Alan Watts on "Ex nihilo nihil fit"

[godnotgod]

Such a one is a non-conscious intelligence formalized from chaos to produce the virtual reality that we experience, but you will reject the idea not based on understanding but on your bias beliefs that never require validation. I at least call for the validation of my ideas before they can be accepted as fact, but you call that ego.

Perdon`, Right Honorable Professorre Beyondo, but are you saying that your theory of the universe is validated fact, and that you alone possess the answer which all modern astrophysicists and mystics alike have lusted after all this time?

 

[godnotgod]

This site, eAnveshan, also gives the value for a nimesha as 3.2/15 sec, or 0.21333 sec, which yields the correct calculation for the speed of light:

1 Day-Night = 30 Muhurta = 24 Hours
1 Muhurta = 30 Kala = 24/30 Hours
1 Kala = 30 Kastha = 24/900 hours = 1.6 minute
1 Kastha = 15 Nimesha = (1.6/15) min = 3.2 seconds
1 Nimesh = 3.2/15 = 0.21333... second

A Nimesh is therefore equal to 16/75 seconds. (0.21333)
If you calculate the value is,

(2202*9 miles)/((16/75)/2 sec) = 185793.75 miles/sec

Which is nothing but speed of light (Scientific value is 187372 miles)

Speed of Light Explained in Ancient India | eAnveshan
************************************

I am through with this little sidetrack of the discussion. It was just an added tidbit anyway. It does appear that the original reference to the Hindu calculation of the speed of light does contain an error, and it probably amounts to a misplaced decimal point or something akin to half or double the intended value, but since we have numerous other references to the value of a nimesha being 0.21333 sec, and not the erroneously derived value of .533 sec which Beyondo calculated from what appears to be an erroneous value to begin with. That a nimesha is .533 sec is nowhere to be found. Therefore, I am satisfied with the value set at 0.21333 sec, and will now close this part of the discussion, unless Beyondo has anything pertinent to add.

 

[godnotgod]

More on 'Nothingness':


"Existence and nonexistence are only relative to each other and pertain only to the world of the conditioned – absolute (nonrelative) being was thus denied. Still, there is nirvana, absolute reality, the unconditioned, which transcends such relative categories as existence and non-existence. Nirvana is the unmanifest source, yet is not a substance at all – it is only Nothing. Emptiness (sunyata) is not "a stuff out of which all things are," Robinson writes.

"Rather, it is the fact that no immutable substance exists and none underlies phenomena."

This emptiness is a "descriptive law," not a "substantial entity". It is nothing at all. The world of phenomena (samsara) is a phantom that is conjured up by a phantom (maya). "These phantoms exist" only "insofar as they appear and act, but inexist insofar as they are insubstantial and impermanent." Nirvana is changeless, permanent, yet not "substantial in any sense. It is dependent coarising, sunyata, that is the process of change". Emptiness of all things is the fact of Nirvana, which is itself nothing.
Here we must carefully distinguish between terms. Nonbeing and being are dialectically interdependent, relative terms. Nothing has usually been confused in the West with nonbeing, though in the east it is seen differently. Nonbeing is "parasitic" on being; it is a negative term deriving its meaning from the positive. But in the east, nothing is what gives meaning to the positive in the first place, as we shall see later. Absolute nothingness is what is meant by "nothing" or "nothingness" or "no-thingness." (Although the latter term is somewhat derivative from the idea of "thing" and "thingness," I use it only because I am used to thinking of things, and like most westerners I can best understand Nothing in relative terms, all the while keeping in mind that this is not an exact understanding – but only an experiential understanding is a true one, so that all conceptual understanding is necessarily inexact.) Absolute nothingness is thus distinct from relative nothingness or mere nonbeing (which is, again, parasitic). Thus the westerner Paul Tillich understands nothing only as derivative nonbeing:

'Nonbeing is dependent on the being it negates…. The ontological status of nonbeing as nonbeing is dependent on being. The character of the negation of being is determined by that in being which is negated.'

Yet we must allow that not all of our sources use these terms strictly, and it is necessary to understand what is meant by their terms. For instance, Alan Watts writes:

"Whether one looks longingly toward 'non-being' (wu) or cultivates 'emptiness' (sunyata), the principle involved is the same".

Nothingness (wu-i-wu) is the same as emptiness (sunyata) and is true "purity" for Hui-neng. According to D. T. Suzuki,

"It is the negation of all qualities, a state of absolute non-ness" yet is not misconceived as a separate entity outside of a perceiver engaged in "the pure act of seeing."

This "seeing" is quintessential To Zen. It is satori – seeing into one's inner, true nature – and thus "seeing into the ultimate nature of things" – perceiving the true Mind. This seeing is termed chien-hsing ("to look into the nature [of the mind]"). Seeing is also called Prajna (wisdom), or at least seeing is with the "eye of Prajna" and Prajna is what enables one to see. Prajna allows one to grasp sunyata, the emptiness of all things, and is itself "knowledge of the highest order permitted to the human mind, for it is the spark of the ultimate constituent of all things." This ultimate constituent, the sine qua non, the quintessence, is hsing or Mind."

http://alangullette.com/essays/philo/nothing.htm

Watts statement that "out of nothing, comes everything" makes sense in the context of all phenomena being empty, all phenomena being illusory manifestations of the Absolute, or maya. This idea that reality is not what it seems is also being confirmed by modern science as it looks into the subatomic level, where particles do not conform to ordinary conceptual thought about what we think of as real. The connection of phenomena as illusory to the Absolute is summed up by John Dobson, astronomer, in the following statement:

"The Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space, and causation. Time, space, and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen, and when It is seen on the lower side, It appears as the Universe. So not only is the Universe apparitional, it's the Absolute seen through time and space, and that allows us to understand why the physics of the Universe takes the form that we see.

That the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about the Absolute. Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because division and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it. Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements. If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

 

[Beyondo]

Perdon`, Right Honorable Professorre Beyondo, but are you saying that your theory of the universe is validated fact, and that you alone possess the answer which all modern astrophysicists and mystics alike have lusted after all this time?

Again you're not listening! Is English a second language for you? As I said in a previous post learn to read and reread the post that you're quoting. Better yet read the thread regarding the theory and you will find the answer to your question.

Hinduism and Buddhism are dead, they don't allow for any new ideas they perpetuate the same dogma, rejecting reductionist approaches. Had Hindus not rejected reductionist thinking and validated their claims they would have developed technologies that would have conquered the world! But this lesson in history proves one thing; Philosophies that do not mandate validation through repeated and varied experimentation will fall to meager heights of simply building temples. A society doesn't need to have knowledge of particles, energy, wavelengths, etc to build temples. If that's all Hinduism and Buddhism can muster in the physical world most would or will be disappointed...

 

[Beyondo]

This site, eAnveshan, also gives the value for a nimesha as 3.2/15 sec, or 0.21333 sec, which yields the correct calculation for the speed of light:

1 Day-Night = 30 Muhurta = 24 Hours
1 Muhurta = 30 Kala = 24/30 Hours
1 Kala = 30 Kastha = 24/900 hours = 1.6 minute
1 Kastha = 15 Nimesha = (1.6/15) min = 3.2 seconds
1 Nimesh = 3.2/15 = 0.21333... second

A Nimesh is therefore equal to 16/75 seconds. (0.21333)
If you calculate the value is,

(2202*9 miles)/((16/75)/2 sec) = 185793.75 miles/sec

Which is nothing but speed of light (Scientific value is 187372 miles)

Speed of Light Explained in Ancient India | eAnveshan
************************************

I am through with this little sidetrack of the discussion. It was just an added tidbit anyway. It does appear that the original reference to the Hindu calculation of the speed of light does contain an error, and it probably amounts to a misplaced decimal point or something akin to half or double the intended value, but since we have numerous other references to the value of a nimesha being 0.21333 sec, and not the erroneously derived value of .533 sec which Beyondo calculated from what appears to be an erroneous value to begin with. That a nimesha is .533 sec is nowhere to be found. Therefore, I am satisfied with the value set at 0.21333 sec, and will now close this part of the discussion, unless Beyondo has anything pertinent to add.

You conveniently ignore the heading "Smaller Units of Time Used in the Vedas" on the very site you referenced that define a nemisha. Under that heading a nemisha is different when based on the truti that is 1/1687.5 second. Your very own reference confirms the numbers I used to calculate a nemisha.

So the nemisha of .533 second is not erroneous and there are two values for a nemisha, one that's convenient and one that is not...

 

[godnotgod]

Again you're not listening! Is English a second language for you? As I said in a previous post learn to read and reread the post that you're quoting. Better yet read the thread regarding the theory and you will find the answer to your question.

Hinduism and Buddhism are dead, they don't allow for any new ideas they perpetuate the same dogma, rejecting reductionist approaches. Had Hindus not rejected reductionist thinking and validated their claims they would have developed technologies that would have conquered the world! But this lesson in history proves one thing; Philosophies that do not mandate validation through repeated and varied experimentation will fall to meager heights of simply building temples. A society doesn't need to have knowledge of particles, energy, wavelengths, etc to build temples. If that's all Hinduism and Buddhism can muster in the physical world most would or will be disappointed...

Ha! Ha! Ha! Conquer the world, my arse! Your tiny Big Brain still does not get it. You value the pursuit of knowledge ahead of understanding, and that is what lead to using technology for aggression, as Watts so eloquently pointed out.

You need to study Taoism a bit, so you can see how the soft overcomes the hard. You are still dealing with appearances, and are impressed with show rather than substance. India is one of the greatest spiritual nations on earth and may well prove to be the world's salvation from itself and the conquering brutish tendencies of others.

If Buddhism is dead, then why are people turning to it more and more? It is because it nourishes where others fail.

You, like the juvenile that you are, are still outwardly oriented. You fail to understand that it is spiritual growth that makes a people, not its glitter of technologies. The difference between the two mentalities is astronomical.

 

[godnotgod]

You conveniently ignore the heading "Smaller Units of Time Used in the Vedas" on the very site you referenced that define a nemisha. Under that heading a nemisha is different when based on the truti that is 1/1687.5 second. Your very own reference confirms the numbers I used to calculate a nemisha.

So the nemisha of .533 second is not erroneous and there are two values for a nemisha, one that's convenient and one that is not...

I already told you: there is an error in what you base your calculation on. Forget it, OK? Don't you see that the majority of references are to the value of 0.21333 sec, especially the one from the book on metrology, which I trust most of all. Use that one instead.

Since the heading "Smaller Units of Time Used in the Vedas" is identical in the site I referenced and in the Wictionary site you referenced, one of them took the information from the other and replicated the error for the value of a truti [(1/1687.5 sec) * 100trutis *3vedhas*3lava] rendering a nimesha as .533 sec, as you calculated. All other sites indicate the value of a truti as being 16/75 sec rendering a nimesha as 0.21333 sec.

Addendum:

Somewhere, someone made a miscalculation. I am not a mathematician, but if you take the value of .533 and multiply it by 4, you get 2.132, which is nearly identical in numbers to 0.2133, the correct value for a nimesha. Of course the decimal point is off, but that must account for part of the error.

 

[Beyondo]

I already told you: there is an error in what you base your calculation on. Forget it, OK? Don't you see that the majority of references are to the value of 0.21333 sec, especially the one from the book on metrology, which I trust most of all. Use that one instead.

In that case if a truti is 16/75 as you state then:

a vedha is 100 trutis.
a lava is 3 vedhas.[1]
a nimesha is 3 lavas, or a blink.

That would make the nimesha [(16/75)*100*3*3] = 192 seconds!

Again your ignore the inconsistency of your references. Get OVER that!:jiggy:

 

[godnotgod]

In that case if a truti is 16/75 as you state then:

a vedha is 100 trutis.
a lava is 3 vedhas.[1]
a nimesha is 3 lavas, or a blink.

That would make the nimesha [(16/75)*100*3*3] = 192 seconds!

Again your ignore the inconsistency of your references. Get OVER that!:jiggy:

You are partially correct, but only in that you replicated MY mistake: a truti is not 16/75 sec: a nimesha is, which translates to 0.21333 sec, the correct value to arrive at the speed of light, as follows:

1 Day-Night = 30 Muhurta = 24 Hours
1 Muhurta = 30 Kala = 24/30 Hours
1 Kala = 30 Kastha = 24/900 hours = 1.6 minute
1 Kastha = 15 Nimesha = (1.6/15) min = 3.2 seconds
1 Nimesh = 3.2/15 = 0.21333... second

A Nimesh is therefore equal to 16/75 seconds. (0.21333)
If you calculate the value is,

(2202*9 miles)/((16/75)/2 sec) = 185793.75 miles/sec

Speed of Light by Sayanacharya ( 1400 A.D.) in his statement on Rigved

Note that the method of calculation to arrive at the value of a nimesha in this example is the reverse (descending) of the others I cited (ascending), but which still leads to the same value of 0.21333 sec for a nimesha, thereby confirming the accuracy of the value for a nimesha as being 0.21333 sec.

Now YOU get over it! Story end!:jiggy:

 

[Beyondo]

You are partially correct, but only in that you replicated MY mistake: a truti is not 16/75 sec: a nimesha is, which translates to 0.21333 sec, the correct value to arrive at the speed of light, as follows:

1 Day-Night = 30 Muhurta = 24 Hours
1 Muhurta = 30 Kala = 24/30 Hours
1 Kala = 30 Kastha = 24/900 hours = 1.6 minute
1 Kastha = 15 Nimesha = (1.6/15) min = 3.2 seconds
1 Nimesh = 3.2/15 = 0.21333... second

A Nimesh is therefore equal to 16/75 seconds. (0.21333)
If you calculate the value is,

(2202*9 miles)/((16/75)/2 sec) = 185793.75 miles/sec

Speed of Light by Sayanacharya ( 1400 A.D.) in his statement on Rigved

Now YOU get over it! Story end!:jiggy:

StateMaster - Encyclopedia: Hindu units of measurement
Diccionario Enciclopedico Vaishnava Nº 3 - Hindu units of measurement
Hindu units of measurement - VisWiki
http://books.google.com/books?id=pH...&resnum=5&ved=0CBAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Show the same nimesha referenced by the truti of 1/1687.5 which you say is incorrect.

This site has yet a even different translation of a nimeha in seconds.
वेद Veda: Vedic Time System

Here's an article which indicates my suspicion that the so called "Hindu science" is a product of those trying to validate the religion with science:

Postmodernism, Hindu nationalism and `Vedic science':* MEERA NANDA

 

[godnotgod]

I am settling on the fact that the value for the nimesha as being 0.21333 sec is identical both from an ascending and a descending method of calculation. This alone is an indication that the value is a correct one.

As I also mentioned, the value for a truti as being 1/1687.5 sec, when translated to the value for a nimeshi, yields a figure of .533, and which, if multiplied by 4, yields a figure of 2.132, which is suspiciously close in number to the value of the nimeshi as being 0.21333

I am not sure what is going on here, but there is obviously something neither of us understand on its surface. I did run across some information that there may be two different systems of calculation involved, one earlier and one later, and, depending on which the author of the Rig Veda was attributed to his having utilized, we would derive differing figures.

I am satisfied, for the time being, with the value of 0.21333 as a valid one. If you wish to pursue it further, be my guest, but I am done. I want to return to the main topic, as this has been a diversion.

 

[Kay]

All dualities are, therefore, relative one to the other. One cannot exist without the existence of the other. Simply put, they are two halves of the same singular reality, a reality that is always One.

I thought you might appreciate this article.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Who's better to explain this topic than the man himself....[youtube]dLrMVous0Ac[/youtube]

YouTube - Alan Watts - On Nothingness

 

[Beyondo]

Who's better to explain this topic than the man himself....[youtube]dLrMVous0Ac[/youtube]

YouTube - Alan Watts - On Nothingness

Alan's claim that western science view space as nothing is completely wrong. QM predicted that the vacuum of space would have energy and it has been verified. Relativity views space as a manifold. No reputable scientist today views space as nothing.

On another note: The notion of unconsciousness being a polarity of consciousness is wrong. The unconsciousness of neurons are in reality a form of intelligence, just like any system of patterns or cycles made of inanimate matter. Unconsciousness, as Alan states, is doing consciousness but consciousness is just a form of intelligence. Meaning that processes that are non-conscious can and do produce conscious intelligence. Its not the peak and trough of conscious to unconscious states, but the degree of sophistication of unconscious processes that determine if consciousness can be produced.

You know I need to get a Britsh accent, it would make life a whole lot easier...LOL

 

[godnotgod]

I thought you might appreciate this article.

Yes, thank you for that. I had a brief look, and will read all later. The problem comes when the world is seen as only dual, without the dual nature being an aspect of Oneness. So, it is not a question of duality vs. singularity, but understanding that duality is two halves of the same reality.

More comment later.

 

[ericoh2]

Alan's claim that western science view space as nothing is completely wrong. QM predicted that the vacuum of space would have energy and it has been verified. Relativity views space as a manifold. No reputable scientist today views space as nothing.

Lets say you ask someone how important the five dollar bill he has in his pocket is to him. He says well I have a lot of money put away so the five dollars is nothing at all to me. Now a couple days later this same man goes to the store, pays for his groceries, comes home and realizes the clerk shorted him five dollars from his change. He gets angry and drives back to the store and complains to the manager shouting and red faced. Do you think this man really understands that five dollars really has no value to him?

The idea of "nothing being something" isn't deeply enough engraved into our consciousness so that we approach life with this understanding (at least not in the West as Alan was saying.) There may be some theory about it in science but I don't think that was his point.

 

[Beyondo]

The idea of "nothing being something" isn't deeply enough engraved into our consciousness so that we approach life with this understanding (at least not in the West as Alan was saying.) There may be some theory about it in science but I don't think that was his point.

I believe that modern global "nerd" philosophical thinking has come to an interesting venue and that is the notion of emergent behavior and the meta physical. In essence what is intelligence? If we try and measure it all we find are bits and pieces of inanimate matter with no contextual relation to the intelligence that emerges from it. Such intelligence is not physical! It is the intent of the machine that makes it what it is but that intent is not of a physical nature. So too is consciousness an emergent product of inanimate matter. Consciousness is not physical yet it must be emulated by something physical and yet the physical is never aware that it is producing consciousness. The experience of our minds is a form of virtual reality. Our emotions are merely electro-chemical signals that when measured are completely devoid of the intent of how they affect. We feel not because there are neurons firing electrical pulses and releasing chemicals. We feel because of how neurons are connected to produce the intent of emotions.

The brain is physical but the mind is the non-physical theme of a cataclysmic symphony of molecules.

 

[godnotgod]

I believe that modern global "nerd" philosophical thinking has come to an interesting venue and that is the notion of emergent behavior and the meta physical. In essence what is intelligence? If we try and measure it all we find are bits and pieces of inanimate matter with no contextual relation to the intelligence that emerges from it. Such intelligence is not physical! It is the intent of the machine that makes it what it is but that intent is not of a physical nature. So too is consciousness an emergent product of inanimate matter. Consciousness is not physical yet it must be emulated by something physical and yet the physical is never aware that it is producing consciousness. The experience of our minds is a form of virtual reality. Our emotions are merely electro-chemical signals that when measured are completely devoid of the intent of how they affect. We feel not because there are neurons firing electrical pulses and releasing chemicals. We feel because of how neurons are connected to produce the intent of emotions.

The brain is physical but the mind is the non-physical theme of a cataclysmic symphony of molecules.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word became flesh."

The human problem lies in self-remembering. When that occurs, there is Enlightenment. When Enlightenment occurs, one realizes that there is no self that is enlightened; that is conscious: there is only Enlightenment itself; only consciousness itself. This consciousness reveals the Oneness of Reality, and in that Oneness, there is no physical vs. non-physical, because there is no thought, no concept that is formed about reality being one or the other. There is only the realization of reality as it actually is.
*********************

Q: Can you get reincarnated as a soul?
Deepak Chopra: Wisps of memory and threads of desire, which are specks of information, latch onto specks of consciousness and show up as recycled human beings. But in the bigger picture, the observer, the observed, the process of observation, is a single reality.
Q: So... Deepak Chopra, as my friend Chopra... doesn't exist?
Chopra: A transient behavior of... the total universe.

 

[godnotgod]

On another note: The notion of unconsciousness being a polarity of consciousness is wrong. The unconsciousness of neurons are in reality a form of intelligence, just like any system of patterns or cycles made of inanimate matter. Unconsciousness, as Alan states, is doing consciousness but consciousness is just a form of intelligence. Meaning that processes that are non-conscious can and do produce conscious intelligence. Its not the peak and trough of conscious to unconscious states, but the degree of sophistication of unconscious processes that determine if consciousness can be produced.

Quite the contrary: I would say it is the degree of simplicity, not sophistication, that determines manifestation, and the simplest of all things is nothingness.

You are adding too much into the picture.

Think of both peak and trough as on/off phases, or pulses, of consciousness. In other words, as the Buddha found out by fathoming the 'unconscious', that it is all conscious.

So too, is the universe manifested in 'on/off' phases. Now you see it; now you don't, but it is always there, like the light bulb is always there, but there is no light until the switch is flipped.

Listen again to what Watts is actually saying:

"We should'nt really contrast existence with non-existence. The unconscious is, so to say, the part of experience which is doing the conscious, just as the trough manifests the wave, the space manifests the solid, the background [field] manifests the figure."

or, to put it another way:

"Everything comes out of nothing."

 

[godnotgod]

Alan's claim that western science view space as nothing is completely wrong. QM predicted that the vacuum of space would have energy and it has been verified.

So what is the background against which that energy is understood as energy?