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

[psychoslice]

Lets face it, what the hell would it mean if we are all just energy, we are here, and that is all that matters, why make the situation complex, its just too stupid to do so.

 

[YmirGF]

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.

If's of this kind don't get much bigger.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

I think there is a big difference between feeling at one with the universe, and believing that one is literally the Andromeda galaxy or whatever.

As for the meaning of Brahman, I think you have completely redefined it to fit your atheist/materialist mindset, and that you are using the term so far out of it's original context that it has become meaningless. I get that Hinduism is pluralistic, but you are effectively saying that as a Hindu you can believe anything you like. Following your logic everyone is a Hindu, whatever they believe. So Roman Catholicism is a school of Hinduism too - it doesn't bother me, but I don't think they would like the idea!

 

[Runewolf1973]

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

Not in a literal sense, but symbolic for the universe which does nothing but act/interact as so many characters in a play. The characters are empty just as the mountain and the flower are empty of self-nature. All is dependant on that "Supreme Actor" (Brahman) to create that illusion of form and character.

 

[YmirGF]

Following your logic everyone is a Hindu, whatever they believe.

But Rick, due to the vast array of opinions found in Hinduism what you are saying isn't actually too far from the truth.

That is also why, gNg citing Vivekananda, as if he was the be all and end all of opinions, is so utterly laughable.
He is just another Indian Swami out of a legion of millions... BFD.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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

If people are actually talking about the universe, I wish they would just say "universe".

 

[psychoslice]

We need to ask, where does this energy come from?.

 

[YmirGF]

Of course. Symbolic for the universe which does nothing but act/interact as so many characters in a play. The characters are empty just as the mountain and the flower are empty of self-nature. All is dependant on that "Supreme Actor" (Brahman) to create that illusion of form and character.

I'd suggest that those characters are nowhere near as "empty" as you might think. If they are manifestations of a given source they are considerably more than how they might appear.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But Rick, due to the vast array of opinions found in Hinduism what you are saying isn't actually too far from the truth.

I guess so, but even more reason not to use Hindu terminology in discussions like this.

Or new-age terminology, or any jargon!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Not in a literal sense, but symbolic for the universe which does nothing but act/interact as so many characters in a play. The characters are empty just as the mountain and the flower are empty of self-nature. All is dependant on that "Supreme Actor" (Brahman) to create that illusion of form and character.

Why is there this need to assume something behind or beneath it all? Why the need to assume a "reality" behind the appearances, when all we actually observe are appearances, the continual movement and interaction at all scales?

 

[YmirGF]

I guess so, but even more reason not to use Hindu terminology in discussions like this.

Agreed. It's why you will almost never hear me use terms like evil, soul, god... etc... due to the mind-numbing steaming piles of bull**** that have coated the terms over the centuries that makes their usage now almost meaningless.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I'd suggest that those characters are nowhere near as "empty" as you might think. If they are manifestations of a given source they are considerably more than how they might appear.

Empty of self-nature is not the same as nothingness. It just means there is no separate "flower nature" or "mountain nature", it is all universal nature. Those characters are full of energy and interaction which is universal.

 

[YmirGF]

We need to ask, where does this energy come from?.

Who can say - with any authority - that is....

 

[Runewolf1973]

Why is there this need to assume something behind or beneath it all? Why the need to assume a "reality" behind the appearances, when all we actually observe are appearances, the continual movement and interaction at all scales?

What I was trying to get at was that that "Supreme Actor" as it could be called, is none other than interaction itself. Everything is interaction. There is no "beneath" anything.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

We need to ask, where does this energy come from?.

Once you remove religious beliefs, we currently have no idea. Maybe it's always been there in different forms? What is clear is that the universe IS energetic, with continual movement and flux, this is true at all scales, cosmic, everyday and sub-atomic.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What I was trying to get at was that that "Supreme Actor" as it could ve called is none other than interaction itself at it's very core. Everything is interaction. There is no "beneath" anything.

I agree, but in that case ideas about "Supreme Actors" are redundant, as are ideas of Brahman, God, and so on.

It's like when a certain type of pantheist says "God is the universe", I think "Why even bring the idea of "God" into it, it's completely redundant!"
It's just meaningless tautology, and of course terms like "God" have all this baggage attached to them.

 

[YmirGF]

Empty of self-nature is not the same as nothingness. It just means there is no separate "flower nature" or "mountain nature", it is all universal nature. Those characters are full of energy and interaction.

Snap out of it, man. You are in peril of asserting a universal blandness that flies in the face of reality and the nature of diversity.

 

[YmirGF]

What I was trying to get at was that that "Supreme Actor" as it could be called, is none other than interaction itself. Everything is interaction. There is no "beneath" anything.

To describe a trillion billion interactions, per nanosecond, as a single entity, is a teeny weeny bit misleading.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I agree, but in that case ideas about "Supreme Actors" are redundant, as are ideas of Brahman, God, and so on.

It's like when a certain type of pantheist says "God is the universe", I think "Why even bring the idea of "God" into it, it's completely redundant!" It's just meaningless tautology.

I agree. That's why I use the term "interaction", but "actor" I can accept as well. If the universe is an actor/interactor, then it is kinda supreme in a way don't you think? I mean...what's greater than the universe?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

To describe a trillion billion interactions as a single entity is a teeny weeny bit misleading.

Describing them as a single PROCESS might be nearer the mark.

"No things, only processes" is a phrase I find helpful.