Death is an illusion

Aupmanyav said:
Michael Jamal Brooks was an American talk show host, writer, left-wing political commentator, and comedian.
How come Jamal in his name? Something that he adopted in Turkeye or a conversion?
What was the knowledge and authority of Michael Brooks to comment on the work of Krauss?
Click to expand...
Wrong Michael Brooks.

The Michael Brooks refrred to is a New Scientist physics consultant. He holds a PhD in quantum physics, and works as an author, journalist and broadcaster. He is a host of the Eureka! podcast and the author of numerous books, including The Maths That Made Us and the bestselling 13 Things That Don't Make Sense.

He's the Michael Brooks I cited from the link you provided for A Universe from Nothing - Wikipedia – he, along with other commentators listed on the page, were somewhat underwhelmed by the claims Krauss made.
 
Thomas said:
Wrong Michael Brooks.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. This Michael Brooks has the qualifications. I like what he did to Tredinnick.
Good that people like him are around. Science needs them.

Kabir said:
"Nindak niyare rakhiya aangan kuti chhavaay, bin pani, sabun bina, nirmal kare subhaay."
(Keep the critic close, let them have a hut in the courtyard; they can without soap or water, purify our views.)

But still, 'something from nothing' it is growing to become a more prevalent explanation (as I quoted in my previous post).
And it is in line with what the 'Nasadiya Sukta" said in RigVeda 3,000 years ago.
"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."

Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

Rig Veda, tr. by Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1896], full text etext at sacred-texts.com
sacred-texts.com

Thought experiments are not a new thing, but this person, mentioned as 'Prajapati Parameshthi', was as close as one could be.
 
Last edited:
Aupmanyav said:
But still, 'something from nothing' it is growing to become a more prevalent explanation (as I quoted in my previous post).
Click to expand...
The theory has its supporters, and as such it stands.

Your atheism, reasoned on theories such as this, come across as reasonable and rational, I have no problem with it.

It's your 'lack of evidence' drum that's unscientific, unreasonable and illogical, that's all ... any good scientist will point out your error there.

Aupmanyav said:
And it is in line with what the 'Nasadiya Sukta" said in RigVeda 3,000 years ago.
"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."

Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

Rig Veda, tr. by Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1896], full text etext at sacred-texts.com
sacred-texts.com
Click to expand...
As a theist, I have no objection with that .... and as you probably know better than I, it can be interpreted in a theistic sense ...

... in fact, can you advise a good English translation?
 
:D We have talked about elephants in cupboards.
Thomas said:
... in fact, can you advise a good English translation?
Click to expand...
There are two which I use for RigVeda. Ralph Griffith at Sacred-Texts.com and Wisdom Library. Excellent, clear and unbiased.
Ralph Griffith (raḥmatu -llāhi ʿalayhū) gives the text and translation for the whole hymn on clickable two pages. At wisdom Library, each verse has a page (word meanings, more details).
 
Last edited:
Aupmanyav said:
I wonder if you understand the relationship of matter to energy (the famous E=m x c squared)! They are one.
In Hinduism, moral practices (dharma) are societal requirements, they do not depend on belief. Nothing gradual about it.
Non-duality has no God, it does not depend on a God's pleasure (grace). Nothing fishy or 'tantric' about it. It is a clear declaration.
You are That, So am I. (Tat twam asi, So aham) enunciated by Upanishads more than 2,500 years ago.
Click to expand...
I agree with non-duality as more real than divided reality. But that does not mean that the lesser reality of divided matter is only an illusion. The boulder that is about to fall on one’s head is very real and the hard and heavy boulder is different and separate from the human at risk of being crushed. And so too does energy by itself act differently than a thing just being matter, even though matter has energy in it and energy has matter in it. A person consumed by bitterness is different and separate from a person who is overflowing with love. The bitter person is cut off from the more abundant Love.
Transcending duality requires that it be included in non-dual Ultimate Reality. Otherwise the two levels of reality remain more separated than if one or the other are denied. But it is a dynamic symmetry that works best when it leans to the non-dual. In that point, I think you and I are in agreement. The distinctions between matter and energy may be useful as a bridge to connecting with the deeper, more real, non-duality.
 
otherbrother said:
The distinctions between matter and energy may be useful as a bridge to connecting with the deeper, more real, non-duality.
Click to expand...
I think, if I understand this correctly, that I'm more in agreement with @Aupmanyav – 'matter' and 'energy' are not two sides of the duality, they are just different states of the same thing.

From a physical point of view I can see the matter/energy distinction, but from a spiritual viewpoint they belong to the same category.

Spirit, pneuma, is not energy in any quantum sense.
 
Thomas said:
I think, if I understand this correctly, that I'm more in agreement with @Aupmanyav – 'matter' and 'energy' are not two sides of the duality, they are just different states of the same thing.

From a physical point of view I can see the matter/energy distinction, but from a spiritual viewpoint they belong to the same category.

Spirit, pneuma, is not energy in any quantum sense.
Click to expand...
I did a mind exercise while running yesterday. I imagined being at the base of physical being (the matter me), as though in continuous incarnation. Between the “God” or deep Unknown zone and the physical zone. Since it was my mind doing the imagining or autogenic visualization (feelings in there also), I noticed or interpreted it as seeing being—the mind seeing my being. The Hindu distinction of Purushna (sp?) vs Moshca (sp?) later came to mind. But today in church it was potential vs actuality. Then I refined it to seeing/mind at deepest part of my recentering, then intermediate seeing of “potential” as the beneath part of physical being. While potential is more like energy (“capacity for doing work”), it is more attached to my physical being than seeing/consciousness/mind. But also in between mind and matter. So it may be only academic where you place potential. Mind fountains/flows into potential/energy, which in turn flows into body/matter. Doesn’t matter where potential is placed, as long as a person learns to use it in order to more abundantly be (greater “quantum coherence,” maintaining more quantum wave function?).
All in all I was acting through the concept of “projection” or fountain flowing deep and wide. I was being out of the box (body), with a higher ratio of potential (in relation to actuality) than usual. A dynamic symmetry leaning towards potential.
Then I recalled an earlier concept of doing the Hegelian “dialect” (or is it “dialectal?”) in the “key” of synthesis, in which the antithesis is so immediately partnered with new growth that death hardly has any meaning other than opening into potentiality, and perhaps also into Mental intending (the Word?). The fountain flows from mind to energy to matter. Yes, all just different states of Ultimate Reality but navigation between them requires acceptance of their differences. All pat of learning to be IN the physical world, but not OF it.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Both are just configurations/forms of energy and molecules.
Click to expand...
When looking into the veil or nothing here. Nothing here is not a heaven or a hell it is just a space where time(energy and molecules) will find time when they are no longer here and can become yourself. There are five layers of nothing here that time(energy and molecules) must collect in order to become something there all the time. The more time a mind has the more real it becomes, even enough that you can see and feel them.

They can rip time apart and reassemble it in moments. There are things so badly done no one wants to know anything about anything here as you are assembled and then ripped apart again and again. minds rip us/things apart because we/they are not them and yet they will allow some time inside of them if it can teach them things. Death is not an illusion nor is life and illusion in my book.

regardless of how we are forms of energy or molecules we still experience, and for the most part we are experiencing the same things as people go within a very small margin or deviation. All I am saying is whether your energy or molecules are arranged here or there they are yours until this universe becomes something again.

powessy
 
otherbrother said:
You seem to use “figure itself out” as a positive thing, but being mysterious, beyond words and regular understanding may be spiritual and something worth bringing about intentionally so we don’t take our own existence and life for granted
Click to expand...
Minds are not us they are themselves they allow us to find time inside of them to become ourselves. If I was to stand inside of a box they would be the box and everything that I have found time to put into it. If we are not inside of the box/themselves then we will be inside of ourselves at the end of our life. I have moved over fields and fields of ourselves inside of ourselves people that will never become themselves first.

How long it takes to figure something out is almost a standard for time in the veil, How much time does it take to figure something out? how much time will it take if you CAN figure things out all the time, and how much time if you don't know anything about anything at all, or CAN'T figure things out., or you find time right now to figure things out(death). These three thoughts are the first things they will try to figure out.

powessy
 
otherbrother said:
.. Moshca (sp?) ..
Click to expand...
In Hindu philosophy, several terms are associated with the concepts of moksha (liberation) and enlightenment. Here are some key words:
  1. Moksha - The ultimate goal of life in Hinduism, representing liberation from the cycle of birth and rebirth (samsara) and union with the divine.
  2. Nirvana - Often used in a broader context, it signifies the state of liberation and freedom from suffering, commonly associated with Buddhism but also referenced in Hindu texts.
  3. Kaivalya - A term that denotes absolute independence and liberation, often used in the context of yoga and the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta.
  4. Samadhi - A state of intense concentration and meditation, leading to a profound realization of the self and unity with the universe.
  5. Brahman - The ultimate reality or cosmic spirit in Hinduism, realization of which is often equated with enlightenment.
  6. Atman - The individual soul or self, which is believed to be identical with Brahman in the state of enlightenment.
  7. Jivanmukti - Refers to a state of liberation while still living, where one is free from the bondage of karma and the cycle of rebirth.
  8. Siddhi - Refers to spiritual powers or accomplishments that can be attained through meditation and spiritual practice, often associated with enlightenment.
Chat-GPT
 
powessy said:
minds rip us/things apart because we/they are not them ..
Click to expand...
We are what mind makes us up.
powessy said:
How long it takes to figure something out is almost a standard for time in the veil, How much time does it take to figure something out? how much time will it take if you CAN figure things out all the time, and how much time if you don't know anything about anything at all, or CAN'T figure things out., or you find time right now to figure things out(death). These three thoughts are the first things they will try to figure out.
Click to expand...
It takes just one moment to tear the veil, if one abandons prejudices.
 
Siddhi: or just achievement of one's purpose. Siddha: One who has achieved his purpose (whatever it may be).
Sadhya: The purpose which is to be achieved. Sadhan: Process or tool used to attain Sadhya.
Root: dha, 'dhakara' as it is known in Sanskrit, same which forms 'dharma' or 'dharati' (Earth).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top