There is a fifth element.

The element of fire represents the electrical signals through your nervous system along with the infrared radiation your body produces.

The element of earth represents the stability of your body thanks to your skeletal structure, it forms your shape. Brings you balance.

The element of water represents the fluid that allows for your body to function, the essence that powers your being.

And the element of air represents the oxygen in your lungs and blood.

But I’d like to add one more element. The spirit, or say, electromagnetism, as it is interlinked to our consciousness.

Our brains create a weak electromagnetic field. This is what allows us to be conscious. All magnetic fields are connected. Everything is one. Interlinked

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So fire and spirit are the same? Or do you not understand the electromagnetic spectrum?

    • 1 month ago
      Sentient ape

      Electro is fire

      Magnetic is spirit

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        But electricity, magnetism and infrared are all part of the same spectrum

        • 1 month ago
          Sentient ape

          Yes but they exist in categories. Megnetism is linked to consiousness but it’s not consiousness

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Electrical signals that you call fire are sent from the brain, anon…

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but I learned in biology class that its actually chemicals being sent between your neurons, not electricity, and not magnetic force either.
            Also can you imagine if your brain actually was magnetic? An MRI would literally kill you

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Its both

          • 1 month ago
            Inversion

            Weird I felt it beginning in the left hand and moving slowly up to the head through left shoulder, then going down to the solar plexus and right shoulders and right hand but very slowly like synchronizing with my low heart beat. But I don't know why that Energy was only in the upper body (hands, shoulder, head and solar plexus.)

            It feel like the same chill that get when you finish a show but instead of being cold, it's hot. It feel like a crystalized stream of fire.

          • 1 month ago
            Inversion

            >when you finish a show but instead of being cold
            finish a showER* but instead of being cold it's hot.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your heart is more electrically active than your brain, anon....

      • 1 month ago
        Inversion

        I though Earth / Hearth was magnetic? Then combining Magnetic and Electric give us Electromagnetism.

    • 1 month ago
      Denver

      What?
      Visible light is a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum; visible light is electromagnetic radiation, and the sun radiates light.
      Infrared is a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum as it has near infrared and far infrared frequencies (frequency of the oscillation of the electromagnetic field) /wavelengths; infrared radiation is also electromagnetic radiation.

      Fire emits both of the above portions of electromagnetic radiation. Hence why you feel heat and see with the light produced by fire. It therefore is created by electromagnetism. Something created by a more fundamental thing does not mean they are both the same. ... ??? Is the Earth the same as the Sun? No. So fire is not the same is electromagnetism or "spirit" as OP put it.

      Electricity and magnetism are two different forces, though they can work together. Electricity is a phenomenon that is recognized in lightning. Electricity's fundamental nature is created by electric charges.
      Electric charge is a nearly irreducible, or fundamental, property of elementary particles,
      there are only two: positive and negative charges; those are the only two electric charges.
      The elementary particles electrons, protons, and neutrons are subatomic particles; that is, they are smaller than atoms. Atomic particles are generally atoms that you find in atomic elements, like oxygen for example; in an atom of oxygen you will find a distinct configuration of protons and neutrons (atomic nucleus) and electrons. One atom of Oxygen always has 8 protons, 8 neutrons, and 8 electrons. A molecule on the other hand is composed of more than one atom, and water is the perfect example because it is made of oxygen and hydrogen atoms bonded together.
      Is the Air element therefore the Water element, just because oxygen can make water? No.

      Protons have a positive charge (+) always, Electrons have the negative charge(-) always, Neutrons have no charge. These three compose any one atom.

      1 / 3

      • 1 month ago
        Denver

        https://i.imgur.com/jwgWfZI.png

        Electromagnetism is a fundamental force caused by an electric field and a magnetic field traveling together.
        The Photon is yet another elementary particle, it is the force carrier particle of electromagnetism. It is what you will find carrying electromagnetic radiation of whatever frequency/wavelength, so you'd find it as/in radio waves, microwaves, infrared waves, visible light, ultraviolet waves, x-rays, gamma waves (these are all "light"). Photons are exchanged everywhere where there is matter, but they carry different amounts of energy depending on the frequency of the atomic particles. The Sun releasing visible light, heat, ultraviolet ratdation and also gamma radiation is an example of a celestial object composed overwhelmingly of elementary particles (mostly Hydrogen and Helium), which disperses Photons as carriers of that aggregate of electromagnetic radiation. The Sun is an electromagnetic giant.

        An electric charge (either + or - ) produces an electric field.
        An atom of oxygen has no overall electric charge because the number of protons and electrons cancel each other's charge out; it would be neutral or balanced, so it has no electric field.
        The magnetic field is created by electric charges when they move. There is such movement in electric current where electrons are flowing in one direction; on a smaller scale: the movement of electrons in atoms forming bonds or breaking bonds due to the nature of electric charges where like charges repel each other ( + and + or - and -) while opposite charges attract each other ( + and - ); oppositely [electrically] charged atoms will form bonds and electrons will move between atoms although those are usually short-lived and extremely small.
        Magnetic objects have a magnetic field and a magnetic pole. Electric current produces a magnetic field. Lightning is a discharge of electricity, a huge flow of electrons, moving electric charges with Photons to show and it can produce a magnetic field although briefly.

        2 / 3

        https://i.imgur.com/uJkgEO2.jpeg

        Continuing, about magnetism,

        "Magnetic fields are generated by the motion of electric charges... Electrons all have a fundamental quantum mechanical property of angular momentum, known as 'spin.' Inside atoms, most electrons tend to form pairs in which one of them is 'spin up' and the other is 'spin down,' or in other words their angular momenta point in opposite directions. In this case, the magnetic fields created by those spins point in opposite directions, so they cancel each other. However, some atoms contain one or more unpaired electrons, and these unpaired electrons create a tiny magnetic field. The direction of their spin determines the direction of the magnetic field... When a significant majority of unpaired electrons are aligned with their spins in the same direction, they combine to produce a magnetic field that is strong enough to be observed on a macroscopic scale. "

        Such as with iron that has become magnetized.

        But with electromagnetism you have a force in motion that is created by the moving electric field and magnetic field traveling together "through space as waves of ... radiation, with the changing fields mutually sustaining each other." The force you feel of such an electromagnetic wave is dependent on its energy which varies upon its frequency and it is (to be clear) going to be radiation that is within the electromagnetic spectrum.

        Now with OP's idea, I don't know how you want to go about judging what makes an Element.

        Maybe there is a hierarchy. I presume that, because certain foundational elements in Physics/Science create most of the elements that you indicate. Fundamental-to-derivative seems to be the nature of your elements, although maybe there is some wisdom about them all be fundamental but extrinsic to each other.
        If we're going about the most fundamental one, which would it be? Is it something already discovered but not found within all things? Or is it something new that you've found?

        3 / 3

        tl; dr

        no

        So fire and spirit are the same? Or do you not understand the electromagnetic spectrum?

        , they're not the same.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/jwgWfZI.png

        Electromagnetism is a fundamental force caused by an electric field and a magnetic field traveling together.
        The Photon is yet another elementary particle, it is the force carrier particle of electromagnetism. It is what you will find carrying electromagnetic radiation of whatever frequency/wavelength, so you'd find it as/in radio waves, microwaves, infrared waves, visible light, ultraviolet waves, x-rays, gamma waves (these are all "light"). Photons are exchanged everywhere where there is matter, but they carry different amounts of energy depending on the frequency of the atomic particles. The Sun releasing visible light, heat, ultraviolet ratdation and also gamma radiation is an example of a celestial object composed overwhelmingly of elementary particles (mostly Hydrogen and Helium), which disperses Photons as carriers of that aggregate of electromagnetic radiation. The Sun is an electromagnetic giant.

        An electric charge (either + or - ) produces an electric field.
        An atom of oxygen has no overall electric charge because the number of protons and electrons cancel each other's charge out; it would be neutral or balanced, so it has no electric field.
        The magnetic field is created by electric charges when they move. There is such movement in electric current where electrons are flowing in one direction; on a smaller scale: the movement of electrons in atoms forming bonds or breaking bonds due to the nature of electric charges where like charges repel each other ( + and + or - and -) while opposite charges attract each other ( + and - ); oppositely [electrically] charged atoms will form bonds and electrons will move between atoms although those are usually short-lived and extremely small.
        Magnetic objects have a magnetic field and a magnetic pole. Electric current produces a magnetic field. Lightning is a discharge of electricity, a huge flow of electrons, moving electric charges with Photons to show and it can produce a magnetic field although briefly.

        2 / 3

        https://i.imgur.com/uJkgEO2.jpeg

        Continuing, about magnetism,

        "Magnetic fields are generated by the motion of electric charges... Electrons all have a fundamental quantum mechanical property of angular momentum, known as 'spin.' Inside atoms, most electrons tend to form pairs in which one of them is 'spin up' and the other is 'spin down,' or in other words their angular momenta point in opposite directions. In this case, the magnetic fields created by those spins point in opposite directions, so they cancel each other. However, some atoms contain one or more unpaired electrons, and these unpaired electrons create a tiny magnetic field. The direction of their spin determines the direction of the magnetic field... When a significant majority of unpaired electrons are aligned with their spins in the same direction, they combine to produce a magnetic field that is strong enough to be observed on a macroscopic scale. "

        Such as with iron that has become magnetized.

        But with electromagnetism you have a force in motion that is created by the moving electric field and magnetic field traveling together "through space as waves of ... radiation, with the changing fields mutually sustaining each other." The force you feel of such an electromagnetic wave is dependent on its energy which varies upon its frequency and it is (to be clear) going to be radiation that is within the electromagnetic spectrum.

        Now with OP's idea, I don't know how you want to go about judging what makes an Element.

        Maybe there is a hierarchy. I presume that, because certain foundational elements in Physics/Science create most of the elements that you indicate. Fundamental-to-derivative seems to be the nature of your elements, although maybe there is some wisdom about them all be fundamental but extrinsic to each other.
        If we're going about the most fundamental one, which would it be? Is it something already discovered but not found within all things? Or is it something new that you've found?

        3 / 3

        The Elements are not physical elements. The "physical world" is just a projection of experience, it has no 'objective' existence outside the mind. The Elements are metaphysical building blocks and have nothing to do with the specific 'game dynamics' of your experience.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Almost everything that you said was obviously the premise that I alluded to near the end of my post.
          Through logical deduction we can see:
          - Each of the The Elements signifies something.
          - They are elements because they affect everything else
          - If OP or anyone knew the logic behind why one of those siginificators was an Element, they wouldn't be guessing or they would have posted the correct Element or corrected OP by now; so we can assume no one who has posted here knows what the logic is behind the cause of an Element
          - An Element affecting or penetrating the world indicates that there is a structure or mechanism or operation which happens; meaning connected parts; meaning these Elements can be outlined by our use of reason.
          - If someone determined four Elements as metaphysical foundations, then that person must have discovered them by the use of reason; therefore, there is a logic
          - What is that logic? What determines an Element? When we find those answers, we can qualify whether OP's assertion would be factual. If there is no logically consistent answer to those questions, then we discovered that there is a flaw or that its all nonsense, that maybe there is no true order or structure governed by these supposed metaphysical building blocks.

          Almost everyone in this thread might have said what you said instead of you saying it, I think we're all on the same page here.

          But no one so far is investigating enough or giving more insight, to lead us to new knowledgeable conversation on the subject. Except maybe me.
          So anons, what are the principle by which Elements operate as elements? Maybe we can make some advances in this thread if someone can give a reasonable, insightful answer.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The 'logic' of the Elements is given by the intersection of two core metaphysical dualities:

            Staurus (vertical): holding/containing/possessing vs acting/moving/expressing
            Horus (horizontal): individuating/distinguishing/differentiating vs unifying/harmonizing/integrating

            This creates the 4 Elements:
            Fire: expressive differentiation
            Earth: possessive differentiation
            Water: possessive integration
            Air: expressive integration

            These Elements are operative at both the noetic and phenomenal levels. The 5th element, Aether, is the formless medium that constitutes the substrate of all being. It, and only it, exists at the noumenal level. It is called the Monad, Brahman, etc.

          • 1 month ago
            Denver

            Insightful. What principal or law governs the existence of the two core dualities?

            Each one of those two dualities has two main attributes. Either one set of attributes seems to have a pair of opposites. Instead of tackling why each Element represents the attribute that it does and how they each interact with each other or reside in their own boundaries, I'll focus on something more fundamental.

            1. What brought about the condition of a duality? Rather than there being a singularity, does anyone know?
            Your explanation of course has to make sense, or else we concede logic has its limit; the explanation will describe a mechanism, necessarily.

            If intersection occurs in the metaphysical side of things and it causes procreation, then clearly there is a logic at work there too because interaction of principles occurs here in the physical world as well. We have attraction/repulsion and integration/individuation functioning at the molecular level. and echoing out into the orbiting celestials of the solar system.
            These do not melt and form a new thing but retain their distinct forms as principles, if we will use that term, while interacting a we see their utilization of--or maybe an adherence to--other nonaffected and remaining matter/particles/specie to create more complex and minute conditions which also interact later on (see chemicals of earth for one example).

            The physical and metaphysical are equally intertwined, then. Or are the two core metaphysical dualities supposed to be separate and their intersected creation only affecting the metaphysical world?

            The first question is more important to answer, I can't spend too much time here today.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There are eight elements.
    bhūmir āpo ’nalo vāyuḥ
    khaṁ mano buddhir eva ca
    ahaṅkāra itīyaṁ me
    bhinnā prakṛtir aṣṭadhā
    >Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego – all together these eight constitute My separated material energies.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There are 7 actually.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Seems redundant

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    OP, you are a bit confused. If you would like guidance on the subject, might I suggest learning about the tetragrammaton if you wish to learn more about the elements and their effects on the human body

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    what happens if i hold a strong magnet to my skull? is it gonna suck out my consciousness/spirit?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In vedic traditions the fifth element is space (akasha), though this is better translated as aether. In the west this was interpreted as spirit, but the same understanding led to quantum field theory.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >though this is better translated as aether
      I'd say space is better. It is the element of sound and of dimension. The bridge halfway between gross and subtle, between the physical and the mental.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Space fails to encapsulate its full nature, as it is more than a bridge. Things pop into existence from seemingly from "nothing" into space all the time; it's part of a greater structure. A fundamental field based on a “pre-geometry” of dynamic cellular networks — huge graphs with internal dynamics similar to cellular automata — that exist beyond space-time, and from which the geometry of space-time is derived. This experience is a convergence of pre geometries building space, and this experience is wired into your brain through space.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >it's part of a greater structure.
          All material elements are part of a greater structure called the mahat-tattva. Nothing you said gives a reason to translate akasha as aether rather than space.
          If anything, your description shows you are not actually talking about akasha.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0011076
            I think there are just aspects to a quantum vacuum that you are missing. A bridge that builds itself to itself might be more apt.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >space-time
            So you agree with me.
            I think you are working backward and trying to apply terms from empirical materialism onto a very different framework.
            what you are trying to incorpoate into akasha is more properly categorized in manas and the subtle elements that your paper is categorically ignorant of.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Agree, disagree, as usual it's both and neither. Though the author of that paper, you should know, based it on the more subtle elements of our understanding of akasha. The purpose of the paper was to put that understanding into theoretical mathematical terms in order to gain more insight.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >based it on the more subtle elements
            The elements more subtle than akasha are manas, buddi, and ahankara.
            As I said - you are ascribing traits to akasha that are more properly understood to be other elements.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Twist my words if you must, the elements of understanding are not the elements of material.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Did not mean to twist, sorry I read wrong.
            But these more subtle understandings are exactly what I am telling you - that you are too stuck in empirical materialism to see that the traits you want to ascribe to one element properly belong to another.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm approaching this from a metaphysical perspective, not a material one. For me, a scientific understanding only supplements what came before. There is ever definition to be found in the pursuit of the objective after all - it is knowledge, not experience.

            Have you considered the experience of space, rather than our experience of it? Nothing is more subtle than its presence, and yet nothing more foundational. The discrepancy in experience is infinite, and yet a mirror to what we are.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Nothing is more subtle than its presence, and yet nothing more foundational.
            I wholeheartedly disagree. Akasha is the most subtle of the gross elements, but there are many more subtle things. Namely, the subtle material elements like manas buddi and ahankara.
            The scientific understanding will skew if used as a supplement because it categorically denies the more ephemeral aspects of material existence.
            This leads to ascribing traits of the more subtle elements onto the less subtle.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They may be more subtle in definition, but their presence is less so. This is clear to anyone who learns to dismiss their intellect.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >their presence is less so.
            Can you elaborate? I wouldnt agree, if I understand you correctly.
            >This is clear to anyone who learns to dismiss their intellect.
            A weird thing to say after trying to push such an empirical understanding as a counter to the more esoteric understanding I am giving you.
            I am not the one trying to use scientific terms and papers to amalgamate manas and akahsa together.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The experience of space cannot be dismissed, it is ever pervasive and in that regard more difficult to differentiate. It is also subjective in a way that the objective principles of the intellect. Yet, its experience is also immediate and embodied while the intellect is reactive analysis.

            >A weird thing to say after trying to push such an empirical understanding
            It's not strange at all. The first thing I spoke about was vedic texts. I then talked about their influence on modern science. You seem to think they are at odds with each other while I am showing how they are not.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The experience of space cannot be dismissed, it is ever pervasive and in that regard more difficult to differentiate.
            No one is dismissing the experience of space. What I am challenging is that you said it's presence is "more than", but I needed to know exactly what you are saying akasha has more of than the elements manas buddhi and ahankara.
            It is my understanding from this that you are saying your concept of space is more omnipresent than manas, buddhi, or ahankara?
            >It is also subjective in a way that the objective principles of the intellect.
            This is an incomplete sentence. In a way that the intellect is not? Is that how you would complete that?
            It is my understanding that ehre you are declaring your concept of space to be more subjective than the elements of manas, buddhi, and ahankara. Correct?
            >You seem to think they are at odds with each other
            No. I think the empirical materialism is at odds with Vedic understanding, and that using it will taint your understanding. They influence modern science, but you are working the other way. You are letting modern science and its limited understanding alter the more expansive and metaphysical understanding.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >your concept of space is more omnipresent than manas, buddhi, or ahankara?
            No, I said that the experience of akasha is more subtle than the four parts of the mind.

            >This is an incomplete sentence
            Yeah, sorry about that. I multi-task.
            >that the objective principles of the intellect disagree with

            >you are declaring your concept of space to be more subjective
            No, I specifically said that I wasn't talking about the nature of what is experienced, but rather the nature of the experience itself.

            >I think the empirical materialism is at odds with Vedic understanding, and that using it will taint your understanding.
            Empirical materialism is a lens of understanding at the heart of many mathematical calculations in the vedas. That spiritual understanding transcends such things is no secret, but that does not place it at odds.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the experience of akasha is more subtle than the four parts of the mind.
            Well now you are not talking of material elements at all.
            The experience of earth is more subtle than any material element as well.
            Experience is not a trait of the material.
            >four parts of the mind.
            Elaborate, please, but know I am leaving with my gf after this post so it'll have to be later ongiht or tomorrow for me to read.
            There are three subtle elements. Mind, manas is only one of them. And the way you use intellect later on makes me think you are falsely equating them.
            >the objective principles of the intellect disagree with
            So do you mean the element of intellect, which is nonsense - of course it is subjective and in no way disagrees with experience.
            Or do you mean the results of using intellect - which is the logical, objective observations you seem to be talking about.
            This is analogous to building a house out of clay and then declaring that earth has the trait of housing.
            >rather the nature of the experience itself.
            See above. You are not talking about material elements at all.
            >Empirical materialism is a lens of understanding at the heart of many mathematical calculations in the vedas.
            No, empirical materialism is an axiomatic claim that there exists nothing but what the senses can repeatedly, communicatively measure. You confuse scientific analysis with empirical materialism.
            > but that does not place it at odds.
            It does though, empirical materialism is a philosophical stance that categorically denies the spiritual.
            you can scientifically analyze the spiritual and subjective. You cannot claim their reality as anything but the result of objective, physical processes if you accept empirical materialism.
            Have a nice night. Stop working backward.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Experience is not a trait of the material.
            I never claimed it was. Experience is how we know the traits of the material however. The subjectivity of an experience belies limits on an objective understanding of that which is being experienced.

            >four parts of the mind.
            buddhi, manas, ahankara, and chitta

            >do you mean
            No. I mean that the process by which intellect operates is one that labels and differentiates through relational/observed correspondence. The formalization of this process is logic. It is inherently limited to objective conclusions by its nature of operation. Chitta on the other hand is inherently limited to subjective conclusions as it operates on a more fundamental level. This only makes its experience even less subtle. You know how people go on and on about revelations.

            >empirical materialism is a philosophical stance that categorically denies the spiritual.
            This is false. It is not a theory that inherently denies what it cannot prove, though people do take it there. Not all science is materialistic however, and the study I provided is a perfect example.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I never claimed it was.
            The argument was over the traits of akasha and whether the western term space or aether was a closer fit. Your argument was aether due to quantum traits. If you are now saying you were never talking about traits of the material elements, then your entire point of experience is irrelevant.
            >buddhi, manas, ahankara, and chitta
            Satr and cit are not material elements. Citta is a trait of brhaman or atman, depending on context.
            >? the process by which intellect operates is one that labels and differentiates through relational/observed correspondence
            Yes, that is buddhi, the discriminating principle.
            So you meant, as I said,
            >Or do you mean the results of using intellect - which is the logical, objective observations you seem to be talking about.
            >This is analogous to building a house out of clay and then declaring that earth has the trait of housing.
            >Chitta on the other hand is inherently limited to subjective conclusions as it operates on a more fundamental level.
            Citta does not come to conclusions. You are talking about manas.
            >This is false.
            Wrong.
            >Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things.
            >materialism is in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism

            >material elements
            There are no such things as "material elements" (or material anything) except as figments of the imagination. Nothing complex can exist outside the Mind, since Mind is the source of all manifestation of form, structure, and change.

            Thast all stems from consciousness does not mean that there are not categories named the material elements.
            >Nothing complex can exist outside the Mind
            You are using Mind as a stand-in for Self, which Vedic understanding rejects. Manas, mind, is another material element observed by Self.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You are using Mind as a stand-in for Self, which Vedic understanding rejects.
            False. In Advaita Vedanta, Neoplatonism, etc, only the One (Brahman, the Self, the Noumenon) has any absolute existence. All appearance of structure and form is purely a product of the dividing Mind. Noumenally there are no 'objects', only the One.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >only the One (Brahman, the Self, the Noumenon) has any absolute existence
            Correct, which is why your use of Mind here was rejected.
            >purely a product of the dividing Mind.
            No. Mind is not Brahman, Self, Noumenon. Mind is a material element. when you say all is Brahman, that is fine, but that does not translate to all is Mind, just as it doesnt translate to all is Earth.
            If you wish to insist that you can equate manas with Brahman, then the entire categorization breaks down and again the entire argument becomes irrelevant.
            That is fine, that stance is correct, but it means nothing in terms of what is being discussed, which is the different traits of the material elements.
            Our discussion is on a lower level than the Absolute.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Mind is not Brahman, Self, Noumenon.
            That is what I am telling you, but you're not paying attention. Nous (Mind) is only the intellection of the Monad, not the Monad itself. I repeat my earlier point: Nothing complex can exist outside the Mind. Nothing with any form or structure can exist outside the Mind. The only reality outside the Mind is the Monad itself. Nothing whatsoever can exist outside the Monad, by definition. So the distinction you are missing is between existence outside the Monad (which is impossible) and existence outside the Mind (which is possible only for the Monad itself).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That is what I am telling you, but you're not paying attention.
            You are the one equating manas to Brahman, not I.
            >Nothing complex can exist outside the Mind.
            Wrong. Manas is a creation of mahat-tattva which is a manifestation of Brahman.
            You keep trying to equate something on a relative plane to the Absolute.
            Absolute plane of consideration does not enter into this discussion at all.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And you may use platonic terms all you wish, but what that says to me is you feel more comfortable talking in those terms, and thus you dont have the same intuitive understanding of akasha.
            And if you remember, this entire thing is about whether akasha is better translated as space or as aether.

            You keep attributing to me the opposite of what I say plainly. Brahman is the sole reality and is simple not complex. All complexity is concept-bound and thus mind-bound. It doesn't matter whether you use terms from Advaita or Plotinus. The ultimate reality is a formless unity of being-awareness.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You keep attributing to me the opposite of what I say plainly.
            No, I attribute exactly what you say. you keep equating mind to Brahman by saying nothing exists outside manas when this is not true.
            Ahankara is more subtle than manas.
            Manas is the element of mind.
            >Brahman is the sole reality and is simple not complex.
            The Absolute is irrelevant to the discussion about the traits of elements.
            >All complexity is concept-bound and thus mind-bound.
            There is a reason i keep saying manas and not mind.
            That reason is your insistence on weaseling into another concept.
            We are not talking about your western notion of "minmd".
            We are tal;king about the element of material reality manas, along with the other elements like akasha.
            >The ultimate reality is
            Completely irrelevant to the traits of the elements.

            You keep running away to talk about the Absolute level.
            You have completely abandoned the argument about akasha and its traits.
            If you are unable to go back to actual topic, I wont respond again.

            The actual topic is whether the traits of the element akasha warrant it being translated as space, or as aether.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >No, I attribute exactly what you say. you keep equating mind to Brahman by saying nothing exists outside manas
            False. Reread the thread. Nothing COMPLEX exists outside Mind because only Brahman exists outside Mind, and Brahman is not a complex. Brahman is the noumenal reality wherein no distinction between subject and object is recognized.

            >Ahankara is more subtle than manas.
            Both are functions and thus inventions of the Mind. All conceptual distinctions are inventions of Mind. Mind is the only agent of conceptual distinction.

            >The Absolute is irrelevant to the discussion about the traits of elements.
            The Absolute is relevant to everything since it is the only 'thing' that ultimately exists. All other 'things' are conceptions of Mind.

            >There is a reason i keep saying manas and not mind.
            Because you keep trying to change the subject. Manas is only one function of Mind (Antahkarana), indeed the lowest function. Antahkarana, the totality of Mind, is the means by which the Oneness of Brahman is expressed in manifold form. There is no manifold outside Mind because it is an invention of Mind.

            >We are not talking about your western notion of "minmd".
            Mind is not a "western notion", it is universal. What is not universal is your dualistic musings that presuppose a division between subject and object.

            >We are tal;king about the element of material reality manas
            There is no such thing as "material reality". There is only Brahman, the whole Self. There is nothing material 'outside'.

            >Completely irrelevant to the traits of the elements.
            >You keep running away to talk about the Absolute level.
            >You have completely abandoned the argument about akasha and its traits.
            I haven't made any claims about Akasha in this thread. The Elements constitute the building blocks of the manifold, which again has no existence outside Mind.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Nothing COMPLEX exists outside Mind
            This is incorrect. Buddhi and ahankara are more subtle and give rise to manas.
            >The Absolute is relevant
            The discussion begins and demands a relative position, otherwise there is no conception of elements nor their distinction.
            It is irrelevant to this discussion and I refuse to deviate away from the point.
            Akasha is better translated as space, rather than aether.
            >I haven't made any claims about Akasha in this thread.
            Then you are completely ignoring the discussion.

            In vedic traditions the fifth element is space (akasha), though this is better translated as aether. In the west this was interpreted as spirit, but the same understanding led to quantum field theory.

            >In vedic traditions the fifth element is space (akasha), though this is better translated as aether.

            >though this is better translated as aether
            I'd say space is better. It is the element of sound and of dimension. The bridge halfway between gross and subtle, between the physical and the mental.

            >I'd say space is better.

            This is the discussion I am interested in. Please engage with that, or make your own thread.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Buddhi and ahankara
            They are both functions of Antahkarana, aka the Mind.

            >Akasha is better translated as space
            But not space in any physical sense. It is the formless interval that provides the conscious substrate to all manifest form.

            >Then you are completely ignoring the discussion.
            No, I am making the simple point that Elements are products of Mind.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You have to understand anon, some people like playing with toys.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They are both functions of Antahkarana, aka the Mind.
            Incorrect. See

            https://i.imgur.com/C92FWc1.gif

            >There are no supernatural forces, souls, undead beings, spirits or giant conspiracies hiding things we cannot imagine right under the surface of what we can see.
            Samkhya also rejects anything supernatural, though it does start with an understanding of energy and the energetic, actor and acted upon, force and the forceful as being the root of existence.
            But it rejects anything outside of the observable and material. No atman and no brahman.

            >But not space in any physical sense.
            And ijncorrect. Akasha is literally space, in the physical, dimensional sense. It is the sky within which air is contained.
            > I am making the simple point that Elements are products of Mind.
            Which is irrelevant to the discussion of what is a better translation of akasha.
            your point comes from foolishly equating manas with your translated conception of capital M Mind.
            Whatever you are thinking of, it is not manas.
            Your confusion on this has led you very astray in understanding Vedic notions of the elements.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >material elements
            There are no such things as "material elements" (or material anything) except as figments of the imagination. Nothing complex can exist outside the Mind, since Mind is the source of all manifestation of form, structure, and change.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Can you tell me more about manas buddi and ahankara?
            I want to learn all about them.

            Would you explain each in as much detail as you can.
            Also do you have any recommended reading or videos to learn about them?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Works better in reverse, for as other anon said - all stems from Self and works down. This is in direct contrast to Materialism and its idea of everything building up from base matter.
            As Self has citta, awareness, and becomes aware of its unaware parts (material energy), a false identity arises. "I come from that energy, rather than that energy comes from me. I am separate from that which I observe."
            This is akasha, false ego. From this stems all identity with the temporary. I am this body. I am this mind. I am of this nation. I am of this religion. Anything after the "I am" and modifying (limiting) it, essentially.
            From this false identification, we develop discrimination. I will accept this and reject that due to my identities. My sense of self will determine my understanding of correct and incorrect.
            From this discrimination, manas, mind, the quantum paradox of instant attraction and instant aversion. As we observe, immediately the mind develops reasons to want and reasons to hate which the buddhi, the discriminating intellect, will choose from.
            but these are how we observe and interact with these elements. They have their own interactions as well, such as manas interacting with akasha to create virtual particles. A positive and a negative suddenly popping into existence, just as it does in our brains.

          • 1 month ago
            Open Sesame

            Nothing is more delusional

    • 1 month ago
      Inversion

      Interisting

      Could be nothing but In Sumerian Anu created two sons:
      > Enlil
      Night
      > Enki
      Life
      > In Hebrew Lil (Night) and Ki (Life) give Light.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >brains create a weak electromagnetic field. This is what allows us to be conscious
    Nah.

  9. 1 month ago
    Red Robin

    >5th Element
    My cum

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. It´s called Aether.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    that immage is slightly wrong. the bottom two are earth and water. becayse they are at the bottom. the next 2 is air and fire wich are above

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Fire = decoherent interactivity
    Earth = decoherent materiality
    Water = coherent materiality
    Air = coherent interactivity

  13. 1 month ago
    Denver

    Electromagnetism is a fundamental force caused by an electric field and a magnetic field traveling together.
    The Photon is yet another elementary particle, it is the force carrier particle of electromagnetism. It is what you will find carrying electromagnetic radiation of whatever frequency/wavelength, so you'd find it as/in radio waves, microwaves, infrared waves, visible light, ultraviolet waves, x-rays, gamma waves (these are all "light"). Photons are exchanged everywhere where there is matter, but they carry different amounts of energy depending on the frequency of the atomic particles. The Sun releasing visible light, heat, ultraviolet ratdation and also gamma radiation is an example of a celestial object composed overwhelmingly of elementary particles (mostly Hydrogen and Helium), which disperses Photons as carriers of that aggregate of electromagnetic radiation. The Sun is an electromagnetic giant.

    An electric charge (either + or - ) produces an electric field.
    An atom of oxygen has no overall electric charge because the number of protons and electrons cancel each other's charge out; it would be neutral or balanced, so it has no electric field.
    The magnetic field is created by electric charges when they move. There is such movement in electric current where electrons are flowing in one direction; on a smaller scale: the movement of electrons in atoms forming bonds or breaking bonds due to the nature of electric charges where like charges repel each other ( + and + or - and -) while opposite charges attract each other ( + and - ); oppositely [electrically] charged atoms will form bonds and electrons will move between atoms although those are usually short-lived and extremely small.
    Magnetic objects have a magnetic field and a magnetic pole. Electric current produces a magnetic field. Lightning is a discharge of electricity, a huge flow of electrons, moving electric charges with Photons to show and it can produce a magnetic field although briefly.

    2 / 3

  14. 1 month ago
    Denver

    Continuing, about magnetism,

    "Magnetic fields are generated by the motion of electric charges... Electrons all have a fundamental quantum mechanical property of angular momentum, known as 'spin.' Inside atoms, most electrons tend to form pairs in which one of them is 'spin up' and the other is 'spin down,' or in other words their angular momenta point in opposite directions. In this case, the magnetic fields created by those spins point in opposite directions, so they cancel each other. However, some atoms contain one or more unpaired electrons, and these unpaired electrons create a tiny magnetic field. The direction of their spin determines the direction of the magnetic field... When a significant majority of unpaired electrons are aligned with their spins in the same direction, they combine to produce a magnetic field that is strong enough to be observed on a macroscopic scale. "

    Such as with iron that has become magnetized.

    But with electromagnetism you have a force in motion that is created by the moving electric field and magnetic field traveling together "through space as waves of ... radiation, with the changing fields mutually sustaining each other." The force you feel of such an electromagnetic wave is dependent on its energy which varies upon its frequency and it is (to be clear) going to be radiation that is within the electromagnetic spectrum.

    Now with OP's idea, I don't know how you want to go about judging what makes an Element.

    Maybe there is a hierarchy. I presume that, because certain foundational elements in Physics/Science create most of the elements that you indicate. Fundamental-to-derivative seems to be the nature of your elements, although maybe there is some wisdom about them all be fundamental but extrinsic to each other.
    If we're going about the most fundamental one, which would it be? Is it something already discovered but not found within all things? Or is it something new that you've found?

    3 / 3

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No.
    Elemental correspondences and reasons behind them were already explained in various traditions, and usually relate to fundamental powers of universe or spiritual associations of them.
    You reinventing the wheel and making it square at that won't help anyone just because you've made another set of associations.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing but delusions
    There are no supernatural forces, souls, undead beings, spirits or giant conspiracies hiding things we cannot imagine right under the surface of what we can see. Reality is cold and driven purely by power, intelligence, determination and manipulation. There is no hidden meaning, no destiny, no reason to live. Reality is both a giant playground for us to explore and progress in, but also an arena for us to fight in for our false ideologies. If you fail at life, you will never find anything to hold on to. No aliens, no haunted houses, no spirits, no demons to fight. You're only fighting with your own delusions, and desperately trying not to hit the absolute bottom. Now try to prove me wrong, if there really is anyone still treating this paranormal shit seriously.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >if there really is anyone still treating this paranormal shit seriously
      No. You don't deserve it just on account of being wrong. I have experiences to the contrary and if you don't maybe it's for some reason. Not everyone has or perhaps even should be anything but a biological automaton, their whole existence limited to a role of NPC for others to interact with.

    • 1 month ago
      Inversion

      > Nothing but delusions
      I wish it was true

      But I have too much synchronicity in my life to believe there is nothing but only physics.

      > 2 day ago
      > went to grocery store
      > didn't watch what I've been buying how many nor for how much.
      > checkout
      > Apps was saying : Wanna round to 72euro to help some association?

      If this isn't paranormal, what is it?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >There are no supernatural forces, souls, undead beings, spirits or giant conspiracies hiding things we cannot imagine right under the surface of what we can see.
      Samkhya also rejects anything supernatural, though it does start with an understanding of energy and the energetic, actor and acted upon, force and the forceful as being the root of existence.
      But it rejects anything outside of the observable and material. No atman and no brahman.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >See
        >Akasha is literally space, in the physical, dimensional sense.
        Both assertions just out you as a dualist. Space and time do not exist in Advaita Vedanta or any other form of monistic idealism.
        >what is a better translation of akasha
        It's probably not "space" since that word connotes physical space, which does not exist. Akasha is the infinite potentiality of awareness, not anything that can be quantified.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The element of fire represents the electrical signals
    >But I’d like to add one more element. The spirit, or say, electromagnetism
    mh

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    And you may use platonic terms all you wish, but what that says to me is you feel more comfortable talking in those terms, and thus you dont have the same intuitive understanding of akasha.
    And if you remember, this entire thing is about whether akasha is better translated as space or as aether.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Anon, this is something that has been foundational for a very long time, how did you miss it? Quintessence/Aether/Akasha etc

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Lmao thats frickin gay

    Thats like that heart homosexual on captain planet

    Useless

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if you actually did your research you would know that both Chinese and Indian elemental systems are base-five

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It becomes quite obvious the core mind is not created by physical processes in the universe. You're not just a bunch of subtle and nonlocal forces using the brain as a transceiver. That's the mind, which your core awareness also uses. It's a vessel.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >monad

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I know. It's an entertaining one. Although, like most, it was based on another work - 80s animated indie Heavy Metal. It might be just as good as fifth element.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *