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

[Runewolf1973]

I take it to be a property of 'Brahman'. But it is not really a change because it happens all the time and never stops.

I agree with this as well. If something is perpetually changing...infinitely changing, then in a way it can be said to be changeless.

 

[godnotgod]

Believed is what is not yet proved. We can't be categorical.

Exactly why I made a point of saying that it is believed that Space-Time began at the moment of inception of the Big Bang, but that is the premise the rest of the theory is built upon, and that is the premise I am using to make my statements, precisely that, at that very moment, there was not yet Space-Time in existence, the point being that the BB was an event outside of Space-Time. What does this imply? That it occurred either in Consciousness or Nothingness or both. Do you know of any other condition existing outside of Space-Time besides Brahman?

 

[godnotgod]

I believe change to be infinite and perpetual, so your question doesn't make sense to me because I don't consider that "something" to be finite.

Now we're back to you forcing 'change' to be an absolute, when it is clear that the moment you say 'change', you are implying its relative opposite of 'no-change'. Everywhere we look, The Universe exhibits two phases: on/off and up/down. Universes themselves have an on/off phase; the manifested followed by a period of non-manifestation. During the manifested phase, change is occurring all the time, and during the non-manifested phase, there is no change at all. The BB was the beginning of one of the 'on' phases. The way you would have it, Change is always going on, with no-change a non-reality. It is like having a light switch with the up and down positions labeled as 'ON'. Your view is a very narrow one, confined only to what is on the surface of the manifested universe.

 

[godnotgod]

I take it to be a property of 'Brahman'. But it is not really a change because it happens all the time and never stops. So, in that way it can be termed as 'no change - no change from the previous situation'. Change would be when it stops. So, perhaps we know at least one thing about Brahman.

If the changing world, or maya, is a property of Brahman, then change is an illusion, as dictated by maya. This becomes clear from the Bhagavad Gita:

"This phenomenon of Brahman not being visible but something else, the universe, being visible, is exactly what the term `maya' means. It does two things: It hides [unchanging] Brahman from you. Simultaneously it projects the [changing] universe to you.

The declaration that this is what is happening comes forth from the Lord Himself in Gita IX - 5, 6:

'Everything that is perceptible is pervaded and permeated by Me, who is unmanifested. All the beings are established in Me but not I in them; they are not in Me either, this is my divine yoga.'. He remains unmanifested while what is visible is basically a permeation by him. While he remains unchanged, and imperceptible, the universe is what is perceptible [and changing]. Everything visible is supported by Him as the only substratum, whereas He Himself is not supported by anything. He is His own support.' "

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/true-nature-of-the-universe-what-is-maya.83861/#post-1637206

So 'always changing' is not what is meant by 'the changeless'. Brahman is The Changeless, and his maya, the world, is only an illusion seeming to change. Remember, the world is also Brahman. This is one of the primary points in Buddhism. The Buddha noticed the effervescent quality of the world, and was a springboard for his seeking The Absolute that did NOT change. IOW, the changing world was not something reliable.

 

[godnotgod]

I agree with this as well. If something is perpetually changing...infinitely changing, then in a way it can be said to be changeless.

What is meant by 'changeless' is that the true, underlying nature of things is always the same. Only what is superficial exhibits differences we see as 'change'. You and I and billions of others are all different and changing all the time, but our essential natures are always the same, and does not change. Our attention is captured by the foreground of existence, which we see as 'change', and diverted away from the background, which never changes. Once you learn to see both simultaneously, it becomes clear that what you call 'change' is an illusion, because it relies on the changeless background in order to exist at all, as in:

 

[Runewolf1973]

Now we're back to you forcing 'change' to be an absolute, when it is clear that the moment you say 'change', you are implying its relative opposite of 'no-change'. Everywhere we look, The Universe exhibits two phases: on/off and up/down. Universes themselves have an on/off phase; the manifested followed by a period of non-manifestation. During the manifested phase, change is occurring all the time, and during the non-manifested phase, there is no change at all. The BB was the beginning of one of the 'on' phases. The way you would have it, Change is always going on, with no-change a non-reality. It is like having a light switch with the up and down positions labeled as 'ON'. Your view is a very narrow one, confined only to what is on the surface of the manifested universe.

Yes, I view the universe as always being "on". I don't believe there was ever an "off" because I believe that interaction to be perpetual. I don't see the universe as exhibiting on/off phases.

My view is different than yours. Now get over it already and stop drilling me with this changeless nonsense.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you know of any other condition existing outside of Space-Time besides Brahman?

No. For Brahman, 'whatever exists (as perceived by us)', space/time is not a limitation. That is what I believe.

So 'always changing' is not what is meant by 'the changeless'.

A matter of semantics. Does not really make any difference.

 

[Runewolf1973]

What is meant by 'changeless' is that the true, underlying nature of things is always the same. Only what is superficial exhibits differences we see as 'change'. You and I and billions of others are all different and changing all the time, but our essential natures are always the same, and does not change. Our attention is captured by the foreground of existence, which we see as 'change', and diverted away from the background, which never changes. Once you learn to see both simultaneously, it becomes clear that what you call 'change' is an illusion, because it relies on the changeless background in order to exist at all, as in:

There could never be the illusion of something without an interaction of sorts. That is what the "fluctuations" are...interactions.

 

[idav]

What stuff? What you call 'stuff' I am calling an illusion of 'stuff'. There is no stuff that changes in time. All are illusions. Only The Changeless Absolute is real, playing itself as The Stuff. Get it? And it all is not-occurring in no-Time and no-Space. It only APPEARS to be occurring in Space-Time. Enter Quantum Physics, confirming that the mass of the atom is created by fluctuations in the Unified Field, mass that is not real, mass that cannot change in Time or Space.

All I hear is Matrix like banter. I hardly think the universe is an illusion like that of the matrix movie.

Exactly why I made a point of saying that it is believed that Space-Time began at the moment of inception of the Big Bang, but that is the premise the rest of the theory is built upon, and that is the premise I am using to make my statements, precisely that, at that very moment, there was not yet Space-Time in existence, the point being that the BB was an event outside of Space-Time. What does this imply? That it occurred either in Consciousness or Nothingness or both. Do you know of any other condition existing outside of Space-Time besides Brahman?

Your presuming to know what is beyond space-time, thats great but their assumptions. And don't really understand calling consciousness nothing, or worse calling god the ultimate nothingness lol. A unified quantum universe is hardly nothing.

 

[godnotgod]

All I hear is Matrix like banter. I hardly think the universe is an illusion like that of the matrix movie.

Your presuming to know what is beyond space-time, thats great but their assumptions. And don't really understand calling consciousness nothing, or worse calling god the ultimate nothingness lol. A unified quantum universe is hardly nothing.

I don't know anything about the matrix movie.

Why do you think the 'material' Universe is real materially?

Is consciousness in or out of Space and Time? If it is 'some-thing', what is it? Can you contain it? Does it have form, color, taste, sound, or smell? Can you contain god or the unified quantum universe as 'some thing'? Do they exist in Space and Time?

 

[godnotgod]

There could never be the illusion of something without an interaction of sorts. That is what the "fluctuations" are...interactions.

Where is the interaction when a rope is mistakenly seen as a snake? It's all taking place in the mind, which itself is a self-created principle. It's just a projection but it isn't real. The rope remains unchanged, so no interaction has occurred.

So do you think the Universe to be illusory?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Where is the interaction when a rope is mistakenly seen as a snake? It's all taking place in the mind, which itself is a self-created principle. It's just a projection but it isn't real. The rope remains unchanged, so no interaction has occurred.

So do you think the Universe to be illusory?

Whether mistaken or not, seeing something is an interaction with light. Thinking something with the mind requires interactions in the brain. Nothing can be projected without an interaction of some kind.

The universe is interactive. Some interactions take place without our realization of them even occurring.

 

[godnotgod]

Whether mistaken or not, seeing something is an interaction with light. Thinking something with the mind requires interactions in the brain. Nothing can be projected without an interaction of some kind.

The universe is interactive. Some interactions take place without our realization of them even occurring.

They are all illusory.

 

[Runewolf1973]

They are all illusory.

Illusory is not the same as non-existant.

 

[idav]

I don't know anything about the matrix movie.

Why do you think the 'material' Universe is real materially?

Is consciousness in or out of Space and Time? If it is 'some-thing', what is it? Can you contain it? Does it have form, color, taste, sound, or smell? Can you contain god or the unified quantum universe as 'some thing'? Do they exist in Space and Time?

Omg you never saw the matrix, it's like right down your alley with all this talk of yours.

Anyhow I will put it this way, it isn't that there is no table, you are the table.

 

[idav]

Illusory is not the same as non-existant.

He told someone there is no table, may have been you. Reminded me of the matrix movie.

 

[godnotgod]

Whether mistaken or not, seeing something is an interaction with light. Thinking something with the mind requires interactions in the brain. Nothing can be projected without an interaction of some kind.

The universe is interactive. Some interactions take place without our realization of them even occurring.

They are all illusory.

Illusory is not the same as non-existant.

No? The snake does not exist because it is an illusion.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No? The snake does not exist because it is an illusion.

The rope (the visual stimulus) did exist, therefore it was not a case of seeing something that didn't exist, rather it was a case of mistaken identity. The illusion of a snake was not created out of pure nothingness. How can a magician do a card trick illusion without a deck of cards? An illusion does not appear in absence of a stimulus.

From Wikipedia:

"The term illusion refers to a specific form of sensory distortion. Unlike a hallucination, which is a distortion in the absence of a stimulus, an illusion describes a misinterpretation of a true sensation. For example, hearing voices regardless of the environment would be a hallucination, whereas hearing voices in the sound of running water (or other auditory source) would be an illusion."

 

[godnotgod]

The rope (the visual stimulus) did exist, therefore it was not a case of seeing something that didn't exist, rather it was a case of mistaken identity. The illusion of a snake was not created out of pure nothingness. How can a magician do a card trick illusion without a deck of cards? An illusion does not appear in absence of a stimulus.

From Wikipedia:

"The term illusion refers to a specific form of sensory distortion. Unlike a hallucination, which is a distortion in the absence of a stimulus, an illusion describes a misinterpretation of a true sensation. For example, hearing voices regardless of the environment would be a hallucination, whereas hearing voices in the sound of running water (or other auditory source) would be an illusion."

The rope is metaphor for The Absolute, the only true Reality. It exists, but is hidden, while at the same time projecting The Universe, for which 'snake is the metaphor. The rope is mistaken for a snake, which does NOT exist, 'snake' being an illusion. This is a case of seeing something (ie; 'snake') that does not exist. Likewise, The Changeless Absolute is mistaken for a a real, material Universe divided into parts and changing all the time. The illusions of both snake and material Universe have no real substance to them, that of 'snake' being far more obvious since it completely vanishes upon detection. Here the metaphor becomes limited in scope. because the illusion of 'snake' is built upon the higher illusion that is rope. But rope is seen, while The Absolute is hidden, and while 'snake' vanishes, The Universe remains visible and 'verifiable' via perception. That Everything can come out of Pure Nothingness is possible simply because 'Everything' is not actually real. It is merely an illusory projection of that which IS real but invisible; The Absolute; Pure Consciousness; The Formless; Nothingness; Brahman; etc.

The magician uses a deck of cards as his stock in trade, but it is because of sleight of hand that the illusion is brought off. He is making the audience believe he is creating magic when he is only fooling the eye. In the case of The Universe, the eye is completely fooled, but the magic is real.

The 'true sensation' of The Absolute is misinterpreted as a material, changing Universe and the result is illusion. When the illusion is finally pierced, The Universe is seen for what it actually is: The Absolute. The Universe is not what it seems to be, as seen through Time, Space, and Causation, just as the rope is not the snake that it seems to be.

From the scientific POV, this world is not what it seems to be when Quantum Physics is brought into play.

 

[godnotgod]

Omg you never saw the matrix, it's like right down your alley with all this talk of yours.

Anyhow I will put it this way, it isn't that there is no table, you are the table.

That is true on the level of The Unified Field.

"Underlying this quantum field is the Unified Field, the perfect state of equilibrium that is a priori to the quantum field. Every quantum energy event (misnomered as "particles") is a fluctuation within the pure stillness of the Unified Field that spins into existence, and in so doing creates differentials in energetic polarity (electromagnetic positive/negative), spin direction (chirality), pressure density (mass) and movement through spacetime (angular momentum). The underlying Unified Field is the state of pure potential in perfect equilibrium wherein nothing is manifest and everything is connected as one."

http://cosmometry.net/unified-field-and-quantum-field

But the Hindus got there first with their realization of 'Tat tvam asi'.