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

[godnotgod]

Actually what I do these days is very Zen, a simple no-frills practice.

While simplicity of practice is one of the hallmarks of Zen, it is not the fruit, which is Satori. Here is one way to achieve Satori:

'frogpondleapsplash'

LOOK! THE MOON!

A lobotomized frog sitiing still is also simplicity, but there is no realization or awakening going on. This is the classic Stone Buddha. You need to be arrested for fraud.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Gawd, when it will it ever stop!

 

[YmirGF]

He ain't Zen at all. I know some real Zennies and they are NOTHING like that, they have a simple grounded practice and wouldn't touch all that pretentious new-age crap he spouts with a barge-pole.
His continuous stream of BS is diametrically opposed to authentic Zen practice. He is really a Deepak Chopra clone.

One minute he's pretending to be a Hindu, a Buddhist the next, it's all a sham, smoke and mirrors. Basically he is a new-age conman who regularly hijacks threads here to have a good trolling session.
He is not the least bit interested in what you or anyone else has to say.

That reminds me of a time long ago on RF when I was strenuously arguing the Buddhist concept of no-self/not self. At first, some more superficial thinkers castigated me for insisting that self and personality are in fact real and not illusory. That stance didn't go over too well.

Then, quite unexpectedly, a very wise and knowledgeable Buddhist came in and explained the doctrine in a way that made perfect sense. It matched, more or less, what I was trying to tell folks. As best as I can recall he outlined that the idea of a changeless self is an illusion and that if there is anything at the core of being it is in perpetual change.

(The net result of the conversation is that I realized that I don't have any issues with the No-self/Not self doctrine as it, more or less, matches my own first hand views.)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

I do not wear a religious label.....those who talk the talk instead of walking the walk are vain in their pretensions to knowledge about religious teachings.....all the time missing the point that the true dharma is that there is no true dharma... Cease thinking and THAT which the religions speak of is present...

ps...Yes, please do not waste your life thinking that true peace can be ever found in conceptual reality...go still your mind to cease thinking and there lies the jewel in the lotus..not the finger point to it...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

You are a bit muddled.....meditative stares are not a means to an end....meditative practice is... It is the realization of THAT which is non-dual which is the goal of meditation practice...

You exemplify obtuseness wonderfully....I explain time and time again that ultimate reality is non-conceptual and thus can not be known or described.....and you say I keep talking about reality but have no idea...haha.

 

[godnotgod]

That reminds me of a time long ago on RF when I was strenuously arguing the Buddhist concept of no-self/not self. At first, some more superficial thinkers castigated me for insisting that self and personality are in fact real and not illusory. That stance didn't go over too well.

Then, quite unexpectedly, a very wise and knowledgeable Buddhist came in and explained the doctrine in a way that made perfect sense. It matched, more or less, what I was trying to tell folks. As best as I can recall he outlined that the idea of a changeless self is an illusion and that if there is anything at the core of being it is in perpetual change.

(The net result of the conversation is that I realized that I don't have any issues with the No-self/Not self doctrine as it, more or less, matches my own first hand views.)

True, there is no changeless self, but there is The Changeless Self.

In fact, there is no self at all, changing or changeless. That is the illusion that must be seen and understood as fiction.

Perpetual change can only be seen when seen against the background of Perpetual Changelessness. Otherwise, how would you know there is perpetual change?

 

[Aupmanyav]

So you're a Buddha? Completely free from craving, aversion and delusion? Full insight into sunyata?

I don't think you will understand, Rick. There is no need to be that. There are two worlds, one absolute and the other pragmatic.

And that is what I've grown to love about your thinking, Aupmanyav.

Thanks, YmirGF. I am grateful for your appreciation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

Simple. One understands.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

In fact, all these words denote the same thing - nirvana, moksha, jnana, enlightenment, deliverance, emancipation, etc.

 

[YmirGF]

In fact, all these words denote the same thing - nirvana, moksha, jnana, enlightenment, deliverance, emancipation, etc.

Being no stranger to any of the above, I must disagree. I do understand the need to equate however...

 

[Aupmanyav]

You partly agree with me. You understand my reasons. The rest is garnish.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Simple. One understands.

Forget everything you were trying to understand and it's right there...indescribable.

 

[godnotgod]

Gawd, when it will it ever stop!

Maybe when you admit that the Buddha pointed to Nirvana as The Absolute, as follows:

"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

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't think you will understand, Rick. There is no need to be that. There are two worlds, one absolute and the other pragmatic..

You made a statement, I was just asking for clarification. Personally I view awakening as a gradual thing.

People claim all kinds of things on internet forums, this thread is a good example. People imply knowledge when all they really have are beliefs.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You are a bit muddled.....meditative stares are not a means to an end....meditative practice is... It is the realization of THAT which is non-dual which is the goal of meditation practice...

Only in your shallow DIY syncretism. In fact meditation has different purposes in different traditions and there are many methods. But I guess you wouldn't know that because you haven't bothered to talk to people practising in authentic traditions. So strong is your need to talk that you have never really listened.

All you do is bleat on about the "non-dual", what you are actually talking about is some experience of samadhi, which is no big thing.
All you do is bleat on about the "non-conceptual", which is ironic given that your head is stuffed full of concepts and beliefs.
You are stuck at the base camp, it is time to move on.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Then, quite unexpectedly, a very wise and knowledgeable Buddhist came in and explained the doctrine in a way that made perfect sense. It matched, more or less, what I was trying to tell folks. As best as I can recall he outlined that the idea of a changeless self is an illusion and that if there is anything at the core of being it is in perpetual change.

Yes, that's how it is when you look closely. The "you" of tomorrow will not be the same as the "you" of today, and of course that's a good thing! And one's state of mind is continually changing, different from one moment to the next. These are the practical implication of the Buddhist teachings on anatta and sunyata. All is transience and insubstantiality.

I've observed that some people find this reality rather scary and start making up all kinds of things to cope, like "God", "Brahman", "Cosmic Consciousness", "Ultimate Reality". They cling to beliefs and clutch at metaphysical straws.
As Nietzsche said: "When you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." But you can learn to develop a head for heights.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Personally I view awakening as a gradual thing.

Yes, it took time. Perhaps it is easier for some and impossible for others (for want of the background knowledge).

All you do is bleat on about the "non-conceptual", which is ironic given that your head is stuffed full of concepts and beliefs.

Metta, Rick. It is only an internet discussion.

I've observed that some people find this reality rather scary and start making up all kinds of things to cope, like "Brahman", "Ultimate Reality".

Nothing scary in 'Brahman' and 'Ultimate Reality'. Not an ogre. It is 'what all exists' (or perhaps 'does not'. I do not know). It does not fry one till eternity. Actually it demolishes birth and death and makes one eternal (perhaps).

 

[godnotgod]

The "you" of tomorrow will not be the same as the "you" of today,

Wait a minute. The indoctrinated, socialized, conditioned 'you' (ie; Identity) will not be the same over time, but your true nature, always present, always conscious, remains the same, unchanging, as it does not exist in time or space.

 

[godnotgod]

All is transience and insubstantiality.

And one knows this via That which is intransient, obviously. That is The Absolute: The Changeless.

(CAPS because these are absolutes)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Nothing scary in 'Brahman' and 'Ultimate Reality'. Not an ogre. It is 'what all exists' (or perhaps 'does not'. I do not know). It does not fry one till eternity. Actually it demolishes birth and death and makes one eternal (perhaps).

I thought you were an atheist, and now you are talking about eternal life? Oh well. The universe is just the universe, which I do think some people find scary. They cling to religious beliefs like "Brahman" and "Ultimate Reality" and "Cosmic Consciousness". If you look closely these are all really variations on the "God" theme, the need to believe in some mystical "reality" behind the appearances. The "There must be more than this" syndrome. Or, more crudely, people are just afraid of death.

By the way, I don't think you anywhere near the attainment of Nirvana, and you are certainly not a Buddha. I find it very strange that you should claim such things on an internet forum. We get these claims on Buddhist forums from time to time, one learns to take them with a large pinch of salt.