Can I believe in the Universal Consciousness/Mind and still be Buddhist?

Daiva

Does Anatta (individual consciousness) have a place in the Universal Consciousness (the all-encompassing energy/Unified Field/Oneness and possibly sum total of all individual consciousness)? It seems the concept of Universal Consciousness does not conflict with dependant origination, I think.
Can I believe in the Universal Consciousness and still be Buddhist? I get I can believe in just about anything and still be Buddhist, but this notion of the Universal Consciousness is troubling me, and I am not sure where to find, if there are any, discussions in the dharma.

Jeffrey

If you sit with the trouble and question lightly then you are like a Buddhist. Sit with it.

Dakini

I would think that a Universal Consciousness would be compatible with "no self", and the idea that we're a small part of a greater whole.

seeker242

If "universal consciousness" means your "true self" or "buddha nature", I don't see why not. Plenty of Buddhist believe in that and plenty of scriptures teach it. Of course they would all be of a Mahayana tradition.

BhikkhuJayasara

from what I've come to learn I would say that "self/soul" and " universal consciousness" are both not what the buddha taught. He taught simply that there is not-self ( Anatta) ie no permanent substantial ego entity ( whether individual or universal).

now of course I would not let belief in this or that preclude you from the practice of dhamma.. the practice is much more important then any belief.

Jeffrey

The mahayana teaches (in my Lam Rim text) that buddha nature IS shunyata. This is similar to anatta, I guess very similar.

Expressed positively you could say opening of your heart to encompass more and more of reality is shunyata. At the same time there is a dynamic and structure sensed and a feeling of well-being or even suffering.

lobster

this Buddhist talks and believes/experiences . . .


Dharmakaya for ever . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmakaya

Vastmind

^^^ Gratitude for the teaching I received.

'Nothingness that is full'.....
'What is the purpose of training' ?

May I be ready....for when someone else is an idiot.

May I continue training to not fear life or death.

Daiva

Wow, lobster, that talk is wonderful and what I needed to hear. And looks like i have some reading to do.
and thx Jeffrey, I also need to study shunyata. Ok, so the Self is empty as Anatta suggests, then Buddha nature in itself is not "empty," but is a manifestation of the emptiness - i can understand in those terms.
And yes, Jayantha, that is my understanding therefore the source of my conflict.

Daiva

@lobster, after listening to your link again, a question rises up for me. When she states the eternal is unborn, undying and unchanging - does that mean the eternal is static, not impermanent? (Everytime i answer one question more arise, which confirms I still reside in a state of dukkha and am far from negating fear of birth and death)

lobster

When she states the eternal is unborn, undying and unchanging - does that mean the eternal is static, not impermanent?

Not static, not moving, not being Permanently Impermanent.

paradoxical eh . . .

Jeffrey

with no 'time' of the three times there is no such thing as impermanent or permanent.

lobster

'What is the purpose of training' ?

no purpose
no attainment
No kidding! :clap:

BhikkhuJayasara

Daiva said:

@lobster, after listening to your link again, a question rises up for me. When she states the eternal is unborn, undying and unchanging - does that mean the eternal is static, not impermanent? (Everytime i answer one question more arise, which confirms I still reside in a state of dukkha and am far from negating fear of birth and death)

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca3/nibbana.html


What happens to one who has fully realized Nibbana?
[Aggivessana Vacchagotta:] "But, Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he reappear?"

[The Buddha:] "'Reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."

"In that case, Master Gotama, he does not reappear."

"'Does not reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."

"...both does & does not reappear."

"...doesn't apply."

"...neither does nor does not reappear."

"...doesn't apply."

"How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if the monk reappears... does not reappear... both does & does not reappear... neither does nor does not reappear, he says, '...doesn't apply' in each case. At this point, Master Gotama, I am befuddled; at this point, confused. The modicum of clarity coming to me from your earlier conversation is now obscured."

"Of course you're befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you're confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know. That being the case, I will now put some questions to you. Answer as you see fit. What do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, 'This fire is burning in front of me'?"

"...yes..."

"And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'"

"If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?"

"...yes..."

"And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)."

"Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply.

"Any feeling... Any perception... Any mental fabrication...

"Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea."

DaftChris

Yes.

Cinorjer

My dear @Daiva , you can believe in the universal consciousness and still be a Buddhist. You can believe in the tooth fairy and still be a Buddhist. In some ways, the concept of a universal consciousness fits into the Buddhist philosophy of emptiness and no-self than reincarnation and rebirth.

footiam

In a democratic country, one can label oneself anything. Ditto democratic religion.

Florian

Perhaps one problem is the word 'consciousness'. The vedas teach that after death there is no consciousness. I feel this refers to 'intentional' consciousness, since this requires a duality of phenomena. But if we call it 'awareness' the situation becomes less clear.

Interesting what the Buddha says above, negating the idea that the monk does not reappear or not-reappear, and neither does he reappear nor not-reappear, nor both reappear and not-reappear. This tetralemma approach is how Nagarjuna refutes all positive or selective views, and seems to apply to every idea we can think of according to the Middle Way view. So, quite likely there is a universal consiousness and there isn't, and nor would it be neither or both. We can think of it in one of these ways, and must do so, since these are the only ways we can think about it. It's just that none of them would be correct. If you always assume that the truth must appear to be paradoxical, due to the limitations of language and conceptual thinking, then I supect that this may be a good guide to the correct view. It follows Lao tus's golden rule, that true words will seem paradoxical.