Buddhism and a Great Universal Spirit

PremaSagar

I was taking a History class last year and the teacher said that in Buddhism there is a "Universal Spirit". I quickly corrected her by saying that there is no worship of a universal God and then she went on about how although might now have heard of it like that it was called as such in ancient times. After that I fell silent, should I have pressed my case more ?

Dakini

Well, there's nothing permanent in Buddhism, for one thing. I've never heard of a "Universal Spirit" in Buddhism. It sounds like your teacher was misinformed.

shanyin

Universal principle maybe

RichardH

She sounds misinformed about the common Buddhist view. But it is worth remembering that view in Buddhism is usually regarded as "skillful means" and not a fact to hold onto, whether it is the view that there is a universal spirit, or no universal spirit. View in Buddhism is not an absolute, and is let-go-of in practice. That letting go is practice.

person

Is this a high school class or university? And which country? I ask because I think the context of the situation matters. If this is some comparative religion class by a college professor I feel you should continue to press. If its just some general high school world history then I think let it go as there's more of a mixed audience especially if its in a particularly religious part of the US.

ThailandTom

Maybe she used the wrong use of terminology, or maybe she is simply wrong lol.

PremaSagar

Is this a high school class or university? And which country? I ask because I think the context of the situation matters. If this is some comparative religion class by a college professor I feel you should continue to press. If its just some general high school world history then I think let it go as there's more of a mixed audience especially if its in a particularly religious part of the US.

It was a HighSchool class so I guess it's not a big deal

ThailandTom

Maybe some research needs to be done into this claim of ancient time talk. Or you could even approach your teacher after class and talk it out with them?

person

Tom brings up a good idea, to talk about it after class. It might be kind of embarrasing for the teacher to be shown up in front of the class and they might be more likely to put up some resistance and entrench in their position. Talking after class allows for an acknowledgment of a mistake without the embarrasment.

Sabre

After that I fell silent, should I have pressed my case more ?

Why did you want to?

vinlyn

Tom brings up a good idea, to talk about it after class. It might be kind of embarrasing for the teacher to be shown up in front of the class and they might be more likely to put up some resistance and entrench in their position. Talking after class allows for an acknowledgment of a mistake without the embarrasment.

It kind of depends on the situation.

I recall one day when, as principal, I was observing/evaluating a science teacher, and she taught a major concept totally wrong. The average observer probably wouldn't have realized it, but I had been a science teacher and it really popped out at me. I was torn between talking to the teacher later, or interrupting right then...because, as studies have shown, once students have learned something wrong, it is not likely they will learn it right. But, I didn't want to embarrass her. So, I talked to her about it at the post-conference, and she actually said it was more important for her to appear intellectually invincible to her students, than for them to learn the correct content. So I had to order her to correct the lesson the following day, and that I would be in to observe her doing so.

PremaSagar

After that I fell silent, should I have pressed my case more ?

Why did you want to?

Well because "Universal Spirit" sounds too much like the "Brahman" of Sanatan Dharma. The term suggests that Buddhism is a religion that believe in a supreme God of some sorts.

vinlyn

After that I fell silent, should I have pressed my case more ?

Why did you want to?

Well because "Universal Spirit" sounds too much like the "Brahman" of Sanatan Dharma. The term suggests that Buddhism is a religion that believe in a supreme God of some sorts.

It isn't what "the religion" believes. It's what individuals may believe.

Dakini

You're right, PremaSagar, "Universal Spirit" does sound like influence from Indian beliefs. Maybe you could do a research paper on it for the class. That would be one way of educating the teacher without being confrontational. The problem is, now the students have the wrong idea about Buddhism. Oh well. Maybe the teacher would let you present an oral report. In the grand scheme of things, though, it's probably not important.

Bhagavan

@PremaSagar universal spirit can be liken as universal love or unconditional love in Buddhism.

He said to Ananda, “Although you have a
strong memory, it only benefits your wide
learning. But your mind has not yet
understood the subtle secret
contemplation and illumination of
shamatha. Listen attentively now as I
explain it for you in detail. 2:175
”And may this explanation cause all those
of the future who have outflows to obtain
the fruition of Bodhi. 2:175
Ananda, all living beings turn on the wheel
of rebirth in this world because of two
upside-down discriminating false views.
Wherever these views arise, revolution
through the cycle of appropriate karma
occurs. 2:177
”What are the two views? The first consists
of the false view based on living beings’
individual karma. The second consists of
the false view based on living beings’
collective share. 2:180
”What is meant by false views based on
individual karma? Ananda, it is like a
person in the world who has red cataracts
on his eyes so that at night he alone sees
around the lamp a circular reflection
composed of layers of five colors. 2:183
”What do you think? Is the circle of light
that appears around the lamp at night the
lamp’s colors, or is it the seeing’s colors?
2:184
”Ananda, if it is the lamp’s colors, why is it
that someone without the disease does not
see the same thing, and only the one who
is diseased sees the circular reflection? If it
is the seeing’s colors, then the seeing has
already become colored; what, then, is the
circular reflection the diseased person sees
to be called? 2:184
”Moreover, Ananda, if the circular
reflection is in itself a thing apart from the
lamp, then it would be seen around the
folding screen, the curtain, the table, and
the mats. If it has nothing to do with the
seeing, it should not be seen by the eyes.
Why is it that the person with cataracts
sees the circular reflections with his eyes?
2:185
”Therefore, you should know that in fact
the colors come from the lamp, and the
diseased seeing brings about the reflection.
Both the circular reflection and the faulty
seeing are the result of the cataract. But
that which sees the diseased film is not
sick. Thus you should not say that it is the
lamp or the seeing or that it is neither the
lamp nor the seeing. 2:186
”It is like a second moon often seen when
one presses on one’s eye while looking up
into the sky. It is neither substantial nor a
reflection because it is an illusory vision
caused by the pressure exerted on one’s
eye. Hence, a wise person should not say
that the second moon is a form or not a
form. Nor is it correct to say that the
illusory second moon is apart from the
seeing or not apart from the seeing. 2:187

Bhagavan

I was taking a History class......then she went on about how although might now have heard of it like that it was called as such in ancient times. After that I fell silent, should I have pressed my case more ?

Buddha dwell on bodhi to speak bodhi of all in ancient or present. Simply, love is beyond time and space neither ancient nor present era. Exterior decorations and modifications are issues proceeding with times and it normally augur false positiveness as presumably more comfortably in current timezone. Thus disregarding Universal Spirit or Love as ancient, falsehood and does not reconcile with time. Probably, is there real ancient that you may positively argue?