How to become Godlike!

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

A study of physics would clear up your speculation. And you change this concept into a reality through meditation.

Has the concept of everything being energy any practical value?

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Has the concept of everything being energy any practical value?

Have you read "The Field"?

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Would you kindly clarify what 'kind of thinking' are you actually referring to here? Did you agree with Angela's opinion that my thinking was 'delusional and dangerous' or was it your opinion that Angela was describing her own thinking, as was my opinion?

Sorry man. I was just giving Angela a hard time. I'm sure your thinking is perfect for you! Seriously.

That's what I get for interrupting a perfectly good thread with tangential sarcasm.

[Angela]

I love your tangential sarcasm, Ecce Homo. I think if there's a god, he's tangentially sarcastic. Plus he interrupts a lot. I am becoming more and more convinced that you are god.

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by Angela

I love your tangential sarcasm, Ecce Homo. I think if there's a god, he's tangentially sarcastic. Plus he interrupts a lot. I am becoming more and more convinced that you are god.

Thou art my first apostle to the masses then. (This is the part where you fall off your donkey after seeing "the light", change your life, misinterpret my teaching and lead millions of people astray for generations to come...)

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Has the concept of everything being energy any practical value?

In a world where we are constantly seeking sources of energy, I would say yes that concept has quite a bit of practical value.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Ecce Homo

Sorry man. I was just giving Angela a hard time. I'm sure your thinking is perfect for you! Seriously.

That's what I get for interrupting a perfectly good thread with tangential sarcasm.

No worries, I get it. Perhaps I am too serious sometimes.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

Have you read "The Field"?

Could you give a bit more info, please?

Mercuryrising: In a world where we are constantly seeking sources of energy, I would say yes that concept has quite a bit of practical value.

Are humans a source of this universal energy or just the product?

[pianoperformer]

I don't understand. Who cares if everything is energy? I think more correctly, everything has energy. But it's no metaphysical abstract thing.

[MyEyeIsOpen]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

I don't understand. Who cares if everything is energy? I think more correctly, everything has energy. But it's no metaphysical abstract thing.

That's the right attitude, I think. Everything is energy. Ok, yawn, now what. Everything that exists is "normal" -- it is you, who cannot perceive this, who is abnormal!

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Are humans a source of this universal energy or just the product?

What do you think?

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

I don't understand. Who cares if everything is energy? I think more correctly, everything has energy. But it's no metaphysical abstract thing.

What is matter made up of?

And yes, it does have philosophical implications. Just because you refuse to look for those implications doesn't mean they don't exist. Is it possible for you to respect other people's perspectives while giving your own?

And since, this has become another exercise in circular logic, I'm done.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

What is matter made up of?

Um, atoms. Atoms are made of particles that only have a probablistic chance of being in a given location. That's about as far as those implications go, though.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

And yes, it does have philosophical implications. Just because you refuse to look for those implications doesn't mean they don't exist.

Hmm, a bit over-defensive just because I'm pointing it's not as abstract and new-agey as one might like? Your idea of energy is different from the scientific idea of energy. Which is fine, but it means that the scientific idea doesn't support your philosophical idea.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Is it possible for you to respect other people's perspectives while giving your own?

I don't see how I did anything different. Simply trying to say that the scientific perspective was misstated. You're free to hold any philosophical perspective you like, but currently science doesn't support it.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

And since, this has become another exercise in circular logic, I'm done.

*looks around* Where's the circular logic?

Just trying to bring it back to earth.

[fellowtraveler]

[QUOTE=Maguru;231783]Could you give a bit more info, please? [QUOTE]

Maybe I'm not following the discussion properly, but the book "The Field" has some very interesting ideas about energy and practical applications..

[Davidya]

There's a very curious thing about frameworks of human development.
There is great value in understanding and in verification of experience. Being able to see our progress. But equally, our ideas of it often become the last barrier to being it.

Any division of the development process is arbitrary as growth is an evolution, punctuated with certain key changes.

Each of us has a unique path home. For some, such frameworks are meaningless. For those more in the mind, there is a need for such clarity. But always remember, in the end it must be cast off because what is true is beyond mind and all concepts of it.

Truth cannot be described as it is beyond form and features. There are many names for it but none describe it. One can only be it. Everything else is a story.

"Rule #1. Don't believe me. But learn to listen...what I'm telling you is just a story... it is true just for me. But if you learn to listen you will understand what I am trying to communicate."
-- Don Miguel Ruiz

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Um, atoms. Atoms are made of particles that only have a probablistic chance of being in a given location. That's about as far as those implications go, though.

Right. There constantly in motion. How do they move? What is the cause of the motion?

Hmm, a bit over-defensive just because I'm pointing it's not as abstract and new-agey as one might like? Your idea of energy is different from the scientific idea of energy. Which is fine, but it means that the scientific idea doesn't support your philosophical idea.

I'm defensive for reasons far beyond this thread. It's apparently that time of the month for me, so please let it slide.

You don't 'know' me. Your assumption that I'm am being 'new agey' is a bias in your thinking which is no more rational than any bias that I hold.

Science sees energy as something affecting matter. On closer inspection, the matter that is being affected is energy itself.

I don't see how I did anything different. Simply trying to say that the scientific perspective was misstated. You're free to hold any philosophical perspective you like, but currently science doesn't support it.

Here is my basis. Please, tell me where I have gone wrong. The universe begins as a large mass of energy. The big bang happens. Now that ball of energy is spread out among the cosmos as galaxies, stars, etc. Those stars have various particles of dust which form planets. On this particular planet, they formed us along with everything else in nature. So, everything in the universe that is matter is energy.

*looks around* Where's the circular logic?

Just trying to bring it back to earth.

As I said, it's that time of the month.

The circular logic I am referring to is that no one really knows how the universe began. No one knows whether there is a creator behind it all. No one knows what happens when we die. Yet when someone presents an idea of an answer, people tear it apart with logic and presume themselves better than the person that presented the idea. I find it irritating. As if you and others on this forum do not have your own beliefs and ideas. It's the sense of superiority. It is circular in the sense that we still are no closer to an answer through reason... yet, we'll spend another 17 pages of Steve's website discussing it.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Has the concept of everything being energy any practical value?

Yes ... It is essential for passing your high school physics exam.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Right. There constantly in motion. How do they move? What is the cause of the motion?

Energy, of course. But what's it matter?

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I'm defensive for reasons far beyond this thread. It's apparently that time of the month for me, so please let it slide.

You don't 'know' me. Your assumption that I'm am being 'new agey' is a bias in your thinking which is no more rational than any bias that I hold.

Fair enough. But it seems like you have an odd view of energy, because you think it has some significance, when really it doesn't. Energy is simply the capacity for a physical system to do work. I just don't see the big deal in this.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Science sees energy as something affecting matter.

Affecting matter? Maybe a property of matter, but I don't know about affecting matter.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

On closer inspection, the matter that is being affected is energy itself.

Um...I still have to disagree. I'm pretty sure energy is not matter. Matter has energy. Just like if you eat food, you have energy, but you are not energy.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Here is my basis. Please, tell me where I have gone wrong. The universe begins as a large mass of energy.

You keep thinking of energy as matter. I don't know what was in the big bang, and I know it had a great deal of energy, but I don't think it was energy.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

The big bang happens. Now that ball of energy is spread out among the cosmos as galaxies, stars, etc. Those stars have various particles of dust which form planets. On this particular planet, they formed us along with everything else in nature. So, everything in the universe that is matter is energy.

See above.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

As I said, it's that time of the month.

The circular logic I am referring to is that no one really knows how the universe began. No one knows whether there is a creator behind it all. No one knows what happens when we die. Yet when someone presents an idea of an answer, people tear it apart with logic and presume themselves better than the person that presented the idea. I find it irritating. As if you and others on this forum do not have your own beliefs and ideas. It's the sense of superiority. It is circular in the sense that we still are no closer to an answer through reason... yet, we'll spend another 17 pages of Steve's website discussing it.

Like I said, it doesn't matter to me what philosophical perspective you hold. I will correct you though when you misuse science to support it.

[Davidya]

Pianoperformer - you criticize someone for the misuse of science when you don't know the basics. Certainly there is new age abuse of science. But where do you think the A bomb arose? Converting matter into energy.

E=mc2 Energy is matter in motion. They are essentially interchangeable. Matter rises from energy. Matter has energy and can be turned back into energy. We could say matter and energy are different values of the same thing.

You can see the world as matter with energy as the ability to do work, influence matter. Or you can see the world as energy, with portions in states of matter. Just consider how a particle can be seen as a particle (matter) or a wave form (energy). Science studies the world from various perspectives all the time.

But energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy can be controlled and directed. Working with energy is much more powerful and effective than working with matter.

The Big Bang was energy, from which matter was formed. Stars are energy furnaces that form the elements. Energy forms matter.

As for what caused the Big bang, what happens after death, is there a Creator - these are not questions science can answer as they are beyond the field of energy and matter. To answer those questions, you have to study the container of energy and matter. Ask people who study that level of existence. And there are answers, beyond philosophic opinions. But they require their own type of science and research, beyond mind.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

What do you think?

I think it is possible we are all different forms of energy. I think there are four basic elements of earth, air, fire and water, that make up the whole. Each of these have the power to construct or destroy. As these elements come together in a suitable combination, a life form manifests.
Humanity relies on all four and it is possible we contain the same energies with the same properties of 'construction and destruction'. So I think we can, and do have this 'universal energy' and we do indeed use it.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Davidya

Pianoperformer - you criticize someone for the misuse of science when you don't know the basics. Certainly there is new age abuse of science. But where do you think the A bomb arose? Converting matter into energy.

E=mc2 Energy is matter in motion. They are essentially interchangeable. Matter rises from energy. Matter has energy and can be turned back into energy. We could say matter and energy are different values of the same thing.

You can see the world as matter with energy as the ability to do work, influence matter. Or you can see the world as energy, with portions in states of matter. Just consider how a particle can be seen as a particle (matter) or a wave form (energy). Science studies the world from various perspectives all the time.

But energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy can be controlled and directed. Working with energy is much more powerful and effective than working with matter.

The Big Bang was energy, from which matter was formed. Stars are energy furnaces that form the elements. Energy forms matter.

As for what caused the Big bang, what happens after death, is there a Creator - these are not questions science can answer as they are beyond the field of energy and matter. To answer those questions, you have to study the container of energy and matter. Ask people who study that level of existence. And there are answers, beyond philosophic opinions. But they require their own type of science and research, beyond mind.

I wrote to Fred Alan Wolf (Dr Quantum on what the bleep) on the subject of E=mc2. This was his reply.

Both time and space are non-constructible concepts. Certainly
E=mc² says something about both space and time in that it implies that
space and time form a continuum which means that what would be a spatial
extent for one observer, could be seen to be a temporal and spatial interval
for another.
In quantum physics we relate space and time to energy and
momentum in the sense that something that doesn’t change as time goes on
reflects a constant energy and something that doesn’t change as one moves
through space reflects a constant momentum.
In quantum physics energy is also related to frequency so something with a high mass would have a high frequency. When we look into the scale of things that happen we find that events occur naturally on a scale where the speed of light is one unit and Planck’s constant is also one unit. In this case both time and space scale as one divided by mass. Hence very small masses range over large distances and time intervals and large masses over smaller distances and time intervals. Writing ħ as Planck’s constant and c as the speed of light we have the space scale as ħ/mc and time scale as ħ/mc². If
something has zero mass, then both scales are infinite, hence light, which
has zero mass moves across the universe while electrons are confined to
atomic distances and quarks are confined to nuclear distances.
Oh, all concepts in physics are constructed so that we can agree on
what we mean by numerical measures. Hence what we mean by space and time is determined by how we agree to measure such intervals. I hope this
helps.

[Davidya]

Maguru
I would not forget space/eather as the 5th element. If you look at the 5 primary elements as fundamental qualities and review how they are understood in India (Mahabhutas), we discover they are the essential qualities of the 8 groups of a traditional periodic table of the elements, the atoms that make up the world. State, reactivity and so forth are all predicted. (groups determine the number of electrons in the outer orbit and thus reactivity)

The 5 elements are in turned formed by a combination of three "gunas". They can be seen as creation, maintenance and destruction, or clarity, energy and inertia. Perception causes them to go out of balance, resulting is qualities to manifest.

It's interesting that he refers to time and space as non-constructible concepts. Time and space are formed by the process of experience, in the subject-object relationship. As science leaves the subject out of its study, it cannot model them.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Like I said, it doesn't matter to me what philosophical perspective you hold. I will correct you though when you misuse science to support it.

Let me put this another way, because I certainly do not want to blaspheme the good name of science with my worldview. The only reason I mention something scientific is to relate it to what you know. It's not to deceive you.

Maguru stated that she saw no reason that in some other place we are all one or that there was this level of consciousness where we are one.

My point was simply that we are one right now because we are all energy. By energy, I do not mean "the capability of a physical system to do work". I mean the Logos.

The Logos is the Word of God. It is not a book. It is the universe. We are part of it. Some think of it as a song or symphony. You and I are like a single note or chord within this symphony. It's only constant is vibration or animation.

If you look at your self, other people or any object, you are never looking at the same thing twice. It's like looking at a river. When I talk about energy, I am talking about the flow of the river, which is the river itself.

The usage of levels of consciousness or inner planes is really just a set of guideposts. They aren't actually levels or different dimensions.

Btw, if you go to the center of every religion, you will find this is the true religion. Look here.

[Davidya]

MercusryRising
I would agree, except to clarify one thing. Universe is not Logos but rather arises from that. In some ways, we could say all we experience is Logos but it is more precises to say it arises from and is within.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by aKarma

Okay you Enlightenment Seekers,

I don't seek enlightenment, it seeks me;

To seek it, is to distance yourself from it.

[aKarma]

Originally Posted by Jamie

I don't seek enlightenment, it seeks me;

To seek it, is to distance yourself from it.

Don't worry about it...

I'll send it over tomorrow.

[Davidya]

Originally Posted by Jamie

I don't seek enlightenment, it seeks me;

To seek it, is to distance yourself from it.

Enlightenment is not a goal or state or thing. It cannot be sought, nor does it seek. It is merely a mental concept about something which is beyond mind.

So it would be better to say 'to seek it is to find illusion'. Same meaning but clearer.

It is Self that seeks to know Itself through the 'me'. Me cannot seek Self as Self is beyond the concept of me. Me can only grasp at concepts like 'enlightenment'.

This is how the spiritual journey is different from our usual efforts. There is nothing we can do to awake. Awakening is not about doing, it is about allowing what is, surrendering to the reality that already exists. The journey is a series of steps in allowing.

[Jamie]

Exactly so.

While ever the mind is mulling-over concepts such as enlightenment or spiritual journey; the (human) being, is infact only engaging in a form of mental masturbation.

I'll put my hand up and say guilty there!

To not even consider that enlightenment or spiritual journey, is even an issue, is I think, a better way.

I'm sure in Taoism, emptyness is the greatest virtue; but of course, even to think 'emptyness', that's not emptyness. So that the Tao that can be named (conceptualized) is not the real Tao.

[mercuryrising]

Apparently, I am reviving a very old idea of oneness...

Listening not to me but to the LOGOS it is wise to agree that all things are one. -- Heraclitus (535-475 BC)

From Wikipedia, also:

In Stoic philosophy, which began with Zeno of Citium c. 300 BCE, the logos was the active reason pervading the universe and animating it. It was conceived of as material, and is usually identified with God or Nature. The Stoics also referred to the seminal logos, ("logos spermatikos") or the law of generation in the universe, which was the principle of the active reason working in inanimate matter. Humans, too, each possess a portion of the divine logos

[Davidya]

Jaimie
Still, we must recognize that mind likes to make a story about things, try to work it out. Especially if mind is strong in the person.

If we try to deny the mind, this drive will become stronger. Then you have a battle for control.

Easier to give the mind a story but one that more closely matches reality than most. Like you describe. Then the mind is satisfied and more easily steps out of the way, allows us to allow. In the depths of allowing, we will find the truth for ourselves.