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

[Rick O'Shez]

hey Rick,
So are you a student of Buddhist believing ?
Woww...I can't get the different 'labels' on so many different 'gods'.
I can't really figure out the level of importance of any of them.
Explain it to me !
~
Once a Catholic, always a...........
~
'mud

I have a simple Buddhist practice based on mindfulness, and believe very little these days. Beliefs often seem like more trouble than they're worth! If you're basically content then I really wouldn't worry about this stuff.

 

[chinu]

I can't really figure out the level of importance of any of them.
Explain it to me !

~ yes explain unexplainable.

 

[viole]

, Actually, the microbes which causes skin cancer "Loves" to eat something which is very yummy for them.
Hence, that causes skin cancer.

"Love" is president everywhere.. loll.

Tough love, I guess.

CiAo

- viole

 

[godnotgod]

I'm tired of your endless stream of random new-age jargon and meaningless word salad. Can't you talk in plain English?

The Five Egotistical States of Apparent Love happens to come from the world of Psychology.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The Five Egotistical States of Apparent Love happens to come from the world of Psychology.

Really? Then let's see a referenced explanation of these "five egotistical states of apparent love" from the world of psychology.

You also need to explain succinctly what you mean by "authentic self". Is this the same as your "cosmic consciousness" or "universal consciousness"? All very confusing.

And then please start writing your posts in plain English so they are coherent and intelligible.

 

[godnotgod]

As a Buddhist I don't share your belief, but you ARE speaking from an authentic tradition, unlike our two snake-oil sellers who don't care about the truth and are only intent on preaching their strange DIY religions.

How can you call yourself a Buddhist? When the Buddha's own words are placed right under your nose, you deny them. So, c'mon, 'Buddhish'*; answer the question: show me that the following is an incorrect translation:

"O bhikkhus, what is the Absolute (Asaṃkhata, Unconditioned)? It is, O bhikkhus, the extinction of desire (rāgakkhayo) the extinction of hatred (dosakkhayo), the extinction of illusion (mohakkhayo). This, O bhikkhus, is called the Absolute."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism)

*Buddhish: a half-arsed Buddhist; an unreasonable facsimile thereof; pseudo-Buddhist; a smug, knee-jerk, muddled wanna-be.

 

[godnotgod]

....you won't listen to people practising in authentic traditions who really know.

Really know what? Jack-s**t?

Why don't you know that what the Buddha said about Nirvana; that it is both The Unconditioned and The Absolute, is true? Because you have never experienced either in your stagnant, backwater tradition of Hinayanist Theravada, the very tradition that the quote in question came from.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Really know what? Jack-s**t?
Why don't you know that what the Buddha said about Nirvana; that it is both The Unconditioned and The Absolute, is true? Because you have never experienced either in your stagnant, backwater tradition of Hinayanist Theravada, the very tradition that the quote in question came from.

I have never claimed to have attained Nirvana, or implied it, so your childish attempt at point-scoring is as usual ineffectual. And as I have explained previously, I have practised in all the main Buddhist schools over a long period of time, not just Theravada, and now have a very simple Zen-like practice. Your petty sectarianism is even more ridiculous because you are a new-age Chopra-clone, not a Buddhist.

It's very revealing that like your bendy chum you continually imply superior knowledge, but get nasty and hurl insults when your pretentious waffle is exposed for the nonsense that it is. Delusions of grandeur perhaps? Certainly a very large ego.

Let's deal with the Nirvana question again. All you have done is quote-mined a dodgy translation because you want to claim that Nirvana is the same as Brahman, not because it is true, but because your bizarre DIY religion depends on it. But this is just plain wrong, yet another example of the way you deliberately misrepresent things.
In the sutttas Nibbana is defined as the cessation of craving, aversion and delusion, in other words the cessation of unskillful mental states. It is certainly NOT an absolute like Atman/Brahman.
In the Mahayana Nirvana follows insight into sunyata ( emptiness ), and the Heart Sutra makes it clear that Nirvana too is empty, ie it is NOT an absolute.
So I have AGAIN demonstrated that you quote-mined a dodgy translation, you will I am sure IGNORE this again because you are are so attached to your bizarre DIY religion.

You are just a tiresome Chopra clone who hijacks threads to preach a bizarre DIY religion.

I'll say it again in blue, in case that's the only colour you understand:

You are just a tiresome Chopra clone who hijacks threads to preach a bizarre DIY religion.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

*Buddhish: a half-arsed Buddhist; an unreasonable facsimile thereof; pseudo-Buddhist; a smug, knee-jerk, muddled wanna-be.

Now you've had your latest tantrum and thrown some more insults, maybe you could actually respond to the points raised in my last post:

You claimed the "five egotistical states of apparent love" are from the world of psychology, so let's see a referenced explanation FROM the world of psychology.

You introduced yet another bit of jargon which you haven't bothered to explain, ie "authentic self". What exactly does this mean? It it the same as your "cosmic consciousness" or "universal consciousness"? Something else again? Do explain.

 

[godnotgod]

I have never claimed to have attained Nirvana, or implied it....

You see how muddled your mind is? I never said that you did! If you re-read, you will see that what I said is that:

"Why don't you know that what the Buddha said about Nirvana; that it is both The Unconditioned and The Absolute, is true? Because you have never experienced either in your stagnant, backwater tradition of Hinayanist Theravada, the very tradition that the quote in question came from."

Understand the difference? No? Go to your room!

And as I have explained previously, I have practised in all the main Buddhist schools over a long period of time...

Blah blah blah...and furthermore....'I' this and 'I' that and blah and more blah....meaning absolutely NOTHING!

[/QUOTE], not just Theravada, and now have a very simple Zen-like practice.[/QUOTE]

Lobotomized frogs also have a very simple practice. The trouble with you is that you don't understand what this simplicity is about. It's not for it's own sake.

... you continually imply superior knowledge...

I have nothing of the sort. That notion is held only in your mind. All I am doing is to state what I see.

Let's deal with the Nirvana question again. All you have done is quote-mined a dodgy translation because you want to claim that Nirvana is the same as Brahman, not because it is true but because your bizarre DIY religion depends on it. But this is just plain wrong.
In the sutttas Nibbana is defined as the cessation of craving, aversion and delusion, in other words the cessation of unskillful mental states. It is certainly NOT an absolute like Atman/Brahman.
In the Mahayana Nirvana follows insight into sunyata ( emptiness ), and the Heart Sutra makes it clear that Nirvana too is empty, ie it is NOT an absolute.

Oh? Show me where the Heart Sutra says that Nirvana is not an absolute. Maybe you have a dodgy translation.

You have not proven it is a dodgy translation, and until you do, it stands on its own merits, so your explanation here as to why it is not an absolute is meaningless, but I, being the wonderful Buddhist that I am, will toss you a bone:

All phenomena are empty. Nirvana is the ultimate phenomena, and is ultimately empty, that is to say, absolutely empty. Absolute emptiness is Nothingness, The Absolute.

So where is the reference to your info that this is an erroneous translation, and that what it says is not what it says? Hmmmm? C'mon, now, cough it up.

You are just a tiresome Chopra clone who hijacks threads to preach a bizarre DIY religion.

I'll say it again in blue, in case that's the only colour you understand:
You are just a tiresome Chopra clone who hijacks threads to preach a bizarre DIY religion.

Yeah! Exactly what the Hindus shouted at the Buddha. So they got him kicked off of REF. ha ha ha...

 

[godnotgod]

Now you've had your latest tantrum and thrown some more insults, maybe you could actually respond to the points raised in my last post:

Sho' 'nuff, just as soon as you show me how the quote I posted from the Buddha is a dodgy translation, and how the meaning is changed to synch with your view.

Insults? What's wrong with being a 'Buddhish'? I know plenty of Buddhish-ts, and they don't feel insulted.

You claimed the "five egotistical states of apparent love" are from the world of psychology, so let's see a referenced explanation FROM the world of psychology.

Sho' 'nuff. Just as soon as you address the dodgy translation issue from my quote of the Buddha's words.

You introduced yet another bit of jargon which you haven't bothered to explain, ie "authentic self". What exactly does this mean? It it the same as your "cosmic consciousness" or "universal consciousness"? Something else again? Do explain.

'Sho 'nuff. All you need do is to look at your own post re: 'authentic tradition', and you will understand instantly. So simple, even a Buddhish can do it.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Absolute is only a concecpt. There is nothing which you can point to and say "that is absolute", or "this is the absolute"...all you can point to are concepts. Nothingness is a concept. There is no truth in concepts. Perhaps it would serve you well to just drop all these useless terms...nothingness, pure consciousness, ultimate reality...etc. What do you need them for?

 

[godnotgod]

Absolute is only a concecpt. There is nothing which you can point to and say "that is absolute", or "this is the absolute"...all you can point to are concepts. Nothingness is a concept. There is no truth in concepts. Perhaps it would serve you well to just drop all these useless terms...nothingness, pure consciousness, ultimate reality...etc. What do you need them for?

"The Universe can be defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist. According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of spacetime, forms of energy(including electromagnetic radiation and matter), and the physical laws that relate them. The Universe encompasses all of life, all of history, and some philosophers and scientists suggest that it even encompasses ideas such as mathematics and logic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

I add all multiverses to this.

Therefore, being Everything, the Universe is not only an absolute, it is The Absolute, as there is no relative 'other' to which it can be compared.

So there. I have just demolished your argument that there are no absolutes. In addition, since The Universe, ie 'Everything', it comes out of Nothing, Nothingness itself is The Absolute. And so, as the great Vedantist Vivekenanda has so brilliantly and succinctly put it:

'The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

Perhaps the reason you cannot see this simple truth is because you are still looking through the mind-glass of Time, Space, and Causation, a suspicion strengthened by your little pet theory that interaction is the fundamental reality.

Add to this the Buddha's own words, that Nirvana is both The Unconditioned and The Absolute.

 

[godnotgod]

You are just a tiresome Chopra clone who hijacks threads to preach a bizarre DIY religion.

I'z a One-Trick-Pony, I iz.

Iz can haz cheezeburger now?

 

[Runewolf1973]

"The Universe can be defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist. According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of spacetime, forms of energy(including electromagnetic radiation and matter), and the physical laws that relate them. The Universe encompasses all of life, all of history, and some philosophers and scientists suggest that it even encompasses ideas such as mathematics and logic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

I add all multiverses to this.

Therefore, being Everything, the Universe is not only an absolute, it is The Absolute, as there is no relative 'other' to which it can be compared.

So there. I have just demolished your argument that there are no absolutes. In addition, since The Universe, ie 'Everything', it comes out of Nothing, Nothingness itself is The Absolute. And so, as the great Vedantist Vivekenanda has so brilliantly and succinctly put it:

'The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

Perhaps the reason you cannot see this simple truth is because you are still looking through the mind-glass of Time, Space, and Causation, a suspicion strengthened by your little pet theory that interaction is the fundamental reality.

Add to this the Buddha's own words, that Nirvana is both The Unconditioned and The Absolute.

So it's the universe. Why the need for all the flashy labels?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Absolute is only a concecpt. There is nothing which you can point to and say "that is absolute", or "this is the absolute"...all you can point to are concepts. Nothingness is a concept. There is no truth in concepts. Perhaps it would serve you well to just drop all these useless terms...nothingness, pure consciousness, ultimate reality...etc. What do you need them for?

That's going a bit far....without concepts there is no verbal communication between humans.... The important thing to be aware of though is that the real is on the other side of the concept... Actually the concept 'concept' also has a reality behind it...that of being a symbolic representation of something...like the finger pointing to the moon..

 

[godnotgod]

So it's the universe. Why the need for all the flashy labels?

What's flashy about

'The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"?

Anyway, the point is that, contrary to what you stated, there is The Absolute.

 

[Runewolf1973]

What's flashy about

'The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"?

Anyway, the point is that, contrary to what you stated, there is The Absolute.

I can see what you're saying if you're just going to use the word Absolute as a direct substitute for universe, but I don't really see the point. Of course the universe is all there is. There are just too many unnecessary labels. Absolute, Pure Consciousness, Brahman, Ultimate Reality, Cosmic Consciousness, Absolute Truth, Source....etc...the list goes on.

 

[godnotgod]

That's going a bit far....without concepts there is no verbal communication between humans.... The important thing to be aware of though is that the real is on the other side of the concept... Actually the concept 'concept' also has a reality behind it...that of being a symbolic representation of something...like the finger pointing to the moon..

The other important thing to remember, which is a big problem for most people, is that the concept is not that which it stands for, but only a symbolic representation for it. It sounds so simple, but it is quite surprising how prevalent this error actually is.

 

[godnotgod]

I can see what you're saying if you're just going to use the word Absolute as a direct substitute for universe, but I don't really see the point. Of course the universe is all there is. There are just too many unnecessary labels. Absolute, Pure Consciousness, Brahman, Ultimate Reality, Cosmic Consciousness, Absolute Truth, Source....etc...the list goes on.

If you understand that they all point to the same Reality, there should be no problem for you. Focus on the Reality first, and not the various labels which they are about.