Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Rick O'Shez]

'Consciousness arises' in dependence of, but is not created by, sense organ/object. IOW, consciousness is always present, just below the surface of experience.

No, look more closely at your experience. Empty your head of all those beliefs and actually look at what happens. A deaf person doesn't have ear-consciousnes, they aren't conscious of sounds. A blind person doesn't have eye-consciousness, they aren't conscious of visual objects. That's how Buddhism approaches consciousness, whether you like it or not. It's very practical and verifiable by observation, no need for beliefs and speculations.
That's precisely why consciousness is dependently arising and characterised by sunyata. That's precisely why the notion of "cosmic consciousness" is incompatible with Buddhism, it isn't a fundamental property in the way that you believe it to be.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes, unfortunately he doesn't yet know how to use it to SEE. He has almost zero intuition in order to connect dot A to dot B.

I do have a good intuition for BS though. This thread is so full of it I don't know where to tread.

 

[godnotgod]

No, look more closely at your experience. Empty your head of all those beliefs and actually look at your own mind.

What do you want me to look at it with? Mind? And if I do, what, then, is looking at the looker?

 

[godnotgod]

I do have a good intuition for BS though. This thread is so full of it I don't know where to tread.

You might try actually addressing some of the questions being posed to you.

 

[godnotgod]

No, look more closely at your experience. Empty your head of all those beliefs and actually look at what happens. A deaf person doesn't have ear-consciousnes, they aren't conscious of sounds. A blind person doesn't have eye-consciousness, they aren't conscious of visual objects. That's how Buddhism approaches it, whether it suits you or not.

Let's remove all awareness associated with sensory perception: hearing, eyesight, smell, touch, taste. Is the person now unconscious?

 

[Unification]

Eh? Where did you get this from?

Personal experience. It's within us all and is a guiding intuitive force, helps us learn lessons along the way. Our human being experience is dependent on having this within.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

He is reliant on authority, without which he cannot move.

Ridiculous. I have learned how to make my own discoveries, I don't slavishly follow gurus like that charlatan Chopra. I don't fill my head with a load of unsubstantiated beliefs.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Let's remove all awareness associated with sensory perception: hearing, eyesight, smell, touch, taste. Is the person now unconscious?

No, mind-consciousness would remain. Until they go to sleep of course.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Personal experience. It's within us all and is a guiding intuitive force, helps us learn lessons along the way. Our human being experience is dependent on having this within.

No, the Sariputra reference.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You might try actually addressing some of the questions being posed to you.

I am addressing them. And I am answering honestly, not continually twisting and misrepresenting like you do. You really are dishonest and very manipulative. I think it's all a big ego-trip for you.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What do you want me to look at it with? Mind? And if I do, what, then, is looking at the looker?

I am recommending some introspection, which is something I think you sorely need.

 

[godnotgod]

No, mind-consciousness would remain. Until they go to sleep of course.

Even in sleep, there is consciousness. What is there before mind comes into play?

 

[godnotgod]

I am recommending some introspection, which is something I think you sorely need.

There is introspection, then there is something aware of the introspection.

 

[godnotgod]

I am addressing them. And I am answering honestly, not continually twisting and misrepresenting like you do. You really are dishonest and very manipulative. I think it's all a big ego-trip for you.

Extrapolation and pointing to the moon are not functions of the ego nor manipulation. I extrapolate that, because consciousness has no self-nature, and because, as Thich Nhat Hanh pointed out, it continues to exist regardless of it being devoid of self-nature, then it's existence must be of a universal nature. It's either one or the other.

There. I pointed. Are you going to attack the pointing finger again, or actually look at what is being pointed to?

You are making things up, such as that I manipulate, move goal posts, misrepresent, use new age hindu ideas, etc, none of which are true. Ah, the suspicious mind, always the Accuser, which points back to oneself.

 

[godnotgod]

Ridiculous. I have learned how to make my own discoveries, I don't slavishly follow gurus like that charlatan Chopra. I don't fill my head with a load of unsubstantiated beliefs.

You are a Legalist and Literalist, who cannot intuit from what he reads, relying on the 'authority' of officiality, whether from science or orthodox teachings.

If you didn't rely on authority, you wouldn't continue making a point of all the years you've spent going round to the various Buddhist sects, accumulating residue.

Zennists have a saying: 'every time you say the word 'Buddha', wash your mouth out with soap'. So Zen returns to the source within, the very same source the Buddha accessed when he attained his Supreme Enlightenment, rather than relying on external authority, such as scripture or science. Those become secondary sources to Reality itself.


I don't 'follow' Chopra, but he is a maverick and a genius.

 

[godnotgod]

... consciousness is dependently arising and characterised by sunyata. That's precisely why the notion of "cosmic consciousness" is incompatible with Buddhism, it isn't a fundamental property in the way that you believe it to be.

Sunyata means the absence of self-nature, 'self' being limited to a single entity, such as a person or a rock, for example. This is so because of the Law of Dependent Origination. IOW, there are no separate 'things' that can have a distinct self-nature. All such 'things', or phenomena, including consciousness, are interconnected with everything else as a single Reality. Being a single Reality, the nature of all phenomena is, therefore, universally empty of inherent, or self nature. IOW, there are no actual distinctions which create separate entities. Form is empty of such distinctions as 'self-nature'. Therefore:

'form is emptiness;
emptiness is form'

What we call a 'rock' does not possess a rock nature; consciousness does not possess a 'self' nature. It is, therefore, of a universal nature.

If consciousness does not possess a 'self nature', then consciousness is not 'my' consciousness, and there cannot be an 'I' which is conscious. Therefore, any such consciousness that is present must be, logically speaking, universal and non-local in nature.

Very simple to understand.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Atheists don't have a belief. You clearly have many beliefs but will never substantiate them.

Haha.....of course you have a belief....you believe that there is no reality represented by the concept of God...yes?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Empty of inherent or independent existence. Not literally empty.

Pretty close....

 

[Papoon]

Empty of inherent or independent existence. Not literally empty.

This is the explanation given by all the Buddhist teachers I have been fortunate enough to associate with, both Theravadin and Tibetan.
Regarding 'enlightenment' - Gautama did not propose a terminal state, or 'cosmic consciousness'. The Four Noble Truths, the succinct summation of Buddhism, states clearly that nirvana, the goal of Buddhist practice, is the absence of craving and aversion - nothing more, nothing less.
Keep at it Spiny. Strive with diligence

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You are making things up, such as that I manipulate, move goal posts, misrepresent, use new age hindu ideas, etc, none of which are true.

No, these are all observations based on your posting over a long period of time. I hadn't realised how dishonest you were until recently though.

Other contributors will be able to decide who is honest and who is making stuff up.