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

[godnotgod]

That would be horrible, like being fried in a micro-wave oven.

Does Advaita subscribe to the scenario of the Four Kalpas?

 

[godnotgod]

IF black holes exist, I am fairly certain they would be one of the most interactive things in the universe.

Perhaps we are in the very center of one right now and don't even know it. We can call it 'The Octopus's Garden':

"Octopus's Garden"

I'd like to be under the sea
In an octopus's garden in the shade
He'd let us in, knows where we've been
In his octopus's garden in the shade

I'd ask my friends to come and see
An octopus's garden with me
I'd like to be under the sea
In an octopus's garden in the shade

We would be warm below the storm
In our little hideaway beneath the waves
Resting our head on the sea bed
In an octopus's garden near a cave

We would sing and dance around
Because we know we can't be found
I'd like to be under the sea
In an octopus's garden in the shade

We would shout and swim about
The coral that lies beneath the waves
(Lies beneath the ocean waves)
Oh what joy for every girl and boy
Knowing they're happy and they're safe
(Happy and they're safe)

We would be so happy you and me
No one there to tell us what to do
I'd like to be under the sea
In an octopus's garden with you
In an octopus's garden with you
In an octopus's garden with you

The Beatles

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Your source says "By detecting very little energy from these black hole candidates..." How is it that an entity defined in terms of its gravitational strength which doesn't allow anything, even light, to escape, somehow not only emit "energy" but do so in a manner that allows us to read it as a signal?

The argument seems to be that there is a lot of energy unaccounted for, and it must be going SOMEWHERE.

From the NASA article:
"Seeing just this tiny amount of energy escape from the black hole sources is like sitting upstream watching water seemingly disappear over the edge," said Ramesh Narayan, also of the Chandra team. "The most straightforward explanation for our observations is that these objects have event horizons and, therefore, are black holes."

If you don't agree that these findings support the existence of black holes, what other explanation can you suggest?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But you do see how although everything is interactive, interconnected and interdependent, all those "things" are empty of self nature. There is no self nature, there is only interaction which is universal nature. All things have that same interactive, universal nature.

That is very similar to "suchness" in Buddhism, the emptiness of all phenomena, aka sunyata.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And yes that is true, but there are those who believe they know, and they dress it up in their particular label.

It's all the cross-dressing that worries me.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That would seem to include speculations about "Brahman", and new-age variations on that theme.

Yeah, that is what Buddha said. But this is another age.

Does Advaita subscribe to the scenario of the Four Kalpas?

There are various shades of 'advaita'. Some accept it. Mine does not.

And yes that is true, but there are those who believe they know, and they dress it up in their particular label.

What authority you have to say that? You forgot 'IMHO'. Just as you have a view, allow others to have their views. You know 'Vipra bahudha vadanti'.

 

[`mud]

Just to follow the varied thoughts given here:
There are those that study science,
and believe in Jesus' and God's existance.
Also, most of those believe in the Big Bang theory.
They imagine a black hole,
and compare it's properties to a singularity.
Black Holes and dark matter like them,
are exhausts for the action of the vortexes.
The creation of plasma flux,
the beginning of new planets,
in a few billion years.
But coalesce it does,
and then interactions take over,
and the Cosmos grows.
Gravity hates expansive universes,
they don't fit inside the Cosmos' boundries !
There's more to be learned,
and interacted with,
now look at the moon,
and the backround of sparklers,
all interacting,
to the imagined original singularity.
~
just thinking
~
'mud

 

[atanu]

Buddha said that because at that time people were not looking at things that Buddha mentioned. Because of Buddha, we are wiser now. Therefore, we can look at ll things, 1. Which create sorrow for us, and 2. What Buddha in his time suggested that we should not contemplate - the acinteyyas. My homage to Lord Buddha.

- The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha];
- The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana];
- The [precise working out of the] results of kamma;
- Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acinteyya#Four_imponderables

That I am aware is not an imponderable.

 

[atanu]

...
I think you're still dreaming, while awake.

Did you get what I was implying/refuting?

 

[atanu]

Just to follow the varied thoughts given here:
There are those that study science,
and believe in Jesus' and God's existance.
Also, most of those believe in the Big Bang theory.
They imagine a black hole,
and compare it's properties to a singularity.
Black Holes and dark matter like them,
are exhausts for the action of the vortexes.
The creation of plasma flux,
the beginning of new planets,
in a few billion years.
But coalesce it does,
and then interactions take over,
and the Cosmos grows.
Gravity hates expansive universes,
they don't fit inside the Cosmos' boundries !
There's more to be learned,
and interacted with,
now look at the moon,
and the backround of sparklers,
all interacting,
to the imagined original singularity.
~
just thinking
~
'mud

Yeah. Thinking precedes the interactions.

 

[godnotgod]

Btw...interaction always changes the goal posts. That's all interaction does is change goalposts. I could make up a list of all the things which that very image is interdependent on...ink, paper, brush, trees, sunlight, water, etc... but it would be a very long list. All those things necessarily interact in some way for that symbol to even appear on my screen. It's just much easier to say "interaction is everything". But you do see how although everything is interactive, interconnected and interdependent, all those "things" are empty of self nature. There is no self nature, there is only interaction which is universal nature. All things have that same interactive, universal nature.

Again, confusing 'things' with 'form'.

There are no such 'things'.

'form is emptiness'
emptiness is form'

Therefore, if all form is empty of inherent self-nature, then 'interaction' is only an appearance. The only true Reality is Sunyata, which does not change, as it is universal.

Interaction is NOT universal nature; emptiness is. Interaction is how we perceive form.

 

[godnotgod]

The math is the basis for our belief in their existence, and only given the math do we have any reason to suppose they exist

Understood. Still, the math and physics fail.

 

[Thief]

Again, confusing 'things' with 'form'.

There are no such 'things'.

'form is emptiness'
emptiness is form'

Therefore, if all form is empty of inherent self-nature, then 'interaction' is only an appearance. The only true Reality is Sunyata, which does not change, as it is universal.

light and shadow are the same....by that 'logic'
and the item standing in the light is......'you'.....

hehehehehe

 

[Runewolf1973]

Again, confusing 'things' with 'form'.

There are no such 'things'.

'form is emptiness'
emptiness is form'

Therefore, if all form is empty of inherent self-nature, then 'interaction' is only an appearance. The only true Reality is Sunyata, which does not change, as it is universal.

Interaction is NOT universal nature; emptiness is. Interaction is how we perceive form.

There are forms. Forms are things. Things/forms are entirely dependent on other things/forms. Everything is dependent on everything else. A flower interacts with and is dependent on the sunlight, the ground, the rainwater, the bees....etc. This is interdependence. Because things/forms such as that flower are interdependent, there is no such "flower nature" since a flower is not self-rising it does not have that self-nature. All forms/things are universally interconnected, interactive and interdependent. In that way everything is empty of self-nature. There is only universal nature.

 

[godnotgod]

There are forms. Forms are things. Things/forms are entirely dependent on other things/forms. Everything is dependent on everything else. A flower interacts with and is dependent on the sunlight, the ground, the rainwater, the bees....etc. This is interdependence. Because things/forms such as that flower are interdependent, there is no such "flower nature" since a flower is not self-rising it does not have that self-nature. All forms/things are universally interconnected, interactive and interdependent. In that way everything is empty of self-nature. There is only universal nature.

Forms are not things.

'form is emptiness;
emptiness is form'

Things are not forms.

There are no things possessing self-nature, which is the meaning of Emptiness.

Please stop (poorly) explaining Buddhist principles to me.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Forms are not things.

Things are not forms.

There are no things, which is the meaning of Emptiness.

Please stop (poorly) explaining Buddhist principles to me.

Please stop equating emptiness with nonexistence. Existing things/forms are empty of self-nature. That is emptiness. Emptiness is not Pure or Absolute Nothingness.


Here, I'll let someone else explain it for you...

 

[godnotgod]

Please stop equating emptiness with nonexistence. Existing things/forms are empty of self-nature. That is emptiness. Emptiness is not Pure or Absolute Nothingness.

Where did I ever claim that to be the case?

You're making things up....again!

The Heart Sutra passage says nothing about 'things'. It says:

'form is emptiness;
emptiness is form'

The very concept of Sunyata means that there are no 'things'.

What we only call things have form, but forms are not things.

Stop trying to teach me Buddhism with your half-baked syncretic 'Doctrine of Interaction' 'understanding', It doesn't gel.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Where did I ever claim that to be the case?

You're making things up....again!

The passage says nothing about 'things'. It says:

'form is emptiness;
emptiness is form'

The very concept of Sunyata means that there are no 'things'.

Stop trying to teach me Buddhism with your half-baked syncretic 'Doctrine of Interaction' 'understanding', It doesn't gel.

https://emptinessteachings.com/2014/09/11/the-two-truths-of-buddhism-and-the-emptiness-of-emptiness/



"The emptiness of emptiness refutes ultimate truth as yet another argument for essentialism under the guise of being beyond the conventional or as the foundation of it. To realize emptiness is not to find a transcendent place or truth to land in but to see the conventional as merely conventional. Here lies the key to liberation. For to see the deception is to be free of deception, like a magician who knows the magic trick. When one is no longer fooled by false appearances, phenomena are neither reified nor denied. They are understood interdependently, as ultimately empty and thus, as only conventionally real. This is the Middle Way."

 

[godnotgod]

https://emptinessteachings.com/2014/09/11/the-two-truths-of-buddhism-and-the-emptiness-of-emptiness/



"The emptiness of emptiness refutes ultimate truth as yet another argument for essentialism under the guise of being beyond the conventional or as the foundation of it. To realize emptiness is not to find a transcendent place or truth to land in but to see the conventional as merely conventional. Here lies the key to liberation. For to see the deception is to be free of deception, like a magician who knows the magic trick. When one is no longer fooled by false appearances, phenomena are neither reified nor denied. They are understood interdependently, as ultimately empty and thus, as only conventionally real. This is the Middle Way."

I agree, so what's the point?

I have been telling you as much all along.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I agree, so what's the point?

I have been telling you as much all along.

My saying "interaction is everything" is just my way of seeing or expressing the conventional as merely conventional. I know that "things" or "forms" are not the truth because there is in reality no truth which one can find. There is no Absolute Truth. I simply understand everything as interdependent, empty of self-nature and only conventionally real.