Universal mind?

Maybe it would help if I share some personal reasons why I am not offended by the phrase “universal mind”?

When I was a boy I spent a lot of time outside in nature, playing with friends, making dens, climbing trees. This was particularly the case when I lived in Argentina and then in Yorkshire (UK). I recall feeling at that time that nature and the mind were not wholly separate things. We spent summers in a country cottage, and would often walk down by a river that ran through rocks and hillsides, where there was a strong sense that nature - the river, the trees, the sheep grazing nearby, the bats flitting in the evening, the caves in the hillside - was a living thing in its own right (as distinct from what we humans do to it).

Later, when my family moved south to Kent (a rural county near London), we lived on the edge of some countryside, and I would often wander there after supper, after school had ended, to take in the sounds and smells of the late afternoon and early evening. Sometimes - perhaps under the influence of reading poetry, or because at the time I wanted to be a zoologist and was reading all about the natural world! - I felt a strong sense that the trees and birds around me were all part of a single, unitary intelligence or mind. Not an intelligence or mind with self-consciousness or conscious intentionality (like a human being or animal), but just a kind of impersonal intelligence that may also be conveyed by the words “nature as an interconnected whole”. This sense has never completely left me.

A few examples.

Once, when I was visiting a friend in the countryside as a teenager, I went for a walk near his house, and there were some golden coloured corn fields, with a disused barn, surrounded by green woods. I remember sitting there for some time taking in the beauty of the place, and I had the sense that the corn field, the trees surrounding it, and the blue summer sky, were all part of some kind of unitary goodness, as though they were both praising the glory of things, as well as themselves being the praise.

Once when I was in Israel, I had been visiting one of the deserts there (I think it was the Negev), and we had returned to a friend’s house somewhere in fertile countryside. The desert experience is something quite drastic - purifying and cathartic on the one hand, but emptying and annihilating on the other. Coming back to this beautiful tree lined space, with a hot yet cooling breeze still blowing, the sun setting, and one particular tree making its own presence felt in the twilight, I had the strong, almost palpable sense that the air itself was alive, ‘mindful’, intelligent in some sense.

On one of the trips I made to India I attended a meditation retreat that lasted for 10 days or so; after which I travelled with a friend to some hills-stations in the Himalayas, stopping to go on mountain treks and to see some glaciers, on our way to Dharamshala and McLeod Ganj (the residence of the Dalai Lama). During a stay at one of the hill-stations (I think it was Nainital) I remember taking a long evening stroll above the town, looking down on the lake there, with the houses far and wide covered by a blanket of darkness except for electric lights, and the stars above me head spread out in space. I recall that, for 10 or 15 minutes approx, I had a kind of vision (for want of a better word, because it was not a visual event) that the earth is part of an infinite universe - or rather a part of an infinite series of universes, coming into existence without end - and that the totality of all this is like a kind of womb, giving birth to life, to energy and matter. It seemed as though it was all one dynamic movement of infinite, unending creation.

So these kinds of experiences make me open to the possibility of a universal mind.

That is the grand Catch-22 of this ‘non’-approach. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t!

Yes, very helpful!

You obviously have a strong love for nature. It seems quite sacred for you.

I am tempted to think:

The particular mind is to an individual as the universal mind is to the totality.

I know the former, but can only speculate about the latter. It’s not a fact for me, it’s unknown.

So what now? Drop the exploration? Strive to grok-experience the universal mind? Watch tv?

I was having trouble accepting something undefined and unknown, like glurglwhits - I didn’t want to accept that something was, if I didn’t at least have some understanding of what we were talking about.
Maybe we thought the universal mind was God, which can mean a mixed bag of stuff considering the multitude of stories we’ve heard from around the world.
Maybe we were doing the usual human thing of believing our own world view which is largely based on stories we’ve been told.

For those following along, there was a definition proposed in the thread above, that makes its existence so obvious that we are freed from the necessity of blind faith.

Universal mind is mind. Mind that is not merely the sum of mind restricted by fear. It is all mind, not just what I consider mine.

This obviously includes all the feelings we have (in nature or elsewhere) - but also the action of rocks etc…

Yes. I am surely not alone in feeling this way.

I don’t think it is a matter of speculating about it, but of not drawing hard and fast lines that foreclose it: such as saying, “Yes, I know the universal mind” (unless this is a fact - which it isn’t for me), or “No, I don’t accept the universal mind”.

That is, one can be open to the possibility of an immeasurable state of being, which is not the same thing as speculating about it. Do you see the difference?

This is why I think the topic of the quiet brain is perhaps more meaningful in the end (a quiet brain being a brain that is highly receptive and sensitive to what is - whatever “is” turns out to be in the end).

(Btw, if you’re going to watch some TV, I highly recommend anything narrated by David Attenborough!)

Universal mind is necessarily at the start. The only approach we can take is to add my mind and act solely from there.

Which means what? What is the fact of what happens to my mind as it approaches/non-approaches the universal?

Its impossible to approach or depart from the universal, hence its name.
Though we can get stuck in a small part of it, for example : what I want & what I know.

Yes, there is nothing to do. So can I do nothing? Is this mind I call mine able to - what? What is the word we would use?

1 Like

The brain usually refers to the squidgy matter in the skull, mind more to the experience being projected. In the brain electrical impulses are moving along habitual pathways, the sensual process is the experience of mind. What are we calling thought?

Universal mind. …
An holistic unidentified mind where the mind is devoid of thought i.e thoughtlesness. A mind without psychological time…

I was interpreting Paul’s “our dialogue must be from the universal mind” to mean “our dialogue needs to be from the universal mind, rather than from the particular mind.” That’s very different from “universal mind is necessarily at the start.” The Catch-22 is in the former, not the latter.

You’re saying the universe neither thinks nor has a psychological aspect?

1 Like

Psychological aspect is nothing but a form of accumulation, the accumulation of hurt, pleasure,jelousy…etc…

So one can see there involves a time in Psychological aspect …

Now when we talk about universal mind ,it can be clearly observed that there is no concept of time , we as a mankind have discretized the time for our convenience, and this comes under 1st order time,
Also we have further discretized the time in the psychological domain also which lies under 2nd order

The 1st order implies ,the usual time i.e 24hrs , a day ,year …etc

The 2nd order implies , psychological time , for ex i was deeply hurt by your words yesterday…

So in the 2nd order, time is nothing but an accumulation of hurt for prolonged period…

So universal mind is a pure action…where thought has no place

So when I look out at the world around me it is all a manifestation of ‘Universal Mind’ and my ‘looking out’ is also part of the manifestation. It is timeless. But the observer ‘me’ brings ‘time’ as past, present, future into the picture and ‘isolates ‘me’ psychologically from the world?

Though the isolation is felt as real, there is no actual isolation , it is one whole with no ‘outside’ or ‘inside’?

What do you mean by the word “manifestation” in these above sentences?
Could u pls elaborate…

The ‘manifest’ world is the world that can be seen and touched and measured.

We can be consciously aware that we are taking part in this…that we are “present in the Presence”.

A replies:

Yes an unitary action with no division, just like our breath where thought has no control over…which is in complete cosmic order…

So when I look out at the world around I am seeing a ‘moment’ that is one with the eternal Moment. Where all things come and go but which has no beginning and no end?