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

[Rick O'Shez]

The verse perhaps says ".. an unconditioned"? I do not remember.

It's a common mis-translation. I do assure you that I have looked at these questions in excrutiating detail during discussions in study groups and on Buddhist forums.

 

[godnotgod]

Nirvana is NOT an absolute. It is not an essence or a thing, it is not like Atman or Brahman. It is a state of mind.

Unconditioned
In the Theravada-tradition, [YOURS] nirvana is regarded as an uncompounded or unconditioned state of being which is "transmundane"and which is beyond our normal dualistic conceptions.

[AND FROM THE MOUTH OF 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."

Saṃyutta-nikāya I (PTS), p. 359

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism)#cite_ref-123

BINGO! KACHING! KACHING! KACHING!

"Unconditioned" is an adjective, not a noun. An important distinction. There is no "the unconditioned".

Oh no?

"Reality in Buddhism is often described as being of two kinds: conditioned reality and Unconditioned reality, or more simply
the conditioned and the Unconditioned. ..... the idea has developed that the conditioned is also the artificial, whereas the
Unconditioned is the natural, the simple, that which has not been artificially put together. The distinction between the conditioned and the Unconditioned is fundamental to Buddhist thought."

https://www.freebuddhistaudio.com/study/foundationfiles/Part 4/Foundation Year, Part 4, Week 5 - Conditioned and Unconditioned.pdf

 

[godnotgod]

So these limited views based on reason are what exactly? How can they be excluded from the Whole which is the universe?

They are maya, not excluded.

 

[godnotgod]

Yep, that's what I've been saying, and note the last line above in particular.

Sunyata is not Brahman, and neither is Nirvana.

You are drawing false equivalences because it suits your syncretic new-age agenda. It's a pointless and dishonest exercise.

from the quote I posted re: Nothing:

"Emptiness [ie Sunyata] of all things is the fact of Nirvana, which is itself nothing."

 

[godnotgod]

It's a common mis-translation. I do assure you that I have looked at these questions in excrutiating detail during discussions in study groups and on Buddhist forums.

Perhaps you need to return to the Zendo for a little excruciating vision correction.

"I do assure you blah blah blah....."

 

[Rick O'Shez]

from the quote I posted re: Nothing:

"Emptiness [ie Sunyata] of all things is the fact of Nirvana, which is itself nothing."

Yes, nothing, zilch. Not an essence.

Spare me your tiresome new-age nonsense. There are three or four other people I can think of on this forum who understand Buddhist teachings, and you are definitely not one of them. You are just a sad Chopra clone who needs to misrepresent Buddhism, science, the price of fish, pretty much everything. Get a life.

 

[atanu]

Nirvana is ...a state of mind.
"Unconditioned" is an adjective, not a noun. ..

In our primary classes in school we were taught that adjectives qualify nouns. Probably that definition has changed.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In our primary classes in school we were taught that adjectives qualify nouns. Probably that definition has changed.

Obviously you need to go back to school. Start learning "Buddhism". It's not a school of Hinduism.

 

[godnotgod]

In our primary classes in school we were taught that adjectives qualify nouns. Probably that definition has changed.

I refer you to post #1363 for the issue in context of the current discussion

 

[atanu]

I refer you to post #1363 for the issue in context of the current discussion

Yes thanks. I have read it.

 

[atanu]

Obviously you need to go back to school. Start learning "Buddhism". It's not a school of Hinduism.

Oh no. I do not wish to get indoctrinated into parroting "I know the truth of anatta". That cannot be Buddhism. One cannot swear by anatta. Swearing proves a person, a seat of consciousness.

If sunyata is the final truth and there is seer/knower of the sunyata, the sunyata and the seer of sunyata are not two. There being 'no thing' except awareness, it cannot be said to be located in space.

We experience this in deep sleep ignorantly. And we experience this in samadhi with full awareness.

I dislike your rudeness so for my own comfort you go to my ignore list.

 

[atanu]

I refer you to post #1363 for the issue in context of the current discussion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism)#cite_ref-123

Spoiler: Maha Nirvana

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.[82]

And

"O good man! We speak of "Nirvana". But this is not "Great” “Nirvana". Why is it "Nirvana", but not "Great Nirvana"? This is so when one cuts away defilement without seeing the Buddha-Nature. That is why we say Nirvana, but not Great Nirvana. When one does not see the Buddha-Nature, what there is is the non-Eternal and the non-Self. All that there is is but Bliss and Purity. Because of this, we cannot have Mahaparinirvana, although defilement has been done away with. When one sees well the Buddha-Nature and cuts away defilement, we then have Mahaparinirvana. Seeing the Buddha-Nature, we have the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What is the true teaching of Buddhism? This from "The Dharma of Mind Transmission" by Huang Po.....which says...'The Dharma Transmission Gatha of Sakyamuni Buddha states: "Original Dharma is no-Dharma; without Dharma is true Dharma. In transmitting the Dharma that is no-Dharma, has there ever been a Dharma?" '

http://www.1sphere1people.com/huang/

This in common English goes something like this... the original teaching is that there is no teaching, this teaching that there is no teaching is the true teaching. In transmitting the teaching that there is no teaching, has there ever been a teaching?

Those who claim they know the true Buddhist teaching are vain and ignorant.....the true teaching comes from within....not in words or conceptual expression... This is also true for all mystical religions...this from the Hermetic tradition...

"If anyone has a spiritual eye, let them go forth from their body to behold the Beautiful, let them fly up and float above not seeking to see shape or colour but rather that from which these things are created, that which is quiet and calm, stable and changeless, that which is ONE, that which issues forth from itself and is contained in itself, that which is like nothing else but ITSELF."

This can't be taught to another...ever......the aspirant must understand and let go of his conceptual mind to apprehend non-duality...

 

[godnotgod]

If sunyata is the final truth and there is seer/knower of the sunyata, the sunyata and the seer of sunyata are not two. There being 'no thing' except awareness, it cannot be said to be located in space.

.

Excellent!

(Zen says that there is no experiencer of the experience; only the experience itself)

 

[Runewolf1973]

They are maya, not excluded.

I understand what you mean. There is only one true reality and all else is but a facade we place over top of that reality with our minds. There is only the non-dual, limitless view, and all other "views" are limited and duality driven and therefore not true representations of that one true reality. But why am I finding all these things you are saying to be logical and reasonable?

 

[godnotgod]

I understand what you mean. There is only one true reality and all else is but a facade we place over top of that reality with our minds. There is only the non-dual, limitless view, and all other "views" are limited and duality driven and therefore not true representations of that one true reality. But why am I finding all these things you are saying to be logical and reasonable?

Is it reasonable to conclude that we place a facade over reality? Wouldn't Reason tell us that there is no facade? That it is real?

"See? It has solidity and tactile hardness, and you can measure it and predict its behavior. Therefore, it is real."

 

[Runewolf1973]

Is it reasonable to conclude that we place a facade over reality? Wouldn't Reason tell us that there is no facade? That it is real?

"See? It has solidity and tactile hardness, and you can measure it and predict its behavior. Therefore, it is real."

My reasoning tells me that what we think of as everyday "reality" is not actually real, it is an illusion.

 

[godnotgod]

My reasoning tells me that what we think of as everyday "reality" is not actually real, it is an illusion.

How do you figure that?

 

[Runewolf1973]

How do you figure that?

Science already tells us that matter is mostly empty space, so what we consider to be material objects are illusions. It is not a far cry to rationalize that everything we see or percieve with our limited senses must also be an illusion in one way or another. I find it also quite rational to see the universe as non-dual, interconnected and absolute in the sense that it is inifinite and non-limited. I honestly don't see how this "Absolute" is beyond reasoning.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So we have three non-Buddhists lecturing a Buddhist about Buddhist teachings. A Hindu, a new-ager and a woolly syncretist, each with an agenda to misrepresent Buddhism.

Ridiculous.

As I observed earlier, there are three or four people on this forum who understand Buddhism, these three are certainly not included in that number.