Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Runewolf1973]

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.

No, I'm not forcing interaction to be an absolute, I'm saying there is NO absolute precisely because everything is constantly changing, interacting. Change has no beginning or end because nothing in actuality is beginning or ending, it is continually transforming. It is the same with life and death. There is no such true beginning that is life, nor is there a true ending that is death because in actuality there is only transformation and continuation from one interactive state to the next. It is change which has no beginning or end. Change creates its own background.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No, I'm not forcing interaction to be an absolute, I'm saying there is NO absolute precisely because everything is constantly changing, interacting.

Perpetual change does seem to be the nature of things, and conditions are continually changing. If everything is transient and relative, then the idea of an "absolute" is redundant.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Perpetual change does seem to be the nature of things, and conditions are continually changing. If everything is transient and relative, then the idea of an "absolute" is redundant.

Yes, indeed.

 

[godnotgod]

So now you're a Hindu? OK.

You posted this stuff on the previous page, so why post it again so soon? Can't you remember that far back?

It explains The Changeless, which is not Hindu.

 

[godnotgod]

One moment is different from the next. No need for some fictional changeless background, it's a redundant religious belief.

You can only know one moment from the next via a changeless background. That changeless background is consciousness.

There is no such 'one moment from the next'. That is linear time, an illusion. There is only the present moment, which is not in time or space.

The background to existence has nothing to do with religion or belief.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You can only know one moment from the next via a changeless background.

No, in the real world you know one moment from the next because each moment is different. Perpetual change. There is no need for a changeless background. Consciousness is certainly not unchanging or eternal.

 

[godnotgod]

No, in the real world you know one moment from the next because each moment is different. Perpetual change. There is no need for a changeless background. Consciousness is certainly not unchanging or eternal.

You know each 'moment' is different because of the unchanging background against which 'change' occurs.

Consciousness is unchanging; only illusory mind changes.

 

[godnotgod]

No, I'm not forcing interaction to be an absolute, I'm saying there is NO absolute precisely because everything is constantly changing, interacting.

Heh...heh...if there is no unchanging absolute, and there is only interaction, then interaction, by default, is the absolute, because there is no relative 'other' to compare it to. But because you perceive 'change', it is relative. That much cannot be denied and is crystal clear. But you are making it an absolute. Just the fact that interaction occurs, it is automatically relative, and being relative, implies an absolute, which you are not aware of, simply because you are focused on the foreground which is change. You fail to take note of the background because it is passive and does not capture your attention as change does. Is this not clear to you?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Just the fact that interaction occurs, it is automatically relative, and being relative, implies an absolute...

No it doesn't. If everything is relative then an absolute is not required.

 

[godnotgod]

The impermanent (ie; 'change') is to the permanent (ie; The Changeless) what the wave is to the ocean. The wave will not last. But the wave is made up of the ocean, which does last. Another analogy is that of the sand castle to the beach. The castle will fall, but the beach will remain.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The background to existence has nothing to do with religion or belief.

Of course it does, you are stuffed full of beliefs, the "Absolute", the "Changeless", "Cosmic Consciousness", a hundred other buzz-words.

 

[godnotgod]

No it doesn't. If everything is relative then an absolute is not required.

Yes it is. The moment you create the concept of 'relative', you have also created the concept of the absolute. Relative and Absolute are opposite values. Everything within the universe is relative to each other, but Everything as a totality is The Absolute. As Vivekananda tells us: "The Universe is The Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The impermanent (ie; 'change') is to the permanent (ie; The Changeless) what the wave is to the ocean.

The ocean is continually changing, the waves are just the change we see on the surface. Not a good analogy.

 

[godnotgod]

Of course it does, you are stuffed full of beliefs, the "Absolute", the "Changeless", "Cosmic Consciousness", a hundred other buzz-words.

None of which is religious or based on belief. That they are is part of your own mental filtration system.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes it is. The moment you create the concept of 'relative', you have also created the concept of the absolute.

No, if everything is relative then "absolute" is completely redundant. Obviously you have a strong belief in absolutes but that doesn't make it so.

 

[godnotgod]

The ocean is continually changing, the waves are just the change we see on the surface. Not a good analogy.

No. The ocean is permanent; waves are impermanent, and return to the permanent ocean.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

None of which is religious or based on belief. That they are is part of your own mental filtration system.

Nonsense. You are so stuffed full of beliefs you can't see the wood for the trees.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No. The ocean is permanent; waves are impermanent, and return to the permanent ocean.

Oceans are not permanent or unchanging. They are in a constant state of flux, waves are just the surface sign of it.

 

[godnotgod]

No, if everything is relative then "absolute" is completely redundant. .

You miss the point. Think again. Every thing within the universe is relative to one another. But the totality of Everything (ie The Universe) is The Absolute itself. Do you understand?

 

[godnotgod]

Nonsense. You are so stuffed full of beliefs you can't see the wood for the trees.

Nonsense. Show me the religion or belief involved. I have never espoused any doctrine whatsoever.