Known Member
I find this to be a rather unique perspective, one which most haven't been exposed to yet, and one that I believe to be the best and most sophisticated explanation as to what Ultimate Reality is.

Its a useful perspective. As for 'Ultimate Reality', I think anyone would be hardpressed to make a case for what that could be. The ever elusive theory of everything. Certainly, consciousness would need to be a part of it. But consciousness is just one part, and just one perspective. There is the material perspective as well. Though, consciousness is the only part of reality that really matters. If there was no life, then reality would have no value.
 

Tathagata

Freethinker
Its a useful perspective. As for 'Ultimate Reality', I think anyone would be hardpressed to make a case for what that could be. The ever elusive theory of everything.

The Buddha is not claiming to have the theory of everything. He is merely describing the fundamental nature of reality which he has discovered through Enlightenment.

Certainly, consciousness would need to be a part of it. But consciousness is just one part, and just one perspective. There is the material perspective as well.
The Buddha has explained in great detail about the material world but denies that it is part of Ultimate Reality. You seriously think he overlooked it?

"So long as people do not understand the true nature of the objective world, they fall into the dualistic view of things. They imagine the multiplicity of external objects to be real and become attached to them."
-- the Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]



.
 

apophenia

Well-Known Member
It is worth bearing in mind that lankavatara sutra is not the words of Gautama. This book is later 'buddhist theology'.Still a very worthwhile book, but not the words of the historical buddha.
 

Tathagata

Freethinker
It is worth bearing in mind that lankavatara sutra is not the words of Gautama. This book is later 'buddhist theology'.Still a very worthwhile book, but not the words of the historical buddha.

Says who? Bodhidharma says otherwise and scholars state that the earliest Mahayana writings date back to the 1st century BCE (Mahayana sutras - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), the same century as the Pali Canon.

"I have here the Laṅkāvatāra in four fascicles which I now pass to you. It contains the essential teaching concerning the mind-ground of the Tathagata, by means of which you lead all sentient beings to the truth of Buddhism."
-- Bodhidharma [Suzuki, D.T.]



.
 
Last edited:

St Giordano Bruno

Well-Known Member
While it is blatantly the case that the Buddha is an Atheist (see here: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...101720-buddha-not-silent-god-metaphysics.html), the Buddha still referenced what he called Universal Mind. It's a concept that is foreign to Theist, Deist, Pantheist, and Atheist philosophical positions. It's not personal, it's not a "thing" that can be impersonal, nor is it complete absence of a God/Absolute.

In the Lankavatara Sutra, the Buddha explains Universal Mind and our relation to it. It's not easy reading and requires deep philosophical contemplation and focus to comprehend.

"Then said Mahamati to the Blessed One: Pray tell us, Blessed One, about Universal Mind and its relation to the lower mind-system?

The Blessed One replied: The sense-minds and their centralized discriminating-mind are related to the external world which is a manifestation of itself and is given over to perceiving, discriminating, and grasping its maya(illusion)-like appearances.

Universal Mind (Alaya-vijnana) transcends all individuation and limits. Universal Mind is thoroughly pure in its essential nature, subsisting unchanged and free from faults of impermanence, undisturbed by egoism, unruffled by distinctions, desires and aversions.

Universal Mind is like a great ocean, its surface ruffled by waves and surges but its depths remaining forever unmoved. In itself it is devoid of personality and all that belongs to it, but by reason of the defilements upon its face it is like an actor a plays a variety of parts, among which a mutual functioning takes place and the mind-system arises."

-- the Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]

The rest of his explanation can be found here: http://www.purifymind.com... (Ch.5 The Mind System)

I find this to be a rather unique perspective, one which most haven't been exposed to yet, and one that I believe to be the best and most sophisticated explanation as to what Ultimate Reality is.


.

Would it be a big mistake to define this universal mind, (which I do not have such an issue with) as God? I personally think it would be a very big mistake, for one it is not omnipotent and another thing it is devoid of any personality.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
I have no preference myself, sfaic people may call it what they like,... God, Universe, the Great Way (Tao), Universal Mind, Brahman, Nirvana, the One Mind, Allah, Cosmos, Brahman, Universal Source, etc., the actual REALITY behind these names will always be on the other side of the name or concept that is meant to represent IT, and therefore is beyond all attempts of the mortal mind to know. (That's not to say what is impossible for man is impossible for ......?)

Forgive me for repeating something I've posted on another thread, but fwiw, imo these are some of the best attempts to express/point the way of the transcendent Source of All Existence...

No matter what an unenlightened man may think he is perceiving, he is really seeing Brahman and nothing else but Brahman. ...This universe, which is superimposed upon Brahman, is nothing but a name. — Shankara (Hindu)
Those who see things truly, they are intimates of the One that is bare of any kind of multiplicity and distinction. — Meister Eckhart (Christian)
That Oneness is on the other side of descriptions and states. Nothing but duality enters speech's playing-field. — Rumi (Muslim)
Mind comes from this sublime and completely unified source above; it is divided only as it enters into the universe of distinctions. — Menahem Nahum (Jewish)
All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, besides which nothing exists. — Huang Po (Buddhist)
The Tao that can be spoken of, is not the Eternal Tao. - Lao Tzu (Taoism)
If anyone has a spiritual eye, let them go forth from their body to behold the Beautiful, let them fly up and float above not seeking to see shape or colour but rather...
That from which these things are created,
That which is quiet and calm, stable and changeless,
That which is ONE,
That which issues forth from itself and is contained in itself,
That which is like nothing else but ITSELF. - Anon (Hermetic)
The light by which the soul is illumined, in order that it may see and truly understand everything...is God himself. — St. Augustine (Christian)
He is the spirit of the cosmos, its hearing, its sight, and its hand. Through Him the cosmos hears, through Him it sees, through Him it speaks, through Him it grasps, through Him it runs. — Ibn 'Arabi (Muslim)
When a man knows God, he is free: his sorrows have an end, and birth and death are no more. — Upanishads (Hindu)
And...

There exists THAT which is not born, nor become, nor made.
If that were not so, there would be no refuge
From that which is born, is become, is made.
That is the end of sorrow.
That is Nirvana.

.......from the Buddha

:namaste
 
Last edited:

idav

Being
Premium Member
While it is blatantly the case that the Buddha is an Atheist (see here: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...101720-buddha-not-silent-god-metaphysics.html), the Buddha still referenced what he called Universal Mind. It's a concept that is foreign to Theist, Deist, Pantheist, and Atheist philosophical positions. It's not personal, it's not a "thing" that can be impersonal, nor is it complete absence of a God/Absolute.
The concept of universal mind brings in the possibility of an entity which is omniscient but still impersonal. This comes rather close to concept of deity so I think the pantheistic is similar to the buddhist concept of nature and ultimately enlightenment.
 

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
The concept of universal mind brings in the possibility of an entity which is omniscient but still impersonal. This comes rather close to concept of deity so I think the pantheistic is similar to the buddhist concept of nature and ultimately enlightenment.

Yes, maybe a certain form of pantheism may come close to the concept of universal mind. The universe is neither personal nor impersonal, but both and neither. Our existence makes it personal as we relate to each other while our relation to certain other aspects make it impersonal. It is really trans-personal. The universal mind has more to do with apprehension through direct experience though, rather than over-dependence upon a particular conceptualization of it.
 

Prophet

breaking the statutes of my local municipality
I posted a piece of mine on this topic on this site. Quoting myself here:

Within each being who has ever lived exists a Divine nature responsible for morality which has gone mostly misunderstood and misinterpreted by unconscious beings who have seen parts but have never seen the whole. The consequences of this lack of understanding are painfully evident in our history of atrocities.

To understand the source of our insanity, you must also understand the inner-workings of Consciousness, the Divine nature at the core of every sentient being. It is this property of life that is solely responsible for morality as we know it. The reason many argue a subjective morality is that to live in sin, you must also live in delusion and denial. It is a sad state of denial they are in. When we sin, the moral law weighs down upon us so heavily that we cannot bear to face it, so we don’t. To modify our moral code from its true, perfect state, we too must also fall from our true, perfect state.

Evil is not in action. We face the action associated with evil, thinking we have faced the sin itself, but we have not. The evil is in the selfish motive, and this horror is one no living being can face. We push these motives into an area of our minds we will no longer look at: an area commonly referred to as the subconscious. This is where the collective insanity that plagues all life comes from. We must shatter our Consciousness into pieces to bear living under the weight of the moral law in sin. We create a new, false self to take the place of Consciousness called the ego.

The ego has been misunderstood by psychology as a necessary part of a person’s mind. I am saying different. We create our egos to hide our evil selfish motives from us. The price we pay for this is more than anyone could ever know while stuck in egoic thinking because its more than just our past motives we must deny. Future actions are also looked at through this new warped view that hides our motives from us. Gone is our ability to judge between what is wise and unwise, because motives are exactly that. Only by seeing our own motives with clarity can we see the difference between good and evil. The ego is morally blind.

The tool the ego uses to hide our motives from ourselves is fear. What exactly do I speak of when I speak of fear? I am talking about anxiety. Anxiety in its most basic form occurs when you perform action selfishly with attachment to the results. If one is instead selfless, this one becomes fearless as well. Without attachment to cloud one’s vision, fear dissolves, because fear is, in itself, an attachment.

Selflessness is what love is, and is good. Selfishness is what fear hides behind, and is evil. Selflessness and love are inherently rational. All selfishness and fear are inherently irrational. Always.
 
Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is form; from the Heart of Wisdom Sutra. This is quite a tough read too; but I've been working my way slowly through a good commentary of it; also contemplating and meditating on it.

But this would strongly suggest that any Universal Mind would also be empty of inherent existence, and the doctrine of dependant arising would also say that a Universal Mind relies on causes and conditions.

So a Universal Mind must be a conventional truth, and not an Ultimate Truth. An Ultimate Truth in Buddhism is Emptiness, and yes, even Emptiness is empty of inherent existence.

These are just the thoughts of someone whose relatively new to Buddhism; and I may take a look at a commentary on the Lankavatara Sutra at some stage; so thank you for the introduction to it.
 

zenzero

Its only a Label
Friends,

Universal mind is also labelled as *no-mind* or *still mind*.
Still mind as have explained is in unity with the *WHOLE* or Void / Nothingness / God / Brahma / etc.
A dop of the ocean is ocean in itself.

Love & rgds
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Would it be a big mistake to define this universal mind, (which I do not have such an issue with) as God? I personally think it would be a very big mistake, for one it is not omnipotent and another thing it is devoid of any personality.

It would be a big mistake to define universal mind as universal mind as well. ;O)
 

Tathagata

Freethinker
Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is form; from the Heart of Wisdom Sutra. This is quite a tough read too; but I've been working my way slowly through a good commentary of it; also contemplating and meditating on it.

But this would strongly suggest that any Universal Mind would also be empty of inherent existence, and the doctrine of dependant arising would also say that a Universal Mind relies on causes and conditions.

Dependent arising doesnt apply to Universal Mind. Remember the Buddha spoke of the Unborn, the Uncompounded, the Unbinding? Thats Universal Mind. It is not a "thing" which can be caused it is Ultimate Reality itself.

So a Universal Mind must be a conventional truth, and not an Ultimate Truth. An Ultimate Truth in Buddhism is Emptiness, and yes, even Emptiness is empty of inherent existence.

Universal Mind is not a conventional truth, it is Ultimate Reality. He explains this in the Lankavatara Sutra. Emptiness is not different from Universal Mind for its nature is Emptiness. It is not coherent to say Emptiness is empty of inherent existence. Emptiness isnt a thing in which it can lack existence.

These are just the thoughts of someone whose relatively new to Buddhism; and I may take a look at a commentary on the Lankavatara Sutra at some stage; so thank you for the introduction to it.

Thank you for showing interest. I hope your further studies go well and lead to better understanding.



.
.
.
 

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
I posted a piece of mine on this topic on this site. Quoting myself here:

Very interesting piece. Thank you for sharing.

I can see now how you may tend to view yourself as an enlightened being. Many of us here would probably define ourselves as 'enlightened beings' given your description of proper understanding as well. It is quite an altogether different experience of 'being' whenever you abandon all notions projected by "ego" as authentic descriptions of reality. It seems fitting to apply the classification of 'selflessness'.

The way that I've entered into it is through an expanded expression of self, though. It may just be an issue of semantics and the limitations of words, but I can't quite discern yet. I don't know that I am enlightened, but it does seem to be the case to some extent at any rate given the many descriptions I've come across on here and in many different books I've studied.

I don't think 'enlightenment' is a one time and end all deal, but it seems to occur solely in any given moment of 'being'. That is, a person may experience enlightenment at any time within the most mundane moments of their experience. I don't think it is an end-all be-all. Those with repeatable moments of enlightenment may be judged to be more worthy of sharing wisdom with the rest of us, but in the end they're just humans beings like the rest of us.

I have broken a pretty definitive sense of ego within my own being, but I'm not sure where to continue from that point. Where I have once experienced depression, I now mostly feel joy and exuberance emanating from the cortex of this being. I have social relations, but don't know how to express to them that I feel almost the same degree of compassion towards people that I have never met as I do towards them. It is a strange experience, to say the least. I don't know where to go with this post other than to ask the question, "Why do you feel it necessary to display yourself as an enlightened being?"
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
For consideration, a perspective from Wei Wu Wei...

As long as there is a 'you' doing or not-doing, thinking or not-thinking, 'meditating' or 'not-meditating' you are no closer to home than the day you were born.

Thus nobody can be enlightened, for it cannot be correctly said "I am enlightened" for in enlightenment the illusion of I cannot exist, and if it did there would not be enlightenment. This does not mean enlightenment is not possible, just that no self or identify can be enlightened.

Likewise enlightenment is not a miracle and does not result in attainment of anything. It neither extends the life nor heals the body. It also cannot be had by those who seek it, for it entails letting go of the burden of identity or self. All of the past incarnations of self become apparatus in it, as a manner of clarity beyond thought.
 

Prophet

breaking the statutes of my local municipality
I display myself as an enlightened being for two reasons. The first reason is that I am searching for others like me. The second reason is that I want everyone to know it is possible to reach enlightenment.

I feel I can be of aid to anyone seeking God who needs to understand the entire process, intellectually.
 

Tathagata

Freethinker
I display myself as an enlightened being for two reasons. The first reason is that I am searching for others like me. The second reason is that I want everyone to know it is possible to reach enlightenment.

I feel I can be of aid to anyone seeking God who needs to understand the entire process, intellectually.

How can you claim to be Enlightened if the Buddha said this?

"Others think that God is free creator of all things; clinging to these foolish notions, there is no awakening."
-- the Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]

An Enlightened being doesnt cling to God nor does one lead others to God.

Also, I believe Enlightenment is an ongoing process. You dont just one day decide to label yourself Enlightened. You may be further along the path than others, but Enlightenment is not a stationary thing that marks the end.


.
 
Top