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

[atanu]

Melodrama or not, it does not alter the purport of loka-uttara citta and that it needs realisation, since it is beyond the realm of physical senses. You cannot ask folks to prove it. Can you prove to another the taste of mango? You will need to eat one.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html
Lokuttara cittas
The word lokuttara is derived from loka and uttara. In this context loka refers to the five aggregates; uttara means beyond. Thus lokuttara applies to those states of consciousness that transcend the world of mind and body, i.e., they are supra-mundane.

http://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/lokuttara
Lokuttara, Definition(s)
lokuttara : (adj.) super-mundane; transcendental.

IMO, your assertion that people are indulging in mere wishful thinking stems from your clinging to belief that consciousness arises only and only from physical senses. You mayl not even realise that you insult people.

...but we are always limited to the input from our physical senses, .....

There are all sorts of religious beliefs about something "beneath" or "beyond" ... It mostly looks like wishful thinking to me, ...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You have taken things I said in another discussion completely out of context. I have already pointed this out, but you continue to misrepresent. Why? It looks like you are desperate to win an argument or score points. It's very petty.

This comment is self-explanatory with the second phrase included, and is nothing to do with the Heart Sutra discussion:
"..but we are always limited to the input from our physical senses, we can only see within the visible spectrum for example.."

The comment: "There are all sorts of religious beliefs about something "beneath" or "beyond"..." was referring to things like Atman, Brahman and God.
But again this is nothing to do with the Heart Sutra discussion because the Heart Sutra is a Buddhist text and not a Hindu one. Buddhism does not have Atman, Brahman or God, it has anatta and sunyata.

As I said earlier in the discussion, knowing is an innate quality of mind, and prajna is the quality of clear knowing. I think you still want to make prajna into some kind of mystical essence thingy like an Atman or Brahman, this is just plain wrong.
Prajna is simply a quality of mind, this is crystal clear from the text of the Heart Sutra - though you seem strangely reluctant to refer to it!
http://www.fwbo-news.org/resources/heart_sutra.pdf

As I said, your quote-mining from the Abhidhamma is a red herring, it is not a Mahayana text, it is from a different tradition and system, with different assumptions. I think you are viewing Buddhism through a Hindu lens and therefore not understanding what the Heart Sutra is really pointing to. Though it is actually very straightforward if you approach it with an open mind.

Like I said, cut the melodrama and just drop it. There is no "insult" here, just a difference of opinion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, bring on the evidence for your God, or whatever it is you believe in.

Existence itself....

 

[godnotgod]

I don't know why people, instead of insulting others and their realisations, do not experience for themselves that which in Buddhist terminology is called anuttara citta, the consciousness beyond the skandhas.

I have inquired of Spiney many times via which kind of consciousness the skandhas are able to be perceived as being empty, and he has not provided any response.

 

[godnotgod]

What exactly is "non-local consciousness"?

Watch it all the way through.

 

[atanu]

I have inquired of Spiney many times via which kind of consciousness the skandhas are able to be perceived as being empty, and he has not provided any response.

He will probably say "Through mind". Ha ha. Go guess.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No, not at all. The rational mind is incapable of grasping it. The machinations of the rational mind must cease completely.

Really? I find perfect union and universal oneness to be completely rational.

 

[godnotgod]

Really? I find perfect union and universal oneness to be completely rational.

That's because you have determined that to be the case intellectually, and not experientially. If you has determined it to be the case experientially, there would be no need for a rational interpretation. It would simply be the way things are.

 

[YmirGF]

That's because you have determined that to be the case intellectually, and not experientially. If you has determined it to be the case experientially, there would be no need for a rational interpretation. It would simply be the way things are.

Nice circular reasoning you have going there, gNg.

 

[Runewolf1973]

That's because you have determined that to be the case intellectually, and not experientially. If you has determined it to be the case experientially, there would be no need for a rational interpretation. It would simply be the way things are.

It IS simply the way things are. That is not beyond reasoning.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Watch it all the way through.

No, I asked you for a succint plain-English description, I did not ask you to dump in something else from your box of random toys.

If you insist on using jargon you must define it.

I'm still waiting for succinct plain-English descriptions of "cosmic consciousness" and "universal consciousness".

 

[godnotgod]

It IS simply the way things are. That is not beyond reasoning.

Yes it is, because the way things are only requires that you SEE them that way, whereas reasoning is formulating ideas about how they are. Reasoning does not tell you how or why they are the way they are. It only tells you their characteristics, how they behave and how you can predict their behavior. Reason still retains observer and observed, that is, duality. And Reason still operates within the sphere of perception. Only via Ultimate Reality, transcendence of perception, can one SEE into the true nature of Reality. You cannot reason your way there. A leap into the vast limitless unknown must be made at some point.

Sorry, I guess I just don't jump when you say 'jump'.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Existence itself....

What a cop-out. In other words you have no evidence and it's just a belief you cling to. As I thought.

 

[godnotgod]

No, I asked you for a succint plain-English description, I did not ask you to dump in something else from your box of random toys.

If you insist on using jargon you must define it.

I'm still waiting for succinct plain-English descriptions of "cosmic consciousness" and "universal consciousness".

If you cannot accept my answer, then this discussion ends now. If you want to educate yourself and open that tightly closed mind, then click on the 'Play' button and learn. The thing is, you don't WANT to really know anything other than that which keeps you safe and sound from the real truth, so you put up a fight at every turn.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

[ A leap into the vast limitless unknown must be made at some point.

More cornflake packet rhetoric. You wouldn't know the void if it came up and bit you on the behind.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you cannot accept my answer, then this discussion ends now.

You haven't GIVEN an answer. You never do, you just duck and dive, twist and turn. Smoke and mirrors.

If you want to use jargon then define it. I'm still waiting.

By the way, stop posing as the poor misunderstood prophet, it's a ridiculous charade.

 

[godnotgod]

You haven't GIVEN an answer. You never do, you just duck and dive, twist and turn. Smoke and mirrors.

If you want to use jargon then define it. I'm still waiting.

By the way, stop posing as the poor misunderstood prophet, it's a ridiculous charade.

 

[godnotgod]

More cornflake packet rhetoric. You wouldn't know the void if it came up and bit you on the behind.

It did, so I jumped.

I don't eat corn flakes every day, you know. In fact, this morning, it was chocolate covered Zen-Koan-Puffs. Quite enlightening, and low carb too!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What a cop-out. In other words you have no evidence and it's just a belief you cling to. As I thought.

You are not making sense....existence does not require belief...it is self evident. To think otherwise implies dementia....so I hope you do not really believe it....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You are not making sense....existence does not require belief...it is self evident. To think otherwise implies dementia....so I hope you do not really believe it....

Existence is the observable universe. You insist on adding religious beliefs. Clinging to them for comfort, clutching at metaphysical straws. And therefore missing the point.