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

[idav]

It is altogether the experience of a single Reality.

This really can't be proven of course. We can only experience our individual realities last I checked.

 

[`mud]

Chit happens, no matter what synopsizes I've read in 77 years !
There's no cognizance beyond death, all of that cognizance will be gone !
And also, there is no soul within the supposed consciousness to be gone !
We are temporally humans, with consciousness, but only temporary !
What a shame, all the cognizant sensitivities will be gone, and also, us !
~
The older I get, the more I really believe in the time I have left,
but beyond that moment, no consciousness, no cognizance !
~
'mud

 

[Aupmanyav]

How is 'forging my own view' not looking at That?

The quote is saying that all 'modifications', ie 'personal views' of Brahman are false, ..

"The effect is nothing but the cause. Hence the body is nothing but food, food is nothing but water, water is nothing but fire, fire is nothing but Sat. Sat alone is true, and That thou art.

When a man sleeps he becomes one with Sat and hence in his case it is said Svapiti, which means he attains his own Self in sleep. This Sat is the real cause of the universe.

" When a man dies his speech is dissolved in the mind, the mind is dissolved in the Prana, the Prana is dissolved in fire, fire is dissolved in Sat. This Sat is thy Self - That thou art.

I had problems with other views so I made efforts and found the truth by discrimination. Where is ‘that’? It is all ‘this’.
- ‘Modifications’ are for people who have not realized the truth. For me, it is one only.
- Well, people describe things in various ways. ‘Food is water and water is fire and fire is truth’ is a poetic expression.
- Being awake or sleeping does not make any difference. There is nothing but Brahman and Brahman is truth.
- Again some poetry, ‘When a man dies his speech is dissolved in the mind, the mind is dissolved in the Prana, the Prana is dissolved in fire, fire is dissolved in Sat.’ I apply Occam’s Razor to such expressions.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Can you, for a few moments, put your speculating, analytical, discursive, logical, rational mind aside and just simply SEE what is?

That requires interaction. Besides...according to your view there should be nothing to see. In the end, if I see differently than you and I choose change over changeless, it makes absolutely NO difference to the universe as a whole. It is only in your mind that you feel I am somehow missing out on some bigger picture by not accepting your views. I assure you...the universe leaves no one behind. Our views make no difference.

 

[godnotgod]

This really can't be proven of course. We can only experience our individual realities last I checked.

What the prisoners in Plato's Cave said to the one escaped prisoner who went topside to see the Sun for the first time.

What you call 'individual realities' is only because you cling to a personal view, one sculpted and dictated by 'I'. Once it is seen that 'I' is an illusion, then the seeing itself becomes a universal seeing. IOW, there is seeing without an individual 'see-er'. This pure seeing, without the thought of an 'I' that sees, is in reality, the seeing of The Universe itself. But this must be awakened first. This awakening is what the mystic's hard inner work is all about.

'Individual realities' are merely the various accretions of social indoctrinations you have accumulated during your entire lifetime. We call this condition 'Identification', the Third Level of Consciousness. When one transcends this level to the Fourth Level and beyond, it is called Self-Transcendence, or Self-Remembering.

 

[godnotgod]

That requires interaction. Besides...according to your view there should be nothing to see. In the end, if I see differently than you and I choose change over changeless, it makes absolutely NO difference to the universe as a whole. It is only in your mind that you feel I am somehow missing out on some bigger picture by not accepting your views. I assure you...the universe leaves no one behind. Our views make no difference.

Sad that you cannot put them aside, then, for a few moments so you can see that what you think here is not the case.

You are a million miles off the mark.

 

[idav]

What the prisoners in Plato's Cave said to the one escaped prisoner who went topside to see the Sun for the first time.

What you call 'individual realities' is only because you cling to a personal view, one sculpted and dictated by 'I'. Once it is seen that 'I' is an illusion, then the seeing itself becomes a universal seeing. IOW, there is seeing without an individual 'see-er'. This pure seeing, without the thought of an 'I' that sees, is in reality, the seeing of The Universe itself. But this must be awakened first. This awakening is what the mystic's hard inner work is all about.

'Individual realities' are merely the various accretions of social indoctrinations you have accumulated during your entire lifetime. We call this condition 'Identification', the Third Level of Consciousness. When one transcends this level to the Fourth Level and beyond, it is called Self-Transcendence, or Self-Remembering.

Your analogy goes beyond plato's cave. Your analogy is as if the guy leaves the cave and ends up in another universe with different physics. There is no evidence our consciousness is non-local. Otherwise people would dream and bring back stuff other people know, but that only happens in sci-fi movies or though various means of physical technologies.

 

[godnotgod]

I had problems with other views so I made efforts and found the truth by discrimination. Where is ‘that’? It is all ‘this’.

You are still in the realm of duality by thinking 'this' and 'that' and are missing the realization of That.

- ‘Modifications’ are for people who have not realized the truth. For me, it is one only.

It is still an individually sculpted, self-view. The only view that matters is that of Brahman, unsculpted, unmodified.

- Well, people describe things in various ways. ‘Food is water and water is fire and fire is truth’ is a poetic expression.
- Being awake or sleeping does not make any difference. There is nothing but Brahman and Brahman is truth.
- Again some poetry, ‘When a man dies his speech is dissolved in the mind, the mind is dissolved in the Prana, the Prana is dissolved in fire, fire is dissolved in Sat.’ I apply Occam’s Razor to such expressions.

I only posted this dialogue to put 'thou art that' into the context in which it originally was written, and not to transmit any veracity or meaning of the text.

 

[godnotgod]

Your analogy goes beyond plato's cave. Your analogy is as if the guy leaves the cave and ends up in another universe with different physics.

In a way, that is true of Higher Consciousness in the same way that the view of the 'material' world which has come about via Quantum Physics has been completely transformed. There is no 'other universe'; it is still THIS universe that becomes transformed right before your eyes. In the case of both Higher Consciousness and Quantum Physics, what you thought was the case turns out not to be the case. You are still here, in this universe, but yes, with different physics in QM, and a transformed consciousness in HC.

In Plato's Cave, the other prisoners still think the cave wall shadows represent reality, while the escaped prisoner has experienced a major shift in consciousness as regards true Reality.

There is no evidence our consciousness is non-local.

Wanna bet? See here:

https://www.opencenter.org/blog/2014/02/10/how-we-create-our-own-reality/

http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Grinberg1994.pdf

Otherwise people would dream and bring back stuff other people know, but that only happens in sci-fi movies or though various means of physical technologies.

Heh...heh....we are doing just that right now within this dream we call life.

But you are missing the point of non-locality. It does not mean we know what someone else knows; it means the consciousness with which we know it is the same consciousness with which they know it. IOW, consciousness is not 'my' consciousness' as most of us think. That is thought by the 'I', which is an illusion. It makes us believe we are experiencing individual consciousness localized in the brain. But it is non-local consciousness that uses the brain as a memory storehouse and to run certain autonomic functions. Otherwise, those functions would be up front all the time in consciousness creating chaos. Consciousness needs to focus on what is immediately in front of us at this moment, with the ability to shift effortlessly from one thing to another. The reality is that what you call 'my' consciousness is actually the consciousness of The Universe.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Sad that you cannot put them aside, then, for a few moments so you can see that what you think here is not the case.
You are a million miles off the mark.

I am at the perfect center of the universe. I am perfectly integrated in the universe. Nothing...not even our minds or our personal views can separate us from the universe. It is only in your mind that I am somehow lost. I assure you, the universe misses no mark and with that I am perfectly on mark.

 

[yiostheoy]

I've often heard people say that in some sense or another "everything" (whatever that is) is "energy". This confuses me, to put it bluntly. I often work with "energy" as it is "defined" (exists? described?) in modern physics, and this has not helped me understand the assertion that everything is energy. So if any members believe this and would be willing to describe what this belief means (or if any members are more knowledgeable about what this means than I) I would be grateful for an explanation as to what "everything is energy" means (e.g., what is the nature of this "energy"? why ought we to believe that everything is indeed a form of or made out of this "energy"? etc.). Thanks!

This thread has been resurrected now in a very big way. So I too will add my two cents worth.

"I've often heard people say ..." is starting out your thread with a fallacy of argumentum populum.

Nuclear physicists working on the Manhattan Project were indeed able to split the atom with Uranium and Plutonium which released a tremendous amount of energy in the form of an atomic explosion and they thus concluded that from the breaking down of nuclear matter the energy resulted.

This led to the theory that matter is made up of energy.

We still don't know if it is true or not. It all depends on the fantasies of quantum mechanics and its many quirks and quarks.

Some philosophical schools of the ancient Greeks also speculated that all matter was made up of fire. So the idea at least dates back to the 7th Century BC with the Atomists.

Science has not yet discovered what matter is made out of.

Philosophy has not speculated either.

And Religion cannot tell us.

So in other words we just don't know.

 

[yiostheoy]

I am at the perfect center of the universe. I am perfectly integrated in the universe. Nothing...not even our minds or our personal views can separate us from the universe. It is only in your mind that I am somehow lost. I assure you, the universe misses no mark and with that I am perfectly on mark.

This sounds like quotes of William Blake.

 

[yiostheoy]

This is actually in response to many posts made here more than anything else.


For the record, most of my work is in physics and I can read Einstein in English and German were I interested here in what physics says. I know what physics says. I am trying to understand that which I don't: what those who hold that "everything is energy" believe this statement to mean and why. I do not understand this.


It is FAR more than a coordinate (also, not all coordinates are equivalent). Time as a coordinate differs in special relativity (in which the entirety of spacetime is Minkwoskian) from the geometry of spacetime in general relativity and both differ from "time" as a coordinate in quantum physics (a coordinate which doesn't exist in quantum mechanics).


How would you characterize the prediction of antiparticles dating in particular from Dirac's relativizing of quantum mechanics?

I can read Einstein in English and Germany too, and either way he sounds pretty crazy.

He sure was wild and crazy about his cousin though.

 

[Runewolf1973]

This sounds like quotes of William Blake.

Never heard of him. I'll have to look that up.

 

[godnotgod]

I am at the perfect center of the universe. I am perfectly integrated in the universe. Nothing...not even our minds or our personal views can separate us from the universe. It is only in your mind that I am somehow lost. I assure you, the universe misses no mark and with that I am perfectly on mark.

Only on the level of consciousness that is your reality, just as the reality of the dreamer who is a 'dragon-slayer' is real to him. So on your level, interaction is the fundamental reality, but on the next higher level, The Changeless is the fundamental reality. You are looking at the foreground while Higher Consciousness is looking at the Source of the foreground.

 

[idav]

This thread has been resurrected now in a very big way. So I too will add my two cents worth.

"I've often heard people say ..." is starting out your thread with a fallacy of argumentum populum.

Nuclear physicists working on the Manhattan Project were indeed able to split the atom with Uranium and Plutonium which released a tremendous amount of energy in the form of an atomic explosion and they thus concluded that from the breaking down of nuclear matter the energy resulted.

This led to the theory that matter is made up of energy.

We still don't know if it is true or not. It all depends on the fantasies of quantum mechanics and its many quirks and quarks.

Some philosophical schools of the ancient Greeks also speculated that all matter was made up of fire. So the idea at least dates back to the 7th Century BC with the Atomists.

Science has not yet discovered what matter is made out of.

Philosophy has not speculated either.

And Religion cannot tell us.

So in other words we just don't know.

So your argument is based on the fallacy, appeal to ignorance. Got it.

I can read Einstein in English and Germany too, and either way he sounds pretty crazy.

He sure was wild and crazy about his cousin though.

And yet another fallacy ad hominem, attacking the character of Einstein rather than debating his theories.

Do you have anything pro or con toward whats being debated?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Only on the level of consciousness that is your reality, just as the reality of the dreamer who is a 'dragon-slayer' is real to him. So on your level, interaction is the fundamental reality, but on the next higher level, The Changeless is the fundamental reality. You are looking at the foreground while Higher Consciousness is looking at the Source of the foreground.

And it makes no difference...whatsoever. There is no separate part that is not the Source for one to look at.

 

[godnotgod]

Science has not yet discovered what matter is made out of.

Philosophy has not speculated either.

And Religion cannot tell us.

So in other words we just don't know.

Do we know that it's mass is virtual mass?

 

[godnotgod]

And it makes no difference...whatsoever. There is no separate part that is not the Source for one to look at.

Except for the fact that you still think the elephant is the trunk, or the tail, or the ear, since you are relying on perceptual reality, rather than Ultimate Reality, and for the fact that you are not REALLY a dragon-slayer.

But you are not looking at the Source; you are looking at the Outcome of the Source, and looking at it through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation. Therefore, you see it not as it actually is, but how your conditioned awareness thinks it is. You still see the rope as a 'snake', deny it as you may.

This is how it is from the Zen POV:

"When I began my study of Zen, mountains were just mountains, and trees were just trees.

During my study of Zen, mountains were no longer mountains, and trees no longer trees.

When I became enlightened, mountains were once again mountains, and trees once again trees"

 

[idav]

IOW, consciousness is not 'my' consciousness' as most of us think. That is thought by the 'I', which is an illusion.

It is a fact that we are our brains. Until there is evidence to even remotely suggest that we are more than our brains then it is fantasy to say our minds are non-local

Sure, "I" is an illusion but I don't think it in the same way. It's an illusion because it is material processes not requiring some special soul. Your argument makes the ego more real than a materialist does.