-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?
- Thread starter Runewolf1973
- Start date
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Pot calling the kettle black. Again!
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Yeah, those ancient sages sure liked their mushrooms!
And now scientists on mushrooms are confirming everything they said....yeah, right on!
Last edited by a moderator:
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
No, it's a perception. This is basic stuff, you really need to wake up and smell the coffee.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Yup, an illusion perceived as reality.
Where is it hiding, down your rabbit-hole?
No, right under your very nose.
LOOK SPINY! THE MOON!
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
No, just a perception. "Illusion" and "reality" are only speculative concepts in your mind.
Look, a rabbit hole!
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
Well, I would like a second opinion on that because I think my logic works just fine.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
godnotgod
Thou art That
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Nah, that's just sour grapes, you can't stand it when people disagree with your odd ideas.
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
Yah, like the complete abandoment of logic and reason to achieve some pure cosmic conscious state.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Brahman is the changeless substantive (edited):
...Vedanta says the whole universe is transitory; that is, it keeps changing continuously. If something is changing continuously, then there has to be some substantive that remains changeless in the changing things. If ring changes into bangle, and bangle into necklace, there has to be a substantive that is different from a ring or necklace that remains as changeless in all these changes. In this case, it is the gold that remains changeless as the ring changes to bangle and bangle to necklace, etc. Hence if the world is continuously changing as we can see, then there has to be a changeless entity in the changing things. Hence Brahman* alone can be the changeless substantive for the transient universe....
What is the relation between ring and the gold? Gold has nothing to do with ring or bangle, since it exists just as gold all the time without undergoing any mutations. ‘Ring’ is just the name for a form; the relation is.. a superimposed form on gold and a name for that form.
*Brahman: the ground of all being; the fundamental reality; The Changeless; Pure Consciousness; The Absolute; Ultimate Reality; Sunyata, etc.
http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/knowledge/brahman.htm
...Vedanta says the whole universe is transitory; that is, it keeps changing continuously. If something is changing continuously, then there has to be some substantive that remains changeless in the changing things. If ring changes into bangle, and bangle into necklace, there has to be a substantive that is different from a ring or necklace that remains as changeless in all these changes. In this case, it is the gold that remains changeless as the ring changes to bangle and bangle to necklace, etc. Hence if the world is continuously changing as we can see, then there has to be a changeless entity in the changing things. Hence Brahman* alone can be the changeless substantive for the transient universe....
What is the relation between ring and the gold? Gold has nothing to do with ring or bangle, since it exists just as gold all the time without undergoing any mutations. ‘Ring’ is just the name for a form; the relation is.. a superimposed form on gold and a name for that form.
*Brahman: the ground of all being; the fundamental reality; The Changeless; Pure Consciousness; The Absolute; Ultimate Reality; Sunyata, etc.
http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/knowledge/brahman.htm
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
You have never understood and you probably never will. The mystical experience is beyond the sphere of thought, which is the basis of logic and reason. Therefore, it cannot employ logic or reason. It is not about thinking, but about seeing, without thought, that which is.
Being beyond logic and reason does not mean it is irrational; it simply means it is not rationally based. Neither is nature. You cannot explain what the universe is in rational terms. You can only explain it's attributes and their behaviour, such as 'interaction'. Interaction is not an explanation as to the true nature of the universe. It just tells us its general behavour, or apparent behaviour. It is a superficial 'explanation' of Reality, which is no explanation at all.
Last edited:
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
And you think you know the true nature of the universe? What a joke. No one knows the true nature of the universe. Like another poster said, we can only ever have a close approximation.
godnotgod
Thou art That
I love it to death, but agreement or disagreement is not the issue here. You are still attached to the pointing fingers and stubbornly refuse to look at the moon. I happen to agree with RW that he sees interaction as the fundamental reality, from the POV of his level of consciousness, but from the POV of higher consciousness, it is not so. This is the point of any mystical endeavor: to transform the conditioned mind in order to see things as they are, rather than how the conditioned mind says they are, an experience which is precisely what the Buddha underwent.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Oh, boy, here we go with the accusing finger!
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
Re-read that post, it was edited.
godnotgod
Thou art That
...and yet you are cocksure certain that it is interaction.
Yes, because he is seeing it in rational terms.
What have I said in the past about the observer and the observed? Do you remember?
Last edited: