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

[godnotgod]

That which you call “Nothingness” is only seemingly nothingness.

Are you so sure? Look deeper...


BRAHMAN: CONTRADICTION OR TRUTH?

The supreme truth in Hinduism is Brahman. Deities such as Shiva and Vishnu represent mere aspects of Brahman. According to Hindu scripture, "Brahman is all" and yet "Brahman is without attributes." Having zero attributes, Brahman is called "sunya," which is Sanskrit for void and the number zero.

"Sunya: void; the Nothing which is All.
Sunya Brahman: [the brahman as the
Void]; Supreme Nothingness."
Glossary of Sanskrit terms

According to scripture, Brahman contains all forms and yet is formless; is the knower, knowledge, and the known and yet is "bereft of knower, knowledge, and known." How can Brahman be all and nothing? How can Brahman be and also not-be x, y, and z?

This all-and-nothing paradox is the nexus of centuries of confusion and dispute, not only between East and West but within Eastern philosophical systems. I believe the following resolves this Hindu paradox via, appropriately enough, the Hindu number system:

NUMBERS: MAPPING THE FACE OF REALITY

The claim that x is equal to all and x is equal to nothing is true if, and only if, all is equal to nothing; for, if x = a and x = 0, then a = 0. But how could everything possibly be equal to nothing?

The rest of this fascinating discussion involving Hindu numerology as proof is found here:

http://iangoddard.com/yoga.htm

Note especially the concept of Ataji, or non-arising, which points to the idea of changelessness.

 

[godnotgod]

But I see attributes.

There is Saguna Brahman (manifested, ie; with attributes) and Nirguna Brahman (without attributes):

Questioner: What is meant in Hinduism by “Saguna Brahman” and how is that different from “Nirguna Brahman”

Answer: The term Saguna means “with attributes”. The term “Saguna Brahman” implies that God has a name and form and other attributes. Many Savikalpa Samadhis give rise to the (living) form of the Ishta Devata. Ishta Devta is one’s favored way of visualizing the divine. It might be Krishna, Jesus, Rama, the Goddess or some other Deity of choice.
Nirguna means “without attributes”. The term “Nirguna Brahman” implies that God as the Absolute Spirit and Pure Consciousness has no name and form or attributes. Nirvikalpa Samadhi reveals the Nirguna nature of the Self.

https://luthar.com/2009/04/05/what-is-saguna-and-nirguna-brahman-by-dr-harsh-k-luthar/

Since you yourself are none other than Brahman, (ie Tat tvam asi), you are projecting an image onto an 'other' and seeing attributes. It is none other than YOU , O Lord!
*****

A man dies and goes to the Pearly Gates and knocks. From within, a voice asks 'who is it?'. The man replies 'it is ME, Lord, ME!', at which the voice responds 'Begone! There are no ME's here!. Perplexed, the man goes away for a full week to ponder the problem. Returning, he knocks loudly on the Gates, at which a voice asks 'Who is it this time?'. And the man replies:

'Why, it is none other than YOU , O' Lord!'

...at which the Gates swing wide open.

 

[Aupmanyav]

https://luthar.com/2009/04/05/what-is-saguna-and-nirguna-brahman-by-dr-harsh-k-luthar/

If every Hindu went by the book, it won't be Hinduism, where to differ is a right. Yes, Brahman has attributes, we know some, we do not know many.

 

[godnotgod]

If every Hindu went by the book, it won't be Hinduism, where to differ is a right. Yes, Brahman has attributes, we know some, we do not know many.

Written into Hinduism is both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman, but Nirguna Brahman is considered to be The Absolute.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, that may be true for most people, but not for me. Saguna Brahman is a God. My view of Brahman is Saguna but not a God (energy, which has its properties). It is not essential for a Hindu to go by some book. I have my independent views. That does not make me any less Hindu. I think your Abrahamic background does not allow you to understand this - that one can differ with the books.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes, that may be true for most people, but not for me. Saguna Brahman is a God. My view of Brahman is Saguna but not a God (energy, which has its properties). It is not essential for a Hindu to go by some book. I have my independent views. That does not make me any less Hindu. I think your Abrahamic background does not allow you to understand this - that one can differ with the books.

So are there many atheist Hindus?

 

[Aupmanyav]

There are many Hindu who term themselves as atheists, but not many who are 'religious Hindu atheists' like me - atheists because of their religious views. I consider myself an orthodox Hindu.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Are you so sure? Look deeper...


BRAHMAN: CONTRADICTION OR TRUTH?

The supreme truth in Hinduism is Brahman. Deities such as Shiva and Vishnu represent mere aspects of Brahman. According to Hindu scripture, "Brahman is all" and yet "Brahman is without attributes." Having zero attributes, Brahman is called "sunya," which is Sanskrit for void and the number zero.

"Sunya: void; the Nothing which is All.
Sunya Brahman: [the brahman as the
Void]; Supreme Nothingness."
Glossary of Sanskrit terms

According to scripture, Brahman contains all forms and yet is formless; is the knower, knowledge, and the known and yet is "bereft of knower, knowledge, and known." How can Brahman be all and nothing? How can Brahman be and also not-be x, y, and z?

This all-and-nothing paradox is the nexus of centuries of confusion and dispute, not only between East and West but within Eastern philosophical systems. I believe the following resolves this Hindu paradox via, appropriately enough, the Hindu number system:

NUMBERS: MAPPING THE FACE OF REALITY

The claim that x is equal to all and x is equal to nothing is true if, and only if, all is equal to nothing; for, if x = a and x = 0, then a = 0. But how could everything possibly be equal to nothing?

The rest of this fascinating discussion involving Hindu numerology as proof is found here:

http://iangoddard.com/yoga.htm

Note especially the concept of Ataji, or non-arising, which points to the idea of changelessness.

I am considering that nothingness may be just a different state of somethingness. It is as though the universe has an ON mode (existence) and an OFF mode (nonexistence). In the OFF mode there is potential for light, but in the ON mode there is potential for darkness. This is all like just one great back and forth cosmic dance. In this way the universe is interactive and interconnected. In this way the universe is absolute and supreme not because it is only one thing, but because it can be anything. All or nothing, or both at the same time, the universe does it all. Pure Potential...yes, that describes it.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Think about it: the greatest potential lies in Absolute Nothingness, as it is infinitely allowing. This Absolute Nothingness is The Infinite itself.

Then perhaps there is equally great potential in somethingness as well......"tick"..."tock"...goes the universe, but it's all one clock.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, that may be true for most people, but not for me. Saguna Brahman is a God. My view of Brahman is Saguna but not a God (energy, which has its properties). It is not essential for a Hindu to go by some book. I have my independent views. That does not make me any less Hindu. I think your Abrahamic background does not allow you to understand this - that one can differ with the books.

I overcame my Abrahamic background years ago, but then returned to it only as a matter of study.

While I do understand how you can entertain your own personal viewpoint, Reality is ultimately just one way, but with many facets, and that is precisely how Brahman is described.

Could it be that you are mistaking energy for Saguna Brahman, when energy is merely a manifestation of Brahman? IOW, energy is just another form of maya. Looked at it this way, energy still has its properties, but Brahman does not. I know it sounds contradictory, but the properties in this case would be just more of the maya being manifested.

I think one of the problems both East and West have is taking the Universe too seriously.; being too uptight about reality. One of your sects entertains the idea of lila, or divine play, taking the form of a very sophisticated game of cosmic hide and seek. No other religion that I know of entertains this idea, a key element in the understanding of the way things are.

 

[godnotgod]

I am considering that nothingness may be just a different state of somethingness. It is as though the universe has an ON mode (existence) and an OFF mode (nonexistence). In the OFF mode there is potential for light, but in the ON mode there is potential for darkness. This is all like just one great back and forth cosmic dance. In this way the universe is interactive and interconnected. In this way the universe is absolute and supreme not because it is only one thing, but because it can be anything. All or nothing, or both at the same time, the universe does it all. Pure Potential...yes, that describes it.

But it is only one thing, manifesting itself as many things.

Nothingness is manifesting itself as Everything. That is the maya Hindus are referring to.

Isn't it fabulous?

 

[godnotgod]

Then perhaps there is equally great potential in somethingness as well......"tick"..."tock"...goes the universe, but it's all one clock.

Maybe it's more like a kaleidoscope, seeming to constantly change patterns in time and space, while being perfectly still. Take away the filters of time and space. Now what do you see?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Looked at it this way, energy still has its properties, but Brahman does not. .. seeming to constantly change patterns in time and space, while being perfectly still.

What proof we have for that? At least, for energy, we have some proof. What creates the patterns?

 

[godnotgod]

What proof we have for that? At least, for energy, we have some proof. What creates the patterns?

Brahman cannot be proven in any way, as far as I know. It must be experienced by the jiva directly.

The characteristics and behavior of energy can be understood via science, but it still can be maya. Remember that Brahman is That, playing itself simultaneously as ALL aspects of the Universe. Once the facade is detected, it must then be pierced. But this is why attention is so highly valued in the East, as attention is an absolute essential to this detection, since we are dealing with something very subtle.

 

[Runewolf1973]

But it is only one thing, manifesting itself as many things.

Nothingness is manifesting itself as Everything. That is the maya Hindus are referring to.

Isn't it fabulous?

If the universe is everything, then it is not just nothingness, it is also somethingness. Rather than saying "Nothingness is manifesting itself as Everything", I would say that Everything is manifesting itself as Everything.

 

[godnotgod]

If the universe is everything, then it is not just nothingness, it is also somethingness. Rather than saying "Nothingness is manifesting itself as Everything", I would say that Everything is manifesting itself as Everything.

But then you did agree previously that this 'Everything' you talk about is purely illusory. Therefore, it must be No-thing. It is a phantasma.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Rather than saying "Nothingness is manifesting itself as Everything", I would say that Everything is manifesting itself as Everything.

I agree. "Nothingness is manifesting itself as Everything" is nonsensical. Returning to the OP, I think statements like "everything is change" or "everything is interaction" are more meaningful than "everything is energy". Change and interaction are what we actually OBSERVE at different scales after all. The rest is pseudo-religious speculation and mumbo-jumbo!

 

[Runewolf1973]

But then you did agree previously that this 'Everything' you talk about is purely illusory. Therefore, it must be No-thing. It is a phantasma.

Everything exists in some way, just not necessarily in the way in which we perceive it with our limited senses. That is what I meant by illusory.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I agree. "Nothingness is manifesting itself as Everything" is nonsensical. Returning to the OP, I think statements like "everything is change" or "everything is interaction" are more meaningful than "everything is energy". Change and interaction are what we actually OBSERVE at different scales after all. The rest is pseudo-religious speculation and mumbo-jumbo!

If "Nothingness" is manifesting itself as something then even that "Nothingness" must change because any kind of manifestation requires change.

 

[godnotgod]

Everything exists in some way, just not necessarily in the way in which we perceive it with our limited senses. That is what I meant by illusory.

And what I am saying is that this 'material existence' is an illusion of a higher nature, so its detection as such is very difficult to the rational mind. We do perceive that there is everything which is real with our limited senses, but the mystic sees that this perception is faulty.