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

[Runewolf1973]

Then how is it changeless?

That is why I question the logic of how there can be the "illusions" of material things if there is nothing bringing about those illusions. Pure Nothingness can bring about exactly that...nothing. No illusions, just nothing.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I agree, that might be true but has not been proved till now by science. So, I would not commit myself to it.

 

[idav]

From Pure Nothingness no doubt.

Something like non-existence.

Then how is it changeless?

By being everything past present and future from the moment of inception.

Well, Eastern mystics figured out long ago that the answers do NOT lie in the brain, but that the center of consciousness is in the hara, a point just below the navel.

Science actually does say a lot of "thinking" goes on in other parts of the body. Feelings come from all parts of the body but consciousness surely is all that grey matter we call the brain, and its in the frontal lobe, not the back of the brain that we share with more primitively evolved animals.

 

[Runewolf1973]

e


Well, Eastern mystics figured out long ago that the answers do NOT lie in the brain, but that the center of consciousness is in the hara, a point just below the navel.

That makes no sense. If all is consciousness as you say, then why should there be a center point for each individual? Consciousness should have no center. Does infinity have a center? That would mean it also has a outer edge. Furthermore, if consciousness exists everywhere, why should the brain be excluded?

 

[godnotgod]

Being an 'advaitist', I understand that well. But where is the 'rope'? Where is the 'salt'? Where from have they arisen? What is the medium in which they arose and exist?

You see, Buddha is one of my gurus, who has instructed me with Kalama Sutta. I am just not bothered about what Robert Thurman, Carl Sagan, Einstein or other notables that you have quoted say. I will accept only what my mind accepts. Buddha said:

"Kalamas, do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava), nor upon tradition (paramparā), nor upon rumor (itikirā), nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna), nor upon surmise (takka-hetu), nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu), nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka), nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā), nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya), nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta

Thurman is simply extrapolating on what the Buddha stated. So you agree with the Buddha, but disagree with him when another interprets his utterances?

The Kalama Sutta goes on to say to use your own mind to determine what is correct or not. He did not say to accept only the Buddha's statements. He also went on to say "place no head above your onw", and that includes even the head of the Buddha.

In listening to Thurman, it sounds to me as if he is saying that the atom is not solid material, and that there is a collapse of the material into the non-material at some point. This is in accordance with Quantum Physics.

The rope is merely a metaphor for The Absolute, while the snake a metaphor for the Universe. The Absolute (ie Brahman) niether arises nor not-arises. It is The Changeless. It is Unborn, Uncaused, Uncondtioned. Understand? Only the Universe, which is maya, seems to be born, is caused, is conditioned, and changes. Brahman is playing itself as The Universe, as the actor is playing himself as the character. The character is not real; only the actor is real, just as only Brahman is real, with The Universe, while it is Brahman, while it is The Absolute, is maya.

 

[godnotgod]

That makes no sense. If all is consciousness as you say, then why should there be a center point for each individual? Consciousness should have no center. Does infinity have a center? That would mean it also has a outer edge. Furthermore, if consciousness exists everywhere, why should the brain be excluded?

It's not, at all, but it is not the PRIMARY center of consciousness as it is seen in the West. The body has several centers, called chakras, the hara being the primary one. In its most developed scenario, a dormant power at the base of the spine is awakened and travels upward along the spinal chord to supercharge and illumine the brain, realizing its full potential. This is Enlightenment and the process called Kundalini Yoga.

Everywhere is a center for Consciousness.....and nowhere. No, there is no edge, as there is no inside or outside.

Radiant Man by Jose Arguelles. Radiant Woman by Miriam Arguelles
​

 

[Runewolf1973]

Brahman is playing itself as The Universe, as the actor is playing himself as the character. The character is not real; only the actor is real, just as only Brahman is real, with The Universe, while it is Brahman, while it is The Absolute, is maya.

Please describe how this illusion of the material universe comes about from pure nothingness then, but do so without the use of action words such as "play" or "acting". It is obvious that the so-called Changeless cannot "play" or "act" since it is neither interactive, nor does it change form.

 

[godnotgod]

That is why I question the logic of how there can be the "illusions" of material things if there is nothing bringing about those illusions. Pure Nothingness can bring about exactly that...nothing. No illusions, just nothing.

Pure Nothingness is pure non-material Reality; pure Spirit; Pure Consciousness, 'pure' meaning 'clear'. This is in accordance with the fact that all of the mass of the atom is virtual, and with the Hindu idea that all material reality is maya.

You want to apply conventional Logic to something that is beyond Logic and Reason to question how Brahman 'brings about' maya. It does not occur in Space or Time, but in Consciousness, a kind of analogy being how consciousness 'brings about' the illusions found in the dream. Nothing is actually being created or occurring. It's an illusion.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It's not, at all, but it is not the PRIMARY center of consciousness as it is seen in the West. The body has several centers, called chakras, the hara being the primary one. In its most developed scenario, a dormant power at the base of the spine is awakened and travels upward along the spinal chord to supercharge and illumine the brain, realizing its full potential. This is Enlightenment and the process called Kundalini Yoga.

Everywhere is a center for Consciousness.....and nowhere. No, there is no edge, as there is no inside or outside.

Radiant Man by Jose Arguelles. Radiant Woman by Miriam Arguelles
​

Why bother with pointing out and labelling all these different Chakras on the body if the material body is all just an illusion? If consciousness is everywhere already, then I don't really see the need for it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So you agree with the Buddha, but disagree with him when another interprets his utterances? ... The Absolute (ie Brahman) neither arises nor not-arises. It is The Changeless. It is Unborn, Uncaused, Uncondtioned. Understand? .. The Universe, while it is Brahman, while it is The Absolute, is maya.

I disagree with Buddha also. Agree only when I feel so. That is why I am not a Buddhist. But I am grateful to him for some teachings. .. No. I do not understand this. It has to be one thing. Either it arises or it does not. You are now going into Jainism - Anekāntavāda/Syādavāda (the principles of pluralism and multiplicity of viewpoints, or vantage points, the notion that reality is perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth - Google search). Jains give seven options:
1. syād-asti—in some ways, it is,
2. syān-nāsti—in some ways, it is not,
3. syād-asti-nāsti—in some ways, it is, and it is not,
4. syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable,
5. syān-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable,
6. syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable,
7. syād-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is indescribable.

'Maya' means what is not true. So, that means you take Brahman as untrue. Why keep what is untrue, abandon it. Then you have go on to give the various attributes of Brahman. 'The Absolute (ie Brahman) neither arises nor not-arises. It is The Changeless. It is Unborn, Uncaused, Uncondtioned'. How can what is untrue be all that? Why not say it is all untrue, including Brahman. In that case, the universe should not have existed. Basically, I have not been able to understand your view.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Pure Nothingness is pure non-material Reality; pure Spirit; Pure Consciousness, 'pure' meaning 'clear'. This is in accordance with the fact that all of the mass of the atom is virtual, and with the Hindu idea that all material reality is maya.

You want to apply conventional Logic to something that is beyond Logic and Reason to question how Brahman 'brings about' maya. It does not occur in Space or Time, but in Consciousness, a kind of analogy being how consciousness 'brings about' the illusions found in the dream. Nothing is actually being created or occurring. It's an illusion.

An illusion requires a stimuli.

 

[godnotgod]

Something like non-existence.

By being everything past present and future from the moment of inception.

Science actually does say a lot of "thinking" goes on in other parts of the body. Feelings come from all parts of the body but consciousness surely is all that grey matter we call the brain, and its in the frontal lobe, not the back of the brain that we share with more primitively evolved animals.

Have you ever sat in meditation long enough for the brain chatter to go quiet and watched to see and feel what happens in the hara?

Once you experience the solidity of experience in the hara, you will change your way of looking at this.

With Brahman, The Unborn, there is no 'moment of inception'; it has always been in Pure Being, NOT existence in Time and Space. What Yeshua said:

"Before Abraham was, I Am"

 

[godnotgod]

I disagree with Buddha also. Agree only when I feel so. That is why I am not a Buddhist. But I am grateful to him for some teachings.

OK, so let us forget Buddha. What is it specifically about what Thurman said that you disagree with and why?

 

[godnotgod]

An illusion requires a stimuli.

Maybe so on the Garden Variety Illusion level. You are still operating on the level of Causation, I see.

 

[godnotgod]

Why do you persist in this illusion?

What are you talking about?

 

[idav]

Have you ever sat in meditation long enough for the brain chatter to go quiet and watched to see and feel what happens in the hara?

Once you experience the solidity of experience in the hara, you will change your way of looking at this.

With Brahman, The Unborn, there is no 'moment of inception'; it has always been in Pure Being, NOT existence in Time and Space. What Yeshua said:

"Before Abraham was, I Am"

All religions experience this and they all differ on how it happens.

 

[idav]

Maybe so on the Garden Variety Illusion level. You are still operating on the level of Causation, I see.

I've seen the movie, magic is an illusion. Your are caused.

 

[godnotgod]

Then how is it changeless?

The 'change' does not occur in the Source. The rope undergoes no change in the rope/snake metaphor. The snake exists only in the mind of the observer. There is no actual snake. The observer is mistakenly seeing the rope as a snake. Likewise, we see, via the conditioned mind, a Universe that is divided into many parts, changing all the time. When seen properly, we see that the Universe is none other than Brahman itself, The Unchanging Absolute. To see this properly, the cessation of all of the activities of the mind must occur, allowing a true awakening and complete transformation of consciousness.

 

[idav]

To see this properly, the cessation of all of the activities of the mind must occur, allowing a true awakening and complete transformation of consciousness.

No kool-aid for me thanks.

 

[godnotgod]

The title has been debunked with experimentation, one experiment being the confirmation of the higgs boson.

Higgs Boson is a virtual particle, yes?