Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[godnotgod]

Self consciousness is merely a more complex form of interaction whereby a human or animal is capable of interacting with itself, its own brain and not with just the external environment as a tree or rock does.

The point is that of thinking about the interaction, as compared to just being at one with the interaction. The being at one with the interaction (I am using your vocab here to make this a little less painful) is the same thing as knowing, or consciousness.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Where do you see yourself separate from the Universe?

At the deepest level, I'm a Spirit, an individual point of awareness, that is experiencing things in realm (and others).

I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this, since Western religions and philosophies emphasize individualism and Eastern ones tend to present the Self as an illusion that is part of some greater whole. Furthermore, Luciferianism, Satanism and Setianism all push that individualism into overdrive, seeking to maximize this individuation.

 

[godnotgod]

I think you have an interesting view, but there is no way you can claim it as some absolute truth without evidence.

No, not with evidence, but with the direct experience itself. Evidence becomes necessary only if there is a need to prove something; in the spiritual experience, there is nothing to prove, nor anything to figure out.

 

[Runewolf1973]

How exactly am I "one with" or "integrated with" the universe? Yeah, my body is made up of "star dust", sure, but the flesh is just a vehicle that my Spirit is taking for a ride. Eventually it'll break down and my Spirit will move on to another one...if it feels like it. (I think I'll need a break after this go 'round.)

Consider that this universe started out as one. The Big Bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion. Therefore, the universe and everything in it is still one, but on a much greater scale. Nothing separated during that expansion, the one just got bigger.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No, not with evidence, but with the direct experience itself. Evidence becomes necessary only if there is a need to prove something; in the spiritual experience, there is nothing to prove, nor anything to figure out.

How does one go about directly experiencing this? I am interested.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Consider that this universe started out as one. The Big Bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion. Therefore, the universe and everything in it is still one, but on a much greater scale. Nothing separated during that expansion.

I don't tend to agree with the big bang theory and it hasn't been really proven, either. Physicists and cosmologists really don't know what's going on or what went on. It's part of what makes science fun.

 

[godnotgod]

At the deepest level, I'm a Spirit, an individual point of awareness, that is experiencing things in realm (and others).

But where is the separation from the Universe? Where does your 'point of awareness' leave off, and the Universe begin? The only thing that gives you the impression that you are separate is the "I", which is a self-created principle.

Do you see this individual spirit as the 'experiencer of the experience'?

I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this, since Western religions and philosophies emphasize individualism and Eastern ones tend to present the Self as an illusion that is part of some greater whole. Furthermore, Luciferianism, Satanism and Setianism all push that individualism into overdrive, seeking to maximize this individuation.

No, Eastern thought presents the Self as the Ultimate Reality. You're thinking of the self, the ego.

So who, or what, is this so-called 'individual' that thinks itself separate from the Universe?

 

[Desert Snake]

I need to know exactly what you're referring to before I can address anything. How the Western LHP defines "ego" and "self" are not necessarily the same as how Eastern religions and philosophies define it.

I gave a rough but adequate definition, in my description.
ie the description indicates the definition.
I'm sure you know what ''self'', means

 

[godnotgod]

How does one go about directly experiencing this? I am interested.

Listening. Stop the chatter of Monkey Mind.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I don't tend to agree with the big bang theory and it hasn't been really proven, either. Physicists and cosmologists really don't know what's going on or what went on. It's part of what makes science fun.

Indeed. That's just how I explain "oneness" in a somewhat rational manner.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But where is the separation from the Universe? Where does your 'point of awareness' leave off, and the Universe begin? The only thing that gives you the impression that you are separate is the "I", which is a self-created principle.

I'm me. I'm not a star, or a tree, or a rock, or you, or my dog, or a cloud, etc.

No, Eastern thought presents the Self as the Ultimate Reality. You're thinking of the self, the ego.

So who, or what, is this so-called 'individual' that thinks itself separate from the Universe?

This is what I mean when I say that we'll never see eye to eye on this. My spiritual path exalts the individual Self - the eternal I. Submission to another being (such as in the Right-Hand Path religions of Christianity and Islam) or assimilation into some theorized greater whole (such as in some branches of Hinduism and the New Age) are viewed as horrible things to be avoided.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Listening. Stop the chatter of Monkey Mind.

Listening is a form of interaction.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The point is that of thinking about the interaction, as compared to just being at one with the interaction. The being at one with the interaction (I am using your vocab here to make this a little less painful) is the same thing as knowing, or consciousness.

Well that's how I percieve interaction. It is not about thinking or acting...simple brain activity. The purest form of interaction the way I see it is 'doing without doing'.

 

[godnotgod]

Listening is a form of interaction.

Then be still.

 

[godnotgod]

Well that's how I percieve interaction. It is not about thinking or acting...simple brain activity. The purest form of interaction the way I see it is 'doing without doing'.

Without a 'doer'. This is The Changeless..

 

[godnotgod]

I'm me. I.

Who dat?

Who is it that knows it is 'I'?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Then be still.

Yes, that is it. All interactions come out of that pure stillness. I can accept that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Who dat?

Who is it that knows it is 'I'?

I'm the one piloting the meat suit that's typing on this keyboard to communicate with you on the Internet.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Without a 'doer'. This is The Changeless..

Hmmm... Out of the changeless comes all manner of change? I would say the Tao is neither this nor that. It is neither something, nor is it nothing. It is neither change, nor is it changeless. It is just Being. It is beyond the concepts of both change and changeless.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Without a 'doer'. This is The Changeless..

So there is no doer, there is just doing? That is precisely what my view of that absolute form of interaction woud be. It is not interacting in the traditional sense. It is a much more pure form of interaction. Perhaps just "Being" is the purest form of interaction.