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

[godnotgod]

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

No-thing-ness is not a thing, but contains every-thing, including interaction.

When you say 'there is only interaction', you can only do so because of the background of The Changeless. Otherwise, how do you know it as interaction?

A movie screen is not part of the action in the movie projected onto it. Only the screen is real; the movie is fiction.

 

[godnotgod]

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

(wagging finger)..."how many times have I told you?, 'der square peg must be driven into der round hole!' "

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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!

Does anything (really) matter?

 

[godnotgod]

Does anything (really) matter?

Well, if you are focused only on the foreground (ie; this dual world of relative joy and relative suffering) and not connected consciously to your true nature, which is Absolute Joy, eventually you will experience suffering. so if that doesn't matter to you, then you are correct.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No-thing-ness is not a thing, but contains every-thing, including interaction.

When you say 'there is only interaction', you can only do so because of the background of The Changeless. Otherwise, how do you know it as interaction?

A movie screen is not part of the action in the movie projected onto it. Only the screen is real; the movie is fiction.

So nothingness is something....it is a container which contains things and a movie screen is part of a projector which projects things. It's all interaction.

 

[godnotgod]

So nothingness is something....it is a container which contains things and a movie screen is part of a projector which projects things. It's all interaction.

Now you have succeeded in driving two square pegs into one round hole. Who could fault you for that?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Now you have succeeded in driving two square pegs into one round hole. Who could fault you for that?

I'm not the one making unreasonable or irrational claims here.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Hi, Mud, Aup is an enlightened person (talking about form), otherwise he is Brahman. Re-read and become enlightened yourself. As our books say (Tat twam asi - join all the three words together, it becomes 'Tattwamasi' - Verily, That Thou Art). Tear away the veil of ignorance. Ha, ha, ha, ha.

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

Frankly, I do not know that for sure. RigVeda said there is a kinship between existence and non-existence (Nasadiya Sukta), but I am waiting for science to confirm.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

A little correction, Krishna said: "All beings are in Me, but I am not in them."
Chapter 9, verse 4: "mat-sthani sarva-bhutani, na caham tesu avasthitah."
But my views are a little different.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Yeah, I differ from Gonotgod's views. I understand that you are neither a Hindu, nor a Buddhist. But what you are saying is more like Buddhism, 'just interaction'. That is what Buddhists mean when they say 'dependent origination'. As for energy, it can certainly be considered a 'thing'. After all, we know that mass can be converted into energy. Buddha, when asked, did not answer the question. He said 'how does it help your situation? why should you contemplate on this?' Hindus OTH accept the existence of things (Brahman).

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yeah, I differ from Gonotgod's views. I understand that you are neither a Hindu, nor a Buddhist. But what you are saying is more like Buddhism, 'just interaction'. That is what Buddhists mean when they say 'dependent origination'. As for energy, it can certainly be considered a 'thing'. After all, we know that mass can be converted into energy. Buddha, when asked, did not answer the question. He said 'how does it help your situation? why should you contemplate on this?' Hindus OTH accept the existence of things (Brahman).

Interesting. So Brahman (according to actual Hinduism) is not this complete and utter nothingness that Godnotgod is referring to? I can understand how there is a "seemingly" nothingness....the void of space, but yeah it seems my views fall more in line with Buddhism. That everything is interdependent, interactive, and interconnected makes sense to me. I do accept your view as well that all that exists is energy. Energy in the sense of movement, change, interaction.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

So with your view Brahman is the universe, and you are part of the universe?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahman is not taken to have parts. It is indivisible. Therefore, I AM BRAHMAN, the whole of it. That is the meaning of the famous verse "Purnamadah, Purnamidam ..' (That is Brahman, this (too) is Brahman ..).

Interesting. So Brahman (according to actual Hinduism) is not this complete and utter nothingness that Godnotgod is referring to?

You should not use the word 'actual' while referring to Hinduism. There are so many 'actual Hinduisms'. Most Hindus are polytheists but I am an atheist Hindu. All shades between them and me are represented in Hinduism. What Godnotgod is saying also is represented in Hinduism. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, one of the old ones, says "Prajnanam Brahma' (Consciousness is Brahman). 'Brahman' in Hinduism is never, never ever 'complete and utter nothingness' (consciousness is not taken to mean that).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Brahman is not taken to have parts. It is indivisible. Therefore, I AM BRAHMAN, the whole of it. That is the meaning of the famous verse "Purnamadah, Purnamidam ..' (That is Brahman, this (too) is Brahman ..).

So you are identical with Brahman, and Brahman is the universe...so you are identical with the universe? But what does that mean, practically speaking, given that you have an atheist/materialist mindset? Presumably you don't think you are "identical" with the Andromeda galaxy for example, or that "you" are present right across the universe? Or are you really talking about a sort of Neo-Advaita approach, feeling at one with universe?

I am still struggling with insistence on using religious terminology to communicate an atheist/materialist mindset, it's rather confusing. Why use religious language out of context when plain English is readily available?

As I've observed before, we need a common ground for these discussions, and using plain English is the obvious answer. It's very difficult when people are continually making up their own words, or using words so far out of their original context that they become meaningless. It's like saying: "I'm not going to communicate in plain English, I am going to communicate in my own made-up language which I expect you to learn, though I will never actually provide clear translations." Well, no, that isn't reasonable, or practical.

 

[godnotgod]

What Godnotgod is saying also is represented in Hinduism. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, one of the old ones, says "Prajnanam Brahma' (Consciousness is Brahman). 'Brahman' in Hinduism is never, never ever 'complete and utter nothingness' (consciousness is not taken to mean that).

I am saying that Consciousness is No-thing-ness in the sense that no material 'things' exist within it. Whatever the 'material' world of 'things' is, is maya. So to say that Everything comes out of Nothing is to say that maya comes out of Brahman, or more accurately that maya is manifested by Brahman, because Brahman is non-material.

 

[godnotgod]

So you are identical with Brahman, and Brahman is the universe...so you are identical with the universe? But what does that mean, practically speaking, and how do you reconcile it with your atheist/materialist views? Presumably you don't think you are "identical" with the Andromeda galaxy for example?

If you can grasp for a moment that Brahman is everything that is the Universe, that Brahman is playing all of the varying aspects of the universe simultaneously, perhaps you can see that Brahman is everything. So Aupmanyav and the Andromeda Galaxy are both Brahman, completely and identically. Form may vary, but Brahman manifesting itself as form is Changeless and without form.

If the same actor plays 10 different characters each with its own mask, behind the mask is the same actor. Behind Aupmanyav and Spiney and Runewolf and godnotgod and The Andromeda Galaxy is none other that the superb actor, Brahman, The supreme Identity, The Indestructible Sunyata.

"The Universe is The Absolute (Brahman) as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

Vivekenanda

 

[Runewolf1973]

If you can grasp for a moment that Brahman is everything that is the Universe, that Brahman is playing all of the varying aspects of the universe simultaneously, perhaps you can see that Brahman is everything. So Aupmanyav and the Andromeda Galaxy are both Brahman, completely and identically. Form may vary, but Brahman manifesting itself as form is Changeless and without form.

If the same actor plays 10 different characters each with its own mask, behind the mask is the same actor. Behind Aupmanyav and Spiney and Runewolf and godnotgod and The Andromeda Galaxy is none other that the superb actor, Brahman, The supreme Identity, The Indestructible Sunyata.

"The Universe is The Absolute (Brahman) as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

Vivekenanda

The Supreme Actor....hmmm....I can accept that.

 

[YmirGF]

The Supreme Actor....hmmm....I can accept that.

You certainly shouldn't accept it in a literal sense. Perhaps, perhaps as a placeholder (symbolic of something else)... but no more...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Presumably you don't think you are "identical" with the Andromeda galaxy for example, or that "you" are present right across the universe? Or are you really talking about a sort of Neo-Advaita approach, feeling at one with universe?
I am still struggling with insistence on using religious terminology to communicate an atheist/materialist mindset, it's rather confusing. Why use religious language out of context when plain English is readily available? .. It's like saying: "I'm not going to communicate in plain English, I am going to communicate in my own made-up language which I expect you to learn, though I will never actually provide clear translations."

Feeling one with the universe and all things contained in it is not "neo-advaita'. IMV, that is 'pure' advaita, non-duality. Yes, I am Andromeda too. As I have already mentioned, I am a Hindu, we have used this terminology ages before English came to exist, therefore, I use it. You do understand the meaning of Brahman, dharma, karma. I am not using words that you do not understand.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Indestructible Sunyata.

"The Universe is The Absolute (Brahman) as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

Vivekenanda

Whatever Swami Vivekananda may have said, that does not mean much to me. What he said does not mean Brahman is 'Shunyata'. I do not know if Brahman equals 'Shunyata'. I leave this question to future and science. If science agrees to it, I will accept it.