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

[Rick O'Shez]

Trying to associate me with what you consider to be crackpot ideas is a juvenile attempt to discredit me, so that you can appear bigger than you really are

Not at all, it just means I have a good BS detector. You are just a preachy new-ager, and nobody is buying your snake oil. Despite that you keep coming back and continuing to prostheltize your weird theories. I really don't know why you bother - is it a need for attention or something?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So what is the Zen master's experience of reality compared to that of the ordinary man? Nothing. Wide open and empty, just seeing things as they arise and fall, without any conceptual overlay as to their arising and falling, and free of any attempts to 'figure it all out'.

I suggest you start doing that then, instead of wasting your time preaching new-age nonsense on forums.

 

[godnotgod]

I could barely understand my response too, dumb keyboards. The premise of science is a methodology based on observation is what I meant. Have we debunked observation, I hope not, lol.

The very point of departure of science is flawed, because it has already unwittingly created the concept of observer and observed, where the so-called 'observer' is none other than the observed itself (!). This is a state of conditioned, or altered consciousness, which sees things in a very controlled and even clinical way. When it is undone, consciousness returns to its unconditioned state, (ie 'awakening), which is reflected in Deepak Chopra's wonderfully insightful observation:

"The spiritual experience is the merging of observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality"

 

[godnotgod]

That you didn't get the joke here demonstrates just how far you are up your own bottom. Or down your rabbit hole.

I get the joke, but you don't get that you don't need to get disgustingly vulgar to make a point that is not actually a point.

 

[godnotgod]

Not at all, it just means I have a good BS detector. You are just a preachy new-ager, and nobody is buying your snake oil. Despite that you keep coming back and continuing to prostheltize your weird theories. I really don't know why you bother - is it a need for attention or something?

You continue with your bag of hot air without substance. Put your money where your mouth is once and for all, and cough up the evidence for your silly claims of preachy new age snake oil, which keeps you in the muddle of a puddle.

I keep coming back here to continue to point to the moon, but you continue to attack the pointing finger.

 

[godnotgod]

I suggest you start doing that then, instead of wasting your time preaching new-age nonsense on forums.

If you fail to understand, just say so. Just labeling things 'new age nonsense' doesn't cut it. But you knew that, didn't you?...uh...didn't you?

So, then. You ready to cough up all of the evidence I requested, or are we all going to get yet another blast of more hot air?

 

[godnotgod]

You continue with your bag of hot air without substance. Put your money where your mouth is once and for all, and cough up the evidence for your silly claims of preachy new age snake oil, which keeps you in the muddle of a puddle.

I keep coming back here to continue to point to the moon, but you continue to attack the pointing finger.

BTW, that's 'proselytize'; not 'prostheltize'. cheers.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I keep coming back here to continue to point to the moon, but you continue to attack the pointing finger.

All you are pointing to is the size of your own ego. The sad thing is that you don't realise it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Just labelling things 'new age nonsense' doesn't cut it.

It does when it's true.

 

[godnotgod]

All you are pointing to is the size of your own ego. The sad thing is that you don't realise it.

Let's have the evidence. Just one example will suffice. So far, zilch and hot air. You're batting zero.

How is pointing to the fact of a universal consciousness pointing to my ego? It is exactly the opposite. You're just making crap up...again! If you can't support your silly assertions and accusations, then might be best to stop. No?

 

[godnotgod]

It does when it's true.

Don't be shy...let's have the proof.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The mass of all atomic structure is created via fluctuations in the Unified Field.

What is a field? An energy of some kind spreading its effect - gravitational field, magnetic field, electric field, etc., even quantum field. If you are saying that the fluctuations in energy produce atoms and mass, I do not have any objection to that. That means we are saying the same thing. We are on the same page. Why then the 40 pages of discussion?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Don't be shy...let's have the proof.

The "proof" is in pretty much every post you make, the pseudo-science, the continual misrepresentation, the muddling, the unfounded claims, the evasive subject changes, the pretentious jargon, and so and so on. You might do better preaching on a new-age forum where your ideas will not be challenged. It's very clear that preaching is all you want to do, you are not in the least bit interested in genuine discussion or sharing ideas, you insult and patronise anyone who dares to question your weird notions. I can't decide whether you are a troll or just an attention seeker.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Forms of energy that evolve over time. That's my understanding you don't have to take my word for it.

Yeah. That is okay and good spirit, suggesting that it is your view alone. .. But, in my understanding, that is not what science says and that is not what any religion that I know of says.

Why should that be a problem? idav has one view, Atanu differs. My views also are like those of idav. I could never wrap my mind around 'sad-chid-ananda', though is very fashionable among Hindus and nice to hear. One who can utter 'Saccidananda' is supposed to know Brahman. Let us be Hindu about it. 'Tunde-Tunde Matirbhinna' (From head to head, views differ). Come, shake hands. Clap. Let us celebrate our different views.

At least in Veda/vedanta Brahman is the material and efficient cause of universe.

Brahman is not material, it is 'saccidananda'. Don't you remember - 'Prajnanam Brahma'? It is Consciousness only.

Actually, science is far from fixing it, since what you see depends on mode of seeing.

So, can I presume that you have fixed it all?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

How is pointing to the fact of a universal consciousness pointing to my ego?

Your "universal consciousness" is NOT a fact, it's a belief, one of many to which you are strongly attached. Beliefs are no substitute for insight.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The fact that the observer and the observed are one and the same means that there is NO wrong way of observing. That which is infinite could never be limited to right or wrong views. What is all this interaction and change and material stuff we see in the universe? It is the universe laughing.

 

[godnotgod]

The "proof" is in pretty much every post you make, the pseudo-science, the continual misrepresentation, the muddling, the unfounded claims, the evasive subject changes, the pretentious jargon, and so and so on. You might do better preaching on a new-age forum where your ideas will not be challenged. It's very clear that preaching is all you want to do, you are not in the least bit interested in genuine discussion or sharing ideas, you insult and patronise anyone who dares to question your weird notions. I can't decide whether you are a troll or just an attention seeker.

Just saying that I do these things proves nothing. Put money where mouth is. Show me. Otherwise zip-it.

 

[godnotgod]

Your "universal consciousness" is NOT a fact, it's a belief, one of many to which you are strongly attached. Beliefs are no substitute for insight.

You are conscious. I am conscious. We have personal views. This is individual consciousness, or self-view. But underneath all self views is a common denominator that is universal to all. That is universal consciousness. It is that which just sees, without thought. You can prove this to yourself by ceasing all of the activities of the mind. What remains is universal consciousness, which is devoid of self; of any self-concept called 'I'. This is not a belief, as beliefs are based upon thought, while universal consciousness is based upon seeing, without thought.

 

[godnotgod]

The fact that the observer and the observed are one and the same means that there is NO wrong way of observing.

Careful. First, you are acknowledging that observer and observed are one and the same as fact. Therefore, this oneness is the reality,, ie; the way things actually are, while seeing a separate observer and observed is not. When Chopra talks about their merging, it is only a figure of speech. In reality, there are no three separate things that merge, since all 3 are already one. Only the discriminating mind has created these divisions in the first place, and then has put stock into them as being real: 'observer' and 'the observed' are merely mental constructs.

 

[godnotgod]

What is a field? An energy of some kind spreading its effect - gravitational field, magnetic field, electric field, etc., even quantum field. If you are saying that the fluctuations in energy produce atoms and mass, I do not have any objection to that. That means we are saying the same thing. We are on the same page. Why then the 40 pages of discussion?

Atomic mass means nothing without the fields (Higgs and Quantum) which creates it via field fluctuations. This mass thus 'created' is virtual mass. The issue with some of the other members is the meaning of virtual mass. I have been saying that such mass is not real mass, but only acts as if it were real. That is what we know as 'illusion', or, from the Hindu POV, maya.

But beyond that, the suggestion is that the Unified Field is none other than Pure Abstract Intelligence, or Brahman.

Since you can't watch videos, I am providing a pdf document you can refer to about this topic, here:

https://www.mum.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/hagelin.pdf