Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[godnotgod]

The unique and individual parts which make up that whole.

To do so means those 'parts' must be separate from the whole, which, by definition of 'Everything' and 'Universe', cannot be. There cannot be a 'other' to Everything that is.

 

[Runewolf1973]

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

The universe can be or do whatever it wants despite what your mystic viewpoint tells you.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

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.

See what I mean? You're not able to define the Universe without first identifying it's various parts (stars and planets and such).

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.

Which means you're forced to recognize other hypothetical parallel universes to define the multiverse.

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.

Well actually, it's possible for the wave to travel from the water to a different medium. i.e. Earthquakes can cause tsunamis (which is a wave), but before it was an ocean wave, it was a seismic wave (travelling through the rocky Earth).

Technically the same wave. But it wasn't always part of the water.

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

The point is though, everything that exists has parts.

It makes no sense from a spiritual POV.

You mean it makes no sense from your POV. I don't think you can speak for every spiritualist on the planet. A quick Google search tells me it's a quote from the Buddha.

I don't disagree that scientific knowledge can be put to practical application.

It's the only thing that matters in the end.

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.

Just saying it over and over doesn't make it true. What matters is how you can put that idea into practice.

Identifying things into interacting parts is put into practice in science and engineering, and it yields beneficial results.

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.

Your mind is definitely conditioned. Then again, everyone's is. The closest thing to an unconditioned mind is probably the mind of an infant.

to see them as one with the Universe is to see them via unconditioned mind.

You won't really know how an unconditioned mind sees the Universe as long as your mind remains condition. I'd also think you'd have to be omnipotent to see the Universe exactly how it is.

While your mind is conditioned, the only thing you have to go by for what is "truth" is what ideas yield practicality.

IOW, conditioned mind sees things as they

appear to be; unconditioned mind sees them as they actually are.

I hate to break it to you, but we're incapable of seeing things precisely as they are. The best we can do is build theoretical models, and put them to the test.

From the POV of conditioned awareness, yes, but from the POV of unconditioned awareness, no:

However, both you and I are conditioned. So it's impossible for you to describe the Universe exactly how it is.

The best you can do is put your idea to the test and see what practicality it has and compare it to other ideas and/or theories.

it is seen exactly as it is, just as you see that both wave and ocean are of the same substance: water.

I see the wave it self as the work of energy, and the wave can travel from one medium to the other (i.e. leave the water, literally).

nor are there any separate, material 'parts' to the universe. It's an illusion.

Yeah, and what practical application does that yield?

 

[Runewolf1973]

To do so means those 'parts' must be separate from the whole, which, by definition of 'Everything' and 'Universe', cannot be. There cannot be a 'other' to Everything that is.

That's why most people call it the Universe and not "The Absolute". The cosmos is a unity comprised of many separate parts which are interconnected, interactive and comprise the whole.

 

[godnotgod]

That's why most people call it the Universe and not "The Absolute". The cosmos is a unity comprised of many separate parts which are interconnected, interactive and comprise the whole.

If that is true, please provide an example of a 'part' of the universe and show me where it leaves off and the Universe begins, or vice-versa, as you please.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

If that is true, please provide an example of a 'part' of the universe and show me where it leaves off and the Universe begins, or vice-versa, as you please.

I think you're confusing "identifiable part" with "separate from the Universe".

 

[godnotgod]

See what I mean? You're not able to define the Universe without first identifying it's various parts (stars and planets and such).

Nowhere in the definition I provided is the word 'part'. Stars and planets are not parts; they are just The Absolute itself, expressing itself as The Universe. When you see it through the filter of Time, Space, and Causation, you see it as The Universe, but when you see it as it is, you see The Absolute. The Absolute and The Universe are one and the same.

Which means you're forced to recognize other hypothetical parallel universes to define the multiverse.

There is no 'other'.

Well actually, it's possible for the wave to travel from the water to a different medium. i.e. Earthquakes can cause tsunamis (which is a wave), but before it was an ocean wave, it was a seismic wave (travelling through the rocky Earth).

Technically the same wave. But it wasn't always part of the water.

You're referring to the wave's energy; I am referring to the wave's form, which is made up of water, the same substance the ocean is made of. My point is that there is no separate 'thing' called 'wave' apart from the ocean. The wave is none other than the ocean itself, just as what you refer to as 'parts' are none other than the Universe itself. They are inseparable.

The point is though, everything that exists has parts.

Show me where 'part' begins and what it is a part of leaves off.

You mean it makes no sense from your POV. I don't think you can speak for every spiritualist on the planet. A quick Google search tells me it's a quote from the Buddha.

Authentic spiritual realization would point to the same reality: that the Many are none other than the One, and vice-versa.

It's the only thing that matters in the end.

Only from the POV of factual knowledge. But from the POV of the mystic, practical application, though quite valid, is secondary to essential knowledge. The scientific approach is that of perceptual reality; that of the mystic is ultimate reality.

Just saying it over and over doesn't make it true. What matters is how you can put that idea into practice.

Identifying things into interacting parts is put into practice in science and engineering, and it yields beneficial results.

Not a problem, but the discussion is not about practical applications. We are talking about the actual reality of the phenomenal world. Again, show me where the separation exists of 'parts' of the Universe.

Your mind is definitely conditioned. Then again, everyone's is. The closest thing to an unconditioned mind is probably the mind of an infant.

No, mind of an infant is definitely conditioned. Unconditioned mind transcends even the genes, along with all social indoctrination.

You won't really know how an unconditioned mind sees the Universe as long as your mind remains condition. I'd also think you'd have to be omnipotent to see the Universe exactly how it is.

While your mind is conditioned, the only thing you have to go by for what is "truth" is what ideas yield practicality.

Again, you're talking factual knowledge, as compared to essential knowledge. Science cannot know what the nature of the Universe is, but it can tell us many useful and predictable facts about it. The true nature of the Universe can be seen by the mystic. It is not about factual knowledge.

I hate to break it to you, but we're incapable of seeing things precisely as they are. The best we can do is build theoretical models, and put them to the test.

Fine, if you want to predict the weather, or take a space trip. But if you want to get a glimpse into the true nature of things, another approach is required.

However, both you and I are conditioned. So it's impossible for you to describe the Universe exactly how it is.

The best you can do is put your idea to the test and see what practicality it has and compare it to other ideas and/or theories.

More about factual knowledge. I cannot accurately describe the Universe in factual terms, but I can accurately see what it's true nature is, and that is that it is not comprised of separate parts and as such, is The Absolute. The conceptual mind only sees a Universe comprised of separate parts changing all the time and composed of atoms. I cannot tell you all the details about the ocean, but I can tell you that the true nature of both ocean wave and ocean itself is water.

I see the wave it self as the work of energy, and the wave can travel from one medium to the other (i.e. leave the water, literally).

I agree, but I am not referring to the wave's energy, but to it's form, which is made up of water, the same substance that ocean is composed of. Though the forms of the Universe are myriad in number, all forms are none other than the Universe itself.

Yeah, and what practical application does that yield?

Well, once it is seen that the material world is illusory, you can simultaneously awaken to the true nature of Reality. It is a question of delusion vs Enlightenment. Practically speaking, enlightened people are happier than deluded ones.

 

[godnotgod]

I think you're confusing "identifiable part" with "separate from the Universe".

Are you now saying that 'parts' of the Universe cannot be separated from it, in the manner that a carburetor can be separated from an engine?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That's why most people call it the Universe and not "The Absolute". The cosmos is a unity comprised of many separate parts which are interconnected, interactive and comprise the whole.

I think "universe" is just fine. There is no need to make up religious-sounding jargon like "The Absolute", it looks meaningless and redundant.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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

That's irrelevant to the current discussion. You're just regurgitating the same obscure quotes and tired cliches every couple of pages. It's like a broken record.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There is no solid material reality as we once thought, nor are there any separate, material 'parts' to the universe. It's an illusion.

You obviously still haven't carried out the dropping "brick" on "foot" experiment.

 

[Runewolf1973]

If that is true, please provide an example of a 'part' of the universe and show me where it leaves off and the Universe begins, or vice-versa, as you please.

I view the universe in neither a strictly dualistic manner, nor in a strictly non-dual manner. I think it is improper to confine the universe to any one particular view whether it be the mystic view or otherwise. To me it is both dual and non-dual in a way. There are distinct, identifiabe parts to the universe such as the Sun or the Moon, but those parts are never separate from the whole which is the universe. Dualism and non-dualism both have their limitations. To accept both as true yet neither as absolute is I believe the more accurate view.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The true nature of the Universe can be seen by the mystic.

Nonsense. Mystics cannot see quarks or black holes.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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

I find the systems approach powerful because you can look at pretty much anything as a system or sub-system, both natural and man-made: the universe, the solar system, the weather, the human body, a machine, an organisation, and so on.

 

[Desert Snake]

I view the universe in neither a strictly dualistic manner, nor in a strictly non-dual manner. I think it is improper to confine the universe to any one particular view whether it be the mystic view or otherwise. To me it is both dual and non-dual in a way. There are distinct, identifiabe parts to the universe such as the Sun or the Moon, but those parts are never separate from the whole which is the universe. Dualism and non-dualism both have their limitations. To accept both as true yet neither as absolute is I believe the more accurate view.

Again, your position is non-tenable. If there are 'parts' or in other words duality, then you do not have non-duality. Likewise if you have non-duality, then you in essence do not have 'actual' duality, like some religions etc propose. Once you claim some duality, in other words, you are simply claiming a dualistic approach ; you are being vague. That's great, but it won't progress any arguments that you aren't aware of, (or are aware of, for that matter). What you are /actually proposing, is dualistic ,or a dualistic viewpoint.
//cheers

 

[godnotgod]

You obviously still haven't carried out the dropping "brick" on "foot" experiment.

is pain indicative of reality?

 

[godnotgod]

Nonsense. Mystics cannot see quarks or black holes.

Quarks and black holes are not the true nature of the Universe. They are appearances projected by the true nature of the Universe.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

is pain indicative of reality?

It's indicative of experience, which is really all we have. Your "reality" is a fictional concept.

 

[godnotgod]

That's irrelevant to the current discussion. You're just regurgitating the same obscure quotes and tired cliches every couple of pages. It's like a broken record.

If the Universe is seen as an object, then the observer is deluded, because the 'observer' is not separate in any way from the observed. The reality is that there is no such observer observing the observation. That makes my point relevant to the discussion.

The record is not broken. I only repeat it until its message is heard.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Again, your position is non-tenable. If there are 'parts' or in other words duality, then you do not have non-duality. Likewise if you have non-duality, then you in essence do not have 'actual' duality, like some religions etc propose. Once you claim some duality, in other words, you are simply claiming a dualistic approach. I think that your position is showing it's lack of /data. essentially, because you are being vague. That's great, but it won't progress any arguments that you aren't aware of, (or are aware of, for that matter). What you are /actually proposing, is dualistic ,or a dualistic viewpoint; I'm not sure why you are hesitant to just argue your position. I suspect that that hesitancy is basically showing the 'flaw' (s) in your proposals, or arguments.
//cheers

An awful muddle here. You are confusing a psychological experience of non-duality with a discussion about the nature of the universe.

PS That blue ink is rather loud, can you tone it down a bit?