Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Rick O'Shez]

Is the emptiness that the Buddha realized about the true nature of phenomena 'pretentious nonsense'....

"Phenomena" being the operative word. All your convoluted speculations are beyond range.
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn35.23

 

[godnotgod]

Again with the projection. That is all you ever do.

Well, sir: I am not the one bothered by cliches. I only repeat much of my content because 1: it is relevant to the discussion, and 1: it is clear that it is not clear to many here, hence the repetition, which appears as cliche to you.

 

[godnotgod]

"Phenomena" being the operative word. All your convoluted speculations are beyond range.
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn35.23

No, the operative here is that the Buddha said that what was thought to be reality was not really Reality, which addresses your question. But the nitty gritty boils down to this:

'First, there is a mountain;
then, there is no mountain;
then, there is.'

Campeche?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

. I only repeat much of my content because 1: it is relevant to the discussion, and 1: it is clear that it is not clear to many here, hence the repetition, which appears as cliche to you.

Firstly, most of what you post isn't relevant to the discussion in hand. Basically you are using the thread to evangelise.
Secondly, the reason it's not clear is because it's a complete muddle of ideas from here and there. Continually regurgitating the same old quotes and cliches doesn't make your ideas any more intelligible, it just means people get fed up with you and stop listening.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No, the operative here is that the Buddha said that what was thought to be reality was not really Reality,

Fortunately the Buddha doesn't agree with you, or with the nonsense spouted by your guru Chopra.

 

[godnotgod]

Firstly, most of what you post isn't relevant to the discussion in hand. Basically you are using the thread to evangelise.
Secondly, the reason it's not clear is because it's a complete muddle of ideas from here and there. Continually regurgitating the same old quotes and cliches doesn't make your ideas any more intelligible, it just means people get fed up with you and stop listening.

But you, who claim such exhaustion, cannot help to hound me page after page, intent on every word. My, such attentiveness! If only you could apply it to looking at the moon, you might have a change of vision. You are like the Germans: either in your face or at your feet. Must be an archetypical lockjaw thingie.

Fact is, I deem what I say relevant to the discussion, and that is my right as a forum member, and two, you have not yet pointed out the doctrine which you claim I am evangelizing, though I have told you time and again that I possess no such doctrine. Search me. And thirdly, it is not my fault you lack the intuitive understanding to grasp the travel between point A and B. I point, but you recalcitrantly and rabidly attack the pointing finger, again and again. It is I who should be fed up, but neither rain, nor sleet, nor snow shall deter my from my appointed rounds.

You can always use the IGNORE option.

LOOK, SPINY! DER MOON, FER GAWDZSAKES!

(sound of head suddenly snapping into position).

 

[godnotgod]

Fortunately the Buddha doesn't agree with you, or with the nonsense spouted by your guru Chopra.

The Heart Sutra says you are wrong.

Nutshell: common man says form is substantive; Buddha says no, it is empty of inherent nature. reality is not Reality. Tilt. Game over.

Chopra is head and heels above you, so get over it already.

He's a maverick a dolt cannot fathom.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"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."

• What sort of education did you have? The word 'absolute' in this context means...complete...and the word reality does not need defining except in context...there is the reality which spiny is aware of which is limited but reality nevertheless...then there is absolute reality...the complete reality which is comprised the reality of which spiny is aware..PLUS..the reality of which spiny is unaware...the sum total is complete reality...aka absolute reality...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The Heart Sutra says you are wrong.

<sigh> We've been through this before and it was crystal clear that sunyata is incompatible with your fanciful notions of "Absolute Reality", and also incompatible with Chopra's surreal pseudo-Hindu ramblings.

Anyway, I have no interest in your peculiar Choprised ideas about Buddhism. If you really want to discuss Buddhist teachings then start a thread in the Buddhism DIR, where I'm sure you would soon be put straight on your misconceptions and misreprentations.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

• What sort of education did you have? The word 'absolute' in this context means...complete...and the word reality does not need defining except in context...there is the reality which spiny is aware of which is limited but reality nevertheless...then there is absolute reality...the complete reality which is comprised the reality of which spiny is aware..PLUS..the reality of which spiny is unaware...the sum total is complete reality...aka absolute reality...

You still haven't explained why you just can't say "universe". A bit too straightforward perhaps? Too transparent? Not enough pretentious jargon to hide behind while you deliver your "sermons"?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I point, but you recalcitrantly and rabidly attack the pointing finger, again and again. It is I who should be fed up, but neither rain, nor sleet, nor snow shall deter my from my appointed rounds.

You really do see yourself as a misunderstood prophet don't you, so in your mind anyone who disagrees with your surreal ideas is persecuting you.

Some time ago another contributor suggested you were suffering from delusions of grandeur, perhaps they were right.

You'd probably be better blogging, then you could evangelise to your hearts content with no chance of anyone bursting your bubble or smoking you out of your rabbit hole.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

Right. The Universe just does things. So what is all this doing about? The 'sound and the fury signifying nothing'?; a gyrating stupidity perhaps?

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

Man, are you deaf or what? IT IS THE SAME CONTIGUOUS BODY OF WATER!

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.

Geez! It's just a metaphor, for gawdzsakes! Use your 'approximation' rule.

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.

Where did I ever protest the notion of interaction? What I do contest is what Runewolf states over and over again as mantra: that interaction is everything, and that it is the background to more interaction and that it is the true nature of the Universe, all of which tells me absolutely nothing about the Universe, because interaction is obvious even to the dimmest amongst us.

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

I take issue with comparing the Universe with a mechanical system which has separate parts. This view is an extension of what is known as The Fully Automatic Universe:

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

They are actualized ideas.

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.

Conscious attention is necessary to both the actualization of music and the insight into 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.

One can achieve a high degree of utility, but happiness still eludes such people. Many of their lives are filled with glitter but are empty.

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.

I can assure you it is not, and is highly overrated.

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?

We live in a high tech world filled to the brim with utility, an endless stream of new toys making obsolete the ones that were new and exciting just months ago. I repair and sell computers, and I see it all the time. But the most important utilitarian toys, weapons of war, have created a vicious world way out of balance to reality. The glitter and attraction of these techno-toys is destroying the balance of our human nature, physically, emotionally, and psychologically. The only way to achieve a harmonious world is via an awakened consciousness, which places the cart properly behind the horse. It is then, and only then, that science and technology can serve us as handmaidens. Instead, we have made them the goals, spurred on by monetary interests. None of this will bring us happiness. On the contrary, misery and despair seem to be creeping in day by day, usurping what little ground we have left. We live in a world of suspicion, fear, hatred, and violence to a great degree, much of it due to our empty pursuit of the glitter of science and technology, at the expense of our true birthright. We are fooling/cheating ourselves. Yes, we need science and technology, but not the way we currently pursue them.

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).

The nurturing of the spiritual life provides insight into which priorities are really important to one's happiness.

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

Any training and/or technical knowledge must ultimately be put aside during an actual performance, so that the musician can focus on what is immediately at hand: the music itself. A great performance is one of great spontaneity. and impulse. Watch a video of Yo Yo Ma, for example to see exactly how much emotional involvement and intelligence he puts into a performance. It is all feeling and transmission of the feeling of the musical content.

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.

You are missing out on a great experience, then. A mechanistic view of life will someday come to a crashing halt. Just let the river flow.

'Control, or no-control: both are a grievous error'
from Zen source

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Right. The Universe just does things. So what is all this doing about?

The universe doesn't have to be "about" anything. We humans have a need to read meaning and purpose into our experience, but projecting this out onto the universe is just anthropomorphism. The same applies to projecting out subjective meditative states and shifts in perception, it's the height of arrogance and egocentricity to assume that these have any objective correlation to the universe or that they effect the big picture in any way.

If a giant asteroid strikes the earth next week and wipes us all, do you think the universe would skip a beat? Of course not, we're just a bunch of apes on a tiny fragile speck, no more significant to the big picture than some microbes clinging to a leaf adrift in the middle of the ocean.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Right. The Universe just does things. So what is all this doing about? The 'sound and the fury signifying nothing'?; a gyrating stupidity perhaps?

Sure, I guess.

Man, are you deaf or what? IT IS THE SAME CONTIGUOUS BODY OF WATER!

Well this is the first time I'm seeing you lose your composer towards me. So much for finding inner peace and happiness and whatnot.

I'm interpreting this slander as a sign of lack of compassion. Yeah, I'm totally deaf. That impedes my ability to read a post on a forum.

Geez! It's just a metaphor, for gawdzsakes! Use your 'approximation' rule.

I thought it was an analogy.

I understand the view of seeing the Universe as one thing. It's still self-interacting and non-uniform.

I take issue with comparing the Universe with a mechanical system which has separate parts. This view is an extension of what is known as The Fully Automatic Universe:

I just said the Universe is a body of interacting parts. I never said the parts were separate. The parts of a system are not separate from a system. The moment they become separate is the moment they're not a part of the system. But I've been describing the Universe as a system.

Conscious attention is necessary to both the actualization of music and the insight into the true nature of Reality.

I still don't know what this means.

One can achieve a high degree of utility, but happiness still eludes such people. Many of their lives are filled with glitter but are empty.

So we need mysticism to be happy? Again, I doubt it.

I can assure you it is not, and is highly overrated.

It's gonna take more to convince me than just saying it.

I repair and sell computers, and I see it all the time.

Your personal experience, therefore, anecdotal evidence and not impersonal. Spiny Norman is right. You are projecting your personal experience as some ultimate truth.

But the most important utilitarian toys, weapons of war, have created a vicious world way out of balance to reality.

The vicious world created the weapons of war, not the other way around. We were vicious before the technology came. Technology isn't to blame for how vicious we've become. In fact, studies have shown that human beings are far less vicious than we use to be in the past.

The glitter and attraction of these techno-toys is destroying the balance of our human nature, physically, emotionally, and psychologically.

I disagree. I think it's something else messing up the balance of the world we live in. But that's a whole 'nother discussion. But I wouldn't blame technology.

The only way to achieve a harmonious world is via an awakened consciousness

I doubt it's the only way, or even being a way at all. I'd attribute the lack of harmony in this world to ignorance (to put it simply and very broadly).

We live in a world of suspicion, fear, hatred, and violence to a great degree

News flash! The world has always been this way regardless of technology! The cavemen lived in a world of suspicion, fear, hatred, and violence. The Egyptians lived in a world of suspicion, fear, hatred, and violence. The entire Animal Kingdom lives in a world of suspicion, fear, hatred, and violence! It has nothing to do with technology.

You take a violent species and give it the ability to produce technology, and they're most likely gonna produce weapons. But the weapons are the effect of the violent mentality, not the cause.

The nurturing of the spiritual life provides insight into which priorities are really important to one's happiness.

Doubt it.

Any training and/or technical knowledge must ultimately be put aside during an actual performance, so that the musician can focus on what is immediately at hand: the music itself.

It's not put aside. It just becomes second nature. This is achieved via sheer practice.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You still haven't explained why you just can't say "universe". A bit too straightforward perhaps? Too transparent? Not enough pretentious jargon to hide behind while you deliver your "sermons"?

Back in your post #2467. you were using the word 'reality'...not 'universe'...for you stated...'Is "Ultimate Reality" supposed to be more real than "Reality"? '... In response I have been trying to explain to you they have different meanings. It depends on context as to which is the appropriate term to use.. For example, there is the reality which spiny is aware of which is limited but reality nevertheless...then there is absolute or ultimate reality...the complete reality which is comprised of the reality of which spiny is aware..PLUS..the reality of which spiny is unaware...the sum total is complete reality...aka absolute or ultimate reality...

I am happy to use the word universe when it is appropriate..and do all the time......but you were talking about 'reality' and 'ultimate reality' as if these two concepts meant the same thing....and I have shown you they do not.

 

[godnotgod]

The universe doesn't have to be "about" anything. We humans have a need to read meaning and purpose into our experience, but projecting this out onto the universe is just anthropomorphism. The same applies to projecting out subjective meditative states and shifts in perception, it's the height of arrogance and egocentricity to assume that these have any objective correlation to the universe or that they effect the big picture in any way.

If a giant asteroid strikes the earth next week and wipes us all, do you think the universe would skip a beat? Of course not, we're just a bunch of apes on a tiny fragile speck, no more significant to the big picture than some microbes clinging to a leaf adrift in the middle of the ocean.

All things are equal to everything else in the universe. You are projecting relative importance onto things.

Where have I ever projected an anthropomorphic image onto the Universe? Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word. Look it up.

Maybe the Universe is manifesting you. After all, you did come out of it, and it does fully encompass you, and every sub-atomic particle within you is what the Universe actually is in reality. None of that is speculation. It is fact. So where do you leave off and the Universe begin? To talk about the Universe as being 'out there' is a misperception due to your indoctrination as 'subject//object', 'observer/observed'. There is zero distance between you and the Universe, so even projection is an illusion.

I did not ask if the Universe had purpose or meaning: I asked what it is about? For example: there is no purpose or meaning to dancing other than the dance itself. Dancing is what the dance is about, simply because dancing is an enjoyable activity. You would'nt dance if you did'nt enjoy it, even though there is no purpose or meaning involved. What the Universe is doing, however, is of a far, far greater magnitude (no, not importance) than the human activity we call 'dancing'. What is it?

The ocean wave, could it reflect, would not say: 'I alone am made of water. The ocean 'over there' cannot possibly be made of water. To think so would merely be wavethink projection'

So the height of arrogance is not found in any such correlation, but in assuming that only we are conscious beings, and that the very Universe which is our origin, which nurtures us 100% 24/7 inside and out, and to which we return, is nothing more than dead unconscious matter from which conscious beings emerged.

 

[godnotgod]

Well this is the first time I'm seeing you lose your composer towards me. So much for finding inner peace and happiness and whatnot.

I'm interpreting this slander as a sign of lack of compassion. Yeah, I'm totally deaf. That impedes my ability to read a post on a forum.

(I will address this part of your post separately as I am pressed for time at the moment, then address the rest later, OK?)

I have not lost any composure. I must have corrected you at least 5 different times regarding this issue, and yet you ignore what I say and just return to your view of things. After experiencing a few of these blunt traumas to the head, my approach is to bring them to a screeching halt to avoid further discomfort, and to cause the originator of this mindless repetitive behaviour to be mindful of what he is actually saying.

Perhaps I should have used the phrase 'brain deaf'.

What impedes your reading ability is your attachment to your view.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There is zero distance between you and the Universe, so even projection is an illusion.

You know full well what I mean by "out there", so don't muddy the water with cliched talk about non-duality. Have you ever seen the Andromeda galaxy through a telescope? It's a small smudge, though we know it's unimaginably vast, approximately 220,000 light years across. It's approximately 2.5 million light years from earth, that is actually very close in astronomical terms where we are dealing with tens of billions of light years of observable universe. Are you seriously claiming the muddled religious beliefs you preach have any objective connection with what M31 is, or what the universe is? Of course they don't, and imagining they do is the height of egocentricity.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

(I will address this part of your post separately as I am pressed for time at the moment, then address the rest later, OK?)

I have not lost any composure. I must have corrected you at least 5 different times regarding this issue, and yet you ignore what I say and just return to your view of things. After experiencing a few of these blunt traumas to the head, my approach is to bring them to a screeching halt to avoid further discomfort, and to cause the originator of this mindless repetitive behaviour to be mindful of what he is actually saying.

Perhaps I should have used the phrase 'brain deaf'.

What impedes your reading ability is your attachment to your view.

I already told you that I understand the view of seeing the Universe (and the ocean) as one thing. But that it's still self-interacting and non-uniform and can also be described as a system. There was no reason for you to call me [brain] deaf. A simple 'yes' or 'no' to my question would have sufficed (if a wave moves a couple of feet in the ocean, is it the same wave?).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There was no reason for you to call me [brain] deaf.

It's a familiar pattern unfortunately, insulting and patronising anyone who dares to disagree.