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

[YmirGF]

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

Neatly sidesteps a need for Brahman. Neatly sidesteps a need for god.... just impersonal natural interactions....... hmmm.... a bit of a stretch to call a process a Supreme Actor though.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Hurrah, a whole page with only passing references to religious and new-age jargon, it must be a first on this thread!

Well done, keep it going! You know you can do it!

 

[Runewolf1973]

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

Not if you really understand what I am saying. Interacting is the same as interconnectedness and is therefore a unity which is all inclusive of those trillions upon trillions of interactions. It's not an entity which I am describing, it is universal unity.

 

[YmirGF]

Hurrah, a whole page with only passing references to religious and new-age jargon, it must be a first on this thread!

Well done, keep it going! You know you can do it!

YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!

 

[Runewolf1973]

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

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

That is exactly what it is...a process. Also that "dependent rising" is a process. Everything is dependent on something else.

 

[YmirGF]

Not if you really understand what I am saying. Interacting is the same as interconnectedness and is therefore a unity which is all inclusive of those trillions upon trillions of interactions. It's not an entity which I am describing, it is universal unity.

Hrrmmmmmmmm.... something about this rubs me the wrong way.

Perhaps its that you are getting perilously close to a first cause scenario.
I see what you are saying. I just keep getting "Divide by zero" error, LOL.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Neatly sidesteps a need for Brahman. Neatly sidesteps a need for god.... just impersonal natural interactions....... hmmm.... a bit of a stretch to call a process a Supreme Actor though.

It is a bit of a stretch to call it that, but the universe as a whole is great and it's actions are great. "Supreme Actor" as silly as it sounds, could be just a label for some all round great interacting on a universal scale. It's nothing one should take literally.

 

[godnotgod]

Neatly sidesteps a need for Brahman. Neatly sidesteps a need for god.... just impersonal natural interactions....... hmmm.... a bit of a stretch to call a process a Supreme Actor though.

So you are a collection of 'impersonal natural interactions'. Now add consciousness, playing a game of Hide and Seek, and you have The Supreme Actor. Yes, YOU, mouse, are That, pretending to be just 'l'il 'ol mousy me'.

Yes, psychoslice is right. So whyn'cha all just come clean, and admit you all are none other than The Supreme Identity, The Indestructible Sunyata, pretending to be something other than that. Ah, but then the game would be ruined, wouldn't it?

 

[godnotgod]

Neatly sidesteps a need for Brahman. Neatly sidesteps a need for god.... just impersonal natural interactions....... hmmm.... a bit of a stretch to call a process a Supreme Actor though.

Brahman is the SOURCE of the process. Instead of the label Brahman, which smacks of anthropomorphism, let us then call it 'The Ground of All Being', or, as science puts it, The Unified Field. Does that help?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Hrrmmmmmmmm.... something about this rubs me the wrong way.

Perhaps its that you are getting perilously close to a first cause scenario.
I see what you are saying. I just keep getting "Divide by zero" error, LOL.

I consider the interactive universe to be eternally existing, therefore there is no such first cause.

 

[YmirGF]

It is a bit of a stretch to call it that, but the universe as a whole is great and it's actions are great. Supreme Actor could be just a label for some all round great interacting on a universal scale.

I would not use the term myself simply because a reader may very well assume a connection to divine agency. We never want to give them that bit of rope to hang us with. I'd tend to look for a more suitable expression. Why not just stick with the interaction thingy and call it a day? I'm leary of the unity aspect too, as we have no way to determine if these interactions are universal.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I would not use the term myself simply because a reader may very well assume a connection to divine agency. We never want to give them that bit of rope to hang us with. I'd tend to look for a more suitable expression. Why not just stick with the interaction thingy and call it a day? I'm leary of the unity aspect too, as we have no way to determine if these interactions are universal.

I do stick with interaction. I was merely attempting to find some common ground with Godnotgod since "actor" implies "interaction", but perhaps that is not possible. I should know better I guess.

 

[godnotgod]

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

Neither am I. But your claim says nothing; means nothing. So there is interaction. So what? That doesn't tell us anything. Tell me
something meaningful about the nature of reality.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Neither am I. But your claim says nothing; means nothing. So there is interaction. So what? That doesn't tell us anything. Tell me
something meaningful about the nature of reality.

Your poop stinks.

 

[godnotgod]

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

Ever wonder why film is so popular in India? Hindus don't see the world as composed of 'things', nor do they see themselves as an ego. They see themselves as actions.

 

[godnotgod]

Your poop stinks.

I would be worried if it were odorless.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I would be worried if it were odorless.

No doubt. That's pretty meaningful eh?

 

[YmirGF]

I do stick with interaction. I was merely attempting to find some common ground with Godnotgod since "actor" implies "interaction", but perhaps that is not possible. I should know better I guess.

I'd be very wary about finding common ground, however laudable. In a nuanced sense, you are correct, it can mean that, but the over-riding meaning will muddy your own rather elegant thinking. You have a great little idea going here. Don't pollute it with unnecessary drivel.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

Vivekenanda is not saying that Brahman is Sunyata, but I certainly am.

I am afraid you will have a long, long wait. I can tell you right now: science will NEVER know the answer to that.

But this may help shed a bit more light on the topic:

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/atmsun.htm

 

[Runewolf1973]

I'd be very wary about finding common ground, however laudable. In a nuanced sense, you are correct, it can mean that, but the over-riding meaning will muddy your own rather elegant thinking.

Thank you for that advice. No matter what I might say, just remember this as my true meaning...interaction is everything.