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

[Runewolf1973]

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.

Careful what? Stop trying to correct me. It doesn't matter how we see things, it doesn't change the fact that we are simply the universe looking back at itself. I was not talking about any merging. No merging is taking place. The universe cannot be divided. Thinking dualistically does not create division since any division is not real. I can't just remove myself from the universe, it's not possible. This is not a mystic response, it is a matter of physics.

 

[godnotgod]

Careful what? Stop trying to correct me. It doesn't matter how we see things, it doesn't change the fact that we are simply the universe looking back at itself. I was not talking about any merging. No merging is taking place. The universe cannot be divided. Thinking dualistically does not create division since any division is not real. I can't just remove myself from the universe, it's not possible. This is not a mystic response, it is a matter of physics.

oooooh!

Now you are sounding like a bull in a China shop.

Careful.

If you see water in the pool and there is none, you will mangle or kill yourself.

if you think you are enlightened and you are not, you will continue to live on in delusion.

If you continue to live on in the dualistic world of delusion, you may act upon that delusion, and harm others or yourself. All of history and the current chaotic state of the world are based upon actions that such deluded people have taken, thinking them to be correct, causing misery, suffering, and death.

As some famous sage once said:

"This is not a mystic response, it is a matter of physics."

 

[godnotgod]

I have a good BS detector.

Oh, that's Therevada, last year's model. It was shown to be faulty. The new one allows detection of one's own BS. It's called 'Zen'. Would you like to have one? First you must learn to peel the potatoes and look at the moon.

 

[Runewolf1973]

oooooh!

If you see water in the pool and there is none, you will mangle or kill yourself.

if you think you are enlightened and you are not, you will continue to live on in delusion.

If you continue to live on in the dualistic world of delusion, you may act upon that delusion, and harm others or yourself. All of history and the current chaotic state of the world are based upon actions that such deluded people have taken, thinking them to be correct, causing misery, suffering, and death.

Now you are sounding like a bull in a China shop.

Careful.

Oh get off your high horse already. Trying to save the world from the deadly plague that is dualism? What a joke. You think you are my saviour now? It is people such as yourself who think you are right and everyone else is wrong who create nothing but problems in the world. You create your own brand of dualism in doing just that.

 

[godnotgod]

Oh get off your high horse already. Trying to save the world from the deadly plague that is dualism? What a joke. You think you are my saviour now? It is people such as yourself who think you are right and everyone else is wrong who create nothing but problems in the world. You create your own brand of dualism in doing just that.

ooooooooh!

Well, if you think you can just go around tossing your weight around, harming others because it's OK to think (and do) anything you like, you will eventually find that your actions impinge upon the rights of others, and THEY will take action to put a stop to you and your reckless adventures. In this case, saving you is not as important as saving myself from the likes of Johnny the Madman.

 

[godnotgod]

Johnny The Madman sez:

'You no tell me what to do! Me do MY way, ya?
Every ting 'interaction' alla time. No stopping, you heah? New Law by Johnny da Madman.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Well, if you think you can just go around tossing your weight around, harming others because it's OK to think (and do) anything you like, you will eventually find that your actions impinge upon the rights of others, and THEY will take action to put a stop to you and your reckless adventures. In this case, saving you is not as important as saving myself from the likes of Johnny the Madman.

What the hell are you talking about "throwing my weight around and harming others"? Just because I see things from a dualistic/materialistic pespective doesn't mean that I am harming anyone by doing so. I know many more people just like myself who are materialists and would never cause harm to any man or creature alike. There are people who take things to extremes and they are the ones we need to watch out for. Some people do bad things, that is unfortunate, but not all materialists are bad, or evil, or deluded. If you think this way then perhaps it is you who are deluded.

 

[godnotgod]

What the hell are you talking about "throwing my weight around and harming others"? Just because I see things from a dualistic/materialistic pespective doesn't mean that I am harming anyone by doing so. I know many more people just like myself who are materialists and would never cause harm to any man or creature alike. There are people who take things to extremes and they are the ones we need to watch out for. Some people do bad things, that is unfortunate, but not all materialists are bad, or evil, or deluded. If you think this way then perhaps it is you who are deluded.

Here is what you said:

"It doesn't matter how we see things.....Thinking dualistically does not create division since any division is not real."

First off, you referred to 'we' and not just yourself, whose view of the world 'doesn't matter'. If it did not matter, then any destructive actions taken based upon those views don't matter either. But they most certainly DO matter.

Secondly, thinking dualistically actually does create divisions in the world, and divisive actions create wars, hatred, misery, and death.

Thought is always the basis for action, so how we think is how the world becomes.

Currently, ISIS thinks it can do what it does based on its ideas, which are both dualistic and divisive.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Johnny The Madman sez:

'You no tell me what to do! Me do MY way, ya?
Every ting 'interaction' alla time. No stopping, you heah? New Law by Johnny da Madman.

Are you now making fun and ridiculing forum members for having differrent beliefs? I consider that harrasment. Careful.

 

[godnotgod]

Are you now making fun and ridiculing forum members for having differrent beliefs? I consider that harrasment. Careful.

I am ridiculing your ideas, absolutely. Is that OK on a forum?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Here is what you said:

"It doesn't matter how we see things.....Thinking dualistically does not create division since any division is not real."

First off, you referred to 'we' and not just yourself, whose view of the world 'doesn't matter'. If it did not matter, then any destructive actions taken based upon those views don't matter either. But they most certainly DO matter.

Secondly, thinking dualistically actually does create divisions in the world, and divisive actions create wars, hatred, misery, and death.

Thought is always the basis for action, so how we think is how the world becomes.

I guess I should have edited that post, but I thought it was obvious that I was not referring to any destructive, harmful or twisted forms of dualism.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I am ridiculing your ideas, absolutely. Is that OK on a forum?

Be respectful towards my personal views. That is all.

 

[idav]

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"

You don't see an issue here. Your saying observation is flawed yet you describe someone who has wonderful observations.

I'm already a monist not so much a dualist so not sure why you keep accusing people of ignorance as if nobody can understand unless they agree with Chopra. I'm well passed the issue of an observer and ego.

One reason I believe Chopra is wrong regarding the mystical interpretation of QM is because then things have to be able to go faster than the speed of light in order for it to be correct. Another reason as I stated in previous posts, is that it has been proven we can observe the quantum state, and it didn't just collapse by seeing it with mystical eyes.
http://scitechdaily.com/atomic-collapse-state-observed-on-graphene/
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/may/23/quantum-microscope-peers-into-the-hydrogen-atom

 

[godnotgod]

Be respectful towards my personal views. That is all.

If I find them ridiculous, how can I respect them?

 

[Aupmanyav]

"It doesn't matter how we see things.....Thinking dualistically does not create division since any division is not real."

First off, you referred to 'we' and not just yourself, whose view of the world 'doesn't matter'.

That is right, Godnotgod. If somebody thinks about the universe dualistically, it does not divide 'what exists' (for you 'consciousness', for me 'energy'). And the world can be seen in two ways 1. Pragmatic (normal conditioned viewing). That is known in 'Advaita' Hinduism as 'Vyavaharika Satya', 2. Absolute (with enlightenment and understanding). That is known as 'Paramarthika Satya'. I do not think there is much difference between your view and those of Runewolf or mine. If I am not wrong, we all are 'non-dualists'. I think we are making 'much ado about nothing'.

I am ridiculing your ideas, absolutely. Is that OK on a forum?

It may be OK according to the rules of the forum, but sure, IMHO the conversation can be more civil.

 

[godnotgod]

You don't see an issue here. Your saying observation is flawed yet you describe someone who has wonderful observations.

Did you read what he said? He said that the spiritual experience is the merging of the observed, the observer, and the process of observation into a single reality. There is no longer an observer of the observation.

I'm already a monist not so much a dualist so not sure why you keep accusing people of ignorance as if nobody can understand unless they agree with Chopra. I'm well passed the issue of an observer and ego.

Ignorance is not something to be accused of.

I never said people have to agree with Chopra, 'or else'.

One reason I believe Chopra is wrong regarding the mystical interpretation of QM is because then things have to be able to go faster than the speed of light in order for it to be correct. Another reason as I stated in previous posts, is that it has been proven we can observe the quantum state, and it didn't just collapse by seeing it with mystical eyes.
http://scitechdaily.com/atomic-collapse-state-observed-on-graphene/
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/may/23/quantum-microscope-peers-into-the-hydrogen-atom

I think you have an erroneous notion about what 'mystical' means. What do you think it means?

Alain Aspect's entangled photons respond instantaneously, without any speed at all, as I understand it. This is called 'signal-less communication'.

 

[godnotgod]

That is right, Godnotgod. If somebody thinks about the universe dualistically, it does not divide 'what exists' (for you 'consciousness', for me 'energy').

Of course not. But if one thinks one is correct regarding a particular action, based upon such thinking, such as with ISIS, or the Nazis, for example, and one embarks upon such actions, then those action do, in fact, create divisions where none previously existed, resulting in untold suffering and death. Delusion, rather than Enlightenment, is calling the shots.

 

[Runewolf1973]

If I find them ridiculous, how can I respect them?

By showing respect to others regardless. Did The Buddha ridicule strangers who were "suffering" in their dualistic state in such a way, or would you consider him to have been a respectful teacher? Ridiculing others is an emotional response which tells me that you have not quite escaped that duality either.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Of course not. But if one thinks one is correct regarding a particular action, based upon such thinking, such as with ISIS, or the Nazis, for example, and one embarks upon such actions, then those action do, in fact, create divisions where none previously existed, resulting in untold suffering and death. Delusion, rather than Enlightenment, is calling the shots.

No one was referring to malicious acts of violence or hatred as being correct actions or views. There is dualism and then there is extremism. I was not referring to extreme views. Besides, with regards to my previous post... When I said "it doesn't matter how we see things", I was referring in particular to those of us engaged in this discussion because I was fairly certain that none of us were going to become the next Adolf Hitler.

 

[godnotgod]

By showing respect to others regardless. Did The Buddha ridicule strangers who were "suffering" in their dualistic state in such a way, or would you consider him to have been a respectful teacher? Ridiculing others is an emotional response which tells me that you have not quite escaped that duality either.

I never ridiculed anyone who was suffering; I ridicule ridiculous ideas set forth as reality. For example: Descartes 'cogito ergo sum', which states 'I think, therefore I am' is a ridiculous statement. If someone were to persist in this vein after demonstrating to him the flaw in the idea, then I might have to ridicule the author of such an idea. Now imagine Hitler is presenting his idea to you of racial superiority. At first, you would try to laugh it off, and then, attempt to show him the illogic in it, and ultimately, what would you think of him perse?

It should not bother you that I ridicule your ideas, since you should not be personally attached to them. You should figure out ways of defending them if you truly do think of them as being valid.