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

[godnotgod]

Three aspects of a misperception:

We've talked a little about equations; now we have to talk about maya. What do the Vedantins mean by maya? First, we know from the Upanishads that it is made of three gunas*: tamas, rajas, and sattva. Tamas has its veiling power, avarana shakti in Sanskrit. Rajas has its projecting power, vikshepa shakti in Sanskrit, and sattva has its revealing power, prakasha shakti in Sanskrit. Now this language, "veiling" and "revealing," is the language of perception, not the language of manufacture. You can't make anything out of a guna as the Sankhyans wanted to do. These three gunas, of which maya is said to be made, are just three aspects of a misperception. They are not substances, like wood, stone, or gold, out of which objects could be made. They are simply three aspects of an apparition. In order to mistake a rope for a snake, you must fail to see the rope rightly; that's the veiling power of tamas. Then you must jump to the wrong conclusion; that's the projecting power of rajas. You yourself project the snake. But the length and diameter of the rope are seen as the length and diameter of the snake; that's the revealing power of sattva. If you hadn't seen the rope, you might have jumped to some other wrong conclusion.

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

*attribute; quality

When you see the snake, you do not see the rope;
when you see the rope, you do not see the snake.

When you see Maya as reality, you do not see The Absolute;
When you see The Absolute, you do not see Maya as reality.

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

 

[atanu]

This is a forum. Is it permissible to question and challenge the premises others operate upon or not?

YOU are the one insisting there is a self on both ends of this conversation. All I am saying to you is that it is an assumption on your part as a challenge to what I see as erroneous logic. You want to tell me I am experiencing duality, and I am merely asking you to show me this 'experiencer of the experience' that is occurring in duality. Duality is an illusion, so where is this so called 'I' that is experiencing it? If that gets you angry, why do you then blame me?

You equivocate. I did not say that there were selves. I said that all your posts are built upon teaching, preaching, berating 'so called' others.

Anyone can see this in any of your post, including the one cited and highlighted above.

Non dual consciousness in itself cannot see a second person holding an erroneous view. Or can it?

...

 

[godnotgod]

You equivocate. I did not say that there were selves. I said that all your posts are built upon teaching, preaching, berating 'so called' others.

Anyone can see this in any of your post, including the one cited and highlighted above.

Non dual consciousness in itself cannot see a second person holding an erroneous view. Or can it?

...

You said: "Here. I am responding to you for one time. I experienced your post and responded. You will experience mine and will respond."

'I' is the self. I responded by saying that there is no experiencer of the experience of duality, as you said; there is only the experience itself.

If I see an erroneous use of the tools of Logic, Reason, and Analysis which are upheld as standards of knowledge, then yes, I will call it down. It is not a personal attack, but a challenge to the premises of the argument. When I tire of repeated glaring mistakes, I might say something like: 'C'mon, use your head!', or 'Go to your room!', in an attempt to stop the vicious circle of stupidity.

If I am preaching, show me the doctrine.

A non-dual consciousness can see an erroneous view. It does not see a viewer of the view.

 

[idav]

Yes, but one thing remains: This view that is one of perception is obviously incorrect:

I showed this isn't correct. Lets not pretend people don't gain anything from visual cues. Your using your own senses to see reality this way, thats self contradictory.

 

[Runewolf1973]

OK. So, since seeing the rope as a snake is an incorrect view, can we call this kind of view a conditioned view?

Evolution has programmed our brains to operate in a certain way for survival purposes, so I guess that could be considered a form of conditioning.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yes, but one thing remains: This view that is one of perception is obviously incorrect: the rope is not a snake, and never was a snake. There is no such snake. Does 'proper interpretation' take more knowledge, or just less conditioning, and isn't knowledge actually just another form of conditioning? IOW, the rope is seen as a snake because prior knowledge about snakes is held in memory, whose image is then superimposed over reality, in this case, the image of a snake over the reality of the rope.

Your point is? It is obvious the brain is conditioned to see things a certain way. There is also nothing wrong with this since it was millions of years worth of evolution which programmed this into us. Our conditioning is not a defect and not something to be ignored.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Your point is? It is obvious the brain is conditioned to see things a certain way. There is also nothing wrong with this since it was millions of years worth of evolution which programmed this into us. Our conditioning is not a defect and not something to be ignored.

Indeed, and mistaking a rope for a snake is not a bad thing, just in case it IS a snake - better safe than sorry! The idea that we should somehow remove all our evolutionary conditioning is rather silly, IMO, it's what keeps us alive.

 

[godnotgod]

Indeed, and mistaking a rope for a snake is not a bad thing, just in case it IS a snake - better safe than sorry! The idea that we should somehow remove all our evolutionary conditioning is rather silly, IMO, it's what keeps us alive.

What? This is completely idiotic!

"Well, it COULDA been a snake!...or a bear...or a lion....so I shot him...and it turned out to be my uncle!....DUH!"

Who the hell said anything about removing our evolutionary conditioning? Oh, wait a minute...wait a minute....do I detect yet another Knee Jerk Syndrome at work? Yup! Must be that Old Buddhish up to his old trix again.

Two more notches down and we reach the basement of human consciousness, otherwise known as Completely Dumbed Down, the ultimate in mental conditioning.

Oh, DUH!

 

[godnotgod]

I showed this isn't correct. Lets not pretend people don't gain anything from visual cues. Your using your own senses to see reality this way, thats self contradictory.

Excuse me. Seeing a rope as a snake is a MISTAKE. The senses LIE!

 

[godnotgod]

Evolution has programmed our brains to operate in a certain way for survival purposes, so I guess that could be considered a form of conditioning.

Yes, it is. Add to this our social indoctrination, and we have a complete picture. However:

Millions of years ago when our animal ancestors had to survive in the jungle,
it was necessary to have an instantly effective fight or flight mechanism.
When a tiger was about to spring, an automatic emotional response was a life
saver. A nervous shock was needed to squirt adrenalin into the blood so that
muscles became jet powered. Emotional alarms were needed to command full attention.
When a tiger was ready to jump, there was no time to admire
the beautiful sunset. As a jungle survival mechanism, our animal ancestors
were programmed for automatic duality -- automatic feelings of otherness,
threat, and paranoia. Survival required instant domination of consciousness
to meet the perils of the jungle.

We are the pioneers in the evolution of human consciousness. It was only
about 10,000 years ago that our ancestors built the first cities. As civilization grew, survival no longer depended on the instant fight or flight of the jungle. Survival and happiness now depend on tuning in to the overall situation involving ourselves, the people around us, and the total environment of the here and now. Perceptiveness, wisdom, and oneness are now the ingredients of effective and happy living. But our biocomputers are still programmed for jungle fight or flight -- for a fast release of adrenalin into the blood stream, and for rapid heartbeat -- for automatic anger and fear. In our social interactions, our consciousness magnifies molehills and makes them into mountains -- and this constant distortion destroys our energy, our insight, and our ability to love.

Thus survival in the jungle meant that we had to be programmed for instant
paranoia -- instant fear -- instant anger -- instant perception of duality.
Survival in our world today means that we must have instant perceptions of oneness -- of love -- of compassion with everyone and understanding of everything around us. When we learn to cut through our paranoid jungle
programming, we are on our way to higher consciousness and happiness.

Evolution is now working to remedy this primitive jungle alarm wiring in our
brain that tends to hold us on lower consciousness levels. Paranoid, dualistic individuals who cannot love themselves and others tend to get heart trouble, ulcers, other psychosomatic diseases, are accident-prone, etc. Perhaps in 100,000 years, through the ruthless survival of the fittest, humans may have nervous systems that are automatically structured to produce instant insights that facilitate love and oneness. But that doesn’t help you and me. We need -- to override our jungle programming so that we can enjoy living here and now.

We have escaped from the domination of instincts (inflexible unlearned
behavior) that guides animals through their daily life situations. Since the
young human is not provided with a full repertoire of automatic fixed
responses, we are unable to independently cope with life for a number of
years after birth. This long period of plasticity and openness to learning
complex life guidance patterns helps us avoid fixed preprogrammed behavior.
For example, this long nurturing period lets us learn complex language
systems -- and our flexibility is such that we can learn to communicate in
Swahili as easily as in English or any other language.

Instead of a complete pattern of animal-type instincts to provide survival responses to life situations, the young child uses ego mechanisms backed by hair-trigger emotions to develop security, sensation, and power magnification of the moment-to-moment sensory inputs. Our personal development into fulfilling, happy lives (as well as the progression of civilization beyond the dangerous power consciousness) depends on our getting free of our ego-backed, subject-object, me-them, security-sensation-power hang-ups.

http://worldprayerfoundation.com/resources/Ken Keyes-Handbook to Higher Consciousness.pdf

 

[godnotgod]

Your point is? It is obvious the brain is conditioned to see things a certain way. There is also nothing wrong with this since it was millions of years worth of evolution which programmed this into us. Our conditioning is not a defect and not something to be ignored.

We no longer live in the jungle, but still have the old jungle programming operational.

The point is that, because of our jungle programming and/or our social programming, we do not see things as they are, but as our mental conditioning says they are. The primary issue is that we learn to see reality in terms of our conditioned learning about reality. IOW, we see things in terms of their descriptions.

See post #670 above.

 

[Runewolf1973]

We no longer live in the jungle, but still have the old jungle programming operational.

The point is that, because of our jungle programming and/or our social programming, we do not see things as they are, but as our mental conditioning says they are. The primary issue is that we learn to see reality in terms of our conditioned learning about reality. IOW, we see things in terms of their descriptions.

See post #670 above.

Do you live in a bubble?

 

[godnotgod]

Do you live in a bubble?

I live in Lord Runewolf's 'Supreme Doctrine of Interaction' Bubble. There's no escape. It's a 24/7 solid, relentless, grinding, never-ending session of Total Interaction with zero relief. Grrrrrr!

(only those who come to the hard-won realization that all such 'Interaction' is just a Big Act will get the relief they so richly deserve: a nice spot under a huge shade tree next to a river in the middle of Summer and a nice cool glass of iced lemonade. aaaaahhh! Nirvana, at last! They just sit and sip and watch the fiery wheels go round and round endlessly....maddening! no 17 virgins, however)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Do you live in a bubble?

Blowing bubbles I think.

 

[atanu]

You said: "Here. I am responding to you for one time. I experienced your post and responded. You will experience mine and will respond."
'I' is the self. I responded by saying that there is no experiencer of the experience of duality, as you said; there is only the experience itself.
..

When you respond, it simply shows a presence of an actor. My objection to your preaching is that being an actor, do not preach actor-less reality.

With you ignorance only can prevail. You do not understand that what is meant by monism is western philosophy is not non dualism of Shankara and Vivekananda, whom you ignorantly cite again and again.

 

[godnotgod]

When you respond, it simply shows a presence of an actor. My objection to your preaching is that being an actor, do not preach actor-less reality.

With you ignorance only can prevail. You do not understand that what is meant by monism is western philosophy is not non dualism of Shankara and Vivekananda, whom you ignorantly cite again and again.

Brahman is the Grand Actor, playing you, playing me, playing Everything, because....

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

I am not the atheist as you, unknowingly dipped head to toe in dualism. I am neither god, nor not-god.

 

[godnotgod]

Blowing bubbles I think.

LOOK! THE MOON!

 

[godnotgod]

My objection to your preaching is that being an actor, do not preach actor-less reality.

i humbly await thy blessings, O Lord Atanu, Destroyer of Worlds!

 

[atanu]

Brahman is the Grand Actor, playing you, playing me, playing Everything, because....

Very well said. But if you really abided in that truth then what would be the need to correct 'so called ignorance' in 'so called others'?

Or are you really the Brahman, playing both as God-not-God and as Atanu? And also as Idav and as all others?

Or are you acting at the behest of your sense of incompleteness, talking incessantly about a mental idea? Have you experienced the non duality? Have you experienced "You art That"?

If you have experienced non duality and Brahman, you would be abiding in "You art That" and there would be no need to see Atanu as separate from yourself and as ignorant. The whole universe would be Brahman.

You are not aping in non duality. In your vision there are ignorant beings all around you, whom you need to convert to your way of thinking. This is the way of the missionary.

Be honest and genuine for once .. to yourself. I do not need an answer and I will not respond further.

 

[atanu]

i humbly await thy blessings, O Lord Atanu, Destroyer of Worlds!

But where is Atanu? That is your mind, dude. You are rebuking yourself.

Bye and best wishes.