Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[AndromedaRXJ]

You differentiate them as 'parts'; I am differentiating them as features, outcroppings, manifestations, while never being separated in any way from the rest of the Universe.

And those "features", "outcroppings" and "manifestations" are interactive and interconnected with each other, which was the original point to begin with. Them being inseparable (which is an assumption in the end) doesn't conflict with this notion. That's what a system is.

There are systems out there (machines, living organisms, etc...) that have critical parts (or whatever other word you want to use) where if they weren't present, the whole system would break down and basically cease being a system.

A tsunami ocean wave is the result of seismic activity. Not referring to the cause, but to the wave-form, made of water, as is the ocean itself. You, as a human form, are an expression of the entire Universe.

I'm not talking about seismic activity. I'm talking about seismic waves. They are literally ripples in the Earth, much like the ripples in the ocean. They can literally be transmitted from the Earth to the ocean. Literally the same single wave can do this. The whole point I'm making is that waves can transfer from one medium to another. They're not part of any particular thing. Waves aren't part of the ocean (or one with the ocean), but rather, they're just something that occupies the ocean for a little while.

Let me give you another example. As you may know, oil doesn't mix with water. Suppose there was a half-mile thick layer of oil on top of all the world's oceans. Now say a wave traveled from the bottom of the ocean to the top (yes, a wave can travel this way in the ocean). The wave will travel through the water and eventually travel to the oil. It's the same wave travelling through two different mediums.

Yes, but background and foreground are one reality/experience. Most of us do not realize we are also experiencing the background of existence simply because we have egos which think they are separate from the Universe, acting upon it, which is why humans experience a lot of suffering.

I don't see how this conflicts with the whole systems approach of the Universe. What makes something a system is it has identifiable and differentiating features (or whatever other word you want to use) which interact with one another. It doesn't matter if they're inseparable or not. That's not needed to define a system.

Applications began as ideas, put into action.

Adults begin as babies. But adults are not babies. Applications are not ideas.

The analogy is that the music cannot be found by dismantling the piano

I think you need to find a better analogy. Music isn't something you find. Music is something that's created (by the piano and the player).

Knowledge isn't created like how music is. Dismantling a tool that's designed for the sole intent of creating music, obviously isn't gonna get anyone music.

,

as the secrets of the Universe cannot be found by scientific Analysis, Logic, and Reason

Last I checked, it was science that unlocked the secrets on how to make the very thing you're typing on. Can't get that with spiritual enlightenment, I can assure you.

all of which are systems of thought which use dissection and disassembly.

I hope you're aware that this is only of many ways to figure stuff out in science.

The idea is that the Universe is similar to a mechanical device, and its 'parts' can be disassembled, analyzed, and then reassembled to one day say:

The disassembled and reassembled part is unnecessary since we're already inside the Universe. Scientists dissect things to peak inside them. We can analyze the Universe just fine.

My point is that clinical analysis of the instrument will not give you music

I'd say it could make someone a better musician if they have a better understanding of the instrument they're using.

Nothing "gives" you music. You have to create it. But the secrets of the universe are not created. They're discovered. And that, you need the right instruments to analyse it's very nature. There's no other way really.

you can only do so via seeing into the very heart of Reality itself.

Which is impossible. So the next best thing is to do science.

We already have the right equipment, but most of us do not know how to use it.

I agree. Most people don't know how to use scientific equipment.

Just many ordinary people who have had some sort of transformation of consciousness are active in this pursuit all over the world, quietly working for such goals. No need to toot their horns.

So you don't really know if they're doing this or not. You're just assuming.

Compassion without a spiritual element is an intellectualized kind of compassion.

Sounds like the right kind of compassion. Too many people are compassionate without intelligence.

You need to identify on a first-hand basis with those who are suffering, and that comes from the heart.

The heart just pumps blood. Nothing else. Compassion comes from the brain, as does intelligence, rationale, critical thinking, deduction and induction. In fact, everything you're saying is coming from your brain. You cannot, in full actuality, speak from your heart.

Also, I don't think you answered a rather important question of mine. How do you know when you're having a spiritual awakening?

 

[godnotgod]

Our experience isn't just conditoned by our perceptions but by the physical limitations of our senses. We will only ever be able to directly experience a tiny fraction of the universe, so concepts like "Absolute Reality" and "Cosmic Consciousness" are pointless and meaningless.

I am not referring to experiencing variety in the Universe. No one can know or experience such infinite variety. I am talking about experiencing the true nature of the Universe, which is universally the same underneath all the varietyl. Waves on the ocean exhibit endless variety, but they are all made of water, just as the formless ocean from which they emerge is made of water.

"You are not just the drop in the ocean; you are the Mighty Ocean in the drop"
Rumi

But think on this: if it is maintained that there are only conditioned views, by which view is that being determined?

 

[godnotgod]

Statement 1 is accurate.
Statement 2 is pure speculation and basically meaningless.

'I' only exists when you are thinking. When you are not thinking, there is no thinker of thoughts called 'I'. There is only seeing itself, without an agent of seeing. If there is no agent of seeing, then seeing is impersonal. Now tell me who, or what, is seeing?

 

[godnotgod]

And those "features", "outcroppings" and "manifestations" are interactive and interconnected with each other, which was the original point to begin with. Them being inseparable (which is an assumption in the end) doesn't conflict with this notion. That's what a system is.

There are systems out there (machines, living organisms, etc...) that have critical parts (or whatever other word you want to use) where if they weren't present, the whole system would break down and basically cease being a system.

According to Einstein, nothing is created or destroyed. It only appears as such when we are looking at a portion of the Universe. The totality remains intact. Machines are systems which have parts; The Universe is not a machine with parts, and what you call 'system' is a series of cyclical patterns. Machine systems all have specific functions, with efficiency a very important factor, but the Universe has no known function or purpose. In fact, it seems very inefficient, as it creates an infinitude of stars and other celestial bodies, all for no apparent rhyme or reason.

I'm not talking about seismic activity. I'm talking about seismic waves. They are literally ripples in the Earth, much like the ripples in the ocean. They can literally be transmitted from the Earth to the ocean. Literally the same single wave can do this. The whole point I'm making is that waves can transfer from one medium to another. They're not part of any particular thing. Waves aren't part of the ocean (or one with the ocean), but rather, they're just something that occupies the ocean for a little while.

Let me give you another example. As you may know, oil doesn't mix with water. Suppose there was a half-mile thick layer of oil on top of all the world's oceans. Now say a wave traveled from the bottom of the ocean to the top (yes, a wave can travel this way in the ocean). The wave will travel through the water and eventually travel to the oil. It's the same wave travelling through two different mediums.

Fine, but I keep telling you: I am referring to the shape of the medium while the energy-wave is passing through it. The medium of the oceanic wave-form is water, just like the ocean, which is without form. The metaphor refers to all forms, underneath which lies undifferentiated consciousness itself. I know you disagree with this, but it is beyond your scope here. Sorry.

I don't see how this conflicts with the whole systems approach of the Universe. What makes something a system is it has identifiable and differentiating features (or whatever other word you want to use) which interact with one another. It doesn't matter if they're inseparable or not. That's not needed to define a system.

Whether the Universe is a system or not is not the issue here; the issue is the inseparability and unity of form to formlessness; of detailed foreground to formless universal background. They are one and the same reality.

Adults begin as babies. But adults are not babies. Applications are not ideas.

Without ideas, applications are impossible. That is the sphere of thought and creativity. But before thought is consciousness, without which ideas are impossible. And without consciousness, the Universe as we see and experience it is impossible.

I think you need to find a better analogy. Music isn't something you find. Music is something that's created (by the piano and the player).

Music is not actualized until conscious attention is applied; IOW 'listening'.

Knowledge isn't created like how music is. Dismantling a tool that's designed for the sole intent of creating music, obviously isn't gonna get anyone music.

And analyzing and dismantling the Universe into 'parts' to see how they work does not get you the true nature of Reality. This is no better than the ignorant child who wantonly rips the wings off of butterflies to try to find out what 'makes it tick'. Analysis is the wrong approach.

Last I checked, it was science that unlocked the secrets on how to make the very thing you're typing on. Can't get that with spiritual enlightenment, I can assure you.

As I said, mystics have no quarrel with science, except when science thinks it is the only valid approach to knowledge. It is far from that, but the level of consciousness within the scientific world is limited by its methodology. You cannot get to a true understanding of Reality via intellectual pursuits; you get factual knowledge. Science can only be correctly understood when seen within the context of Reality itself, and not the other way around.

I hope you're aware that this is only of many ways to figure stuff out in science.

Within the strict confines of science, yes, but the nature of things cannot be so figured out. There is nothing to figure out. That is the paradox.

The disassembled and reassembled part is unnecessary since we're already inside the Universe. Scientists dissect things to peak inside them. We can analyze the Universe just fine.

Analysis will never yield the true nature of things, but only facts, data, and predictability. If you want to know what the weather will be like in two days, or want to get to planet x, use science, but if you want to truly understand the nature of Reality itself, intellectual methods do not work.

I'd say it could make someone a better musician if they have a better understanding of the instrument they're using.

Yes but ultimately the musician must know how to transmit feelings and musical ideas to the listener, while the listener must be open and attentive to what he is hearing. That is communication and communion. Instruments are just the tools by which the transmission of musical sounds occurs. Likewise, realization of union with the Universe occurs via consciousness and attention. Conscious attention is the instrument the mystic 'listener' uses to do so. Man already has all of the necessary equipment for this communication, but only needs to develop it. It's not easy, but it does involve simplicity, which is the key to the complex.

Nothing "gives" you music. You have to create it. But the secrets of the universe are not created. They're discovered. And that, you need the right instruments to analyse it's very nature. There's no other way really.

The moment you embark upon intellectual analysis you have lost touch with nature.

More to follow....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Our experience isn't just conditoned by our perceptions but by the physical limitations of our senses. We will only ever be able to directly experience a tiny fraction of the universe, so concepts like "Absolute Reality" and "Cosmic Consciousness" are pointless and meaningless.

What has the physical limitations of human senses got to do with absolute reality?

Absolute reality is not dependent on human experiences, it is the sum total of all the tiny fraction of absolute reality that human are aware of....PLUS....all that humanity is not aware of.....

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

Well said.

 

[godnotgod]

What has the physical limitations of human senses got to do with absolute reality?

Absolute reality is not dependent on human experiences, it is the sum total of all the tiny fraction of absolute reality that human are aware of....PLUS....all that humanity is not aware of.....

Yes, the mystic at some point on his path realizes that perceptual reality is flawed, and so seeks a path beyond the senses. If successful, he may catch a glimpse of Ultimate Reality. Once seen, the practitioner is changed forever. But the path leads right back to the Present Moment where Everything is, which is why it is said:

"Before Enlightenment, sweeping the floor;
after Enlightenment, sweeping the floor"

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Machines are systems which have parts; The Universe is not a machine with parts, and what you call 'system' is a series of cyclical patterns. Machine systems all have specific functions, with efficiency a very important factor, but the Universe has no known function or purpose. In fact, it seems very inefficient, as it creates an infinitude of stars and other celestial bodies, all for no apparent rhyme or reason.

When I say systems, I'm not talking about man made systems with a purpose. Most systems don't have a purpose, but they still have a set of functions. A functions, to put it simply, is what something does. The Universe does things. It has activity. Therefore, it has functions. The solar system is another system with functions. It's not man-made, so it has no purpose. It's not the Sun's purpose to help plants grow, but that's what it does. It functions as an energy source for plants.

Fine, but I keep telling you: I am referring to the shape of the medium while the energy-wave is passing through it. The medium of the oceanic wave-form is water, just like the ocean, which is without form. The metaphor refers to all forms, underneath which lies undifferentiated consciousness itself. I know you disagree with this, but it is beyond your scope here. Sorry.

If the wave moves a couple of feet within the ocean, is it the same wave?

The shape of the ocean isn't the ocean it self. It's a form assumed by the ocean i.e. a property. And I get what you're saying. All the "stuff" in the Universe is just the Universe taking a specific form. Nonetheless, we can still describe the forms as interacting, just as we can describe the ripples and waves in the water as interacting with each other.

The problem is, you think your POV is exclusive and incompatible with the view of a self-interacting universe. That's what the Universe is. It's self-interacting. You can think of it as one thing, but it's still self-interacting and has differential activity throughout it (I had to avoid saying "within" it).

Just like the ocean has differential activity throughout it. Where there's a lot of waves at one section of the ocean, another section may have minimal activity and minimal waves. That's differential (non-uniform) activity. The intense waves at one end of the ocean can influence the minimal waves at another end. That's interaction.

Whether the Universe is a system or not is not the issue here; the issue is the inseparability and unity of form to formlessness; of detailed foreground to formless universal background. They are one and the same reality.

You seemed to take issue with the Universe being a system with interaction and interconnection. That was only ever our point to begin with.

Without ideas, applications are impossible.

I know, but I'm just saying, applications themselves are not ideas.

Music is not actualized until conscious attention is applied; IOW 'listening'.

I'm not sure what that means. Sounds like you're saying that music is only music in the mind of the listener. Otherwise it's just sound. Yeah, sure. Not sure how that's an analogy to anything relevant though.

And analyzing and dismantling the Universe into 'parts' to see how they work does not get you the true nature of Reality

If it grants us practicality and utility, it's close to the truth. If you end up getting to the ultimate truth of reality, and it gets you no utility, it's not the ultimate truth. So far, analyzing the Universe has granted us application and utility and capability.

As I said, mystics have no quarrel with science, except when science thinks it is the only valid approach to knowledge.

Science doesn't think anything. Science is a process and enterprise. But yeah, I think science is the only true valid approach to knowledge, broadly speaking.

It is far from that, but the level of consciousness within the scientific world is limited by its methodology. You cannot get to a true understanding of Reality via intellectual pursuits; you get factual knowledge.

I still don't understand why you're so fixed on attaining ultimate knowledge if it doesn't grant you anything. You seem to recognize that science grants far more utility, application, and overall anything compared to mysticism. So far, the only thing you said mysticism grants is the usual cliches, such as compassion and some other noble sounding stuff. From there, you were quick to point out the lack of compassion in the world which I would attribute to many other things before I'd attribute it to lack of mysticism. Mysticism isn't needed in order to have compassion and I'm not even sure it's the best way to get it.

The pursuit of this ultimate knowledge, the way you see it, all seems pointless in the end. You attain it, and then where do you go from there?

but if you want to truly understand the nature of Reality itself

What I want is what certain types of knowledge can grant me. Whether it's building a super fast computer, or maximizing compassion out of people (which I'd say we'd need to turn to the fields of psychology and sociology and behavioral science for that).

Like I said, if ultimate knowledge gets me absolutely nothing, then I don't care to have it (though I doubt it would be ultimate knowledge in the first place if it granted me nothing).

Yes but ultimately the musician must know how to transmit feelings and musical ideas to the listener, while the listener must be open and attentive to what he is hearing.

I bet some knowledge in psychology and neurology (scientific fields) would help the musician transmit feelings.

The moment you embark upon intellectual analysis you have lost touch with nature.

Well I find it odd that a lack of touch in nature grants me computers, airplanes, medicine, and overall allows use to manipulate the nature of things.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I am talking about experiencing the true nature of the Universe...

But we can never experience the universe, we can only experience our own little world, a tiny fraction of the universe. So talking about the "true nature of the universe" based on our own limited experience is completely nonsensical.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Absolute reality is not dependent on human experiences, it is the sum total of all the tiny fraction of absolute reality that human are aware of....PLUS....all that humanity is not aware of.....

We only experience our own little world, which means we can only speculate about the rest of it.
Concepts like "absolute reality" are pointless and redundant, it is much more accurate to say that we can only experience a tiny fraction of the universe.

By all means speculate, but don't dress up these speculations as facts.

 

[Desert Snake]

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!

So, leave the tired clichés and obscure quotes for the /Buddhism etc. DIR's? Sounds good to me.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes, the mystic at some point on his path realizes that perceptual reality is flawed, and so seeks a path beyond the senses. If successful, he may catch a glimpse of Ultimate Reality.

No, the mystic may have a radically different perception of his own experience, his own small world. Your "Ultimate Reality" is a fiction.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So, leave the tired clichés and obscure quotes for the /Buddhism etc. DIR's? Sounds good to me.

Well, at least stop dumping in the same old stuff every couple of pages regardless of whether it's relevant to the discussion in hand.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

'I' only exists when you are thinking. When you are not thinking, there is no thinker of thoughts called 'I'. There is only seeing itself, without an agent of seeing. If there is no agent of seeing, then seeing is impersonal. Now tell me who, or what, is seeing?

This is another example of the way you ignore the discussion in hand and dump in one of your random cliches.

Here is the original exchange:
You said:
1. It is not some ontological reality 'out there', but in here.
2. You are the Universe, looking at itself through your eyes.

I responded:
Statement 1 is accurate.
Statement 2 is pure speculation and basically meaningless.

Would you like to have another go?

 

[godnotgod]

But we can never experience the universe, we can only experience our own little world, a tiny fraction of the universe. So talking about the "true nature of the universe" based on our own limited experience is completely nonsensical.

It is to the conditioned, limited mind, yes. You are at present totally immersed in the Universe, and the Universe in you. How can you say you cannot experience it? But if your conditioning won't allow you to see things as they are, you will see them as they are not, which means you will see them as your conditioned mind dictates reality to you.

The true nature of Reality is not based on limited experience. It is based on the transcendence of limited mind, which is Reality itself. As Patanjali tells us: 'Yoga (ie; divine union) is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind'.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You are at present totally immersed in the Universe, and the Universe in you.

Nonsense. It's pointless speculating about the universe here because we are actually talking about the way we perceive our own tiny part of it, our limited personal world.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We only experience our own little world, which means we can only speculate about the rest of it.
Concepts like "absolute reality" are pointless and redundant, it is much more accurate to say that we can only experience a tiny fraction of the universe.

By all means speculate, but don't dress up these speculations as facts.

...It is not speculation to say the reality outside of that which humans are aware...ADDED to the reality of which humans are aware...IS the total reality of the universe... Absolute reality means all reality...simple and logical....

 

[Straw Dog]

Does the possibility exist in your mind that there might be a view that is outside the sphere of any subjective view, one untainted by conditioning? One that does not come and go, that does not change, and that, while most people are unaware of its existence as the fish in the sea is unaware of the surrounding sea, this impersonal view is what allows all subjective views?

Any possible 'view' is necessarily conditioned by a particular process of subjective experience. What makes any possible view meaningful is the reality of communication.

Are you not trying to communicate your personal experience?

 

[godnotgod]

No, the mystic may have a radically different perception of his own experience, his own small world. Your "Ultimate Reality" is a fiction.

No, that is incorrect. 'His own small world' is fiction; the mystical experience is an impersonal one beyond that Why? Because it is finally realized that 'his own small world' is not of his own making, but one that was made by others. He has been living someone else's ideas, instead of experiencing his own true Being, which is the experience of Ultimate Reality. But attempting to describe even a glimpse of Ultimate Reality to someone who has never had even a glimpse of it, is like a bird raised in captivity who has never known the freedom of flight. When you are asleep, dreaming, that is the extent of your world, and it represents reality to you. You know nothing of the awakened state, but upon awakening you realize immediately the illusory nature of your dream. That translates as well from the waking state to the next higher level of consciousness. You know nothing about it, but when you begin to experience it (ie 'Self-Transcendence; Self-Remembering') the previous level of consciousness is now seen/understood as fiction. It's a matter of degree: A light source gradually illuminating a darkened room as the door is opened reveals greater and greater detail. What was thought to be real at one point is now seen as something else at a greater degree of illumination.

For you, 'reality' is validated via perceptual reality, such as the pain experienced after dropping a brick on your foot. If a brick were dropped on your foot at the moment of your sudden experience of a vision of the Infinite, the brick pain would seem completely insignificant in comparison. You would not be able to divert your attention away from such a vision so great would the ecstasy be, no matter how short lived. And no, you would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a vision was not a hallucination.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

...It is not speculation to say the reality outside of that which humans are aware...ADDED to the reality of which humans are aware...IS the total reality of the universe... Absolute reality means all reality...simple and logical....

Just say "universe" then. The word "reality" is a can of worms, particularly if you start it with a capital R. And then people talk about "Absolute Reality", as if that is more real than "reality", it's just pretentious nonsense.