The Buddha Explains Universal Mind

[godnotgod]

View implies duality, so you still haven't got it. And equating "no particular view" with "universal view" seems tenuous to say the least.

No, 'self-view' is a dual view, as it implies 'self and other'. Universal view does not discriminate, and so it is 'no particular view'. But to say 'no self-view' is to imply 'universal view'. There is no other choice.

The drop of sea water returning to the sea no longer has a 'self' identity as a single drop; it is now the vast limitless ocean itself.

I can't believe you call yourself a Buddhist and don't understand these basic ideas. Now I see why Theravada is called a 'stagnant backwater'.

 

[atanu]

Another assumption, I see. You have this down to an art form.
@atanu what say you? Care to elaborate on this statement?

Sorry for the delay and there is nothing spectacular to say. My Guru Shri Ramana taught that there was no need to hold thoughts about one's true nature. It exists as it is. It is real and it is not a thought.

 

[YmirGF]

Sorry for the delay and there is nothing spectacular to say. My Guru Shri Ramana taught that there was no need to hold thoughts about one's true nature. It exists as it is. It is real and it is not a thought.

I doubt I would argue the point to Sri Ramana. My view is that one's true nature would indicate the self is an existential reality and not an illusion like some would have us believe. I think what we are running into in this thread is folks who have a very limited notion of self, as an ego-driven monstrosity, that is to be diminished at all costs. Ego, again, in my view, is an integral aspect of the whole self or larger identity.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The drop of sea water returning to the sea no longer has a 'self' identity as a single drop; it is now the vast limitless ocean itself.

.

I like to use this particular metaphor myself primarily in referencing form, not substance of form.

 

[YmirGF]

I like to use this particular metaphor myself primarily in referencing form, not substance of form.

Though true for a drop of water, which is a rather large collection of water molecules, it is simply false from the standpoint of the individual water molecule. The molecule remains a molecule that is a small part of a much larger whole. A subtle, but important, difference.

 

[Twilight Hue]

.... My Guru Shri Ramana taught that there was no need to hold thoughts about one's true nature. It exists as it is. It is real and it is not a thought.

I don't whoheartly disagree with the words of your Guru Shri Ramana in principle in your response here to YmirGF , yet it seems there is a persistent point being made by way of establishment. Mainly in refrencing one's true nature through the lens of static universalism.


Universalim is a deterministic position even if taken in a context by which it's identified to be hence "universal."

To explain a bit as to where I'm coming from, try examining the application of fractals based on consistency through mathematics. It eventually becomes quite an eye opener by which the static notion of universalism coincides, and arguably is simultaneous through dynamics involving fluidity. There is a distinctive correlation involving. the use of fractal mathematics and what is directly present in nature.

That's primarily why I don't share in any type of notion involving statisity through a permanent unchanging venue as many of the arguments allegedly have put forth and maintained.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

OK, but what has the experience of Buddha nature got to do with all that metaphysical garbage about cosmic consciousness, beyond time and space, ultimate reality etc? Nothing that I can see.

There is no Buddha experience of anything.....experience implies duality...Buddha nature is the universal mind....it is the Tao...it is nirvana....all these concepts represent the one and same underlying unity of existence... non-duality is the Buddha nature...Buddha nature is non-duality....non-duality is the universal mind....etc...etc...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry but that word salad doesn't say anything useful. Meaningless rhetoric.

That is only because you lack the understanding.....your mind is unable to see that all words.....the only reality they have is that they stand for something real...but in and of themselves, words are just like one word metaphors.. The concept of non-duality is one thing....it is nothing but a symbol.....if you believe there is such a reality or if you don't believe....you are not getting it....you will need to become one with non-duality to understand if it is real or not.... There is no other way....this is not a word game as you imagine!!!

 

[atanu]

I doubt I would argue the point to Sri Ramana. My view is that one's true nature would indicate the self is an existential reality and not an illusion like some would have us believe. I think what we are running into in this thread is folks who have a very limited notion of self, as an ego-driven monstrosity, that is to be diminished at all costs. Ego, again, in my view, is an integral aspect of the whole self or larger identity.

Did you read the post? Or, I do not understand your response to Ramana's saying.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't think so.

If two persons, or the same person, hold two conflicting consciousnesses, it is not clear which one belongs to the only one.

Ciao

- viole

But if I remember your original comment correctly...I understood you were suggesting the concept of the one mind is like schizophrenia....which is the exact opposite.. Schizophrenia means split or dual mind....but the Buddha mind is non-dual...pure awareness without a witness....universal mind.. The mortal mind on the other hand is split into two compartments....one is 'me' the observer...and the other is all you observe that you consider 'not me'.... That is why the religious practice of meditation is to still the mind so the I which is responsible for dividing reality into two parts, does not arise....when it has been achieved...Buddha nature is revealed...

 

[YmirGF]

Did you read the post? Or, I do not understand your response to Ramana's saying.

Of course I read the post.

I wasn't arguing against what he taught, but was translating it into terms that I use. The later half of the post was in regards to those in this thread who minimize the importance of the self, in general, and the ego-oriented self in particular.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I can't believe you call yourself a Buddhist and don't understand these basic ideas. Now I see why Theravada is called a 'stagnant backwater'.

My lineage is Dzogchen.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

.this is not a word game as you imagine!!!

It's you who are playing the word games.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's you who are playing the word games.

How so....I am the one explaining that words only have a meaning....the reality is on the other side of the meaning... and unless we have a common understanding of what certain words we are using mean...then there can be confusion...yes?

So let's begin with the concept 'non-dual'.......what does it mean to you?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So let's begin with the concept 'non-dual'.......what does it mean to you?

You're trying to impose theist ideas on Buddhist teachings and you will continue to miss the point. I can't help you further.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You're trying to impose theist ideas on Buddhist teachings and you will continue to miss the point. I can't help you further.

I am not doing anything of the sort....you said I was the one playing word games....all I am trying to do is get common understanding on the concepts I am using so that I can't be accused of playing word games.. Now when I try to find out what you understand as the meaning of a concept I have been using consistently throughout thus thread...you then accuse me of imposing theist ideas on Buddhist teaching.....and want to cease this discussion forthwith......so who is playing word games? Go run away if you want....but you've been caught out and exposed as being disingenuous...

 

[YmirGF]

I am not doing anything of the sort....you said I was the one playing word games....all I am trying to do is get common understanding on the concepts I am using so that I can't be accused of playing word games.. Now when I try to find out what you understand as the meaning of a concept I have been using consistently throughout thus thread...you then accuse me of imposing theist ideas on Buddhist teaching.....and want to cease this discussion forthwith......so who is playing word games? Go run away if you want....but you've been caught out and exposed as being disingenuous...

Is this an example of the higher understanding, Ben?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Is this an example of the higher understanding, Ben?

Meaning what?

 

[YmirGF]

Meaning what?

Your response to Spiny. One would think that an enlightened being would be more than able to talk to enlightenment-challenged individuals, in terms they could readily understand... and not feel a continual need to hide behind their finger.

 

[crossfire]

Let's put on our Thinking Caps, OK? The antonym for 'universal' is 'particular'. So if something is not particular in nature, then what else can it be but universal in nature? Is there another choice?

Maara