Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
"Universal consciousness" is tricky. Does it mean the universal nature of a particular type of consciousness, or does it mean something more like Advaita?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited July 2015
@SpinyNorman said:
"Universal consciousness" is tricky. Does it mean the universal nature of a particular type of consciousness, or does it mean something more like Advaita?
I think it would be more like the Tao. Advaita seems to imply a persona but I could be wrong.
The only way I could see the Tao being aware of its own existence at all is through beings such as we. There could be a subtler form of awareness to it all though.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited July 2015
I just read about this theoretical physicist James Gates. Apparently a couple of years ago he discovered computer codes embedded in the equations of string theory.
Not just any codes but Block Linear Self Duel Error Correcting Codes which we use in computer browsers. They measure incoming information against what is already known.
Some are trying to use it to prove we are indeed living in a computer program just like the movie The Matrix and that sometime in the future we did this to ourselves.
Personally I think that's one of the sillier hypotheses out there and feel it can be explained by seeing how we did not invent the digitalized world but only tapped into it.
I'm pretty sure this is still on topic.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
How?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Because it can tie into various theories of whether or not there is a kind of self or awareness to the universe. If we are aspects of such a thing then there are many implications we could go into.
The topic is still being discussed but I'm not sure how such an esoteric thread would fall under "Buddhist Basics".
If dukkha is largely because of ignorance it would seem silly to bask in it for the lack of exploration, no?
The original post goes into a few different things but it all ties together.
The body is not ours. It belongs to nature. If it were ours, we would not need to do a dissection to know its contents. What happens if we stop eating or drinking? We or rather
the body dies. We can try to stay healthy and young but despite our best efforts we will ultimately fail. If the body isn't truly ours we can't presume to claim ownership over our partners or children (another body). Let alone our co workers, dhammafarers etc.
"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'
"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"?
"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'
Does anyone disagree with the sutta above and if so, why?
As we sustain our attention on the mind, we see that all those labels are the outer petals of the lotus. When they open, we know that there is more to this, that there’s a deeper reality which is certainly beyond words. If we can keep on sustaining our attention on this thing which we call “the mind”, “experience”, “the moment”, or whatever we wish to call it, without moving, the innermost petals start to manifest and then finally the last, the thousandth petal, the innermost-of-the-innermost, opens up and reveals what is called “the jewel in the heart of the lotus”. The beautiful jewel of Dhamma, which is emptiness — nothing there! This will not be what you expect in the heart of a lotus, but that’s what’s there — is the emptiness of all phenomenons. Once you see that, it gives you a great shock that wakes you from the deep slumber of illusion.
Imagine when you have absolutely nothing: no body, no mind, no consciousness. It all just belongs to nature. You give back the deeds of your life to its rightful owner. Nature owns all this, not you. If you could do that, imagine how free you would be. You would have absolutely no worries and no concerns. Whatever happens in the world, nature looks after it. Happiness, suffering, clarity, confusion, whatever occurs is just the play of nature. That’s why the Lord Buddha said, when there is not a self then there is nothing belonging to a self. If there is no “mine”, there is no craving any more.
Often when you start to delve into non-self, there comes a time when you don’t want to go any further because you’re afraid. I’m not talking about ordinary fear; I’m talking about fear that goes to what you take to be your very “core”. You’re challenging all you ever thought about yourself, and you’re undermining your whole essence of existence. Your whole reason to be is being challenged by imagining what it would be like if there were nothing there. If you have the courage and the faith to go through that fear and find that what you were afraid of was nothing, you will receive the most beautiful gift — the gift of freedom, the gift of the ending of things, of the work being finished.
Being in the present moment is not a goal in itself, and it‘s not about being
blissed out. Being in the present moment is just basic mental health. It’s the
conditioning factor for growth in Dhamma in order to really know what life is
all about - not as a philosophy, not as a complex intellectual structure, but as
direct experience. What is body? What are feelings? What are perceptions?
What are thoughts? What is sense-consciousness? Not as some elaborate
abhidhamma exercise, but as a direct experience.
Being in the present moment is a revolution in our way of living life. We begin
to notice the process-nature of experience, rather than obsessing about the
content of experience. The emphasis shifts naturally. We find things arising by
themselves. For instance, you experience a yawn or a sneeze as something that
just arises. You don’t decide to sneeze. You don’t decide to yawn. It just
happens. And so, in the same way, do thoughts, feelings and emotions.
And this is the weird thing - intention, thought, and feeling arise first, and the
one who is thinking and feeling arises subsequent to the thought. From a
philosophical point of view this could be debatable, but this is something we can
observe very clearly by being in the present moment. Common sense says that
first there is someone who is thinking, and then you have a thought. Is that what
really happens? Have you ever developed a clarity, stability, a sharpness of mind
with which you can really look directly at what is going on? Some of our most
cherished assumptions are overturned quite radically when we’re willing to do
that, to really look and see what’s going on here. It’s liberating.
What is described is 'I am', mindfulness, being in the zone. Very natural and attentive.
It is a constant returning, in Sufism and in some Buddhist explanations it is called remembrance/remembering.
When our mind is chaotic, and out of control, we jump from one thought tree to the next ... arisings, mindless meandering ... in effect sleep walking through life ...
Consequentially this present awareness is difficult to retain constantly and we have to practice formal sitting, attention to tasks, walking meditation, chanting, returning to the breath with gentleness etc
Where does the soul come in all this? It doesn't ... unless the soul is a unique gibbering we are attached to ...
Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.
"Then is there no self?"
A second time, the Blessed One was silent.
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.
Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"
"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"
"No, lord."
"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"
Six View-Positions
"Monks, there are these six view-positions (ditthitthana). Which six? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes about form: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'
"He assumes about feeling: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'
"He assumes about perception: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'
"He assumes about fabrications: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'
"He assumes about what seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'
"He assumes about the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. [8] After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity': 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'
"Then there is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma assumes about form: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
"He assumes about feeling: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
"He assumes about perception: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
"He assumes about fabrications: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
"He assumes about what seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
"He assumes about the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity': 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
"Seeing thus, he is not agitated over what is not present." [9]
When this was said, a certain monk said to the Blessed One, "Lord, might there be agitation over what is externally not present?"
"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone thinks, 'O, it was mine! O, what was mine is not! O, may it be mine! O, I don't obtain it!' He grieves & is tormented, weeps, beats his breast, & grows delirious. It's thus that there is agitation over what is externally not present."
"But, lord, might there be non-agitation over what is externally not present?"
"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone doesn't think, 'O, it was mine! O, what was mine is not! O, may it be mine! O, I don't obtain it!' He doesn't grieve, isn't tormented, doesn't weep, beat his breast, or grow delirious. It's thus that there is non-agitation over what is externally not present."
also some good links by Thanissaro on self/not-self/no self
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I wonder if the wanderer could have gotten some benefit from a glimpse of the middle way or not-self there. He only asked about self and no self and may not have heard any prior teachings about not-self.
I wonder if the wanderer could have gotten some benefit from a glimpse of the middle way or not-self there. He only asked about self and no self and may not have heard any prior teachings about not-self.
Who knows, it appears to me that he was one of many who tried to debate or trick the Buddha to agree to certain views, so the Buddha didn't play his game.
Cockney Buddha: "Nar listen 'ere, Vacchagotta, you ain't got no bleedin' self so just get used to it. Nar stop wandering abart and make me a nice cup of Rosy Lee."
4
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Jayantha said:
Who knows, it appears to me that he was one of many who tried to debate or trick the Buddha to agree to certain views, so the Buddha didn't play his game.
I didn't think of that and figured he was genuine. I suppose it makes sense but he could have just said the self can't be pointed to and is temporary...
I wonder if a lot of it has to do with the limitations of language back then as compared to now.
@SpinyNorman said:
Cockney Buddha: "Nar listen 'ere, Vacchagotta, you ain't got no bleedin' self so just get used to it. Nar stop wandering abart and make me a nice cup of Rosy Lee."
a few of the young monks and I have quoted the buddha in modern urban speak and a variety of different accents lol.
I've found that there are many suttas, mostly with verses, where the Buddha engages in what could be called a "rap battle" with others. They come out with a few lines and then the Buddha says "thats ok.. but THIS" drops the mike.
all ways of identifying with the Buddha in a modern context lol.
oh btw heres a for instance :
At Rajagaha. As he was standing to one side, Uttara the deva's son recited this verse in the Blessed One's presence:
Life is swept along,
next-to-nothing its span.
For one swept on by aging
no shelters exist.
Perceiving this danger in death,
one should do deeds of merit
that bring about bliss.
[The Buddha:]
Life is swept along,
next-to-nothing its span.
For one swept to old age
no shelters exist.
Perceiving this danger in death,
one should drop the world's bait
and look for peace.
2
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited July 2015
I'm far from expert on this but my understanding is that the Yogacara school when positing the existence of alaya vijnana and viewing it as a storehouse of karmic seeds understand that all phenomena arise from this storehouse thus they subscribe to the view that "all is mind", so I believe philosophically accepting that premise means you also have a metaphysical view that only mind truly exists. I can't list out the arguments against this view ( I think it comes down to dependent origination vs storehouse origination) but the Madhyamikas refute the storehouse consciousness, so let it be said that from Nagarjuna on down to HHDL many prominent Buddhists don't accept that view.
Really though for those of us living in the world with our everyday practice and struggles these kind of abstractions don't matter much.
Don't like the idea of a soul at all. That there's this thing that's a copy of you, floating around where ever you go. It's a nonsensical idea.
But 4 dimensional space. I can get behind that. Start with an infinitely small dot. Stretch it out, you have a 1 dimensional object, stretch it again, you're 2D, width and length. Stretch it again. You're 3D. Stretch again. 4 dimensional space. A HyperCube. Just as a 3D object that can only sense in 2D is fully connected to it's full 3D self, we could be fully connected to our true 4D selves. Gaining access to it could be as simple as meditation or hypnosis, no supernatural hocus pocus required. When you die this slice of you in 3D space burns away leaving something behind in 4D space.
A Buddha is someone fully connected to their true 4 dimensional being, all their past lives and all the learning from those lives entirely on tap. String theory and Quantum Physics say there's at least 10 dimensions. Only need 4.
But I'm in this Buddhism game for what it brings to this life. Happiness. Exploring the 4th dimension is just a hobby.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@ourself said:> The 4th dimension is time, isn't it?
Yes, that's right. Further dimensions have been theorised at the sub-atomic level.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I suppose distance would have to pretty much be the same dimension as time/space but I'm trying to think of some others without looking it up.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Comments
"Universal consciousness" is tricky. Does it mean the universal nature of a particular type of consciousness, or does it mean something more like Advaita?
I think it would be more like the Tao. Advaita seems to imply a persona but I could be wrong.
The only way I could see the Tao being aware of its own existence at all is through beings such as we. There could be a subtler form of awareness to it all though.
I just read about this theoretical physicist James Gates. Apparently a couple of years ago he discovered computer codes embedded in the equations of string theory.
Not just any codes but Block Linear Self Duel Error Correcting Codes which we use in computer browsers. They measure incoming information against what is already known.
Some are trying to use it to prove we are indeed living in a computer program just like the movie The Matrix and that sometime in the future we did this to ourselves.
Personally I think that's one of the sillier hypotheses out there and feel it can be explained by seeing how we did not invent the digitalized world but only tapped into it.
I'm pretty sure this is still on topic.
How?
Because it can tie into various theories of whether or not there is a kind of self or awareness to the universe. If we are aspects of such a thing then there are many implications we could go into.
The topic is still being discussed but I'm not sure how such an esoteric thread would fall under "Buddhist Basics".
If dukkha is largely because of ignorance it would seem silly to bask in it for the lack of exploration, no?
The original post goes into a few different things but it all ties together.
The body is not ours. It belongs to nature. If it were ours, we would not need to do a dissection to know its contents. What happens if we stop eating or drinking? We or rather
the body dies. We can try to stay healthy and young but despite our best efforts we will ultimately fail. If the body isn't truly ours we can't presume to claim ownership over our partners or children (another body). Let alone our co workers, dhammafarers etc.
Does anyone disagree with the sutta above and if so, why?
Thigh Nhat Hanh has a book about the diamond sutra which is a Mahayana sutra about nonself
The formula is: A is not A. That is how it can be the true A.
A flower is composed of non flower elements. That is how it can be a flower..
Mindfulness-Precepts-and-Crashing-in-the-Same-Car-Ajahn-Jayasaro
^^^ thanks @pegembara
What is described is 'I am', mindfulness, being in the zone. Very natural and attentive.
It is a constant returning, in Sufism and in some Buddhist explanations it is called remembrance/remembering.
When our mind is chaotic, and out of control, we jump from one thought tree to the next ... arisings, mindless meandering ... in effect sleep walking through life ...
Consequentially this present awareness is difficult to retain constantly and we have to practice formal sitting, attention to tasks, walking meditation, chanting, returning to the breath with gentleness etc
Where does the soul come in all this? It doesn't ... unless the soul is a unique gibbering we are attached to ...
A few Sutta's for clarification on what the Buddha actually said:
also some good links by Thanissaro on self/not-self/no self
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.html#talk2
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html
@Jayantha;
I wonder if the wanderer could have gotten some benefit from a glimpse of the middle way or not-self there. He only asked about self and no self and may not have heard any prior teachings about not-self.
Who knows, it appears to me that he was one of many who tried to debate or trick the Buddha to agree to certain views, so the Buddha didn't play his game.
Cockney Buddha: "Nar listen 'ere, Vacchagotta, you ain't got no bleedin' self so just get used to it. Nar stop wandering abart and make me a nice cup of Rosy Lee."
I didn't think of that and figured he was genuine. I suppose it makes sense but he could have just said the self can't be pointed to and is temporary...
I wonder if a lot of it has to do with the limitations of language back then as compared to now.
a few of the young monks and I have quoted the buddha in modern urban speak and a variety of different accents lol.
I've found that there are many suttas, mostly with verses, where the Buddha engages in what could be called a "rap battle" with others. They come out with a few lines and then the Buddha says "thats ok.. but THIS" drops the mike.
all ways of identifying with the Buddha in a modern context lol.
oh btw heres a for instance :
I'm far from expert on this but my understanding is that the Yogacara school when positing the existence of alaya vijnana and viewing it as a storehouse of karmic seeds understand that all phenomena arise from this storehouse thus they subscribe to the view that "all is mind", so I believe philosophically accepting that premise means you also have a metaphysical view that only mind truly exists. I can't list out the arguments against this view ( I think it comes down to dependent origination vs storehouse origination) but the Madhyamikas refute the storehouse consciousness, so let it be said that from Nagarjuna on down to HHDL many prominent Buddhists don't accept that view.
Really though for those of us living in the world with our everyday practice and struggles these kind of abstractions don't matter much.
Don't like the idea of a soul at all. That there's this thing that's a copy of you, floating around where ever you go. It's a nonsensical idea.
But 4 dimensional space. I can get behind that. Start with an infinitely small dot. Stretch it out, you have a 1 dimensional object, stretch it again, you're 2D, width and length. Stretch it again. You're 3D. Stretch again. 4 dimensional space. A HyperCube. Just as a 3D object that can only sense in 2D is fully connected to it's full 3D self, we could be fully connected to our true 4D selves. Gaining access to it could be as simple as meditation or hypnosis, no supernatural hocus pocus required. When you die this slice of you in 3D space burns away leaving something behind in 4D space.
A Buddha is someone fully connected to their true 4 dimensional being, all their past lives and all the learning from those lives entirely on tap. String theory and Quantum Physics say there's at least 10 dimensions. Only need 4.
But I'm in this Buddhism game for what it brings to this life. Happiness. Exploring the 4th dimension is just a hobby.
The 4th dimension is time, isn't it?
Yes, that's right. Further dimensions have been theorised at the sub-atomic level.
I suppose distance would have to pretty much be the same dimension as time/space but I'm trying to think of some others without looking it up.
lost me.....