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

[godnotgod]

Straight into the arms of the Charlatan Chopra. Always running away from reality, always needing to fill your mind with comforting new-age jargon. You think if you fill your mind with enough garbage the truth of sunyata won't be able to get in. What a foolish approach.

The arms of the Wizard Chopra are empty, whereas you are just full of it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The arms of the Wizard Chopra are empty, whereas you are just full of it.

Nonsense. I reckon you couldn't cope with a brief flirtation with the void, and then had to fill your head with a load of new-age clutter to cope.

The fact remains that the simplicity of here-and-now Zen practice is diametrically opposed to your Chopra-inspired new-age belief-fest. You cannot do both.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

Existence is all existence...observed and not observed... You exist...and that is a magnificent cosmic presence to behold...just awesome...You may judge your self existence as some blind act of in-consequence by the cosmos, but I see it different, and that is not a belief but an understanding...

 

[godnotgod]

Nonsense. I reckon you couldn't cope with a brief flirtation with the void, and then had to fill your head with a load of new-age clutter to cope.

The fact remains that the simplicity of here-and-now Zen practice is diametrically opposed to your Chopra-inspired new-age belief-fest. You cannot do both.

As I said, you are just full of it. You see conflict where I see total integration and harmony. I guess you haven't yet learned to see beyond appearances.

Thousands have benefitted from Chopra's seminars. He is world famous. What have you done to compare?

 

[godnotgod]

Existence is all existence...observed and not observed... You exist...and that is a magnificent cosmic presence to behold...just awesome...You may judge your self existence as some blind act of in-consequence by the cosmos, but I see it different, and that is not a belief but an understanding...

Yes it is awesome, while at the same time quite ordinary, and therein lies the key.

(Oh, for a moment there, I thought you said 'a magnificent comic presence'.)

 

[atanu]

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.

Okay. From your perspective I am indulging in melodrama. From my perspective, you appear rude. So, I say, reciprocate and let us cut out fully the accusations and counter accusations.

I have always maintained that Prajna is the basic nature of mind/consciousness. That is the teaching of all upanishads.

I had only one doubt and that persists. You said:

...we are always limited to the input from our physical senses, ....
There are all sorts of religious beliefs about something "beneath" or "beyond" the world that we actually observe, ....

I am not talking of your opinion on Atman etc. So, please do not bring that here.

I am asking how Avalokitesvara perceived Sunyata .. with physical senses or with some other equipment? Where is location of that instrument? I will request and expect straight answer to these.

Spoiler: Paramita

So, in emptiness, no form,
No feeling, thought, or choice,
Nor is there consciousness.
No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body,
mind;
No colour, sound, smell, taste,
touch,
Or what the mind takes hold of,
Nor even act of sensing.
No ignorance or end of it,
Nor all that comes of ignorance;
No withering, no death,
No end of them.
Nor is there pain, or cause of pain,
Or cease in pain, or noble path
To lead from pain;
Not even wisdom to attain!
Attainment too is emptiness.
So know that the Bodhisattva
Holding to nothing whatever,
But dwelling in Prajna wisdom,
Is freed of delusive hindrance,
Rid of the fear bred by it,
And reaches clearest Nirvana.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I am asking how Avalokitesvara perceived Sunyata ..

With prajna. As the Heart Sutra describes. I don't know why you are obsessing on the physical senses comment, that was a different conversation, not relevant to the Heart Sutra conversation. As I have repeatedly explained.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You see conflict where I see total integration and harmony. I guess you haven't yet learned to see beyond appearances.

More cornflake packet cliche. Woolly syncretism. Meaningless.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

...but I see it different, and that is not a belief but an understanding...

No, it is a belief, an assumption, wishful thinking on your part. Trying to dress up a belief as wisdom is not going to work.

 

[atanu]

With prajna. As the Heart Sutra describes. I don't know why you are obsessing on the physical senses comment, that was a different conversation, not relevant to the Heart Sutra conversation. As I have repeatedly explained.

Because you stated that others have unfounded beliefs and that our perception is dependent on physical senses. So the natural question, to a Buddhist, is "How is Sunyata perceived?"

Further, I had asked you "Where is Prajna located?" I do not get an answer. You may choose not to answer this, of course.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Further, I had asked you "Where is Prajna located?" I do not get an answer. You may choose not to answer this, of course.

<sigh>
As I have previously said, prajna is a quality of mind and is therefore "in" the mind.

 

[atanu]

<sigh>
As I have previously said, prajna is a quality of mind and is therefore "in" the mind.

So, where is mind?

 

[`mud]

Somewhere up someone's arrse !
~
'mud

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So, where is mind?

I don't know. Where do you think it is?

Is this a quiz show? I do hope you have the right answers.

 

[Runewolf1973]

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'.

Nor do I leap when you say "leap". I have reasoned out that there is nowhere to leap, nor is there any need to.

 

[godnotgod]

Somewhere up someone's arrse !
~
'mud

Personally, I think it lies in the area from which testicular fortitude arises.

 

[godnotgod]

Nor do I leap when you say "leap". I have reasoned out that there is nowhere to leap, nor is there any need to.

Well, no, you have the wrong idea. Leaping is for sheer fun.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't know. Where do you think it is?

Is this a quiz show? I do hope you have the right answers.

Ooooh, nice diversionary move, Spiney!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Ooooh, nice diversionary move, Spiney!

Not at all. I don't know the answer to the question and said so.

This is a bit rich coming from you, the king of smoke and mirrors, the one who continually changes religious identity and hides behind pretentious jargon, the one who continually moves the goal posts and changes the subject to avoid pertinent questions.

 

[YmirGF]

Nonsense. I reckon you couldn't cope with a brief flirtation with the void, and then had to fill your head with a load of new-age clutter to cope.

The fact remains that the simplicity of here-and-now Zen practice is diametrically opposed to your Chopra-inspired new-age belief-fest. You cannot do both.

I've never felt a need to go much beyond the good old fashioned, and somewhat trite, "Be Here, Now".