69203Re: Antw.: [dsg] Q. Rupas, Ch 1, no 2
- Mar 5, 2007Hi Robert
In a message dated 3/5/2007 5:57:06 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
I'm no expert on science views but isn't energy a type of matter?
TG: What does "matter" mean to you Robert? As I said, I don't claim there
is "matter" in the traditional sense. I think its all energy (movement) and
just "appears to us" as matter. I call it "firmness" ... the earth element.
I believe its a temporary balance of coalescence (water element) and
dispersion (air element).
Einstein, as I have understood the quote, said that mass (not using the term
matter) and energy were the same stuff. Based on my "independent" analysis
of the Four Great Elements, I came to the same conclusion without knowing
“There is no essential distinction between mass and energy. Energy has mass
and mass represents energy. Instead of two conservation laws, we have only
one, that of mass-energy.”
(Albert Einstein . . . Einstein and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings, pg. 102)
“It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are
both but different manifestations of the same thing – a somewhat unfamiliar
conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m
c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of
the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted
into very large amounts of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were
in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned before. This was
demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally.”
(Albert Einstein . . . from the soundtrack of the film, Atomic Physics.
Copyright J. Arthur Rank Organization, Ltd., 1948. Image Brown Brothers,
> And that there is no arisng and falling of matter or
> TG: No again. There is arising and falling of phenomena. (I do
> there is or is not matter however.)______
I thought you disagreed when the texts say that phenomena arise and
TG: Nope. Not at all. I think phenomena are constantly moving. It is
this constant change which forces formations to rise, persist while changing,
and fall. "Rise and fall" is just a short hand way of saying this IMO. It is
just language trying to express a rather simple observation. To take it so
literally as to generate a theory of immediate rising and then immediate
passing away of "somethings" called rupas to me means the common sense
descriptions have been blown out of proportion.
I disagree with "rupas" theory. The so called "realities" are not things
that have their own essence.
Thanks for letting me clarify myself. If indeed I have? ;-)
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>