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

[Ben Dhyan]

You are just replacing one fiction with another, an endless tautology of metaphysical straws. If you stop clutching at woo, you might begin to see things as they really are.

You can not be pleased....I said I was being fair...atheists are atheists because they believe there is no reality represented by the concept of 'deity'.... If you think I am not correct, please quote my exact words that you find in error?

 

[godnotgod]

You made one up, and have been preaching it for years. But of course nobody will actually BUY your snake-oil because it stinks of BS.

...and yet you allow it to lead you around by the nose. Is it because you find it's subtle celestial fragrance irresistible?

Did you spend many years studying at the Chopra Center? You know. The place where your idol teaches.

 

[godnotgod]

Oh well. That's it for me, another thread hijacked and ruined.

Why did you do it, Buddhish? Why did you deny that The Unconditioned is none other than The Absolute?

 

[Runewolf1973]

My only concern with The Absolute as regards this forum is to point out that most of you live with your minds focused on the foreground of life, while ignoring the background, which is The Absolute.

What difference does it make if the foreground and the background are one and the same universe?

 

[godnotgod]

What difference does it make if the foreground and the background are one and the same universe?

They are, but the foreground is only a projection of what is real, just as the character is only a projection of the actor behind the mask. The foreground is just One Big Act, expertly executed. But if the actor himself is taken in by his own performance, believing he is actually the character being played, then there are consequences.

The Buddha's First Noble Truth, that life is suffering, was his first observation as to the nature of the foreground.

Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Master, puts it this way:

"To live in the realm of Buddha Nature means to die as a small being, moment after moment. When we lose our balance we die, and at the same time, to lose our balance, sometimes, means to develop ourselves, or to grow. If we are in perfect balance we cannot live as a small being. So whatever we see, things are changing, losing their balance. Why everything looks beautiful is because it is something out of balance, but it's background is always in perfect harmony and on this perfect harmony everything exists, losing its balance. This is how everything exists in the realm of big Buddha Nature. So if you see things without knowing, without realizing Buddha Nature, [only the foreground] everything is in the form of suffering. But if you understand the background of everything, which looks like suffering, suffering itself is how we live, how we extend our life."

 

[Runewolf1973]

They are, but the foreground is only a projection of what is real, just as the character is only a projection of the actor behind the mask. The foreground is just One Big Act, expertly executed. But if the actor himself is taken in by his own performance, believing he is actually the character being played, then there are consequences.

The Buddha's First Noble Truth, that life is suffering, was his first observation as to the nature of the foreground.

Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Master, puts it this way:

"To live in the realm of Buddha Nature means to die as a small being, moment after moment. When we lose our balance we die, and at the same time, to lose our balance, sometimes, means to develop ourselves, or to grow. If we are in perfect balance we cannot live as a small being. So whatever we see, things are changing, losing their balance. Why everything looks beautiful is because it is something out of balance, but it's background is always in perfect harmony and on this perfect harmony everything exists, losing its balance. This is how everything exists in the realm of big Buddha Nature. So if you see things without knowing, without realizing Buddha Nature, [only the foreground] everything is in the form of suffering. But if you understand the background of everything, which looks like suffering, suffering itself is how we live, how we extend our life."

Why not just accept that it is a part of life and move on?

The only freedom from suffering is change. One cannot live permanently amid suffering because everything, including suffering is impermanent and changes.

Sorry, but realizing enlightenment or focusing only on the background does not free someone who has cancer or lives in an abusive relationship from suffering. The only thing that relieves suffering is a change in the conditions which are causing that suffering to begin with. This can include both physical and mental change.

 

[godnotgod]

Why not just accept that it is a part of life and move on?

The only freedom from suffering is change. One cannot live permanently amid suffering because everything, including suffering is impermanent and changes.

Sorry, but realizing enlightenment or focusing only on the background does not free someone who has cancer or lives in an abusive relationship from suffering. The only thing that relieves suffering is a change in the conditions which are causing that suffering to begin with. This can include both physical and mental change.

I did not say to focus only on the background; both background and foreground must be lived together in order to be free from the suffering inherent in living only in the foreground.

The change you mention is to shift away from the exclusive focus on the foreground, and to include the background. Why? Because it is the background that provides the key to why we suffer in the foreground. Then, you can still carry on your life, but it is now done with a transformed consciousness. Even death and physical suffering are transformed when connecting with the background, that is The Source. Otherwise, you are living a disjointed life, not firmly rooted in Reality.

Although suffering and death are impermanent, to realize the background is to cut through such impermanence, knowing that what is permanent is present before and after all temporal phenomena that arises and subsides.

"All this world is filled with coming and going (ie; 'birth and death');
show me the path where there is no coming and there is no going."
Zen source

 

[Runewolf1973]

I did not say to focus only on the background; both background and foreground must be lived together in order to be free from the suffering inherent in living only in the foreground.

The change you mention is to shift away from the exclusive focus on the foreground, and to include the background. Why? Because it is the background that provides the key to why we suffer in the foreground. Then, you can still carry on your life, but it is now done with a transformed consciousness. Even death and physical suffering are transformed when connecting with the background, that is The Source. Otherwise, you are living a disjointed life, not firmly rooted in Reality.

Although suffering and death are impermanent, to realize the background is to cut through such impermanence, knowing that what is permanent is present before and after all temporal phenomena that arises and subsides.

"All this world is filled with coming and going (ie; 'birth and death');
show me the path where there is no coming and there is no going."
Zen source

I agree. It is all about balance. As the insciption at the temple of Apollo in Delphi reads..."Nothing in excess."

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I agree. It is all about balance. As the insciption at the temple of Apollo in Delphi reads..."Nothing in excess."

Amen....

 

[YmirGF]

To be fair....athiests on this forum can never admit to a God existing, otherwise they would not be atheists....and if they have learned that Brahman represents absolute reality...then it follows that they can not admit there is an absolute reality existing...

To be fair, Ben D, that isn't accurate. It is not a question of admitting to anything. I've looked directly into the eyes of my god. What I saw there forever changed me. You might contemplate on what I saw. The reality is, the individual must go beyond god to understand god. Coming from the Vaisnava school of thought, Brahman was small potatoes in a much larger picture. Reality is so much more interesting when you remove the absolute from the equation, as then, you are simply left with reality.

 

[godnotgod]

To be fair, Ben D, that isn't accurate. It is not a question of admitting to anything. I've looked directly into the eyes of my god. What I saw there forever changed me. You might contemplate on what I saw. The reality is, the individual must go beyond god to understand god. Coming from the Vaisnava school of thought, Brahman was small potatoes in a much larger picture. Reality is so much more interesting when you remove the absolute from the equation, as then, you are simply left with reality.

You must have had the concept of Brahman wrong, then, since you describe it as a limiting factor, and Brahman, The Absolute, is unbounded, unlimited.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

To be fair, Ben D, that isn't accurate. It is not a question of admitting to anything. I've looked directly into the eyes of my god. What I saw there forever changed me. You might contemplate on what I saw. The reality is, the individual must go beyond god to understand god. Coming from the Vaisnava school of thought, Brahman was small potatoes in a much larger picture. Reality is so much more interesting when you remove the absolute from the equation, as then, you are simply left with reality.

So do you consider yourself an atheist or not?

And where does the Vaisnava school of thought consider Brahman small potatoes in a bigger picture?

 

[YmirGF]

So do you consider yourself an atheist or not?

100% atheist, Ben D. Again, meditate on what I saw in those eyes. If you are as good as I think you are, you might figure it out.

And where does the Vaishnava school of thought consider Brahman small potatoes in a bigger picture?

I was into ISKCON at the time and Krsna was el supremo. Brahman was simply never mentioned. I do recognize that other Vaishnava schools of thought see things quite differently, LOL. The small potatoes reference wasn't really accurate, it was more the case of simply being glossed over, actually much in the same way that some who see Jesus Christ as god incarnate, really, in that Jesus/Krsna eclipse the concept of the impersonal god.

To really fry your brain, it was this oddball vision of Hinduism that was the core of my own ideas that began to emerge quite awhile after this period and long after I'd left the Hare Krsna's far behind. I've never looked back, save for wistfully... ... the "meeting" with Vishnu was pretty profound and something that is quite impossible to forget and light years beyond my wildest expectations.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

100% atheist, Ben D. Again, meditate on what I saw in those eyes. If you are as good as I think you are, you might figure it out.

I was into ISKCON at the time and Krsna was el supremo. Brahman was simply never mentioned. I do recognize that other Vaishnava schools of thought see things quite differently, LOL. The small potatoes reference wasn't really accurate, it was more the case of simply being glossed over, actually much in the same way that some who see Jesus Christ as god incarnate, really, in that Jesus/Krsna eclipse the concept of the impersonal god.

To really fry your brain, it was this oddball vision of Hinduism that was the core of my own ideas that began to emerge quite awhile after this period and long after I'd left the Hare Krsna's far behind. I've never looked back, save for wistfully... ... the "meeting" with Vishnu was pretty profound and something that is quite impossible to forget and light years beyond my wildest expectations.

Ok....you confuse me...you are an atheist and thus do not believe in deity but you met with Vishnu...a deity?

Fwiw, I like a lot of the Hare Krishna chants......

 

[YmirGF]

Ok....you confuse me...you are an atheist and thus do not believe in deity but you met with Vishnu...a deity?

Fwiw, I like a lot of the Hare Krishna chants......

I don't expect many to understand, Ben. I thought you just might. My inner journey was a tad off the beaten path, to be sure. Books and spiritual texts were of little use as I plunged down my own rabbit hole. I'm not even sure how the phase I am talking about even began, but I vaguely remember being intrigued by the Hare Krsna's insistence that one could actually meet god - face to face...

To put this into acceptable terms for some, you could say that I simply had a far better imagination than most, and due to my affinity/predilection for obscure altered states of consciousness, dove-tailed with a youthful exuberance, I was able to create an experience that was utterly amazing.

At the time, I did definitely believe, with all my heart and that innocent youthful joy propelled me further than my wildest dreams. My return to my atheistic root was not instantaneous and it took some time for my conscious mind to "catch up" to that timeless experience, several years, in fact. One day, it all just clicked and that is the day that I began to map out my own weird ideas about the nature of personality devoid of all the religious mumbo-jumbo.

 

[godnotgod]

... ... the "meeting" with Vishnu was pretty profound and something that is quite impossible to forget and light years beyond my wildest expectations.

I guess you're not responding to my posts, but I will try anyway:

This 'meeting' with Vishnu: was it real or the product of your wild imagination? You put 'meeting' in quotes, so it sounds suspicious. What exactly was the nature of this experience, then? And if it was real, why then did you choose to return to atheism?

 

[YmirGF]

I guess you're not responding to my posts, but I will try anyway:

This 'meeting' with Vishnu: was it real or the product of your wild imagination? You put 'meeting' in quotes, so it sounds suspicious. What exactly was the nature of this experience, then? And if it was real, why then did you choose to return to atheism?

Someone with extensive knowledge of altered states of consciousness should be able to figure out my riddle. I have given a couple of big clues. Again, if people know anything about altered states of consciousness, above the superficial neophyte "levels", this should be a no-brainer. Meditate on what I saw in those HUGE EYES!

 

[`mud]

Or getting high a lot !!
~
'mud

 

[atanu]

I don't expect many to understand, Ben. I thought you just might. My inner journey was a tad off the beaten path, to be sure. Books and spiritual texts were of little use as I plunged down my own rabbit hole. I'm not even sure how the phase I am talking about even began, but I vaguely remember being intrigued by the Hare Krsna's insistence that one could actually meet god - face to face...

To put this into acceptable terms for some, you could say that I simply had a far better imagination than most, and due to my affinity/predilection for obscure altered states of consciousness, dove-tailed with a youthful exuberance, I was able to create an experience that was utterly amazing.

At the time, I did definitely believe, with all my heart and that innocent youthful joy propelled me further than my wildest dreams. My return to my atheistic root was not instantaneous and it took some time for my conscious mind to "catch up" to that timeless experience, several years, in fact. One day, it all just clicked and that is the day that I began to map out my own weird ideas about the nature of personality devoid of all the religious mumbo-jumbo.

Finally. You want us to have faith in you, instead of in our own self?

 

[YmirGF]

Finally. You want us to have faith in you, instead of in our own self?

Nope. Try harder.

Pro Tip: My riddle is a tough one to crack, but when you do, you will laugh over it's simplicity.