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

[godnotgod]

Everything in my experience. Is there anything you have observed which doesn't change? Anything which exists independently, not dependent on conditions?

The background to all 'change' does not change, and is independent of conditions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Dependent on transient conditions.
But you're an atheist, so what is your personal definition of "Brahman" here?
If by "Brahman" you actually mean "universe" then it would be clearer if you just said "universe", instead of bringing in misleading religious terminology.
It puzzles me that you still use Hindu terminology, despite not actually subscribing to Hindu beliefs as far as I can tell. Isn't it about time you came out properly as an atheist?

Conditions arise in something. Weather, wave, fire. No thing, no condition. My definition of Brahman is very clear - 'what all exists' (which seems to be 'physical energy'). I use the word because it has been used in our culture for perhaps 10,000 years. I am a Hindu, so why are you surprised if I use Hindu terminology. The belief in existence of Brahman is very much Hindu. Lastly, I am a proper atheist. Not a luke-warm atheist, but a strong atheist, declaring that there is not the slightest possibility of existence of God/Gods/Goddesses.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Conditions arise in something. Weather, wave, fire. No thing, no condition. My definition of Brahman is very clear - 'what all exists' (which seems to be 'physical energy'). I use the word because it has been used in our culture for perhaps 10,000 years. I am a Hindu, so why are you surprised if I use Hindu terminology. The belief in existence of Brahman is very much Hindu. Lastly, I am a proper atheist. Not a luke-warm atheist, but a strong atheist, declaring that there is not the slightest possibility of existence of God/Gods/Goddesses.

I don't see "things", just processes. Conditions, properties, characteristics.

It's up to you what you call yourself, but a strong atheist calling themselves a Hindu doesn't make much sense to me. It's like you're hanging onto something from your past which is no longer relevant.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Have not my scriptures said 'Eko Brahma, Dwiteeyo Nasti' (There is Brahman, and no second). So I am one, how can there be another which one may call God? Have not my scriptures said 'Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma' (All this here is Brahman), how can be there any other thing? My atheism is very much from Hinduism itself. I have not deviated from the Hindu path. Therefore, as I claim, I am a strong atheist Hindu (following non-dualist philosophy of 'advaita'). I hope I have clarified my position.

 

[`mud]

I really like the expression:
~"what all exists"~

And "everything" that did, is still here !
One might call that 'Brahman', if one wishes !
I find myself starting to agree with Aup more and more.
I think Aup has a grip on where one is in life.
No ellaberate theories needed here !
But I do doze off now and then,
maybe I missed something, I'll re-read.
When one passes 77, one slides a little.
~
'mud

 

[Runewolf1973]

Are you saying there is no difference between seeing only the foreground, and seeing background and foreground as one?

I don't differentiate between a foreground or a background. I see only interaction/interconnectivity. I am not Hindu, nor am I a Buddhist, I have my own way of seeing.

 

[godnotgod]

My definition of Brahman is very clear - 'what all exists' (which seems to be 'physical energy').

Is not Brahman beyond all dualities, beyond 'existence' and 'non'existence'?

This phenomenon of Brahman not being visible but something else, the universe, being visible, is exactly what the term `maya' means. It does two things: It hides Brahman from you. Simultaneously it projects the universe to you.

The declaration that this is what is happening comes forth from the Lord Himself in Gita IX - 5, 6:

'Everything that is perceptible is pervaded and permeated by Me, who is unmanifested. All the beings are established in Me but not I in them; they are not in Me either, this is my divine yoga.'. He remains unmanifested while what is visible is basically a permeation by him. While he remains unchanged, and imperceptible, the universe is what is perceptible. Everything visible is supported by Him as the only substratum, whereas He Himself is not supported by anything. He is His own support.

The snake appears on the rope; the rope does not undergo any change, but the snake is supported by the rope, (meaning that, without the rope there is no snake). But in reality the snake was never there and so it is also true to say that the snake is not in the rope. To the question: "Where is the snake?", the answer is: "it is in the rope."

To the question; "Is the snake there?", the answer is: "there is no snake; the snake was never in the rope."

It is in this strain that the Lord gives out, almost in the same breath, what appears to be two contradictory statements:

"Everything is in Me; and nothing is in Me."

This is the cosmic mystery of the existence of the Universe. It is and is not - sad-asad-vilakshaNa, mAyA!

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/true-nature-of-the-universe-what-is-maya.83861/#post-1637206

 

[godnotgod]

I don't differentiate between a foreground or a background. I see only interaction/interconnectivity. I am not Hindu, nor am I a Buddhist, I have my own way of seeing.

Backround is already the (passive) case. It requires no intervention.The very moment you say 'interaction', you are saying it within the context of something. Even when you said that foreground and background are one and the same, you have made a differentiation.

You have made a preference of interaction over non-interaction. Choosing neither is to see correctly. Then the mind is free.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Backround is already the (passive) case. It requires no intervention.The very moment you say 'interaction', you are saying it within the context of something. Even when you said that foreground and background are one and the same, you have made a differentiation.

Nonsense. Background is just another created concept. You were interactive long before the concept of "background" was introduced to you through religion. Long before you ever adopted the term "mystic". In fact, the universe was interactive long before the first humans even appeared on Earth that would eventually label it "interaction".

 

[atanu]

I really like the expression:
~"what all exists"~

And "everything" that did, is still here !
One might call that 'Brahman', is one wishes !
I find myself starting to agree with Aup more and more.
I think Aup has a grip on where one is in life.
No ellaberate theories needed here !
But I do doze off now and then,
maybe I missed something, I'll re-read.
When one passes 77, one slides a little.
~
'mud

Names-forms are not brahman.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Names-forms are not brahman.

Interaction is not limited in such a way. It is everything and no-thing, including those name-forms.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Conditions arise in something. Weather, wave, fire. No thing, no condition. My definition of Brahman is very clear - 'what all exists' (which seems to be 'physical energy'). I use the word because it has been used in our culture for perhaps 10,000 years. I am a Hindu, so why are you surprised if I use Hindu terminology. The belief in existence of Brahman is very much Hindu. Lastly, I am a proper atheist. Not a luke-warm atheist, but a strong atheist, declaring that there is not the slightest possibility of existence of God/Gods/Goddesses.

You don't seem to share the same view as Godnotgod, is that correct? I'm not a Hindu, but my definition of brahman would be very much like yours except I would assert that "all that exists" is interaction. Energy itself is interactive or we could not call it energy. Interaction is not necessarily a "thing", nor does it require thought or mind. It is simply the way of the universe. To exist is to interact. To BE is to interact.

 

[godnotgod]

Nonsense. Background is just another created concept. You were interactive long before the concept of "background" was introduced to you through religion.

Background and foreground are always fully integrated as a singular Reality. But man tends to focus on what captures his attention, just as a fish in the sea focuses his attention on the foreground of his world, namely, food and predator. And just as the fish in the sea does not realize he is in the sea, man does not realize the background of his existence. He has become conditioned by the noise in the foreground of his world and has become part of that noise himself. Because he thinks this is reality, this kind of man thinks the solution to problems lies in action. And so he goes about the world, forcing things to conform to his concept of reality, thereby making things worse, as evinced by the current sorry state of the world. The background to existence is not a concept about reality at all, but it is our true nature. But our true nature does not captivate our attention as the glitter and noise of the foreground does, and so we either ignore it or simply don't recognize it as something that exists, and yet, it is the true existence, deep and robust, while the foreground is but a glittering and superficial flash in the pan. Hindus call it maya. Clinging to it eventually only brings misery and death. This is the area of mind. The alwasys-present background is beyond birth and death. It is the sea into which you are born and to which you return at death. Therefore, you don't notice it, just as the fish never notices the sea around him that he too was born into and will die in. But without the sea he will die. We also cannot exist without the background of existence either, and yet, it does not clamor for attention as the foreground does. It just goes on quietly sustaining our lives with full support both internally and externally. When we awaken from our conditioning to the foreground and realize the unity of foreground to background, we become enlightened, and see into the true nature of reality, and that the foreground is temporal and empty of self-nature, and is a projection of the background, which is The Absolute; The Changeless.

As mentioned, the background has always existed, but religion, actually those who came before religion, the mystics, saw the reality of the background and it then became part of religious teachings. I am not referring to religious teachings except as a matter of convenience. I am referring to the immediate experience of the mystic's realization of the totality of existence, of his perfect union with the Universe.

Look! The MOON!

 

[Runewolf1973]

Background and foreground are always fully integrated as a singular Reality. But man tends to focus on what captures his attention, just as a fish in the sea focuses his attention on the foreground of his world, namely, food and predator. And just as the fish in the sea does not realize he is in the sea, man does not realize the background of his existence. He has become conditioned by the noise in the foreground of his world and has become part of that noise himself. Because he thinks this is reality, this kind of man thinks the solution to problems lies in action. And so he goes about the world, forcing things to conform to his concept of reality, thereby making things worse, as evinced by the current sorry state of the world. The background to existence is not a concept about reality at all, but it is our true nature. But our true nature does not captivate our attention as the glitter and noise of the foreground does, and so we either ignore it or simply don't recognize it as something that exists, and yet, it is the true existence, deep and robust, while the foreground is but a glittering and superficial flash in the pan. Hindus call it maya. Clinging to it eventually only brings misery and death. This is the area of mind. The alwasys-present background is beyond birth and death. It is the sea into which you are born and to which you return at death. Therefore, you don't notice it, just as the fish never notices the sea around him that he too was born into and will die in. But without the sea he will die. We also cannot exist without the background of existence either, and yet, it does not clamor for attention as the foreground does. It just goes on quietly sustaining our lives with full support both internally and externally. When we awaken from our conditioning to the foreground and realize the unity of foreground to background, we become enlightened, and see into the true nature of reality, and that the foreground is temporal and empty of self-nature, and is a projection of the background, which is The Absolute; The Changeless.

As mentioned, the background has always existed, but religion, actually those who came before religion, the mystics, saw the reality of the background and it then became part of religious teachings. I am not referring to religious teachings except as a matter of convenience. I am referring to the immediate experience of the mystic's realization of the totality of existence, of his perfect union with the Universe.

Look! The MOON!

So when you refer to that "union" and "unity" it is oneness and okay, but when I say union and unity it is a duality and somehow false? How does that work? Perhaps you are just conditioned to think that anything which falls outside of your view is automatically false. Just because I use a different label you think I am wrong.

 

[godnotgod]

Nonsense. Background is just another created concept.

All 'interaction' occurs against some field, or background. Otherwise, you would not be able to recognize interaction as interaction. You are unaware of the pre-existing background and see only what your captured attention sees. You see only the shadows dancing on the cave walls, and fail to see the Sun. You think because there is activity, it must represent reality. You are being fooled by maya.

 

[godnotgod]

So when you refer to that "union" and "unity" it is oneness and okay, but when I say union and unity it is a duality and somehow false? How does that work? Perhaps you are just conditioned to think that anything which falls outside of your view is automatically false. Just because I use a different label you think I am wrong.

Your doctrine states that 'interaction' is the fundamental reality which fails to take into account its relative opposite of 'inaction'. Therefore, it is dual and not unified with the whole. You are forcing the relative value of interaction to be an absolute by calling it the fundamental reality.

 

[Runewolf1973]

All 'interaction' occurs against some field, or background. Otherwise, you would not be ablt to recognize interaction as interaction. You are unaware of the pre-existing background and see only what your captured attention sees. You see only the shadows dancing on the cave walls, and fail to see the Sun. You think because there is activity, it must represent reality. You are being fooled by maya.

Most people don't realize interaction as interaction, they just go about mindlessly. That unified field IS interaction.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Your doctrine states that 'interaction' is the fundamental reality which fails to take into account its relative opposite of 'inaction'. Therefore, it is dual and not unified with the whole. You are forcing the relative value of interaction to be an absolute by calling it the fundamental reality.

I am saying there is ONLY interaction. Therefore there is no relative opposite because inaction does not exist in the universe. All of existence is animated. Even that seemingly nothingness void of space is interactive.

 

[godnotgod]

I am saying there is ONLY interaction. Therefore there is no relative opposite because inaction does not exist in the universe. All of existence is animated. Even that seemingly nothingness void of space is interactive.

It contains interactive particles, but itself is no-thing, and no-thing does not interact.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It contains interactive particles, but itself is no-thing, and no-thing does not interact.

Interaction is not a "thing"! How many times must a say that? It is unity...union.