What is energy?

[Rick O'Shez]

There is a difference between how an ordinary person experiences the everyday world and how an awakened person experiences it. The Buddha was such an awakened being.

Of course, but the Buddha didn't experience quarks. The Buddha didn't experience the sub-atomic world, he experienced the everyday world in a radically different way. That's why trying to equate sunyata with quantum mechanics is misguided.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs fields are right not creating the mass of each of the atoms your body is composed of. They are an inseparable part of your 'human' experience.

No, we what we experience are the effects of gravity. What we experience is Newtonian mechanics, not quantum mechanics. You clearly still haven't grasped the principle of different rules at different scales. The rules governing behaviour are different at different scales, whether it be very large ( cosmological ), everyday or very small ( sub-atomic ).

In reality, there is no such 'you' that is 'having' an experience. There is no 'experiencer' of the experience. 'You' are a total experience of the Universe, just as a wave is a total experience of the ocean.

This seems vaguely Buddhist, but how is it relevant here? Or is it just one you haven't used for a while?

 

[godnotgod]

Of course, but the Buddha didn't experience quarks. The Buddha didn't experience the sub-atomic world, he experienced the everyday world in a radically different way. That's why trying to equate sunyata with quantum mechanics is misguided.

I'm not. What the Buddha experienced was the true nature of Reality, and that is about both the 'everyday' world and quarks, which is that both are empty of inherent nature. The ordinary man experiences a conditioned reality in which 'things' are real to him, and in which there seems to be an 'everyday' world over here, and a 'Quantum' world over there. That is purely an illusion of the disrcriminating, discursive mind.

What the Buddha experienced was non-duality. For him, there was no 'this and that', no discriminations. Nirvana and Samsara are one.

You are clearly thinking in terms of duality, so you see two when there is really just one. The fact is that fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs fields are creating what you call the 'everyday' world, never mind the rules which only apply to their behaviors, but not to their natures.

Both are of the same nature. The five aggregates are empty of inherent nature; sub-atomic particles are virtual, rendering all of physical 'reality' virtual as well. Sunyata applies to ALL phenomena.

The Buddha was not fooled by mere appearances. That is why what he experienced can be called Enlightenment.

 

[godnotgod]

No, we what we experience are the effects of gravity. What we experience is Newtonian mechanics, not quantum mechanics. You clearly still haven't grasped the principle of different rules at different scales. The rules governing behaviour are different at different scales, whether it be very large ( cosmological ), everyday or very small ( sub-atomic ).

The Buddha did not experience Newtonian nor Quantum mechanics; he wasn't concerned with different rules and scales; he was concerned with the universal nature of all things.

In the mind of a buddha, large and small are relativistic and dual. His focus is beyond all dualities.

This seems vaguely Buddhist, but how is it relevant here?

Again, if there is no individual self, as the Buddha discovered, the only alternative is universality; ie: Universal, or Cosmic Consciousness.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The Buddha did not experience Newtonian nor Quantum mechanics; he wasn't concerned with different rules and scales; he was concerned with the universal nature of all things.

Actually the Buddha was concerned with the problem of suffering, not metaphysical speculation. He was concerned with human experience, not with atoms and quarks.

By trying to conflate Buddhist teachings and quantum mechanics you are misrepresenting both.

 

[`mud]

About Buddha...he died about 400 BC didn't he ?
Amazing what he knew in those days, even before atoms existed ! :>)
But bellies and their buttons were in vogue.
What could he have known about anything ???
That was some of the largest gnosis that ever existed !
I sure don't get it, I'm likely missing something here !
~
'mud

 

[godnotgod]

Actually the Buddha was concerned with the problem of suffering, not metaphysical speculation. He was concerned with human experience, not with atoms and quarks.

By trying to conflate Buddhist teachings and quantum mechanics you are misrepresenting both.

Excuse me.

First of all, the understanding of the nature of Reality has nothing to do with metaphysical speculation. Enlightenment is a transformative experience, not an idea, belief, or speculation of any kind.

Secondly, in order to understand the nature of suffering, one must understand the nature of Reality. It is the nature of Reality which illuminates the causes of suffering. The ordinary human experience is incapable of this understanding because it is immersed in duality and is karma-driven, the source of suffering itself.

Thirdly, 'human experience', in the eyes of the Buddha, is suffering. In order for the Buddha to understand the nature of suffering, he had to transcend both joy and suffering. IOW, he had to go beyond human experience. In doing so, he realized his own Enlightenment. What did his Enlightenment tell him about the nature of Reality? That things do not possess an inherent abiding nature; that they exhibit emptiness.

The Buddha did not know about quarks and atoms, but the nature of Reality applies to them nonetheless. Today, Quantum physics, in discovering the virtual nature of mass, is essentially confirming what the Buddha discovered about the nature of Reality. The difference between what science says and what the Buddha says, is that the Buddha is looking at something that is already in place before the something that science is looking at. He didn't have to have specific knowledge about quarks and atoms in order to tell us what their nature is. To understand the true nature of Reality is to understand the nature of ALL things.

There is no conflation going on here except for that within your own mind.

Do you deny that the Quantum world fully underpins the world of human experience, even though most humans are unaware of it?

 

[Thief]

Understanding reality without contemplation toward God .....
seems a contradiction in terms to me.

 

[godnotgod]

Understanding reality without contemplation toward God .....
seems a contradiction in terms to me.

Isn't that true only for those who believe in a God separate from Reality?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

About Buddha...he died about 400 BC didn't he ?
Amazing what he knew in those days, even before atoms existed ! :>)

The Buddha was primarily concerned to solve the practical problem of suffering, and had a very pragmatic approach. He often discouraged the kind of speculative discussion we see in threads like this one.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But anyway, returning to the OP, are we any clearer about what energy is?

Did we decide whether consciousness is a form of energy?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Understanding reality without contemplation toward God .....
seems a contradiction in terms to me.

So do you think of God as being energy?

 

[Thief]

Dark energy.

Yeah I know....sounds odd.
but science is looking for the Greater Portion and seems to be catching on.
science decided on the term.

But as Creator of light....I doubt if God is in the 'dark'.

 

[Thief]

Isn't that true only for those who believe in a God separate from Reality?

Well scripture does speak of 'separation'.

and without the ability to do so on a personal level....
we follow our substance into the ground and the eternal darkness of the grave.

 

[godnotgod]

Actually the Buddha was concerned with the problem of suffering, not metaphysical speculation. He was concerned with human experience, not with atoms and quarks.

By trying to conflate Buddhist teachings and quantum mechanics you are misrepresenting both.

Do you deny that the Quantum world fully underpins the world of human experience, even though most humans are unaware of it?

 

[godnotgod]

The Buddha was primarily concerned to solve the practical problem of suffering, and had a very pragmatic approach. He often discouraged the kind of speculative discussion we see in threads like this one.

Yes he did. But Enlightenment, as I pointed out, is not any sort of speculation at all. It was his Enlightenment which allowed him to see into the nature of Reality and hence, of suffering. The 'nature of Reality' would include ALL of Reality, including the underlying 'Quantum' world. This is not speculation. We know this to be true.

 

[godnotgod]

Well scripture does speak of 'separation'.

A God separate from Reality must be out of his mind.

 

[godnotgod]

About Buddha...he died about 400 BC didn't he ?
Amazing what he knew in those days, even before atoms existed ! :>)
But bellies and their buttons were in vogue.
What could he have known about anything ???
That was some of the largest gnosis that ever existed !
I sure don't get it, I'm likely missing something here !
~
'mud

The Buddha wasn't concerned with facts about Reality; he was concerned with the nature of Reality that lay behind the facts. The discovery of facts occurs along a timeline; the nature of Reality is the same at all times.

 

[godnotgod]

I sure don't get it, I'm likely missing something here !
~
'mud

You're probably missing it because you still think there is something to 'get'.

There is nothing to get; nothing to grasp. Reality itself is ungraspable.

Maybe what you seek is to be found in letting go, rather than in trying to 'get' something.

Reflect on this: that which is causing you to seek may be the very thing you seek.

 

[Thief]

A God separate from Reality must be out of his mind.

naw....He is just waiting for you to form yours.