Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Runewolf1973]

Since every thing is interconnected as One, there is no-thing.

'Form is emptiness;
emptiness is form'

Interconnectivity IS interaction.

 

[godnotgod]

Interconnectivity IS interaction.

interconnected as one. there are no separate 'things' that interact. there is no-thing, which is every-thing.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

interconnected as one. there are no separate 'things' that interact. there is no-thing, which is every-thing.

There are definable parts of the one thing (the Universe) that are interconnected. That's what you're not understanding. Is it really hard to grasp at the idea that multiple parts of something can make up a whole?

 

[godnotgod]

There are definable parts of the one thing (the Universe) that are interconnected. That's what you're not understanding. Is it really hard to grasp at the idea that multiple parts of something can make up a whole?

No, but the universe is not a mechanical device with 'parts'. You are superimposing that notion over something via your mental conditioning, which sees the universe as an object composed of 'parts'. There is 'interconnection' but no such 'parts' that are interconnected. All such 'parts' are the Universe itself, just as ocean waves are the ocean. Ocean waves are not 'parts' of the ocean. You can separate a carburetor from an engine and it is a 'definable' part, but you cannot separate anything from the Universe, as it is always connected to the Universe.

There are no things 'IN' the Universe; the Universe IS those very 'things', which includes the space around them.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

No, but the universe is not a mechanical device with 'parts'.

It's a system. Systems, by definition, have interacting parts that make up a whole.

You are superimposing that notion over something via your mental conditioning, which sees the universe as an object composed of 'parts'.

Stars and planets are definable parts.

All such 'parts' are the Universe itself, just as ocean waves are the ocean. Ocean waves are not 'parts' of the ocean.

Waves in the ocean is just energy propagating through the water. It's like saying electricity transmitting through a wire is part of the wire.

Also.... you're able to recognize the ocean as one thing, but the ocean is part of the Universe. So you recognize one thing within one thing, yet, the Universe has no definable parts?

You can separate a carburetor from an engine and it is a 'definable' part, but you cannot separate anything from the Universe, as it is always connected to the Universe.

You were able to define the ocean as one thing just fine. Or do you disagree that it's part of the Universe?

Isn't there a Buddhist phrase that goes something like: "The one contains the many and the many contains the one" or something like that? Sounds like it implies composition i.e. definable parts of a whole.

There are no things 'IN' the Universe; the Universe IS those very 'things'.

The fact that you're able to recognize those things as those things shows that you recognize those parts. Even if you're trying to convince yourself otherwise.

It's not like an elementary particle. Those are probably the only things that are true units with no definable parts. There's no "those things" within them to speak of.

 

[Runewolf1973]

interconnected as one. there are no separate 'things' that interact. there is no-thing, which is every-thing.

As a matter of fact there are separate things which are interconnected and interact. It's kinda like how a car works... There are many separate components which interact and work together all of which comprise the one unit which is the car itself.

 

[godnotgod]

As a matter of fact there are separate things which are interconnected and interact. It's kinda like how a car works... There are many separate components which interact and work together all of which comprise the one unit which is the car itself.

No, it's not like a car. A car is an artifact. It is a MADE thing. The Universe is not MADE; it is grown. Like Andromeda, you are superimposing your conditioned mentality over nature, seeing it in terms of mechanistic 'things', which is partly why you see a dead, material universe rather than one that is conscious and alive.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

No, it's not like a car. A car is an artifact. It is a MADE thing. The Universe is not MADE; it is grown. Like Andromeda, you are superimposing your conditioned mentality over nature, seeing it in terms of mechanistic 'things', which is partly why you see a dead, material universe rather than one that is conscious and alive.

A car is part of the Universe, is it not?

 

[godnotgod]

It's a system. Systems, by definition, have interacting parts that make up a whole.

What you are calling 'parts' of the Universe have no separate existence from the whole, as in a car, for example. 'Parts' are what the Universe IS, not what is contained IN the Universe.

Stars and planets are definable parts.

No, they forms, empty of self nature. You cannot remove them like 'parts' from the Universe, because nothing can exist outside of the Universe.

Waves in the ocean is just energy propagating through the water. It's like saying electricity transmitting through a wire is part of the wire.

But I was not referring to the energy behind the wave, but to the wave itself, which is a form, a waveform composed of water, the same substance as the ocean. Wave is ocean itself, inseparable from ocean. Wave is form; ocean is formless. The formless Absolute is expressing the formed Universe.

Also.... you're able to recognize the ocean as one thing, but the ocean is part of the Universe. So you recognize one thing within one thing, yet, the Universe has no definable parts?

All we can say about it is that it has features; ie outcroppings of itself, which are not definable parts. Wave to ocean is metaphor for feature to totality. That is where the metaphor ends. It has limitations. Unlike the ocean, the Universe is absolute and infinite.

You were able to define the ocean as one thing just fine. Or do you disagree that it's part of the Universe?

It is an inseparable feature of the Universe. See above.

Isn't there a Buddhist phrase that goes something like: "The one contains the many and the many contains the one" or something like that? Sounds like it implies composition i.e. definable parts of a whole.

It's Hindu, but your take on it is slightly off, throwing off the meaning entirely. It is not 'the one contains the many', etc., as if 'the many' were 'parts', but

'The One IN the Many, and the Many IN the One'.

You see the difference? It is saying what I am trying to say, that both wave and ocean are universally water. Another expression of this idea is:

"One light, though the lamps be many"

...and...

"...from a single vine, a hundred gourds..."

The fact that you're able to recognize those things as those things shows that you recognize those parts. Even if you're trying to convince yourself otherwise.

Please understand that I am well aware of what you refer to, thank you, but am only using such language as a matter of convention. When we talk about 'parts of the Universe' we are conversing in the language of conditioned mind, which sees them as such, when the reality is that there are no actual and separate 'parts' to the Universe.

It's not like an elementary particle. Those are probably the only things that are true units with no definable parts. There's no "those things" within them to speak of.

They're not even 'true units'. The entirety of their mass is completely virtual in nature, created by fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs Fields. IOW, all 'material' reality is virtual in nature. There are no 'parts' of a material nature; what we see as 'material things' are but illusions, precisely what the mystics have understood for centuries. But we continue to talk about the 'material world' as we still cling to the old materialist paradigm. We haven't yet caught up to the Quantum View, let alone the mystical view.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations/

 

[godnotgod]

A car is part of the Universe, is it not?

Not as 'car' itself 'Car' is an artifact, a made thing from the hand of man, who IS a 'part' of the Universe.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

What you are calling 'parts' of the Universe have no separate existence from the whole, as in a car, for example. 'Parts' are what the Universe IS, not what is contained IN the Universe.

Yeah, all the parts collectively are what the Universe is. Same with a system. Same with a car. But it still has definable parts.

You cannot remove them like 'parts' from the Universe, because nothing can exist outside of the Universe.

You don't actually know that, because there could be other Universes out there. And it may in fact be possible to remove matter from this Universe and place it into another.

But I was not referring to the energy behind the wave, but to the wave itself, which is a form, a waveform composed of water, the same substance as the ocean. Wave is ocean itself, inseparable from ocean. Wave is form; ocean is formless. The formless Absolute is expressing the formed Universe.

You can still remove a wave from the ocean by removing the energy. The wave is the effect of the energy. It's a phenomenon that's entirely dependent on an external element (energy entering the ocean from somewhere else).

It is an inseparable feature of the Universe. See above.

That's just conjecture. Again... what if the Earth (along with it's oceans) fell into an interdimensional portal and into another Universe? I would say that's separating the oceans from this Universe.

'The One IN the Many, and the Many IN the One'.

That's probably the Hindu version, but I know I've seen the version that I've quoted.

Another expression of this idea is:

That's the problem. It's just an idea. It doesn't have much practical application though.

Please understand that I am well aware of what you refer to, thank you, but am only using such language as a matter of convention. When we talk about 'parts of the Universe' we are conversing in the language of conditioned mind, which sees them as such, when the reality is that there are no actual and separate 'parts' to the Universe.

In reality, it's whatever perspectives can be put into practice. It's much more practical to define the parts in the system to get a better understanding of what's going on.

Doctors don't just treat the human body as one without also considering the many components and interactions within the body.

when the reality is that there are no actual and separate 'parts' to the Universe.

The reality is... you can't know the universe exactly how it is, so I suggest you shouldn't talk like you do.

In the end, we approximate, and we see how those approximations can be put into practice. The approximations that yield better results are deemed more accurate.

They're not even 'true units'. The entirety of their mass is completely virtual in nature, created by fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs Fields. IOW, all 'material' reality is virtual in nature. There are no 'parts' of a material nature; what we see as 'material things' are but illusions, precisely what the mystics have understood for centuries. But we continue to talk about the 'material world' as we still cling to the old materialist paradigm. We haven't yet caught up to the Quantum View, let alone the mystical view.

They're true units in the sense that they're quantized into discrete indivisible units (not entirely continuous or analog), even if they are "virtual". That's basically the core of quantum mechanics, and quantization is what defines a particle. Quantum fluctuation doesn't conflict with this.

It's like the display on your monitor. The letters you're typing are "virtual", but they're made up of discrete units which are the pixels. Graphically anyway. Computationally, it's the discrete 1s and 0s. Still made up of parts.

Material isn't an illusion. It's a description, particularly a description in how we interact with things. But I went over this before.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No, it's not like a car. A car is an artifact. It is a MADE thing. The Universe is not MADE; it is grown. Like Andromeda, you are superimposing your conditioned mentality over nature, seeing it in terms of mechanistic 'things', which is partly why you see a dead, material universe rather than one that is conscious and alive.

I see neither a dead universe, nor do I see one that is alive or conscious. I see a universe which is interactive and interconnected.

 

[godnotgod]

I see neither a dead universe, nor do I see one that is alive or conscious. I see a universe which is interactive and interconnected.

But you're still seeing it in terms of observer/observed, when the observer is wholly integrated into the observed.

 

[Runewolf1973]

But you're still seeing it in terms of observer/observed, when the observer is wholly integrated into the observed.

Yes, that is how I am seeing it, as an observer, while at the same time I am still wholly integrated into the observed.

 

[godnotgod]

Yeah, all the parts collectively are what the Universe is. Same with a system. Same with a car. But it still has definable parts.

No, 'features'. Nothing is separate from 'Universe' as part can be separated from mechanism. Mechanisms are artifacts, 'made' things; features are outcroppings of the Universe. They are, in fact, The Universe itself, 'the one in the many; the many in the one'.

You don't actually know that, because there could be other Universes out there. And it may in fact be possible to remove matter from this Universe and place it into another.

Working definition: The Universe is all of time and space and its contents. The Universe includes planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic particles, and all matter and energy.

I am including all multiverses as well. 'Universe' is Everything that exists. Nothing can exist outside of The Universe, which is The Absolute, as it is Everything that is. There is nothing that is outside of it, that exists relative to it.

You can still remove a wave from the ocean by removing the energy. The wave is the effect of the energy. It's a phenomenon that's entirely dependent on an external element (energy entering the ocean from somewhere else).

However, the wave-form, which is water, returns to the formless ocean from which it came. In fact, it never left. At all times, the water in the wave is a feature of the ocean, 'water' here being a metaphor for consciousness.

That's just conjecture. Again... what if the Earth (along with it's oceans) fell into an interdimensional portal and into another Universe? I would say that's separating the oceans from this Universe.

Nothing is separate from anything else....ever. See working definition, above.

That's probably the Hindu version, but I know I've seen the version that I've quoted.

It makes no sense from a spiritual POV.

That's the problem. It's just an idea. It doesn't have much practical application though.

'One lamp, though the lamps be many' is a metaphor for Universal Consciousness.

In reality, it's whatever perspectives can be put into practice. It's much more practical to define the parts in the system to get a better understanding of what's going on.

Doctors don't just treat the human body as one without also considering the many components and interactions within the body.

I don't disagree that scientific knowledge can be put to practical application. I am merely saying that what we think of as separate 'things' are not separate at all, and that they have no distinct self-nature. We are talking about two different levels of conscious awareness here, OK? To see separate 'things' is the result of conditioned mentality; to see them as one with the Universe is to see them via unconditioned mind. IOW, conditioned mind sees things as they appear to be; unconditioned mind sees them as they actually are.


"Vivekananda's statement 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 what he calls 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

The reality is... you can't know the universe exactly how it is, so I suggest you shouldn't talk like you do.

In the end, we approximate, and we see how those approximations can be put into practice. The approximations that yield better results are deemed more accurate.

From the POV of conditioned awareness, yes, but from the POV of unconditioned awareness, no: it is seen exactly as it is, just as you see that both wave and ocean are of the same substance: water.

They're true units in the sense that they're quantized into discrete indivisible units (not entirely continuous or analog), even if they are "virtual". That's basically the core of quantum mechanics, and quantization is what defines a particle. Quantum fluctuation doesn't conflict with this.

It's like the display on your monitor. The letters you're typing are "virtual", but they're made up of discrete units which are the pixels. Graphically anyway. Computationally, it's the discrete 1s and 0s. Still made up of parts.

Material isn't an illusion. It's a description, particularly a description in how we interact with things. But I went over this before.

The description is never the described. There is no solid material reality as we once thought, nor are there any separate, material 'parts' to the universe. It's an illusion.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, that is how I am seeing it, as an observer, while at the same time I am still wholly integrated into the observed.

Not possible. The 'observer' is only an illusion. No such animal. "I" is a self-created principle. There is only observation, without an observer of the observation, just as there is only whirling water, without a whirlpool that whirls water.

"The spiritual experience is the merging of the observed, the observer, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality"

Deepak Chopra

 

[godnotgod]

Absolute nonsense maybe...

Can you nswer my question?: Yin and Yang together comprise the Whole Enchilada....Everything, excluding nothing. So is there anything that remains that can be relatively compared to this 'Everything'?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Not possible. The 'observer' is only an illusion. No such animal. "I" is a self-created principle. There is only observation, without an observer of the observation, just as there is only whirling water, without a whirlpool that whirls water.

"The spiritual experience is the merging of the observed, the observer, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality"

Deepak Chopra

Well this observer sees differently.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Can you nswer my question?: Yin and Yang together comprise the Whole Enchilada....Everything, excluding nothing. So is there anything that remains that can be relatively compared to this 'Everything'?

The unique and individual parts which make up that whole.

 

[godnotgod]

Well this observer sees differently.

It is not possible, logically or otherwise, to be a separate observer from, while being wholly integrated with the Universe.