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

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Why do you continue to repeat that which I already told you was understood? That the math is based on a mathematical model. OK. I am simply pointing up the unreliability of the methodologies involved, especially when it comes to trying to understand the nature of things.

The math isn't based on a mathematical model. That's nonsense. Black holes are a consequence of the use of mathematical models by scientists. Your attempt to show unreliability necessarily fails: one cannot show that that which scientific methods has revealed is unreliable because of reality revealed

 

[godnotgod]

Perhaps you forget. I can actually read those languages you require translations of (if memory serves, at the least German & Sanskrit, although I recall you relying on even more translations of texts written in languages you can't read which I can)

So what? Prove that the translation in question is a distortion, as you claim. I am only saying that it makes sense as per its content.

 

[godnotgod]

The math isn't based on a mathematical model. That's nonsense. Black holes are a consequence of the use of mathematical models by scientists. Your attempt to show unreliability necessarily fails: one cannot show that that which scientific methods has revealed is unreliable because of reality revealed

...and then scientists used math to further extrapolate on what was originally derived via math.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You don't know that it is a distortion

Yes, I do. I don't need internet translations the way you do. I can read the original texts in the languages in which they were written: Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Syriac, Sanskrit, Hittite, etc. Not all equally well (my Coptic is awful as is my Syriac), of course, but still

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

...and then scientists used math to further extrapolate on what was originally derived via math.

Wrong. The mathematics of general relativity were constructed to model empirical findings. Further investigations into the mathematical framework showed results we call black holes. It appears from both theory and indirect evidence that these predictions from the mathematical framework were correct. Regardless, black holes were derived from the mathematical formalisms of a now long tested and validated physical theory, and present none of the problems you intimated

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, I do. I don't need internet translations the way you do. I can read the original texts in the languages in which they were written: Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Syriac, Sanskrit, Hittite, etc. Not all equally well (my Coptic is awful as is my Syriac), of course, but still

Stop showing off. It cheapens what you want to say. You do this consistently, using it to belittle others. You know this approach does not work with me, as you have tried it in the past and failed.

So for the last time, put your money where your mouth is and show that 'The Absolute' is a distortion, as you claim.

 

[godnotgod]

Wrong. The mathematics of general relativity were constructed to model empirical findings. Further investigations into the mathematical framework showed results we call black holes. It appears from both theory and indirect evidence that these predictions from the mathematical framework were correct. Regardless, black holes were derived from the mathematical formalisms of a now long tested and validated physical theory, and present none of the problems you intimated

The issue that Kaku was illustrating had to do with trying to find compatibility between Relativity and Quantum Theory.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

“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

 

[godnotgod]

“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

This does not refute what the Buddha said re: The Absolute:


"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

The 'Absolute Unconditioned' here is Nirvana.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"Attainment too is emptiness."

The Heart Sutra
http://www.fwbo-news.org/resources/heart_sutra.pdf

"Attainment" here refers to Nirvana/Nibbana. It's emptiness all the way down, no absolutes.

 

[godnotgod]

"Attainment too is emptiness."

The Heart Sutra
http://www.fwbo-news.org/resources/heart_sutra.pdf

This does not refute what the Buddha said re: The Absolute:


"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

The 'Absolute Unconditioned' here is Nirvana.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Cut the crap.

All you have done is quote-mined a dodgy translation. You are not a Buddhist and you clearly do not understand Buddhist teachings. All you do is misrepresent in pursuit of your dubious personal agenda.

You are just a tiresome new-ager who regularly hijacks threads to proselytize.

 

[godnotgod]

To state that 'there are no absolutes' is in itself an absolute, if not The Absolute.

Say! Did you know that The Buddha was also A buddha?

 

[godnotgod]

Cut the crap.

All you have done is quote-mined a dodgy translation. You are not a Buddhist and you clearly do not understand Buddhist teachings. All you do is misrepresent in pursuit of your dubious personal agenda.

You are just a tiresome new-ager who regularly hijacks threads to proselytize.

This does not refute what the Buddha said re: The Absolute:


"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

The 'Absolute Unconditioned' here is Nirvana.

 

[godnotgod]

All you have done is quote-mined a dodgy translation.

Bring forth your evidence that the translation is faulty. Perhaps you can consult with Mr. Brain, LOL.

 

[YmirGF]

Wrong. The mathematics of general relativity were constructed to model empirical findings. Further investigations into the mathematical framework showed results we call black holes. It appears from both theory and indirect evidence that these predictions from the mathematical framework were correct. Regardless, black holes were derived from the mathematical formalisms of a now long tested and validated physical theory, and present none of the problems you intimated

Thank you, Legion, for trying both so hard and so succinctly to show the real nature of aspects of the often nauseating conversation with the peanut gallery. The unmitigated gall evidenced in some of the responses to your cogent explanations is almost the definition of irony.

What to do when you lay things out for people to see and they steadfastly refuse to believe the solution because it runs counter to their comparatively primitive understanding? I can only conclude the reason for rejecting your keen insight is due to a huge emotional attachment to an erroneous view of reality put forward by charismatic popular authors that they have adopted and made their own.

I will admit that the fixation on Brahman was certainly good for a chuckle. It's such a dreary old idea in serious need of a do-over and @ben d has the temerity to ask why it isn't an accurate model of reality. The point is, if your strip away the unprovable assertions about Brahman, one is left with precious little (nothing of any substance, at least). To ignore that fact and pretend that the concept is a meaningful representation of reality is simply beyond the pale and doesn't warrant a serious response. What's next? Pixies and faerie dust?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"Brahman" is a religious belief, so the issue of "accuracy" is irrelevant.

If accuracy is irrelevant to you concerning the meaning of words, in a religious forum, ....then it is impossible to have a rational discussion....and you should not be posting here.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If accuracy is irrelevant to you concerning the meaning of words, in a religious forum, ....then it is impossible to have a rational discussion....and you should not be posting here.

Don't be ridiculous. You are the one who makes rational discussion impossible, you keep misrepresenting traditional teachings in order to proseyltize your strange syncretic view.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Eh? Again you are just making stuff up.

Buddhism teaches dependent arising and conditionality, not absolutes like "Brahman" or "God" or "Cosmic Consciousness" or "Ultimate Reality". The notion that sunyata is equivalent to Brahman is ludicrous, and merely demonstrates your ignorance of both Buddhism and Hinduism. You continually misrepresent teachings from both traditions in a desperate attempt to pursue your shallow syncretic agenda.

The point of the Visuddhimagga verse was to underline that in Buddhism there is no God to be found, and no mystical "reality" behind or beneath phenomena. Only phenomena. As the Visuddhimagga verse clearly states it: "Phenomena alone flow on.." And of course this is just another way of talking about sunyata, emptiness.

Note that I say "sunyata", not "Sunyata" because it is NOT an absolute, that was the point of Runewolfs quote about emptiness of emptiness. Clearly you don't understand this pivotal point.

This is never going to fit your syncretic agenda, get over it. Stick with your idiosyncratic idea of "spirituality", which looks like a sort of pseudo-Hinduism. You seem to be suffering from the "There must be more than this" syndrome, continually clutching at metaphysical straws.

I understand that there are no divinities generally in Buddhism, nor are there generally in Taoism, and the gods of Hinduism are merely aspects of Brahman. So in this sense Brahman represents the same as the Tao, or Nirvana.

Now if you want to debate this with me in a rational manner, we need to understand each others' understanding of what the reality is that these concepts represent.....Brahman, Tao. Nirvana.

I will go first...these terms represent the unborn, uncreated, unevolved reality that is beyond space and time, and which can not be described by any concepts, nor known by any knowledge...

Your turn?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Don't be ridiculous. You are the one who makes rational discussion impossible, you keep misrepresenting traditional teachings in order to proseyltize your strange syncretic view.

I keep asking you to explain your understanding of the concepts you use and you keep misdirecting the discussion in order to avoid answering....so how can there be a rational discussion if you criticize my understanding of religious concepts on the one hand, but never explain your understanding on the other..