• 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?

godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
Runewolf1973 said:
Are you referring to those mystic quotes you post all the time? I don't bother reading those.
Click to expand...

Then how do you expect to understand what I am trying to say to you if you, like Spiny, dismiss them automatically as insignificant?

You don't realize it, but your mind is conditioned in such a way as to only accept information that agrees with your conditioning. I have been pointing to a view that is unconditioned, free of the taint of doctrine or methodology. You fail to see it because of how attached you are to the conditioning that science has superimposed on your mind, and you think this conditioning is the only valid viewpoint. It is not a question of 'this view' vs 'that view'; it is one of how one view excludes all others in comparison to how the broader view of the mystic fully encompasses the scientific view.
 
Last edited:
Runewolf1973

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
godnotgod said:
Then how do you expect to understand what I am trying to say to you if you, like Spiny, dismiss them automatically as insignificant?

You don't realize it, but your mind is conditioned in such a way as to only accept information that agrees with your conditioning. I have been pointing to a view that is unconditioned, free of the taint of doctrine or methodology. You fail to see it because of how attached you are to the conditioning that science has superimposed on your mind, and you think this conditioning is the only valid viewpoint. It is not a question of 'this view' vs 'that view'; it is one of how one view excludes all others in comparison to how the broader view of the mystic fully encompasses the scientific view.
Click to expand...


You're dismissed.
 
Runewolf1973

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
godnotgod said:
You don't know that, so stop stating it as a dictum. You are failing to look deeper to what is behind the interaction, and therefore, your 'theory' is superficial and insubstantial.
Click to expand...


I'm saying that interaction as a force or function of nature and the universe has always existed in one form or another. What interactive force existed before the formation of this universe? Who knows, but it was an interactive force nonetheless. There is no need for a "background" because that force (interaction) generates or becomes its own background. There is no "getting behind" interaction for that in itself would require or be yet another form of interaction. Behind every force or interaction there is another force or interaction ad infinitum.
 
Last edited:
Rick O'Shez

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
godnotgod said:
Then how do you expect to understand what I am trying to say to you if you, like Spiny, dismiss them automatically as insignificant?
Click to expand...

I've watched a number of your video postings, but I just don't think they're very good. If I have to listen to any more of Alan Watts' confused ramblings I will scream. :p
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That


Runewolf1973 said:
I'm saying that interaction as a force or function of nature and the universe has always existed in one form or another. What interactive force existed before the formation of this universe? Who knows, but it was an interactive force nonetheless. There is no need for a "background" because that force (interaction) generates or becomes its own background. There is no "getting behind" interaction for that in itself would require or be yet another form of interaction. Behind every force or interaction there is another force or interaction ad infinitum.
Click to expand...

The Changeless is the eternal background against which all change occurs. The Changeless has no beginning, no end; it is change that, by definition, has a beginning and an end. Think about it.

Your position is untenable: you cannot have 'ON' without 'OFF'. You are trying/forcing 'interaction' to be an absolute, when it is clearly a relative value. You cannot have change without its relative corollary, 'no-change'. You cannot conceive of change without a background of no-change. That background is passive and unnoticed by the thinking mind, just as the sea is unnoticed by the fish, whose primary focus is on the foreground, ie; food and predators, just as yours is captivated by your foreground, ie; interaction. You are hypnotized and transfixed by maya, and it's a real problem for you, because you don't understand that you are so transfixed.
 
Last edited:
godnotgod

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top