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

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

No, it doesn't. Brahman and Tao are absolutes, Nirvana is not.

There is an important line in the Heart Sutra, "Attainment too is emptiness."

"Attainment" here refers to Nirvana/Nibbana, so enlightenment is also emptiness. It's emptiness all the way down, no absolutes.
This is what Runewolfs earlier quote about "emptiness of emptiness" was referring to of course. Look it up if you're interested.

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

On past experience there is really very little point in discussing this you. Like your tiresome new-age chum, you are clearly not in the least bit interested in what others have to say, all you want to do is proseyltize your snycretic views. Views to which you have obviously becoming very attached.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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..

Nonsense, I have explained Buddhist teachings at length on these threads, basically you are not interested because the real meaning of those teachings doesn't fit your shallow syncretism.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

@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?

The concept of Brahman is not a model, it is merely a term to represent the absolute.... perfect, complete or pure.... Brahman is complete....there is nothing in excess, and nothing lacking... You may believe whatever you want.....perfection allows for it..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, it doesn't. Brahman and Tao are absolutes, Nirvana is not.

There is an important line in the Heart Sutra, "Attainment too is emptiness."

"Attainment" here refers to Nirvana/Nibbana, so enlightenment is also emptiness. It's emptiness all the way down, no absolutes.
This is what Runewolfs earlier quote about "emptiness of emptiness" was referring to of course. Look it up if you're interested.

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

On past experience there is really very little point in discussing this you. Like your tiresome new-age chum, you are clearly not in the least bit interested in what others have to say, all you want to do is proseyltize your snycretic views. Views to which you have obviously becoming very attached.

You have not explained your own personal understanding of the concepts...Brahman, Tao, and Nirvana as I have done and requested of you... Instead you have posted a hodge podge...please try again so I can see clearly what you understand....in your own words and no copy and pasted links to others' explanations..

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What's next? Pixies and faerie dust?

No, much worse than that - "Cosmic Consciousness"!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nonsense, I have explained Buddhist teachings at length on these threads, basically you are not interested because the real meaning of those teachings doesn't fit your shallow syncretism.

I am not asking you to explain Buddhist teachings..just your understanding of the three concepts...Brahman, Tao, and Nirvana, as I outlined in the above post...thank you..

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You have not explained your own personal understanding of the concepts...Brahman, Tao, and Nirvana as I have done and requested of you... Instead you have posted a hodge podge...please try again so I can see clearly what you understand....in your own words and no copy and pasted links to others' explanations..

I see you have side-stepped the pivotal point about Nirvana not being an absolute. This is the first nail in the coffin of your woolly syncretism.

So, I'm a Buddhist, and I have clearly explained to you that Nirvana is not equivalent to Brahman and Tao. You next need to examine the claim that Brahman and Tao are equivalent, it sounds shaky to me, but I suggest you ask some Hindus and Taoists directly what they think about this idea. If you stop making assumptions and start listening you might actually learn something.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I see you have side-stepped the pivotal point about Nirvana not being an absolute, which blows your shallow syncretism out of the water.

Time to abandon ship, perhaps?

You have not provided your understanding of Nirvana.....so I can't comment until you explain...no copy and paste jobs though...your own words...

 

[godnotgod]

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?

Brahman, The Ground of All Being, cannot be proven via the tools of Logic, Reason and Analysis. These methodologies stand squarely in the way, and the very first foot set forth by them is the problem. All methods, theories, models, concepts, etc. must first be set aside. These provide only skeletal sketches of how Reality behaves in order to make predictions. They don't, and cannot, tell us what Reality actually is. We don't know what a black hole actually is, and some scientists recently are claiming that they don't even exist, and/or that they are something else:

"After NASA's space telescopes caught images of a supermassive black hole emitting X-ray light, which stimulated the theory of Indian astrophysicist Abhas Mitra that black holes are actually extremely hot balls of fire much like our Sun, as previously reported by HNGN, the India Times is now claiming that NASA has confirmed this theory.

"The latest findings are in accordance with the theory of Indian astrophysicist Abhas Mitra who had theorized that the black holes are actually ultra hot balls of fire like our Sun," the article reads, with the headline "NASA's Says Indian Scientist's Theory Is Correct, Black Holes Don't Really Exist."

http://www.hngn.com/articles/154381/20151126/nasa-black-holes-dont-really-exist.htm

You poo poo Brahman as being a dreary old idea, but that is because you fail to understand, and that is because you suffered from your own 'fixation'. But one thing you will notice is that it's description is pretty much unchanging over the centuries, while science changes its assertions quite regularly. And Brahman is not a model of Reality; it is Reality itself.

Now Hawking is saying that there are no event horizons, but instead are 'apparent horizons'. Then there's the firewall paradox, creating more confusion.

“There’s all sorts of cacophony in the field … The problem is no one can come up, so far, with something you can actually calculate. So it’s ideas and proposals and approximations and guesses,” he said.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/hawking-meant-black-holes/

You talk about the 'unprovable assertions' about Brahman. Now we are at a place re: black holes where we cannot even apply mathematics.

“How can any of these paradoxes around black holes be answered? For now, the mathematical formulas to test and solve these new hypotheses simply aren’t there, Strassler said, adding that these are conceptual problems, not just a math problems.”

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/hawking-meant-black-holes/

As we 'progress', science seems to be more and more nebulous about its 'findings'. Perhaps soon there will be a jumping off point where scientists will at last make a leap of faith into the Mystery, leaving behind every scrap that they ever only thought was true, this being the only honest way to apprehend Reality. Leave toy models at home or place into museums for future laughs.

"What!? We believed THAT crap? How novel!"

"What's next? Pixies and faerie dust?" commented one forum poster, having previously been fixated on what he called 'Brahman'. Poor fellow. Seems his brain has been thoroughly muddled from years spent in Plato's Cave, a popular hangout amongst his ilk, where victims are regularly subjected to dancing cave wall shadows said to represent 'reality'. Uh huh. Sure..

 

[metis]

Where there often is a disconnect with discussions about Buddhism is that many tend to put Buddhism into an Abrahamic-type paradigm, which shouldn't be done. Buddhists generally don't view their scriptures in the same way Abrahamics do, nor do they posit a creator-god like the Abrahamics do.

Instead, much more emphasis is put on experience and observation, whereas even major teachings can be disagreed with-- and that can be quite acceptable. Buddhism is a process, ideally void of attachments, which may include unsupported assumptions.

 

[godnotgod]

Thank you, Legion, for trying both so hard....

Awwwwww........poooh...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Instead, much more emphasis is put on experience and observation, whereas even major teachings can be disagreed with-- and that can be quite acceptable. Buddhism is a process, ideally void of attachments, which may include unsupported assumptions.

Indeed, and beliefs are regarded as a hindrance. Buddhist practice is really a process of observation, exploration and discovery.

 

[atanu]

I do not need Buddhism's confusion nor science to tell me that I am blessed with a life and awareness. The only job is to keep the mind-emotions clean.

Towards this, a simple appreciation through self enquiry that "I" awareness is not a product of body is sufficient ... at least for me.

I do not need any validation from science or from any other source, since the self awareness is self evident and given. We build a lot of imaginary stories based on that awareness, which is given and present.

Our bodily and mental states change, just as forms of water change, but the "I" awareness is singular. It is present in deep sleep too, else we would not say "I slept happily".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You have not provided your understanding of Nirvana......

Yes, I have, repeatedly, and I have also demonstrated that Nirvana is not equivalent to Brahman and Tao. So let's now look at the claim that Brahman and Tao are equivalent - what evidence are you putting forward to support this assertion?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I do not need Buddhism's confusion nor science to tell me that I am blessed with a life and awareness.

You are clearly anti-Buddhism and anti-science, but why? Is it that Buddhism and science threaten some of the beliefs and assumptions you have grown attached to?

 

[godnotgod]

I see you have side-stepped the pivotal point about Nirvana not being an absolute.
.

No, it doesn't. Brahman and Tao are absolutes, Nirvana is not.

You have consistently ignored this post proving that the Buddha himself referred to Nirvana as The Absolute:
(Oh, I know: you must be waiting for Legion's expose that the translation is distorted, right?)

"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 'extinctions' mentioned here is Nirvana.

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

 

[godnotgod]

Indeed, and beliefs are regarded as a hindrance. Buddhist practice is really a process of observation, exploration and discovery.

And Zen Buddhism always asks: "Who, or what, is it that is observing, exploring, and discovering?"

Busy little mind, that.

 

[godnotgod]

I do not need Buddhism's confusion nor science to tell me that I am blessed with a life and awareness. The only job is to keep the mind-emotions clean.

Towards this, a simple appreciation through self enquiry that "I" awareness is not a product of body is sufficient ... at least for me.

I do not need any validation from science or from any other source, since the self awareness is self evident and given. We build a lot of imaginary stories based on that awareness, which is given and present.

Our bodily and mental states change, just as forms of water change, but the "I" awareness is singular. It is present in deep sleep too, else we would not say "I slept happily".

Funny. I (heh heh) don't see any 'I' that sleeps, but only sleeping itself.

('I' am using the word 'i' in the conventional sense, not that it is real)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes, I do. I don't need internet translations the way you do.

I can confirm that this is a dodgy translation, desperately quote-mined in a vain attempt to support a misrepresentation. Which is par for the course unfortunately.

I have repeatedly and clearly demonstrated that Nirvana is not an absolute like Brahman and Tao, but of course these demonstrations are studiously ignored by new-agers and woolly syncretists, people with an agenda to misrepresent.

 

[godnotgod]

You have not provided your understanding of Nirvana.....so I can't comment until you explain...no copy and paste jobs though...your own words...

You are dealing with someone who is ready to 'abandon ship' as his easy 'stage left'.