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

[godnotgod]

It isn't, not in the original language.

doesn't matter: the quote states: 'The Absolute', rather than 'an absolute'.

 

[godnotgod]

Haha......what do you find that do find that is inaccurate about the concept of Brahman?

I post the description once again:

Brahman (Sanskrit: ब्रह्म, "the Supreme Being; the Absolute Reality; Godhead"), from the verb brh, "to grow", and connotes "immensity" — is the impersonal and immanent, infinite cause and support of the universe that has no form or attributes. The uncaused cause of the Universe; satchidānanda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss Absolute), The Eternal Changeless Reality, not conditioned by time, space and causation. Brahman is the basis, source and support of everything — the transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this universe. Its nature consists of the three incommunicable attributes of (1) sat (Absolute Being), (2) chit (Consciousness), (3) ananda (Bliss). This Supreme Being assumes a dual nature — Male and Female. The male aspect is known as Purusha which means “that-which-fills” — and the Female aspect is known as Shakti which translates as “Energy” or “Dynamic Force” or Prakriti — material nature. Also called as Paramātman (Universal Self), Parasiva, Ultimate Reality, Supreme Being or the Absolute.


http://veda.wikidot.com/brahman

Note the inclusion of energy as emerging from Brahman, the Source, in keeping with the topic.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't see that any such attempt or intent at hijacking. The notion that 'all is energy' is intimately tied to that of 'all is consciousness', at least in the mind of the mystic.

Actually, that "all is energy" was a classical, pre-Einstein view called "energetics", and was thoroughly Western and completely rooted in the scientific tradition. Meanwhile, neither Eastern nor Mystic thought defined a notion of energy that all could exist as prior to the Western natural science tradition.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

doesn't matter: the quote states: 'The Absolute', rather than 'an absolute'.

The "quote" is a translation, and therefore also an interpretation

 

[godnotgod]

The "quote" is a translation, and therefore also an interpretation

I am going with it as it exists. If you want to go to the trouble of ferreting out a contradiction, by all means.....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

http://hinduism.about.com/od/godsgoddesses/p/brahma.htm

Brahma is an aspect of Brahman. <sigh>

Instead of just making stuff up to fit your woollly syncretist agenda, why don't you take the time to explore these traditions properly?

Presuming you do understand the meaning of 'aspect', an aspect is not the same as that of which it is an aspect of..... Brahman is the absolute....Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, are aspects of... Brahman is beyond the space and time...Brahma creates in time and space...

So you were using the word Brahman when you presumably meant Brahma....no wonder you are so muddled...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Haha......what do you find that do find that is inaccurate about the concept of Brahman?

"Brahman" is a religious belief, so the issue of "accuracy" is irrelevant.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But my bottom line point is that science and math will never understand the mystery behind phenomena.

The phenomenon in question was and is known to exist entirely because of mathematical models from scientific theory. You are stating merely that that which was derived mathematically from scientific models through formal inference can't be understood by the only means it can be known at all.

 

[godnotgod]

Actually, that "all is energy" was a classical, pre-Einstein view called "energetics", and was thoroughly Western and completely rooted in the scientific tradition. Meanwhile, neither Eastern nor Mystic thought defined a notion of energy that all could exist as prior to the Western natural science tradition.

Your OP did not frame the question as such. You left it open-ended. 'all is energy' is well within the realm of the mystic's view as it relates to consciousness.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So you were using the word Brahman when you presumably meant Brahma....no wonder you are so muddled...

Eh? Again you are just making stuff up.

Buddhism teaches dependent arising and conditionality, not absolutes like "Brahman" or "God" or "Cosmic Consciousness" or "Ultimate Reality". The notion that sunyata is equivalent to Brahman is ludicrous, and merely demonstrates your ignorance of both Buddhism and Hinduism. You continually misrepresent teachings from both traditions in a desperate attempt to pursue your shallow syncretic agenda.

The point of the Visuddhimagga verse was to underline that in Buddhism there is no God to be found, and no mystical "reality" behind or beneath phenomena. Only phenomena. As the Visuddhimagga verse clearly states it: "Phenomena alone flow on.." And of course this is just another way of talking about sunyata, emptiness.

Note that I say "sunyata", not "Sunyata" because it is NOT an absolute, that was the point of Runewolfs quote about emptiness of emptiness. Clearly you don't understand this pivotal point.

This is never going to fit your syncretic agenda, get over it. Stick with your idiosyncratic idea of "spirituality", which looks like a sort of pseudo-Hinduism. You seem to be suffering from the "There must be more than this" syndrome, continually clutching at metaphysical straws.

 

[godnotgod]

The phenomenon in question was and is known to exist entirely because of mathematical models from scientific theory. You are stating merely that that which was derived mathematically from scientific models through formal inference can't be understood by the only means it can be known at all.

No, that's not what I am saying: I am saying that a mathematical/scientific approach to the question of the true nature of Reality will not yield the answers it seeks, and that is because of the very methodologies employed to do so. IOW, it is the wrong foot forward.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am going with it as it exists. If you want to go to the trouble of ferreting out a contradiction, by all means.....

It exists for you as something you can't read because you don't know the language. Thus your understanding is limited by your cultural appropriation of a Westernized distortion of would-be Eastern worldviews and tradition.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No, that's not what I am saying: I am saying that a mathematical/scientific approach to the question of the true nature of Reality will not yield the answers it seeks, and that is because of the very methodologies employed to do so. IOW, it is the wrong foot forward.

What you are saying is irrelevant if we are to take seriously the example you have used. You have attempted to use black holes as some example of the limits of science, thus demonstrating merely how thoroughly you misunderstand the phenomenon in question and our basis for thinking it exists at all (let alone as we believe it to). You attempted to demonstrate the limits of scientific methods, but you failed because you chose as your example that which can only be known given the success of the scientific approach/epistemology

 

[godnotgod]

. Buddhism teaches dependent arising and conditionality, just bare phenomena rolling on.

It also teaches that such bare phenomena is empty of self-nature, the source of this observation being the transformed consciousness of the observer called 'Buddha'. This conscious source is completely compatible and none other than Brahman, a principle of Hindu thought.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It exists for you as something you can't read because you don't know the language. Thus your understanding is limited by your cultural appropriation of a Westernized distortion of would-be Eastern worldviews and tradition.

Indeed. Continual misrepresentation, and repeated attempts to bang square pegs into round holes. Rather painful to watch.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Your OP did not frame the question as such. You left it open-ended. 'all is energy' is well within the realm of the mystic's view as it relates to consciousness.

I was merely stating that this "all is energy " notion is
1) Actually in one sense a failed scientific approach from the 19th century more than it is some "mystic" worldview which predates the 20th century
&
2) There is no actual mystic tradition that both holds "all is energy" and that conceives of energy in some sense related to the modern conception. You are appropriating both the scientific tradition you eschew and actual traditional mystic and/or Eastern thought

 

[godnotgod]

It exists for you as something you can't read because you don't know the language. Thus your understanding is limited by your cultural appropriation of a Westernized distortion of would-be Eastern worldviews and tradition.

You don't know that it is a distortion.

It exists for me because it is what I see as Reality. I am using the quote only to support my own experience. I am not interpreting Reality in terms of the quote, so it is unnecessary for me to research the linguistics involved. That is your job, if you see fit to pursue it. IOW, I am understanding the content of the quote as it stands, so there is no problem with it.

 

[godnotgod]

What you are saying is irrelevant if we are to take seriously the example you have used. You have attempted to use black holes as some example of the limits of science, thus demonstrating merely how thoroughly you misunderstand the phenomenon in question and our basis for thinking it exists at all (let alone as we believe it to). You attempted to demonstrate the limits of scientific methods, but you failed because you chose as your example that which can only be known given the success of the scientific approach/epistemology

Why do you continue to repeat that which I already told you was understood? That the math is based on a mathematical model. OK. I am simply pointing up the unreliability of the methodologies involved, especially when it comes to trying to understand the nature of things.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You don't know that it is a distortion.

Perhaps you forget. I can actually read those languages you require translations of (if memory serves, at the least German & Sanskrit, although I recall you relying on even more translations of texts written in languages you can't read which I can)

 

[godnotgod]

I was merely stating that this "all is energy " notion is
1) Actually in one sense a failed scientific approach from the 19th century more than it is some "mystic" worldview which predates the 20th century
&
2) There is no actual mystic tradition that both holds "all is energy" and that conceives of energy in some sense related to the modern conception. You are appropriating both the scientific tradition you eschew and actual traditional mystic and/or Eastern thought

That it is a failed 19th century idea is irrelevant. Energy is something considered to come from an underlying conscious source known as Brahman in Hinduism, for example, and as I understand it, from The Unified Field in modern science.