The Buddha Explains Universal Mind

[Rick O'Shez]

It doesn't taste like chicken.

You really have turned evasion into an art form. I strongly suspect you have really no experience of any of this, and it's all made-up baloney.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's always a refreshing experience for me. .

But not for anyone else. I'm still waiting for a coherent definition of "Cosmic Consciousness" and your description of "universal view".

 

[godnotgod]

You still haven't provided a coherent definition of Cosmic Consciousness. One minute you're talking about everything being consciousness, the next about abandoning self-view, it's a muddle.

You need to provide a coherent definition of "Cosmic Consciousness". Are you saying that everything is consciousness, or that consciousness permeates the universe, or that it's the experience of abandoning self view, or what exactly?

Are you even capable of explaining clearly what you believe? I'm beginning to wonder.

Well, if self-view no longer is the case, and consciousness is still present, what is the situation?

(C'mon, Spiny!)

 

[godnotgod]

But not for anyone else. I'm still waiting for a coherent definition of "Cosmic Consciousness" and your description of "universal view".

Have you peeled the potatoes yet?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Well, if self-view no longer is the case, and consciousness is still present, what is the situation?

A mind without self-view. But this is just further evasion and game-playing.

I'm still waiting for a coherent definition of "Cosmic Consciousness" and your practical experience of "universal view"

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Have you peeled the potatoes yet?

Further evasion. OK, that confirms it for me, you really are just spouting BS with no genuine experience behind it.

 

[godnotgod]

You really have turned evasion into an art form. I strongly suspect you have really no experience of any of this, and it's all made-up baloney.

Nope. Doesn't taste like balogna either.

What do YOUR taste buds tell you? What is the taste of the Infinite, Spiny? After umpteen years of sitting on your mat, something must have materialized? What is that one clear thing?

 

[godnotgod]

A mind without self-view. But this is just further evasion and game-playing.

I'm still waiting for a coherent definition of "Cosmic Consciousness" and your practical experience of "universal view"

Sure. And what, Spiny, is a mind without self-view?

Have you lost your nut?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What is the taste of the Infinite, Spiny?

Certainly nothing to do with the muddled new-age nonsense that you're preaching.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Abandoning the self view? Who will do that?

I think you have an answer so could you just say what you think?

 

[YmirGF]

Stop mystifying the issue with smokescreens! Tell us why the self is real in 50 words or less.

I realize you have an exceptionally short attention span, but I am not really able to comply with your wish, but for some reason, perhaps it's just my linguistic vanity, I'll give it a shot.
I'll tell you flat out that you will not understand or appreciate what I am saying due to the inherent prejudice of your own viewpoint... but here goes...
Like in Hindu thought which has its massive pantheon of gods that are all aspects of one supreme god, so I see human personality arising from a "source self" that replicates itself through a vast array of activities, in a gargantuan reincarnation push in order to further the understanding of the "source self". In those terms, all aspects are "One" with the source self, as they are it in localized environments, all existing in their own timelines, simultaneously in a way that is quite beyond our current ideas of time. My "source self" is not your "source self". You are your own universe of being. In short, it's not about ego, it's about the endless development of an eternal personality that is relentlessly growing and will NEVER be complete.

In essence, the Oneness experience is often misunderstood as being one with All that is, meaning "The Universe" or "ALL of reality". That however, is not entirely true, though one does sense quite intimately their connection to their own entity, which from our perspective will definitely seem to be "All That Is". In one sense, it is All That Is, in that we are experiencing the currently totality of our own being, but even so, the totality of our own being is miniscule when compared to the actuality of All That Is.

I'm not entirely satisfied with the above, but I'm pressed for time and it will have to do.

 

[godnotgod]

Further evasion. OK, that confirms it for me, you really are just spouting BS with no genuine experience behind it.

OK, that confirms it for me, you haven't peeled your potatoes yet.

Go!

Peel! And sin no more!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In essence, the Oneness experience is often misunderstood as being one with All that is, meaning "The Universe" or "ALL of reality". That however, is not entirely true, though one does sense quite intimately their connection to their own entity, which from our perspective will definitely seem to be "All That Is". In one sense, it is All That Is, in that we are experiencing the currently totality of our own being, but even so, the totality of our own being is miniscule when compared to the actuality of All That Is.

That's an interesting way of talking about it, and makes a lot more sense than the idea of us experiencing the totality of the universe or whatever. I'm an amateur astronomer and so have a little bit of understanding about how big and strange the universe really is. Unimaginable really.

 

[crossfire]

You are confused because of different understanding of the word 'Consciousness'. Can experience of void happen without consciousness?

You are confused because the Sanskrit word used in original sutras is vijnana (vinnana in Pali) and not consciousness, as translated most commonly. Consciousness in its non dual root aspect is called prajnana in Sanskrit (panna in Pali).

Vijnana is a compound word made of vi (divided) and jnana (knowledge). Prajnana is made of pra (pre) and jnana (knowledge). Vijnana and prajnana both together constitute the principle of awareness/consciousness.

Is experience of void possible in absence of a jnana (knowledge) principle being inherent in the void?

 

[crossfire]

You are confused because of different understanding of the word 'Consciousness'. Can experience of void happen without consciousness?

You are confused because the Sanskrit word used in original sutras is vijnana (vinnana in Pali) and not consciousness, as translated most commonly. Consciousness in its non dual root aspect is called prajnana in Sanskrit (panna in Pali).

Vijnana is a compound word made of vi (divided) and jnana (knowledge). Prajnana is made of pra (pre) and jnana (knowledge). Vijnana and prajnana both together constitute the principle of awareness/consciousness.

Is experience of void possible in absence of a jnana (knowledge) principle being inherent in the void?

Perhaps an ambiguity between perceiving nothing or not perceiving anything. (Would that constitute an absence of jnana? Would that establish jnana being inherent in the void?)

 

[crossfire]

I am quoting a void post that was in reply to your question regarding the void. Take whatever symbolism you will from that.

Oh gee whiz, you can't see the void post quoted unless you are in editing mode. I need some dark chocolate and a good koan now! :/

 

[godnotgod]

That's an interesting way of talking about it, and makes a lot more sense than the idea of us experiencing the totality of the universe or whatever. I'm an amateur astronomer and so have a little bit of understanding about how big and strange the universe really is. Unimaginable really.

Why do you feel strange in the universe, Spiny?

Is it that we are experiencing the totality of the universe, or is the totality of the universe experiencing itself as us?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I repeat that this should be acceptable to all. I also take this opportunity to reiterate that translation of vijnana (knowledge based on subject - object division) as consciousness (as is vijnana tranlated in most english translations of Buddhist sutras) is fully correct. As prajnana (consciousness prior to subject-object division) is also consciousness.



I agree. The Heart Sutra is talking of a consciousness beyond all aggregates, including all forms. Cosmos is form, so the consciousness of void is not same as the 'Cosmic Consciousness'. The so-called Cosmic Consciousness cannot also be a take on advaita, which teaches:


So, the consciousness that the Heart sutra points to or that which the Katha upanishad is pointing to is not 'Cosmic' in the sense that 'Cosmos' is a form -- an aggregate.

I'm not sure how such a view of consciousness beyond the aggregates was extrapolated from the Heart Sutra. Nor of a consciousness that it even points to, other than that the nature of all phenomina being empty by which consciousness is inclusive, "cosmic" or not. The Heart Sutra addresses emptiness. Ring a bell.

Buddhism in a ding.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm still not clear what you mean by a consciousness "beyond" the aggregates, given that consciousness is itself an aggregate.

I'm curious as well how it's arrived at although I suspect It's more a cognitive religious belief than anything experience demonstrates.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am quoting a void post that was in reply to your question regarding the void. Take whatever symbolism you will from that.

Oh gee whiz, you can't see the void post quoted unless you are in editing mode. I need some dark chocolate and a good koan now! :/

I'm headed to the Chinese buffet! =0]