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

[godnotgod]

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.

Brahman, The Changeless, is manifesting itself AS IF it is the material Universe in interaction with itself.

 

[YmirGF]

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

Just remember, at one point Einstein was a nobody who worked by day in a patent office and worked on his crazy ideas by night. Ignore the distractions and flesh out your ideas.

 

[godnotgod]

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!

In a way, that is correct. The Hindu view, (in general), is that everyone is God, so from the Hindu POV, the Christian is God pretending he is some 'other'. It has been said that, had Jesus only lived in India and went around professing that he was God, he would have been celebrated rather than crucified, because in India, it is OK to be God. 'Congratulations!', they would say; 'you found out! good for you!' Namaste and all the rest of it.

 

[godnotgod]

Just remember, at one point Einstein was a nobody who worked by day in a patent office and worked on his crazy ideas by night. Ignore the distractions and flesh out your ideas.

He already has, but they don't tell us anything. To say that interaction is the fundamental reality means what? Nada! Everyone already knows that. What we don't know is why.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

Good description!

 

[Runewolf1973]

Good description!

Potential. There is always potential.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Brahman, The Changeless, is manifesting itself AS IF it is the material Universe in interaction with itself.

"Manifesting itself" denotes change, not changeless. How does that even work? How can that which is "changeless" manifest?

 

[YmirGF]

"Manifesting itself" denotes change, not changeless. How does that even work? How can that which is "changeless" manifest?

Oh hush, you you..


Finger! Moon!....


Damned cave-dweller...


For the record, the quote does sound like what someone who doesn't have the slightest idea what they are talking about would say.... Jus' sayin'...

 

[godnotgod]

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.

I agree about the baggage, but to say that there is just interaction, or that the universe just has certain characteristics and does this and that leaves out the most crucial element: consciousness. Without consciousness, reality is just aclinical, sterile, and automatic billiard ball universe. It is reductionism at its worst: 'the universe is nothing more than blah blah blah', and you have explained it clean away. It's crap.

 

[godnotgod]

"Manifesting itself" denotes change, not changeless. How does that even work? How can that which is "changeless" manifest?

Again, you are on the outside with your nose pressed against the windowpane, trying to 'figure it all out' with your thinking mind.

 

[godnotgod]

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

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

Still too sterile. Try again.

 

[YmirGF]

Again, you are on the outside with your nose pressed against the windowpane, trying to 'figure it all out' with your thinking mind.

 

[rahulps108]

Cuz every matter have energy

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yeah...pretty much.

 

[godnotgod]

Yeah...pretty much.

You want a rational explanation for that which is beyond explanation?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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 think you should stick with your interaction model, which is elegant, intelligible and supported by observation at all scales. I would advise against adding on a load of pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo, it's both pointless and counterproductive.

You will end up down the rabbit hole drinking tea with the Mad Hatter!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"Manifesting itself" denotes change, not changeless. How does that even work? How can that which is "changeless" manifest?

Yeah, it's just more gobbledygook word-salad from down the rabbit-hole. Best ignored really.

I'm pretty sure the "changeless" thing comes from a meditative experience of stillness, which people then project out onto the universe, it's a type of anthropomorphism really. Same with "timelessness".

People tend to assume that a subjective inner experience must correlate to something real "out there", but mostly this is wishful thinking, confirmation bias or just plain egocentricity.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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!

Yes, literally, there is no difference between what constitutes me and what constitutes Andromeda or any other galaxy in the universe. IMHO, many Hindus have not understood Brahman correctly. For example they use the phrase 'merging into Brahman' (Brahmaleen, generally for someone who has died). Now, the real position is that there were never two separate things. That person and Brahman. Therefore, to say that now he has merged with Brahman is not correct. Then also, the person was Brahman, and now after death also, the person is Brahman.

Yes, you can have your own views, but if asked, you should be able to provide the justification. Roman Catholicism cannot be a part of Hinduism because it is an exclusivist religion which Hinduism is not.

 

[Aupmanyav]

He is just another Indian Swami out of a legion of millions... BFD.

That is exactly what I said. Buddha also is my guru. And he imparted the 'Kalama Sutta' to me (quoting the relevant parts from Wikipedia for brevity):

".. nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna), nor upon surmise (takka-hetu), nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu), nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya), nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū) ..". This teaching is engraved in my mind.

.. I wish they would just say "universe".

Universe or universes, or what all other than this may be existing? We do not know. That is why Brahman is the better word, it is all inclusive.

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

Already answered. Leave the question for future and for science. Speculation now is not going to help. We need more data.

 

[`mud]

Sad to one is the shining of one photon,
next to the shadow of the next.
But the glow is pleasant.
Everything is interactive,
as with all that exists !
~
'mud