If "everything is energy" then what does this mean?

[Runewolf1973]

Not true....I care and I am a indispensable aspect of the universe...

Does this apply for the universe as a whole?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So happens that those Zen quotes all point to Universal Mind. Did you notice?

"Universal mind" is just a bad translation. You are confusing Buddhism with Advaita Vedanta, I think deliberately because it suits your syncretic new-age agenda.

You are a pseudo-Hindu and want to pretend that Buddhism is part of Hinduism. It really isn't though.

Stop playing games, admit that you a new-age pseudo-Hindu posing as a Zennist.

 

[Runewolf1973]

If I pointed to something I called 'that which sees', would you know what I meant, without thinking about it?

Yes. I understand this very well. It no doubt can be called "consciousness" as well, since it is after all just another label, and so is "interaction", but it is a label which can lead to much disagreement which is not really a good thing. Mainstream science doesn't see consciousness as a universal thing. Interaction and/or interconnectivity on the other hand can be seen by both the mystic and the scientist as a universal thing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Mainstream science doesn't see consciousness as a universal thing.

No, it doesn't. Universal / cosmic consciousness is a religious belief, and only pseudo-scientists would argue otherwise.

I think it is much more productive to focus on what we can actually observe, all these beliefs just get in the way. Beliefs are like coloured tints on spectacles, the stronger the tint the less clearly you can see.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Does this apply for the universe as a whole?

Yes..actions and reactions anywhere anytime in the universe are eternal..can be called karma...or ....the eternal dance of ying and yang...as a result, the Tao or universe as a whole is always at peace....

 

[Runewolf1973]

No, it doesn't. Universal / cosmic consciousness is a religious belief, and only pseudo-scientists would argue otherwise.

Whatever it is, it certainly doesn't contribute towards a unified view.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes. I understand this very well. It no doubt can be called "consciousness" as well, since it is after all just another label, and so is "interaction", but it is a label which can lead to much disagreement which is not really a good thing. Mainstream science doesn't see consciousness as a universal thing. Interaction and/or interconnectivity on the other hand can be seen by both the mystic and the scientist as a universal thing.

Science does not see it as a universal thing because the method of science is to dissect, reduce, and predict, but consciousness does not lend itself to those methods. It is only experiential. You are that itself. It is not a thing, but a state of being.

Interaction, while ideal for the scientist to measure, observe, and predict, is seen by the mystic only as an appearance of something lying on a deeper level.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes..actions and reactions anywhere anytime in the universe are eternal..can be called karma...or ....the eternal dance of ying and yang...as a result, the Tao or universe as a whole is always at peace....

Sorry but this shallow anthropomorphism is entirely unconvincing. The universe is not "always at peace", it is actually a very violent place.

 

[godnotgod]

"Universal mind" is just a bad translation. You are confusing Buddhism with Advaita Vedanta, I think deliberately because it suits your syncretic new-age agenda.

You are a pseudo-Hindu and want to pretend that Buddhism is part of Hinduism. It really isn't though.

Stop playing games, admit that you a new-age pseudo-Hindu posing as a Zennist.

OMG! How idiotic can anyone possibly be?!

Not much intelligence is demonstrated by dismissing the use of the phrase 'universal mind' from a Zen site as a 'bad translation'. No, there is no mistake as to what is meant.

I will ignore the rest of your ridiculous post as being misguided.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Whatever it is, it certainly doesn't contribute towards a unified view.

It's just a religious belief and doesn't contribute to anything very much.

I do find your interaction model interesting, with consciousness as a "result" of interaction. This is similar to how consciousness is described in the Buddhist suttas, where consciousness is said to arise in dependence on sense-organ and sense-object. So for example ear-consciousness arises in dependence on ear and sound.

 

[godnotgod]

Whatever it is, it certainly doesn't contribute towards a unified view.

Reality is already unified. Universal Consciousness implies this unified presence.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

OMG! How idiotic can anyone possibly be?!
Not much intelligence is demonstrated by dismissing the use of the phrase 'universal mind' from a Zen site as a 'bad translation'. No, there is no mistake as to what is meant.
I will ignore the rest of your ridiculous post as being misguided.

You are the misguided one. I have already demonstrated that your notions of universal and cosmic consciousness are completely incompatible with the central Buddhist teaching of emptiness ( sunyata ). What you are describing is more like Advaita Vedanta, but it certainly isn't Buddhism. In Buddhism consciousness is always dependent arising, therefore empty, transient and insubstantial. I suggest you return to the Heart Sutra and study it properly, you will see that ALL the aggregates are empty, that includes consciousness.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Reality is already unified. Universal Consciousness implies this unified presence.

No, universal consciousness is just a belief, sort of of new-age Hinduism.

 

[godnotgod]

No, it doesn't. Universal / cosmic consciousness is a religious belief, and only pseudo-scientists would argue otherwise.

I think it is much more productive to focus on what we can actually observe, all these beliefs just get in the way. Beliefs are like coloured tints on spectacles, the stronger the tint the less clearly you can see.

Then there are mystics who argue that CC is an experience of divine union and a real awakening to the true nature of things, rather than a belief in a religious doctrine such as 'salvation'. The goal of religion is salvation while that of The Master Game is awakening.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Then there are mystics who argue that CC is an experience of divine union and a real awakening to the true nature of things, rather than a belief in a religious doctrine such as 'salvation'. The goal of religion is salvation while that of The Master Game is awakening.

So what? Mystics argue all kinds of things. There are experiences, and then there are beliefs ABOUT those experiences.

 

[godnotgod]

You are the misguided one. I have already demonstrated that your notions of universal and cosmic consciousness are completely incompatible with the central Buddhist teaching of emptiness ( sunyata ). What you are describing is more like Advaita Vedanta, but it certainly isn't Buddhism. In Buddhism consciousness is always dependent arising, therefore empty, transient and insubstantial. I suggest you return to the Heart Sutra and study it properly, you will see that ALL the aggregates are empty, that includes consciousness.

Not sure, but I guess you may have missed the post which ties Buddhism to Universal Consciousness, so here it is again:

The document, here employed, in abbreviated form, presents the teaching of Hsi Yun, one of the Ch’an (or Zen) masters who lived about 840 A.D. His teaching is reported by P’ei Hsiu, an official and scholar who became a student under Hsi Yun. It gives a more or less sympathetic disclosure of Ch’an philosophy.

First it defends the doctrine with which we are now familiar, that universal mind alone is real. This result is then used to explain why one must abandon seeking for anything; universal mind is realized by the cessation of all seeking and by leaving behind the analytic discriminations it uses and trusts. This step is achieved in a flash of sudden awakening. [ie Satori]

The Master said to me: “All the Buddhas and all the sentient beings are nothing but the universal mind, besides which nothing exists. This mind, which has always existed, is unborn and indestructible. It is not green or yellow, and has neither form nor appearance. It does not belong to the categories of things that exist or do not exist, nor can it be reckoned as being new or old. It is neither long nor short, big nor small, but transcends all limits, measures, names, speech, and every method of treating it concretely. It is the substance you see before you - begin to reason about it and you at once fall into error. It is like the boundless void, which cannot be fathomed or measured. This universal mind alone is the Buddha and there is no distinction between the Buddha and sentient beings, but sentient beings are attached to particular forms and so seek for Buddhahood outside it. By their very seeking for it they produce a contrary effect of losing it, for that is using the Buddha to seek the Buddha and using the mind to grasp mind. Even though they do their utmost for a full kalpa, they will not be able to attain it. They do not know how to put a stop to their thoughts and forget their anxiety. The Buddha is directly before them, for this (universal) mind is the Buddha and the Buddha is all living beings. It is not the less for being manifested in ordinary beings, nor is it greater for being manifested in the Buddha.
Only awake to the universal mind, and realize that there is nothing whatsoever to be attained. This is the real Buddha. The Buddha and all sentient beings are the universal mind and nothing else....

“The universal mind is no mind [in the ordinary sense of the word] and is completely detached from form. So it is with the Buddhas and sentient beings. If they (the latter) can only rid themselves of analytic thinking (mentation) they will have accomplished everything.

“The pure mind, the source of everything, shines on all with the brilliance of its own perfection, but the people of the world do not awake to it regarding only that which sees, hears, feels and knows as mind. Because their understanding is veiled by their own sight, hearing, feeling, and knowledge, they do not perceive the spiritual brilliance of the original substance....
“When the people of the world listen for the Way, all the Buddhas proclaim the doctrine of universal mind.

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Translations/Hsi Yun_Ultimate_Reality.html

 

[godnotgod]

So what? Mystics argue all kinds of things. There are experiences, and then there are beliefs ABOUT those experiences.

Right, and so that is why I am making the distinction. The mystic is focusing on direct experience, such as with Zen, where beliefs are set aside, contrasted with the theist, whose primary concern is belief in some doctrine or set of doctrines, usually derived from scriptural sources. The mystic's source is within his own being.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Like I said your Zen quote is just a bad translation.

I have demonstrated clearly that the central Buddhist teaching of sunyata is incompatible with your universal and cosmic consciousness thingies, so you haven't got a leg to stand on here.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The mystic is focusing on direct experience, such as with Zen, where beliefs are set aside, contrasted with the theist, whose primary concern is belief in some doctrine or set of doctrines, usually derived from scriptural sources. The mystic's source is within his own being.

Right, but you have a set of new-age doctrines, like "Cosmic consciousness". "Cosmic Consciousness" is also a belief, somewhat like pantheism - you might as well call it "God" really. Or "Brahman" would be closer to it?

I'm not convinced you really understand the difference between experience and beliefs ABOUT experience. That is why mindfulness practice is so important, that full attention to present experience.

 

[godnotgod]

No, it really isn't. Don't take my word for it though, go onto any Buddhist forum with your twaddle about "universal consciousness" and "cosmic consciousness", you will quickly be put straight.

"Zen" is derived from "Chan", which means meditation - that should give you a clue.

...and meditation is about the transcendence of 'self--view' and the realization of universal mind, which is none other than the Buddha's 'Original Mind'.