Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[godnotgod]

It's indicative of experience. Your "reality" is a fictional concept.

Experience? How do you know you are not dreaming?

 

[Desert Snake]

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

It's fantastic if we are going a 'position' that is tenable according to the idea of a ''universe''. However, when the argument proposes that we do not have a definitional model for the idea /'universe', then it is pretty much worthless.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's fantastic if we are going a 'position' that is tenable according to the idea of a ''universe''. However, when the argument proposes that we do not have a definitional model for the idea /'universe', then it is pretty much worthless.

I'm suggesting that it is more productive to look at the what the universe actually is, what we can actually observe about it. Adding in a load of ill-defined religious-sounding jargon only serves to obfuscate.

 

[Desert Snake]

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?

Actually I'm not. You need to read the paragraph and probably some preceeding arguments a bit more carefully, I suspect. Examine the proposals made by the /other user, in the context of the argument/s/ and situational parameters.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Actually I'm not. You need to read the paragraph and probably some preceeding arguments a bit more carefully, I suspect. Examine the proposals made by the /other user, in the context of the argument/s/ and situational parameters.

Eek, more blue ink!
It's OK, I've been following this thread for some time and I know what is going on. You will see the same obscure quotes and tired cliches continually regurgitated, the problem is that they are emitted in a random pattern and are often confused and contradictory. It's a right old muddle!

 

[godnotgod]

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

'Religious' is only in your mind.

If the Universe is Everything there is, with no relative 'other' to limit it or compare to, then the Universe is not only absolute, it is The Absolute. So the title is very appropriate. The only alternative to 'relative' is 'absolute'. But I still prefer the description from the great mystic Vivekenanda:

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

This is a most concise, powerful and cogent description of what the Universe actually is.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
This is a most concise, powerful and cogent description of what the Universe actually is.

Nah, it's just one of the tired cliches you regularly regurgitate.

 

[godnotgod]

I've been following this thread for some time and I know what is going on.

Red Alert! Right Honorable Inspector Norman is in the building! His nose is blue, his eyes are red, and he's out for blood! Hide the stash!

 

[godnotgod]

Nah, it's just one of the tired cliches you regularly regurgitate.

Well, then, just relax and the answer will come to you naturally. It's not something you can figure out with your head, you know!

 

[godnotgod]

I'm suggesting that it is more productive to look at the what the universe actually is, what we can actually observe about it.

Factual knowledge about the Universe will never yield what the Universe actually is, any more than dismantling the piano will show us the music. The method of science is dissection, so the very first step science takes is a misstep.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's not something you can figure out with your head, you know!

You are the one with a head full of concepts and cliches, so perhaps you should take your own advice.

 

[godnotgod]

You are the one with a head full of concepts and cliches, so perhaps you should take your own advice.

But sir! Aren't you the one who is tired of the same old stuff? It's all because you want black and white, nice, neat digestible little answers when there are none. You keep using the discursive mind to try to 'figure out' something that cannot be figured out because there is nothing to figure out. You see? It's the difference between aggressively going after thr fish with hook, line, and sinker, or simply lowering the net to allow the fish to swim in. Go ahead. Have a nice cup of tea and then come back nice and refreshed.

 

[godnotgod]

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

Oh, really? So now the Universe is making conscious decisions, is it? Ooooh! Methinks it might get on the reckless side!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You keep using the discursive mind to try to 'figure out' something that cannot be figured out because there is nothing to figure out.

We've talked before about your tendency to project.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Oh, really? So now the Universe is making conscious decisions, is it? Ooooh! Methinks it might get on the reckless side!

I think he means that the universe just goes on, regardless of the speculations of mystics sitting in caves hallucinating on mushrooms and such. King Canute learned this lesson long ago at the seaside.

 

[Runewolf1973]

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

What I am proposing is that the Yin and the Yang (duality) is as equally important as the YinYang (non-duality). It is no more correct to view the universe strictly dualisticly than it is to view the universe strictly non-dualisticly. Both are limited views of a universe which is limitless beyond view.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Oh, really? So now the Universe is making conscious decisions, is it? Ooooh! Methinks it might get on the reckless side!

I'm saying the universe is beyond all views, including the mystic view. Your view is not and never will be absolute.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

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.

You didn't have to. You still recognized differentiating aspects of the Universe i.e. identifiable parts. You can sit back and say they aren't, but that doesn't change the fact that you did identify them. You wouldn't be able to do this with an elementary particle.

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.

No, I'm referring to the literal wave. The literal distortion/warping/oscillation within a medium. That can be transferred from one medium to another, e.g. a seismic wave converted into an ocean wave.

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

A star and a planet are identifiable parts on their own. I don't need to consider the rest of the Universe.

Not a problem, but the discussion is not about practical applications. We are talking about the actual reality of the phenomenal world.

In science, the applications are what verify the reality of a theoretical model. So what are you using to verify what "actual reality" is if you're not using what applications your POV grants?

The true nature of the Universe can be seen by the mystic. It is not about factual knowledge.

Again, how do you verify this? I'd expect being able to see the ultimate truth of the Universe, would grant this person immense capabilities. He'd probably be able to build the ultimate space ship, and would be able to predict the weather perfectly for the rest of the Earth's life. Hell, maybe he'd have superpowers. This all would in tern, verify that he actually sees the ultimate truth.

If you're professing that seeing the ultimate truth doesn't grant any of this, or any other utility, then it really isn't good for anything (which would mean it's not the ultimate truth).

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.

That's really the whole point of having knowledge of any kind, is to be able to do stuff with it. But just having knowledge for the sake of having it? "Okay, you can build computers and spaceships, but I still see the ultimate truth." Okay. So? What has it done for anyone? What does it get you? The question is, what can you and the mystics do with this view of the Universe? The ancient mystics, that you proclaim are ahead of scientists, have no record of producing computers, or spaceships, or predict the weather.

So what does it do? And please no cliche answer like it makes you feel better or more peaceful or something. I've heard a person of every religion say something like this, and I doubt all of them collectively see the ultimate truth (since all religions are incompatible). If it doesn't grant you any utility, I profess that it's not the ultimate truth, or even close to it.

but I can accurately see what it's true nature is.

How do you know? How do you verify this?

Practically speaking, enlightened people are happier than deluded ones.

Citation needed.

People use delusion for comfort (pick any religion as an example) and avoid uncomfortable truths that might make them unhappy.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What I am proposing is that the Yin and the Yang (duality) is as equally important as the YinYang (non-duality). It is no more correct to view the universe strictly dualisticly than it is to view the universe strictly non-dualisticly. Both are limited views of a universe which is limitless beyond view.

The Tao that is one is expressed in duality...ying and yang...or negative and positive...from these two are derived the ten thousand/infinite things.. The divine or supreme awareness resides in the one....all of the celestial hierarchy down to the terrestrial hierarchy of mortals, etc., reside in some degree of limited awareness due to observing the one as comprising multiple parts... Sure it is correct that there are limitations of awareness at each level of the hierarchy (holarchy is a more correct term), but there is purpose in the universe and evolution is such that once an incarnate entity has realized truly what and who they are at the level they presently find themselves, the evolved awareness move on to the next higher level.. At the level of human, the realization of what and who one really is, can not be done without understanding the underlying transcendent unity of all that is.... People are not equal...water finds its own level...it is fine, for example, for atheists to function fully in duality/maya awareness as that is where they are learning vital lessons that are prerequisite to moving on and up to the next level. Each soul is unique yet simultaneously ubique... The universe is strictly one though and dualistic awareness will never in all eternity realize non-duality.....but that is not to say an entity that can function in dualistic awareness can't dwell in the oneness when appropriate....but to do that the dualistic awareness must be transcended and the mind be in a state of non-duality...

 

[godnotgod]

I think he means that the universe just goes on, regardless of the speculations of mystics sitting in caves hallucinating on mushrooms and such.

Mystics speculating/hallucinating/meditating in caves is also a total action of the Universe.