Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

69203Re: Antw.: [dsg] Q. Rupas, Ch 1, no 2

Expand Messages
  • TGrand458@aol.com
    Mar 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Robert

      In a message dated 3/5/2007 5:57:06 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
      rjkjp1@... writes:

      Dear TG,
      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
      much science.

      “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,
      Sterling, PA.)

      > And that there is no arisng and falling of matter or
      > mentality.
      > TG: No again. There is arising and falling of phenomena. (I do
      not claim
      > there is or is not matter however.)


      I thought you disagreed when the texts say that phenomena arise and
      pass away?

      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]
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic