Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Ben Dhyan]

So you have no evidence for your beliefs? OK.

I have evidence...do you have evidence that I don't? ...

 

[godnotgod]

Nonsense, sunyata is not "pure consciousness". Again you are muddling up Hindu and Buddhist teachings and ending up in complete confusion.

Nonsense! I am simply pointing to the obvious, which you fail to see, because you are still surgically attached to the pointing finger, rather than getting your head out of your *** to take a peek at the moon. This is crystal clear to me, but confusing to you, because you continue to create preferences and divisions of 'this' over 'that'. Sunyata is pure (ie 'clear') consciousness simply because it has no idea of self-nature to contaminate it. It is empty of such contamination, or 'residue' as a true Buddhist would say. Why? Because any concept of a self-nature is one held in memory, a product of the dead past, and when this notion is carried into the present moment, there is residue, or contamination, and therefore, confusion.

Did you bother to take a look at the explanation from the link I provided re: Thich Nhat Hanh?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Did you bother to take a look at the explanation from the link I provided re: Thich Nhat Hanh?

Yes, I've posted this link myself in the past, and it confirms exactly what I have been saying, particularly that translation of the Heart Sutra. All phenomena are characterised by emptiness, including consciousness of any type, which makes notions like "pure consciousness" and "cosmic consciousness" nonsensical and irrelevant.

Strange that the Wiki article on sunyata doesn't talk about your "cosmic consciousness", I guess they must be wrong too then?

I notice that you keep muddling up "pure consciousness", "universal consciousness" and "cosmic consciousness". I'm not sure whether you are deliberately trying to move the goalposts, or whether you are just plain confused as a result of muddling up Buddhist and Hindu ideas. Or maybe they are all the same thing? You still haven't explained.

What I am sure about is that you will completely miss the point of The Heart Sutra while you continue to view it through the lens of your new-age Hindu beliefs.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I have evidence...do you have evidence that I don't? ...

So let's see your evidence, clearly stated and without vague jargon. It would be good to see you make a coherent case for your beliefs.

 

[Willamena]

What do you mean by emptiness?

The best description that I've come across is "radical negation," which affirms both the negation and its inherent positive counterpart.

 

[Willamena]

Read this post:

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...-in-and-of-itself.181074/page-72#post-4529036

and then tell me if your answer still holds true. (sunyata is emptiness)

Yes, it holds.

I don't interpret emptiness as noumenon, that is as an ontological image.

 

[Unification]

Yeah, random cliche #624, "ancient mystics" high on mushrooms and stuff. Right. Talking of Buddhist traditions, do you accept that the Heart Sutra, a pivotal Mahayana text, directly contradicts your belief in "cosmic consciousness"?

Can you please provide a link to where I may read the heart sutra?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Can you please provide a link to where I may read the heart sutra?

Here's the one we were discussing recently: http://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra-translation/

 

[Unification]

Ooooh, an exposed nerve ending!

Let's see now, professor: YOU are the one 'explaining' *cough*, that the Heart Sutra contradicts CC. The Buddha claims he achieved Supreme Enlightenment. What do you think that means as it relates to the Heart Sutra?

What is your best definition or explanation of what cosmic consciousness is?

 

[Unification]

Here's the one we were discussing recently: http://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra-translation/

Thank you, sir.

 

[Katzpur]

Fine, then there cannot have been a 'creation'. There can only have been manifestation and transformation. Therefore, God did not create anything.

By your logic, the word "create" might as well be eliminated from the English language. If one must first create the raw materials from which his work of art is to be made, no one has ever created anything. I'm not sure why you feel so strongly that a true creator can't start the creation process with existing materials. This certainly isn't what the Bible says.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What is your best definition or explanation of what cosmic consciousness is?

Good luck with that. As the name suggests, "cosmic consciousness" seems to mean the universe being conscious, which is why I've referred to this as a new-age Hindu belief. You'll probably be referred to some Deepak Chopra lectures or suchlike. It's confusing though because the meaning of this term seems to conveniently change according to the argument that is being made at any one time.

I wouldn't hold your breath on getting a succinct and coherent definition of "cosmic consciousness", this has been requested many times but never provided.

 

[Unification]

And 'sunyata', as you explained, 'means empty of inherent or independent existence', which, according to The Heart Sutra, includes consciousness. Therefore, the idea of a personal consciousness (ie; 'self-view) has no independent or inherent existence. And if that is the case, logically speaking, the only choice left is that consciousness cannot be a local phenomena, but therefore must be a non-local phenomena, which, by definition, is universal in nature.

Thanks for clearing that up.

It's been an enlightening experience.

To me, the cosmos/universe/world is duplicated within our minds/heart.

In other words, our minds/heart are the cosmos/universe/world since we came from it. Our inner universe.

All is mind, there is no cosmos/universe/world without our "Trikaya" or conscious, subconscious, and ego/unconscious forms of mental being.

More biologically speaking, the three meninges... the pia mater, subarachnoid mater, and the duramater. With the "sambhogakaya" being the subarachnoid separator/divider/veil between the two.

By being universal in nature, since we are the universe... it's within our nature. The Buddah nature rests latently within all beings. The universe is aware and being only because we are aware and being and we are the universe.

Since the cosmos and cosmic energy are within us, and consciousness is within us.... cosmic consciousness is another phrase for one/whole mind or enlightenment, or the Buddah conscious.

When the light/cosmic energy within(the Bodhi) transforms/awakens the conscious mind.

The "nirmanakaya" is overcome, and there is a union/merging of the "dharmakaya mind" and "sambhogakaya mind" into one. The male(conscious mind) and female(subconscious mind) into one.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Man, I just love being part and parcel of the wonderful Big Gyrating Stupidity in the Sky! yuk yuk!

*yes, but what is this 'doing' about? You're not telling me anything. IOW, what is the true nature of Reality?

When you are asleep, dreaming, say, that you are running from a tiger, there is change and interaction. But upon awakening, you immediately realize that there was no such change or interaction. It was all just an illusion. Well, the same is true from this Third Level of Consciousness we call material reality, to the next and subsequent levels of Consciousness. When you awaken from the dream that is this world, you will see all of the effervescence of this world as illusory. You will be in the state of The Changeless.

Doing, being, interacting, transforming, changing is what the universe does. That is the true nature and reality of the universe. When you are asleep you are interacting in one way. When you awaken from that sleep or that dream, you don't cease to interact, you interact differently. That is all this so-called "mystic experience" is....another way of interacting with the universe.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

.... cosmic consciousness is another phrase for one/whole mind or enlightenment...

Your analysis is a muddle of stuff from all over the place and doesn't make sense to me, but why don't you ask some other Buddhists whether they refer to enlightenment as "cosmic consciousness"? And while you're at it ask them whether they think sunyata is compatible with "cosmic consciousness".

Sorry but I can't see the point of this new-age style muddling of ideas from here, there and everywhere when we're discussing established concepts specific to one tradition, in this case Buddhism.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That is all this so-called "mystic experience" is....another way of interacting with the universe.

I think you're right, but of course that will sound too "ordinary" to the ultra-spiritual types, they will insist on reifying such experiences and dressing them up with a load of religious mumbo-jumbo. <sigh>

 

[Unification]

Your analysis is muddled and doesn't make sense to me, but why don't you ask some other Buddhists whether they refer to enlightenment as "cosmic consciousness"? And while you're at it ask them whether they think sunyata is compatible with "cosmic consciousness".

It really doesn't matter to me. Words or phrases don't offend me. I don't see why any Buddhist would care to have precise terminology and certain words only unless they meant two very distinct things. For me cosmic consciousness is the same thing as enlightenment, the lightening of the conscious mind.

It doesn't offend me calling cosmic conscious the same thing as the Christ conscious or the Buddah conscious or enlightened conscious. They are just words.

If cosmic consciousness is presented as something radically different than "sunyata" yet portrayed to be "sunyata," I can understand your point.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If cosmic consciousness is presented as something radically different than "sunyata" yet portrayed to be "sunyata," I can understand your point.

Yes, cosmic consciousness has been presented as something radically different from sunyata. Have you read The Heart Sutra and understood it? Do you understand what sunyata really is? Do you know what Buddhist enlightenment is? I suspect you only have a vague idea and are just making stuff up to suit your own idiosyncratic view.
I think the meaning of words does matter, particularly when we talking about specific terms in an established discipline or tradition.

Sorry but I don't find your woolly syncretism very credible, there is too much misrepresentation and guesswork involved, it looks superficial.
It's reminiscent of that old hippy saying "It's all one, man." Well no, it isn't, unless you're rather stoned.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It really doesn't matter to me. Words or phrases don't offend me. I don't see why any Buddhist would care to have precise terminology and certain words only unless they meant two very distinct things. For me cosmic consciousness is the same thing as enlightenment, the lightening of the conscious mind.

It doesn't offend me calling cosmic conscious the same thing as the Christ conscious or the Buddah conscious or enlightened conscious. They are just words.

If cosmic consciousness is presented as something radically different than "sunyata" yet portrayed to be "sunyata," I can understand your point.

So since they all seem to use the same word....what is "consciousness"?


I already gave my explanation.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So since they all seem to use the same word....what is "consciousness"?

Good luck with that!