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

[YmirGF]

Oh yes, I agree.

Anyway I am bored with this thread now, could we discuss something else? Like the increasing frequency of aggressive begging by by seagulls in British seaside towns, nobody's fish and chips is safe...

Or the fact that I have now stopped hanging a feeder for the birds because the local rogue raccoons have managed to defeat my latest ingenious baffles designed to thwart them? (In all fairness, it did take them six months to do so, but came outside a month ago and found my prized feeder, on the ground, quite empty and in a million tiny pieces.) It's that or sit out side with a shotgun after sunset.... (That might upset my elderly neighbors though.)


What's the old expression? "He who knows, says nothing. He who knows not, teaches."

 

[metis]

Nirvana is not an unknown. Buddha knew that he was ready for nirvana, but refused it for the benefit of the people. Yes, for most others, it will be an unknown.

What I mean by "unknown" is that there has been differences of opinions on exactly what happens with it.

Also, just a reminder that simply because something is a teaching doesn't mean that it is absolutely true and we must believe in it. IOW, dogma does not trump experience, observation, or even logic.

 

[metis]

Yeah, I know because I too have attained 'nirvana', 'moksha'. A little problem in presentation does not worry me at all.

Nirvana and moksha are not the same if one sticks with the basic teachings on both.

 

[atanu]

Instead, much more emphasis is put on experience and observation, .....,.

And please tell us whether experience and observation will hold any real meaning, if there was no basis of knowledge ? If there is no foundation of anything whatsoever, then what is the basis of claims to knowledge?

When people claim that they know that there is no absolute truth, they are actually saying "I know the truth that there is no truth".

Or, even more absurd "I know that I exist not".

...

 

[godnotgod]

Unfortunately there are some non-Buddhists who think they know more about Buddhist teachings than the people who actually practice those teachings. This attitude is patronising and arrogant.

.

Unfortunately there are some stagnant, backwater pretend 'Buddhish-sts' and wanna-be linguists here who refuse to listen to even Buddha himself, so entrenched is their own stagnant but comfy self-view about what he said, or even that, when faced with his actual words, deny that he said it, or try to tell us that the translation is deformed. This attitude is patronising and arrogant, the epitome of ignorance itself, ignorance which was the Buddha's primary target.

Once again, I post the Buddha's actual words, in which he is telling us that Nirvana is 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 'extinctions' mentioned here together compirse Nirvana.

Spiney, you can go no further until you address this issue. Otherwise, you have no credibility. You have claimed to confirm that the translation is faulty, but when asked, produce no evidence for your claim.

 

[godnotgod]

"Nirvana" is more of an unknown than a known, and is partially based on the concept that the energy that which composes us simply doesn't disappear. Buddhists themselves often debate this with knowledge that there's gonna be different thoughts on this, with many taking the position of whatever will be, will be.

Again, to be clear, there are no creeds in Buddhism, and one is encouraged to go in the direction of their experiences and observations, and to say "I don't know" isn't a weakness if one doesn't know.

Nirvana is arrived at via negation. It is not an object of knowledge, so to envision it as unknown or known is incorrect. Negatives must be extinguished before Nirvana can be revealed, but it is always present, and not something that comes into being. There is no becoming in Buddhism, which is to say the same thing that Hinduism says: 'Tat tvam asi'

The Buddha's own words tell us specifically what Nirvana is:

"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 together comprise what Nirvana is.

The Buddha also said: 'negate negation'.

 

[godnotgod]

I'm with you, Rick. Heck, I'm even on record as saying, several times now, that Nirvana does NOT exist and that is it part of "Buddha's little joke". (The joke is that as the student plunges down the rabbit hole of inner reality they will discover many wild and fascinating things. They will never reach a "fabled land" called Nirvana (That is metaphorical, for the dim witted,) Buddha knew that the student would find all these things in pursuit of the legendary Nirvana and would be handsomely rewarded for their efforts. He knew that demanding a refund for the process because there is no Nirvana as billed in the glossy brochures would never enter their minds because at that point they would be in on the joke too and would never dream of spoiling it for those still behind them.)

So, yeah, I do agree that "nirvana" is not an absolute, but is a placeholder symbol for the unknown. It's so liberating to drop attachments to ideas and simply be, here, now. So simple... even a fool can do it.

Or a lobotomized frog....

No, Buddha's Little Joke is that there really is Nirvana, but the fools and lobotomized frogs who fail to see it think the joke is that there is no Nirvana and that they are somehow now in Buddha's inside circle on a first-name basis.

BTW, you DID read the quote re: 'the Absolute' from Buddha's own lips, did you not? No? Well, dearie, here it is in all its blazing glory for you, yes YOU, to ponder over:

"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 = Nirvana.

Now go to your room and weep!

 

[godnotgod]

It seems that some people are simply incapable of dropping the attachments and mental baggage. It's like they need a head full of Pretentious Proper Nouns to cope, and in some cases have an overwhelming need to share their mental junk-yard with the rest of us. No thanks!

Oh, you mean like:

"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

 

[godnotgod]

Oh yes, I agree.

Anyway I am bored with this thread now, could we discuss something else? Like the increasing frequency of aggressive begging by by seagulls in British seaside towns, nobody's fish and chips is safe...

Oh, but the night is still young and there are far more important things to get muddled about, such as:

"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

 

[godnotgod]

I think the appeal in all this quackery is that it gives a sense of certainty to a process that is not certain and has no guarantees. It's really just clinging. Amusing to watch, but clinging, nonetheless. Those who cling to the PPN's simply demonstrate that they are still using inner training wheels and have nothing of substance (pun intended, for the dim) to offer. The newbie is prone to exaggeration and feigns certainty. It's just a feature of the game at a certain stage of inner development.

Of course, like the one who said this, using a PPN:

"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

Poor Buddha was just an upstart in the Hindu community, still wet behind the ears, and a laughing stock to boot.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

When people claim that they know that there is no absolute truth, they are actually saying "I know the truth that there is no truth".

No, just pointing out that ideas like "absolute truth" are mere beliefs, not things to be clung too.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

IOW, dogma does not trump experience, observation, or even logic.

Absolutely. It's mostly new-age dogma on this thread, tiresome stuff.

 

[godnotgod]

I am certainly not a Buddha. Occasionally you stumble across them on internet discussion forums I suppose.

More ignorance about Buddhism from the stagnant backwaters of Hinayana:

Everyone is already a buddha by default; it's simply that they haven't realized it yet. The Buddha himself told us that everyone and everything has 'Buddha nature'. and that Ordinary Mind is none other than Buddha Mind.

 

[godnotgod]

But Rick, who isn't?

It's all just a Big Act, similar to the one you are doing right now.

 

[godnotgod]

Anyone who has been "There" could easily and honestly use the title of "tathagata". I highly doubt Buddha used it in an exclusive sense.

Say! Did you know that THE TATHAGATA was also A tathagata?

 

[godnotgod]

No, just pointing out that ideas like "absolute truth" are mere beliefs, not things to be clung too.

The absolute truth you cling to are the stagnant backwater teachings of Hinayana.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Or the fact that I have now stopped hanging a feeder for the birds because the local rogue raccoons have managed to defeat my latest ingenious baffles designed to thwart them? (In all fairness, it did take them six months to do so, but came outside a month ago and found my prized feeder, on the ground, quite empty and in a million tiny pieces.) It's that or sit out side with a shotgun after sunset.... (That might upset my elderly neighbors though.)

Those naughty racoons! Perhaps you should broadcast a continuous recording of Chopra talking about cosmic consciousness, that will soon get rid of them ( though you would need earplugs to avoid madness ). Our equivalent is squirrels, a vicious gang of them mugged a 3-year old recently, it was in the papers. What with squirrels and seagull attacks and now your racoons, it looks like the beginning of an animal uprising to overthrow the evil humans! I reckon it is being orchestrated by devious cats but of course they won't actually get involved themselves.

 

[metis]

And please tell us whether experience and observation will hold any real meaning, if there was no basis of knowledge ? If there is no foundation of anything whatsoever, then what is the basis of claims to knowledge?

When people claim that they know that there is no absolute truth, they are actually saying "I know the truth that there is no truth".

Or, even more absurd "I know that I exist not".

...

You are correct in that experience and observation need to be put into perspective, which is where meditation comes in. Also, there is indeed an insistence on knowledge (Zen is a bit different on this though), which I put under the general category of "observation" since that can come in myriad forms.

Finally, there undoubtedly are some "absolute truths", but the problem is trying to determine exactly what they are. Also, dharma does not teach nihilism.

 

[YmirGF]

Those naughty racoons! Perhaps you should broadcast a continuous recording of Chopra talking about cosmic consciousness, that will soon get rid of them ( though you would need earplugs to avoid madness ). Our equivalent is squirrels, a vicious gang of them mugged a 3-year old recently, it was in the papers. What with squirrels and seagull attacks and now your racoons, it looks like the beginning of an animal uprising to overthrow the evil humans!

No, I couldn't sanction that because it might unwittingly usher in a dawn of the Zombie Apocalypse. The last thing I need is Opra-esque drivel being slobbered on the rose bushes.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The ordinary man sees the conventional as absolutely real. With what kind of conscious awareness are you seeing the conventional as the conventional?

Funny how you keep changing your mind from the time I first began discussions with you.

But I guess that's a good thing.

I have pointed out to you many times that, from the level of conscious awareness you are on, the world is real; but from the POV of Higher Consciousness, it is an illusion.

Now you are saying that "things" or "forms" are not the truth. Does this mean to say that things and forms are not real?

I see only via conventional awareness because there is no “Higher Consciousness” from which to see anything differently. I am fully aware that things and forms are not what they seem to be. I neither accept forms and things as absolutely real, nor do I deny their existence. Everything is interdependent/interactive, empty of self-nature and only conventionally real.