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

[atanu]

I think we must first define what we mean by the term 'Absolute'.

Also the meaning of 'Shunyata' in the context of Heart Sutra.

Much problem, I think, arises because we are trying to understand Sanskrit words using English concepts and also because there is none who has experienced Shunyata. We can only debate (often insulting each other) about it with intellect.

Can the experience of Shunyata be different for different persons?

 

[godnotgod]

I think we must first define what we mean by the term 'Absolute'.

There is absolute and relative. Relative means there is at least one 'other' to which the first can be compared; absolute means there is no such 'other'. It is the only one, or everything, which is the only one. This defines what the universe is: the absolute, because the universe is everything, so there can be no 'other'. Otherwise, it could not be everything.

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

We do not see The Universe as The Absolute simply because our consciousness has been conditioned by Time, Space, and Causation.

"Now Swami Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute. Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it. Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements. If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If they are empty of limiting self-nature, then they have are limitless. That is The Absolute. In fact, that is precisely what the Buddha himself did say, you see:

You are just making stuff up and making yourself look even more foolish. Sunyata means that ALL is relative and interdependent, so no absolutes. So sunyata is incompatible with your fictional "The Absolute". It's also incompatible your fictional "Cosmic Consciousness" and other Chopra-inspired PPNs.

 

[godnotgod]

Random emission of meaningless rhetoric. I think you have been wading in your own BS for too long.

Do you wish to have a discussion, or simply exude more hot air? psssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

 

[godnotgod]

Much problem, I think, arises because we are trying to understand Sanskrit words using English concepts and also because there is none who has experienced Shunyata. We can only debate (often insulting lyrics) about it with intellect.

Can the experience of Shunyata be different for different persons?

In the context of the Heart Sutra, Sunyata is the underlying reality which says that all phenomena are empty of any inherent self-nature. The Buddha here is stating a universal principle which applies to all phenomena, and so, no, it is not different for different persons.

For example, conditioned consciousness will say that a rock is inherently a rock, but unconditioned consciousness says that it has no 'rock' nature. IOW, it is empty of such self-nature because of the Law of Dependent Origination, which says that all things arise interdependently and interconnectedly.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Also the meaning of 'Shunyata' in the context of Heart Sutra.

You are an anti-Buddhist Hindu with an axe to grind, so forgive me if I don't take your comments about Buddhist teachings as objective and impartial.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In the context of the Heart Sutra, Sunyata is the underlying reality which says that all phenomena are empty of any inherent self-nature. The Buddha here is stating a universal principle which applies to all phenomena, and so, no, it is not different for different persons.

Right, all phenomena are empty of inherent self-nature. An absolute would exist from it's own side, have independent existence. Atman/Brahman is an absolute in this sense, but sunyata and Nirvana are not. Get it now?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I am still waiting for you to respond to the previous points:

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 shown you

You have? Perhaps I missed your post which demonstrates that this quote:

"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)

....is a distorted translation, and it's reference to The Unconditioned and The Absolute do not, in fact, mean what they are implying. Kindly direct me to this bit of proof and I will gladly rescind my claim that it flies against your claim that 'there are no absolutes' in Buddhism. This should be a walk in the park for you, so I await your response with bated breath.

 

[godnotgod]

You are just making stuff up and making yourself look even more foolish. Sunyata means that ALL is relative and interdependent, so no absolutes. So sunyata is incompatible with your fictional "The Absolute". It's also incompatible your fictional "Cosmic Consciousness" and other Chopra-inspired PPNs.

Now, c'mon, Sherlock! Surely you are smarter than than this. But first you simply must pause, take several deep breaths. clear your mind, and think:

The very statement you make, that:

"Sunyata means that ALL is relative and interdependent"

is itself an absolute.

Is this logically correct?

 

[godnotgod]

[QUOTE="Rick O'Shez, post: 4837343, member: 59993"]I am still waiting for you to respond to the previous points:

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.[/QUOTE]

Certainly, be glad to. But I have repeatedly asked you for the evidence for your claim that the quote in question is a distorted translation. Therefore, I am entitled to a valid response from you first before I provide you with any such response. Fair enough?

As for 'authentic Self', you have answered that yourself with your own reference to the
'authentic tradition'. If you practice such a tradition yourself, then you will know exactly what the 'authentic Self' must be, as the authentic tradition you claim to practice will always point directly to it.

 

[godnotgod]

[QUOTE="Rick O'Shez, post: 4837342, member: 59993Right, all phenomena are empty of inherent self-nature. An absolute would exist from it's own side, have independent existence. [/QUOTE]

'Independent' of what? If it is absolute, there is no relative 'something else' that it is independent of. All we can say about The Absolute is that it is self-supporting.

No. This is not a question of existence vs. non-existence. It is a question of whether something has a relative 'other' to which it can be compared. If not, it must, by definition, be absolute. So when you say 'all phenomena', you are implying an absolute, because there are no 'other' phenomena to 'all' phenomena, 'all' being everything that exists, which is The Absolute.

There are no 'sides' to the Absolute that it is 'independent' of something else. There is no 'something else'. That is why it can be called The Absolute.

Both you and RW continue to unwittingly dwell in duality. You want to make the Absolute a relative reality, while RW wants to make his relative phenomena 'interaction' an absolute.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But I have repeatedly asked you for the evidence for your claim that the quote in question is a distorted translation.

And I have repeatedly provided it. To summarise, all phenomena are empty of inherent self-nature. An absolute would exist from it's own side, and have independent existence. Atman/Brahman is an absolute in this sense, but sunyata and Nirvana are clearly not. You are trying to make Nirvana the same as Brahman, and Buddhism into a school of Hinduism, this is just plain wrong.

Your motive for misrepresenting Buddhist teachings is clear, you are trying to make your bizarre DIY religion look more credible. I think it's clear to everyone here that this is never going to work.

So, I am still waiting for you to respond to the previous points:

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.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

This is not a question of existence vs. non-existence.

Now you are just eel-wriggling. You know you have been caught out misrepresenting Buddhist teachings again, and this is all just a smoke screen. All you do is misrepresent. I reckon you picked up these tricks from your master, the charlatan Chopra.

So, I am still waiting for you to respond to the previous points:

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?

 

[godnotgod]

And I have repeatedly provided it. To summarise, all phenomena are empty of inherent self-nature. An absolute would exist from it's own side, and have independent existence. Atman/Brahman is an absolute in this sense, but sunyata and Nirvana are clearly not. You are trying to make Nirvana the same as Brahman, and Buddhism into a school of Hinduism, this is just plain wrong.

Your motive for misrepresenting Buddhist teachings is clear, you are trying to make your bizarre DIY religion look more credible. I think it's clear to everyone here that this is never going to work.

So, I am still waiting for you to respond to the previous points:

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.

Look here, Sherlock: do you understand Basic Logic? I did not ask for an explanation to negate the quote in question, namely:

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.

I asked you for evidence to which proves your claim that this translation is faulty, and that it is not actually meaning what it says. IOW, I want you to show me a valid translation. Can you do that? If not, then please admit that you are just plain wrong in light of these very words from the lips of the Buddha himself. My goodness, at least have respect for the very individual whose religion you claim to be a valid member of. Even a humble Chopra-clone can do that, fer gawdzsakes.

Are you dense? Provide proof for your claim and I will then provide the information you request, but not until.

Are you deaf? 'Authentic' as in 'authentic tradition', your own words.

 

[godnotgod]

Now you are just eel-wriggling. You know you have been caught out misrepresenting Buddhist teachings again, and this is all just a smoke screen. All you do is misrepresent. I reckon you picked up these tricks from your master, the charlatan Chopra.[/COLOR]

If you cannot provide evidence for your claim that the following quote from the Buddha himself...

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.

...is a distorted translation, then the only conclusion anyone here can reach is that YOU, yes YOU, are the one misrepresenting Buddhist teachings. How much closer can I come to authentic Buddhist teachings than words from the Buddha himself, which you, a professed Buddhist, deny?

So until such evidence comes forth, I will have to conclude that you are The Official Misrepresenter of Buddhist Teachings.

So then. Can you show us such evidence or are you just playing your silly games to avoid having to admit that you are plainly wrong?

Ball in your court. Use it wisely.

Suggestion before you post: remove foot from mouth.

 

[godnotgod]

Do you think that skin cancer is the result of radiating love?

Ciao

- viole

A loaded question, of course.

Absolute Joy/Divine Love is present even under the most horrific of human conditions, a...

'troubled voyage in perfectly calm weather'

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Provide proof for your claim and I will then provide the information you request, but not until.

I have repeatedly provided the proof, clearly and logically explained, but you have repeatedly ignored it because it contradicts your bizarre DIY religion, your Chopra-inspired monstrosity.

But enough of your fake Buddha quotes, here is what the suttas actually say about Nibbana:

"When, brahmin, one experiences the remainderless destruction of lust, the remainderless destruction of hatred, and the remainderless destruction of delusion, it is in this way, too, that nibbāna is directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise.”
https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.55

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you cannot provide evidence for your claim that the following quote from the Buddha himself...

Are you dense? It is a dodgy translation and therefore by definition not "from the Buddha himself." I have repeatedly provided the evidence and you have repeatedly ignored it, further demonstration that you are just a tiresome Chopra clone who hijacks threads to preach a bizarre DIY religion.

I am STILL waiting for you to respond to the previous points:

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?

And by the way, you STILL haven't provided succinct plain English definitions for "cosmic consciousness" and "universal consciousness", so let's be having those as well.

 

[godnotgod]

It is a dodgy translation and therefore by definition not "from the Buddha himself." I have repeatedly provided the evidence...[/COLOR]

The only 'evidence' you have provided is your own interpretation. Show me a valid translation which proves this one erroneous. Otherwise, 'git, varmint'.