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

[YmirGF]

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.

That's really part of the problem. Everyone seems to have a different take on what an absolute truth would be. I'm happier saying "truth" is relative to understanding and leave it at that. If folks want to make that an absolute, that's their cross to bear.

 

[metis]

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'.

You are misunderstanding where I'm coming from on this, and where I'm coming from is that which is frequently discussed in Buddhist circles. Yes, there are various teachings on the issue of nirvana, which of course must be interpreted, but the other thing that's terribly important is that Buddhists are not bound by dogmatic beliefs. The Buddha said that his teachings should not be accepted at face value but should be "tested by fire", and this is what I am saying.

IOW, I'm not trying to change the teachings but merely stating that they are to be tested by our own experiences* and observations* through meditation. As I mentioned in a previous post, we're making a mistake if we apply Abrahamic approaches when it comes to trying to understand dharma.


* these also include study and logic.

 

[metis]

That's really part of the problem. Everyone seems to have a different take on what an absolute truth would be. I'm happier saying "truth" is relative to understanding and leave it at that. If folks want to make that an absolute, that's their cross to bear.

Yes, and the logical question back to them is what makes them certain that it is "absolute"?

 

[YmirGF]

Yes, and the logical question back to them is what makes them certain that it is "absolute"?

Bingo!

(God, I hate that. You go to take a sip of coffee from your empty cup and actually sit there waiting for one forlorn little last drop to drip down.....) LOL

*runs off to get more coffee*

 

[metis]

Bingo!

(God, I hate that. You go to take a sip of coffee from your empty cup and actually sit there waiting for one forlorn little last drop to drip down.....) LOL

*runs off to get more coffee*

Can you get me one too?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

Ah yes, I'd forgotten that Zombies like Chopra talks. His voice probably soothes them, or maybe they are more interested in his brains?

 

[YmirGF]

Can you get me one too?

There. Got you a nice little dish of frozen yogurt too!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes, and the logical question back to them is what makes them certain that it is "absolute"?

People often dress up beliefs as certainties, it comforts them.

 

[YmirGF]

People often dress up beliefs as certainties, it comforts them.

So true, because the unknown is a rather large 873 kilogram gorilla in the room. It's so much better to throw a table cloth over it and pretend it isn't what it is.

 

[metis]

There. Got you a nice little dish of frozen yogurt too!

Grazias. Oops, am I now going to get deported???

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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?

Ok...Nirvana also represents the same reality as Brahman and Tao...this one reality is non-conceptual meaning it is beyond description and knowledge....the Tao that can be conceived of is not the Eternal Tao. The reason for this is that this ultimate reality is not in time, hence it can not be grasped by a mind in thought....So unless you can show that Nirvana can be scientifically observed, and or described or known, then the concept represents the same reality.

Indeed there is no difference when I practice Yoga meditation, Buddhist Dhyana, or Taoist still mind meditation, when the mind is free from thought.....there is THAT which is non-dual and beyond all conceptualization....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Ok...Nirvana also represents the same reality as Brahman and Tao...this one reality is non-conceptual meaning it is beyond description and knowledge....the Tao that can be conceived of is not the Eternal Tao. The reason for this is that this ultimate reality is not in time, hence it can not be grasped by a mind in thought....So unless you can show that Nirvana can be scientifically observed, and or described or known, then the concept represents the same reality.
Indeed there is no difference when I practice Yoga meditation, Buddhist Dhyana, or Taoist still mind meditation, when the mind is free from thought.....there is THAT which is non-dual and beyond all conceptualization....

You are talking about meditative states like samadhi. That is nothing to do with a discussion about whether Nirvana is the same as Brahman and Tao.

Meditative states are just meditative states.

 

[YmirGF]

Grazias. Oops, am I now going to get deported???

*snort* Um, no.

But a hearty thanks for joining this conversation. It's nice to hear from another who is not totally disconnected from reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

Yes....he has a dodgy conceptual idea of the real purpose of Buddhist teaching...and misses the jewel in the lotus....the non-dual nature of Nirvana, Tao, and Brahman...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Also, dharma does not teach nihilism.

Buddhadharma teaches dependent arising, or conditionality, this the middle way between existence and non-existence. Hence sunyata, emptiness.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are talking about meditative states like samadhi. That is nothing to do with a discussion about whether Nirvana is the same as Brahman and Tao.

Meditative states are just meditative states.

The non-dual state of meditation is the whole goal of Yoga, Taoism, and Buddhism.....and Brahman, Nirvana, and the Tao represent THAT reality present when there is no disturbance of the mind..

 

[godnotgod]

Yes....he has a dodgy conceptual idea of the real purpose of Buddhist teaching...and misses the jewel in the lotus....the non-dual nature of Nirvana, Tao, and Brahman...

Spot on....I sensed his missing the mark as well. While practice is essential, the fruits of meditation need realizing. While I do give him credit for his studies, reading the sutras and mouthing doctrine is secondary to the actual spiritual experience.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes....he has a dodgy conceptual idea of the real purpose of Buddhist teaching...

Oh dear, that is a bit rich coming from you, a woolly syncretist and non-Buddhist who continually misrepresents authentic traditions to pursue a personal agenda, and who still hasn't understood "emptiness", let alone "emptiness of emptiness".

I've clearly demonstrated that Nirvana is not the same as Brahman and Tao, but you are simply not listening, you are clearly too attached to your shallow syncretism. You are like a child going "la-la-la" to avoid hearing uncomfortable truths.

If you had any maturity you would ask people in different traditions how they practice and actually listen, but it's clear you are not in the least bit interested in what anyone else says, you just want to preach your shallow syncretism. Just like your devious new-age chum. You are like a pair of con-men, snake-oil, smoke and mirrors, pure BS.

I'm not wasting any more time on you.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The non-dual state of meditation is the whole goal of Yoga, Taoism, and Buddhism.....and Brahman, Nirvana, and the Tao represent THAT reality present when there is no disturbance of the mind..

Nonsense. Like I said, meditative states are just meditative states, just a stepping stone, been there, done that. They serve different purposes in different traditions actually, but of course you wouldn't admit that because it doesn't fit your shallow syncretism. In Buddhism meditative states are a means to and end, the end being insight. Like insight into our old friend sunyata for example. Insight into transience and conditionality. Direct insight, not cliched rhetoric you've looked up on the internet.

All you have is rhetoric, a muddle of misguided beliefs and misrepresentations.

You keep talking about "reality" but have no idea what it actually is.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's nice to hear from another who is not totally disconnected from reality.

Yes, and somebody who does not exude a continuous stream of utter BS, we are knee-deep in this thread. Can you lend me some waders?

Actually a diving suit might be better the way things are going.