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

[godnotgod]

Not true. The further and further science takes us, the more they discover that the universe is interactive...even at levels which on the surface seem to be empty of activity. Science shows us the universe is FULL of activity.

They're full of something, for sure.

 

[gnostic]

Yes. The origin of spiritual-religious question is regarding source of this knowledge. The main question remains "Who am I that knows all these things?"

We know a lot of things, yet do not know the knower that knows.

Which is what exactly? Or perhaps "who" is the better question?

But how do we know if there is even a "knower"?

Is this "knower" like a deity or spirit or something else entirely?

The problem with relying on a scripture of some religions or on some mystical cults, is that these knowledge are often based on superstition than anything else, I truly don't find superstition or religious faith to be very reliable sources of knowledge.

Yeah, sometimes they may get something right every now and then, but often they are based on faulty assumptions, like this "pure consciousness" (or transcendent consciousness) or "absolute truth" or the "oneness", let alone the so-called monotheistic Creator.

I like my knowledge to have more certainties than what I wish to believe, and that what believing and personal faith are - they are "wishes".

 

[atanu]

Which is what exactly? Or perhaps "who" is the better question?

But how do we know if there is even a "knower"?

Is this "knower" like a deity or spirit or something else entirely?

The problem with relying on a scripture of some religions or on some mystical cults, is that these knowledge are often based on superstition than anything else, I truly don't find superstition or religious faith to be very reliable sources of knowledge.

Yeah, sometimes they may get something right every now and then, but often they are based on faulty assumptions, like this "pure consciousness" (or transcendent consciousness) or "absolute truth" or the "oneness", let alone the so-called monotheistic Creator.

I like my knowledge to have more certainties than what I wish to believe, and that what believing and personal faith are - they are "wishes".

I agree. The knower of many things must know oneself, not though scriptures, but through experience.

 

[gnostic]

The sad part is that there are lot of religious people out there, denying their religions are also human concepts. They attempt to elevate their respective religion that god or gods were their makers of their religions.

You are doing the same that you are blaming religious people for ... grossly generalising.

Am I?

I'm sorry, if you don't think your religion fall under the category of faith, as how I view it

I supposed when I look at religions, I might have narrowed to two biggest religions, Christianity and Islam. Probably I grew up surrounded by mostly Christian neighbors. And more recently a lot of talk about Islam have been going on since 9-11. And that would often be the focus of my view on religions.

That said, I know that every concepts to be man-made or human concepts, including science, maths and arts, just like that of every single religion that are out there.

Muslims believed, as do some Christians, believed that their scriptures come directly from God. If that were true, then why do we need prophets. Why isn't there scriptures magically appearing, without a single mortal hand writing them down?

I just view every notions that religions come from divine or spiritual sources as the "supernatural", and therefore unrealistic.

If your religion don't fall under that category, then I do apologise for generalising.

 

[godnotgod]

Everything.

Being Everything, the net effect is 0.

 

[godnotgod]

For the universe to go from form to emptiness back to form again, I would consider it's nature to be interactive.

Empty of inherent self nature means that everything is interconnected. There are are no independent "things", no self-rising. Everything is dependently rising on everything else. There is no "flower nature", it is universal.

No, the universe doesn't 'go' anywhere; read again:

'form IS emptiness;
emptiness IS form'

You're confusing form with materiality.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No, the universe doesn't 'go' anywhere; read again:

'form IS emptiness;
emptiness IS form'

You're confusing form with materiality.

Of course the universe doesn't 'go' anywhere. Most people associate form with materiality. I associate it with interaction which is not neccesarily material.

 

[godnotgod]

Of course the universe doesn't 'go' anywhere. Most people associate form with materiality. I associate it with interaction which is not neccesarily material.

You mean kinda like shape-shifting?

 

[Runewolf1973]

You mean kinda like shape-shifting?

Yes, a shapeshifter, but the universe is the supreme shapeshifter. It does so effortlessly.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, a shapeshifter, but the universe is the supreme shapeshifter. It does so effortlessly.

IOW, it only appears that it is shifting shapes, when it is doing absolutely nothing at all, the Ultimate Shape-Shifter. The short word for this is appearance, which is not the fundamental reality, but what is behind the illusion is. IOW:

"The Universe is [none other than] The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

It is Causation that still has you seeing appearances that you term interaction. But I will give you that, on the level of consciousness you are seeing it from, it is real.

 

[Runewolf1973]

IOW, it only appears that it is shifting shapes, when it is doing absolutely nothing at all, the Ultimate Shape-Shifter. The short word for this is appearance, which is not the fundamental reality, but what is behind the illusion is. IOW:

"The Universe is [none other than] The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

It is Causation that still has you seeing appearances that you term interaction. But I will give you that, on the level of consciousness you are seeing it from, it is real.

There is much that goes on without our being conscious of it, so how does consciousness apply? An EMF reader is not conscious, nor does it possess a mind to "think" dualistically, but it detects frequencies which are hidden from our senses. Is that EMF reader being "fooled" by maya? How can it detect something which does not exist or is not real?

 

[godnotgod]

There is much that goes on without our being conscious of it, so how does consciousness apply? An EMF reader is not conscious, nor does it possess a mind to "think" dualistically, but it detects frequencies which are hidden from our senses. Is that EMF reader being "fooled" by maya? How can it detect something which does not exist or is not real?

It is because of this level of the illusion. Remember, it is manifesting itself as material reality, which has attributes that are measurable. But ultimately, the measurements fail, are limited,(Planck Scale), yield nothing (virtual particles), or make no sense at all.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And/Or energy can't be separated from mass which has more to do with "everything is energy".

This is mostly true. But this is because physics (ostensibly) concerns things that exist which necessarily therefore have some sort of energy (potential, kinetic, etc.) and almost always mass. In modern physics, we do find both violations of the conservation of energy and of mass, so-called "virtual particles", negative energy, and other ways in which physical systems have no mass and/or no energy or in which we find something of a complete divide between energy and mass. The whole of particle physics, for example, rests upon theories which admit infinite energies that are numerically/computationally "fixed" such that particle physics can't be more than a best approximation due to renormalization.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It is because of this level of the illusion. Remember, it is manifesting itself as material reality, which has attributes that are measurable. But ultimately, the measurements fail, are limited,(Planck Scale), yield nothing (virtual particles), or make no sense at all.

That makes sense and I agree with you, however I don't consider any of these levels to be levels of consciousness. They are to me levels of interaction. For the universe to manifest itself as material reality means to me that it MUST be interactive in some way. Perhaps pure nothingness, or at least pure potential in the form of nothingness, is the highest level of interaction. It is interaction at the level of God, Divinity, Creation, or even Pure Consciousness. If our everyday consciousness is a form of interaction, then I would consider that "Pure Consciousness" or "Ultimate Reality" as you call it to be the highest, most supreme form of interaction.

 

[godnotgod]

That makes sense and I agree with you, however I don't consider any of these levels to be levels of consciousness. They are to me levels of interaction. For the universe to manifest itself as material reality means to me that it MUST be interactive in some way. Perhaps pure nothingness, or at least pure potential in the form of nothingness, is the highest level of interaction. It is interaction at the level of God, Divinity, Creation, or even Pure Consciousness. If our everyday consciousness is a form of interaction, then I would consider that "Pure Consciousness" or "Ultimate Reality" as you call it to be the highest, most supreme form of interaction.

Here you are attempting to extrapolate what 'the level of God' is via your level, which is that of Reason, Logic, and Analysis. Has it occurred to you that to get with that other level you must first let go of the one you are on?

At the very moment you think 'interaction', can you detect that you are conceptualizing it against some reference? What might that be?

It may interest you to know that the principle of 'inaction', or 'actionless activity' is the way of the sage in the East, as pointed to in this Zen aphorism:

"The geese, flying over the still pond, do not intend to cast their shadows;
nor does the pond intend to reflect their images"

 

[Runewolf1973]

Here you are attempting to extrapolate what 'the level of God' is via your level, which is that of Reason, Logic, and Analysis. Has it occurred to you that to get with that other level you must first let go of the one you are on?

At the very moment you think 'interaction', can you detect that you are conceptualizing it against some reference? What might that be?

It may interest you to know that the principle of 'inaction', or 'actionless activity' is the way of the sage in the East, as pointed to in this Zen aphorism:

"The geese, flying over the still pond, do not intend to cast their shadows;
nor does the pond intend to reflect their images"

Interaction does not require intent. Your quote tells me precisely that. There is no need to get to that other level because everything already is at that level. The universe "does without doing" and that is interaction without intent or acting without thinking about it. It seems to me you are trying to conceptualize a "background" which somehow lies in contrast to a foreground. I know background and foreground are one and the same. There is no contrast, so I try not to think about these things too much. The more we think about it, the more we create a contrast in our minds which does not actually exist.

 

[godnotgod]

Interaction does not require intent. Your quote tells me precisely that. There is no need to get to that other level because everything already is at that level. The universe "does without doing" and that is interaction without intent or acting without thinking about it. It seems to me you are trying to conceptualize a "background" which somehow lies in contrast to a foreground. I know background and foreground are one and the same. There is no contrast, so I try not to think about these things too much. The more we think about it, the more we create a contrast in our minds which does not actually exist.

The background is passive and already in place for 'interaction'. You don't need to think about it when talking about 'interaction'. That background is The Changeless.

True, everything is already That, but does not yet realize it is That. You've hardly scratched the surface. It is not an intellectual understanding you arrive at via Reason, as you think:

'The Tao that can be tao'd is not the True Tao'

 

[Runewolf1973]

The background is passive and already in place for 'interaction'. You don't need to think about it when talking about 'interaction'. That background is The Changeless.

True, everything is already That, but does not yet realize it is That. You've hardly scratched the surface. It is not an intellectual understanding you arrive at via Reason, as you think:

'The Tao that can be tao'd is not the True Tao'

I do not differentiate between "true" and "untrue" Tao, there is only Tao. Btw, I do not view interaction dualistically as you seem to think I do. To me interaction/interconnectivity are just different labels for that same oneness/reality. Of course you must accept that all labels have their limitations.

 

[godnotgod]

Interaction does not require intent. Your quote tells me precisely that. There is no need to get to that other level because everything already is at that level. The universe "does without doing" and that is interaction without intent or acting without thinking about it. It seems to me you are trying to conceptualize a "background" which somehow lies in contrast to a foreground. I know background and foreground are one and the same. There is no contrast, so I try not to think about these things too much. The more we think about it, the more we create a contrast in our minds which does not actually exist.

The background is passive and already in place for 'interaction'. You don't need to think about it when talking about 'interaction'. That background is The Changeless.

True, everything is already That, but does not yet realize it is That. You've hardly scratched the surface. It is not an intellectual understanding you arrive at via Reason, as you think:

'The Tao that can be tao'd is not the True Tao'

I do not differentiate between "true" and "untrue" Tao, there is only Tao. Btw, I do not view interaction dualistically as you seem to think I do. To me interaction/interconnectivity are just different labels for that same oneness/reality. Of course you must accept that all labels have their limitations.

Let's put it this way, Runewolf:

What the limited, conceptual mind only THINKS is Tao, is not Tao.

Get it?

BTW, that quote is from the Tao te Ching itself.

If, as you say, there is only Tao, then anything else, such as 'the tao'd Tao' (ie; 'the conceptualized Tao') is not Tao. It is just mental popcorn.

Since interaction is an illusion, it cannot be a dual opposite of The Changeless. The only true Reality is The Changless; all else is maya.

I am afraid you still have your mind focused on the OUTCOME of The Absolute, rather than The Absolute itself. That outcome, or manifestation, is nothing more than appearances.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The background is passive and already in place for 'interaction'. You don't need to think about it when talking about 'interaction'. That background is The Changeless.

True, everything is already That, but does not yet realize it is That. You've hardly scratched the surface. It is not an intellectual understanding you arrive at via Reason, as you think:

'The Tao that can be tao'd is not the True Tao'



Let's put it this way, Runewolf:

What the limited, conceptual mind only THINKS is Tao, is not Tao.

Get it?

BTW, that quote is from the Tao te Ching itself.

If, as you say, there is only Tao, then anything else, such as 'the tao'd Tao' (ie; 'the conceptualized Tao') is not Tao. It is just mental popcorn.

Since interaction is an illusion, it cannot be a dual opposite of The Changeless. The only true Reality is The Changless; all else is maya.

I am afraid you still have your mind focused on the OUTCOME of The Absolute, rather than The Absolute itself. That outcome, or manifestation, is nothing more than appearances.

It's all mental popcorn. Even your Absolute or Changeless is nothing more than mental popcorn. Don't you get it?


Everything interacts as a single, interconnected unity in some way whether the mind thinks it or not. Why? Because the mind is also one with that unity whether the mind realizes it or not. You only "think" the mind is separate from reality. The mind is interconnected with reality...with the universe...and with that Tao. The universe (Tao) cannot be separate from anything.