The Buddha Explains Universal Mind

[Prophet]

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.


.

Exactly which "god" are you attacking? I know of none except for the One who has appeared at the core of every sentient being since the beginning.

I suspect when the Buddha said that, the concept of God to his people was similar to irrational fundamentalist concepts of God today where He is equated with a personal being who interacts with the physical universe directly, performing miracles and dealing out punishment according to some hidden will.

It is worth noting that Jesus also taught against this type of God when he urged his followers to "be perfect as God is perfect" in our interactions with all people without regard to which people we prefer. God's perfection is why "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

To be more precise, God's very perfection demands that He take a complete hands off approach to this universe. My worldview is well described as deistic with this universal mind we are talking about here as God. Who else could this universal mind be?

If this is unsatisfactory to you, I guess I could meet you where you are at. Talking about God is not necessary for me to make any point in an argument. I can describe enlightenment just fine using logic.

I don't know any other enlightened beings personally. Upon Self realization, I felt a profound responsibility to fully understand exactly what had taken place in my mind to cause such a profound transformation so that I could share it. Although learning never stops and ego sneaks in here and there, I believe it is fair to say that I now understand enlightenment.

 

[Breathe]

Exactly which "god" are you attacking? I know of none except for the One who has appeared at the core of every sentient being since the beginning.

I suspect when the Buddha said that, the concept of God to his people was similar to irrational fundamentalist concepts of God today where He is equated with a personal being who interacts with the physical universe directly, performing miracles and dealing out punishment according to some hidden will.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, personally. Frubals to you.

If one is thinking of God as "cosmic sky man on cloud with thunderbolt in hand who rules over us and plays chess with our lives and gives us whatever we want and will violate the laws of the universe to do it", then such a concept of God is one that I do not think would be very enlightened. However, my own conception of 'God' is very different from such a view. I guess the word God has too much baggage to go with it for some people. Not to mention, people seem to cling to opposition of the word 'God'.

My Buddhist mentor had no issues with it when I explained my view to him my conception of what I consider as 'God', and 'soul'; "Words are just sounds, and we should never be afraid of them. It is the intended meaning that is ever important, and by your definitions, we do not have any major differences."

 

[Prophet]

I think you've hit the nail on the head, personally. Frubals to you.

If one is thinking of God as "cosmic sky man on cloud with thunderbolt in hand who rules over us and plays chess with our lives and gives us whatever we want and will violate the laws of the universe to do it", then such a concept of God is one that I do not think would be very enlightened. However, my own conception of 'God' is very different from such a view. I guess the word God has too much baggage to go with it for some people. Not to mention, people seem to cling to opposition of the word 'God'.

My Buddhist mentor had no issues with it when I explained my view to him my conception of what I consider as 'God', and 'soul'; "Words are just sounds, and we should never be afraid of them. It is the intended meaning that is ever important, and by your definitions, we do not have any major differences."

Thank you for the respect.

I enjoyed your point about people clinging to opposition towards the word 'God'. I can tell you for certain its not belief in God or the opposition towards the word 'God' that is the obstacle to enlightenment. It is the clinging.

Clinging to belief will cause you to never see things as they truly are by causing you to shut down your reasoning when your beliefs are challenged. The ego works by identifying with whatever you are attached to. Thus, when a being clings to belief, he actually identifies with the belief.

And that's it for rationality. When you identify with belief, rational discussion of that belief will be all but impossible because you live in fear of annihilation. If you are seeking enlightenment, and in your mind travels you discover fear within yourself, be courageous.

The ego will say, "Go no further, or you will surely die," but I will tell you the Truth: You will come to Life.

 

[Breathe]

Thank you for the respect.

Very welcome.

I can tell you for certain its not belief in God or the opposition towards the word 'God' that is the obstacle to enlightenment. It is the clinging.

Clinging to belief will cause you to never see things as they truly are by causing you to shut down your reasoning when your beliefs are challenged. The ego works by identifying with whatever you are attached to. Thus, when a being clings to belief, he actually identifies with the belief. <<snip for space>>

I agree; I believe that many people get caught up with their acknowledgement or denying that they miss the bigger picture.

True, many people who believe in some conceptions of God are willing to bend truth and reason to continue belief in this conception of God, such as denying evolution. Others enjoy the way they are the centre of the universe.

However, it seems like many people freak out in opposition to the possibility of there being something which could be termed 'God', because God has to fit into this traditional, dualistic, overseer type concept. Is there a difference in the obstruction to enlightenment? I think it's the same thing: obsession over how God should act, and obsession over how God should be.

Of course, this is just my view.

 

[Tathagata]

Exactly which "god" are you attacking?

I wasnt attacking God, the Buddha was. Ask him.

the Buddha: "All such notions [of a] ...personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind."
[Lankavatara Sutra]

the Buddha: "Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without a cause. However, neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker."
[Culla Vagga 6:2]

I know of none except for the One who has appeared at the core of every sentient being since the beginning.

I suspect when the Buddha said that, the concept of God to his people was similar to irrational fundamentalist concepts of God today where He is equated with a personal being who interacts with the physical universe directly, performing miracles and dealing out punishment according to some hidden will.

He was talking about all forms of God. He doesn't want people to think there is some higher power in which people can turn to.

It is worth noting that Jesus also taught against this type of God when he urged his followers to "be perfect as God is perfect" in our interactions with all people without regard to which people we prefer. God's perfection is why "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

To be more precise, God's very perfection demands that He take a complete hands off approach to this universe.

That is a view rejected by the Buddha. There is no separate God for whom to take hands off this Universe. He calls it Universal Mind because the Universe IS mind.

My worldview is well described as deistic with this universal mind we are talking about here as God. Who else could this universal mind be?

Thats the problem, this Universal Mind is not a "who." For that same reason the Buddha specifically rejected the Hindu Brahman as a false reification of what actually is.

If this is unsatisfactory to you, I guess I could meet you where you are at. Talking about God is not necessary for me to make any point in an argument. I can describe enlightenment just fine using logic.

It's not about describing enlightenment with God vs. describing with logic. The Buddha relied on neither God nor logic.

He refrained from using "God" because it's simply inaccurate and gives off the wrong impression and he refrained from relying on logic (though it is useful) because it doesnt lead to complete understanding of Ultimate Truth. The Buddha used Transcendental Intelligence.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Personal understanding:
The word *God* was developed by humans for an understanding.
The understanding is that *God* is that which encompasses everything we see or do not see. Everything that exists and we are PART of that which is labelled *God*.

A part can never view that of which is a part from the outside. The part can only realize that TRUTH by being THAT!
So if anything is spoken about/for/against that of which one is part off will always be FALSEHOOD.
Gautama's efforts was only everyone to realize that TRUTH and in Its realization everything gets revealed.

Love & rgds

 

[YmirGF]

Friends,

Personal understanding:
The word *God* was developed by humans for an understanding.
The understanding is that *God* is that which encompasses everything we see or do not see. Everything that exists and we are PART of that which is labelled *God*.

A part can never view that of which is a part from the outside. The part can only realize that TRUTH by being THAT!
So if anything is spoken about/for/against that of which one is part off will always be FALSEHOOD.
Gautama's efforts was only everyone to realize that TRUTH and in Its realization everything gets revealed.

Love & rgds

Hehehe. Just BE. I'm not sure why people feel a need to complicate the process of realization, of being, of expanding awareness.


In my view, just be, and forget all the nonsense you hear about enlightenment.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Paul,

In my view, just be, and forget all the nonsense you hear about enlightenment.

Am not sure what you speak off as personally have not heard of anything as enlightenment or seeing anything enlightening!

Love & rgds

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Buddha is way too spiritual now.

 

[Tathagata]

Buddha is way too spiritual now.

What does that mean and how so?

.

 

[Straw Dog]

Buddha is way too spiritual now.

People tend to think of the "spiritual" as in opposition or somehow separate from the "physical". I think there's an over-identification of spirituality with the supernatural. People don't realize that the word "spirit" comes from the Latin spiritus which means "breath". The most readily available way ancient peoples could determine that someone had died was that they had stopped breathing, or in other words their "spirit" left their body. How can you get any more real than the act of breathing?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

People tend to think of the "spiritual" as in opposition or somehow separate from the "physical". I think there's an over-identification of spirituality with the supernatural. People don't realize that the word "spirit" comes from the Latin spiritus which means "breath". The most readily available way ancient peoples could determine that someone had died was that they had stopped breathing, or in other words their "spirit" left their body. How can you get any more real than the act of breathing?

It doesn't matter what it is translated into, it's how people use it that matters.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Straw dog,

People tend to think of the "spiritual" as in opposition or somehow separate from the "physical". I think there's an over-identification of spirituality with the supernatural. People don't realize that the word "spirit" comes from the Latin spiritus which means "breath". The most readily available way ancient peoples could determine that someone had died was that they had stopped breathing, or in other words their "spirit" left their body. How can you get any more real than the act of breathing?

Personal understanding is that matter is available in various states like ice, water and vapor. If the body is in a solid state the spirit is the vapor state.
Nothing is leaving anywhere, only the forms change.Matter changes form and is neither created nor destroyed.

Love & rgds

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well it seems we are honoured to have two self claimed enlightened beings on this thread, so it would be nice to see if each acknowledges the other as enlightened.

May I introduce you Prophet to YmirGF :clap

 

[Straw Dog]

It doesn't matter what it is translated into, it's how people use it that matters.

Good point. I should have specified that I view "spirituality" as the art of breathing or the art of living well. I suppose it has different translations as there are different people. How do you use the word?

 

[Straw Dog]

Well it seems we are honoured to have two self claimed enlightened beings on this thread, so it would be nice to see if each acknowledges the other as enlightened.

May I introduce you Prophet to YmirGF :clap

It would be pretty amusing to see a debate about it haha. "I am more enlightened than you are!" How would they one-up each other? Maybe by claiming that the other was in fact more enlightened, but because they were willing and humble enough to admit as such then they were actually the more enlightened one after all .

The whole notion seems absurd. I thought a crucial part about enlightenment was that it involved a transcendence of sorts between the self/other duality. In the Buddhist tradition at least, it's akin to being fully awake or aware. We probably all have enlightened moments and unenlightened moments to varying degrees, even if we didn't identify them as such. The only way I can figure any definitive final end state of enlightenment would probably involve universal enlightenment among all people. Other wise, I would suspect an enlightened person would also recognize, seeing their own "self" in others, that they were also unenlightened at the same time haha. I'm not sure. Any other thoughts or experiences on this? What does the Buddha teach?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hi Straw Dog Let's not preempt any discussion that may take place between them, though it should be ..ahem.. enlightening!

 

[zenzero]

Friend Straw Dog,

I thought a crucial part about enlightenment was that it involved a transcendence of sorts between the self/other duality. In the Buddhist tradition at least, it's akin to being fully awake or aware. We probably all have enlightened moments and unenlightened moments to varying degrees, even if we didn't identify them as such. The only way I can figure any definitive final end state of enlightenment would probably involve universal enlightenment among all people. Other wise, I would suspect an enlightened person would also recognize, seeing their own "self" in others, that they were also unenlightened at the same time haha. I'm not sure. Any other thoughts or experiences on this? What does the Buddha teach?

You are so near...
There is no SELF which is separate one is always a part of the whole only problem is one does not know and when he knows understands he says: "Oh! this; **** how have missed it so far.." So for that individual mind which has transcended itself to universal mind, is what It is all about. Nothing changes! except that CONSCIOUSNESS.

Regards universal enlightenment; you should understand that through the evolutionary process one is always on the PATH or WAY to enlightenment and some revolutionize the process to reach that state in their present lifetime itself. And each enlightenment raises human consciousness as one of its part unites/merges with the sources and evolution continues.

Love & rgds

 

[waterbear]

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.


.

There's no way Buddha or Buddhism knows about "Ultimate Reality" because Buddhist philosophy rests on a completely false view of reality stemming from extreme brain manipulation to eliminate the normal functioning of the brain's sense of self center. All Buddhist ideology stems from brain manipulation to avoid psychic pain by closing down the brain's sense of self center and shunting electrical activity to the frontal lobes, especially the right frontal lobes where pleasure centers can be excited that are associated with the oceanic egoless consciousness that accompanies the shut down of the brain's sense of self center. This is why it is so many Buddha statues show him in reclining or sitting positions because it is a lot more difficult to walk when your brain's sense of self center is not operating correctly. And this is the fatal flaw of Buddhism which renders the whole philosophy based on illusion caused by brain manipulation, i.e. the whole "Void" idea merely projects the actual void created in the Buddhist brain where the sense of self center should be operating but is effectively tranquilized. What then is the real difference between Buddhist brain manipulation to avoid psychic pain, "suffering", and avoiding psychic pain by using drugs to manipulate brain functioning?

In short, there is no "Enlightenment" in Buddhism as it is based on a single brain state projected out to the whole world. It takes a whole brain to deal effectively with reality which to me explains why countries where Buddhist philosophy dominates society they remain backward in social evolution, e.g. Bhutan, Tibet, still caught in feudal society.
Smoke a joint if you want to avoid psychic pain is my advice. That way you may not be bamboozled by Buddhist philosophy that looks good on paper but actually harms holistic consciousness necessary to deal with complex reality.

 

[zenzero]

Friend waterbear,

There's no way Buddha or Buddhism knows about "Ultimate Reality" because Buddhist philosophy rests on a completely false view of reality stemming from extreme brain manipulation to eliminate the normal functioning of the brain's sense of self center. All Buddhist ideology stems from brain manipulation to avoid psychic pain by closing down the brain's sense of self center and shunting electrical activity to the frontal lobes, especially the right frontal lobes where pleasure centers can be excited that are associated with the oceanic egoless consciousness that accompanies the shut down of the brain's sense of self center. This is why it is so many Buddha statues show him in reclining or sitting positions because it is a lot more difficult to walk when your brain's sense of self center is not operating correctly. And this is the fatal flaw of Buddhism which renders the whole philosophy based on illusion caused by brain manipulation, i.e. the whole "Void" idea merely projects the actual void created in the Buddhist brain where the sense of self center should be operating but is effectively tranquilized. What then is the real difference between Buddhist brain manipulation to avoid psychic pain, "suffering", and avoiding psychic pain by using drugs to manipulate brain functioning?

In short, there is no "Enlightenment" in Buddhism as it is based on a single brain state projected out to the whole world. It takes a whole brain to deal effectively with reality which to me explains why countries where Buddhist philosophy dominates society they remain backward in social evolution, e.g. Bhutan, Tibet, still caught in feudal society.
Smoke a joint if you want to avoid psychic pain is my advice. That way you may not be bamboozled by Buddhist philosophy that looks good on paper but actually harms holistic consciousness necessary to deal with complex reality.

Thank you for expounding your theory on enlightenment.
Am sure you will be remembered and followed for millions of years whereas Gautama is still only a few thousand years!

Love & rgds