Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Interesting. Clearly the universe is characterised by continual change and transformation, I wonder if that's just the nature of it, what stuff does?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?
- Thread starter Runewolf1973
- Start date
Interesting. Clearly the universe is characterised by continual change and transformation, I wonder if that's just the nature of it, what stuff does?
godnotgod
Thou art That
This is what the Buddha noticed about life: that it is continually effervescent, and what prompted him to seek higher ground.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Deus ex machina (Latin: [ˈdeʊs ɛks ˈmaː.kʰɪ.naː]: /ˈdeɪ.əs ɛks ˈmɑːkiːnə/ or /ˈdiːəs ɛks ˈmækɨnə/;[1] plural: dei ex machina) is a Latin calque from Greek ἀπὸ μηχανῆς θεός (apò mēkhanês theós), meaning "god from the machine".[2] The term has evolved to mean a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability or object. Depending on how it is done, it can be intended to move the story forward when the writer has "painted himself into a corner" and sees no other way out, to surprise the audience, to bring the tale to a happy ending, or as a comedic device.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
Honestly, it doesn't change a damn thing because that is a point where even science faces uncertainty. Therefore I can speculate all I want and it does not break any fundamental laws of science that are already in place.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
Who cares?
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Indeed. I'm surprised the snake-oil sellers are still in town, it seems that nobody is buying.
godnotgod
Thou art That
I see it as 'this' doing something (animating) to 'that', clearly a dualistic view, as well as a variation of the artefact view.
The mystical view is just the opposite: the merging of observer and observed into the One Reality that it already is. Using your distorted and misleading terminology, there is no 'Animating Factor' animating the animation*: there is only animation itself. This reflects the singularity of Reality, with no subject/object split, as you have done. The error in thinking is that, not only do we think of the universe as being composed of separate 'things' (it's not), but as humans, we create an entity called 'I', being the concept of a separate ego acting upon the world. The reality is that what we call 'things' and 'I' are actions, out of which we have created a frozen concept of reality. You continue this error in creating your 'theory' of an animator animating the animation, and of separate 'things' or entities 'interacting' or 'interconnected' one with the other. Thich Nhat Hanh uses this idea to point to the One Reality, but its just a temporary device which interfaces with the rational mind as a prompt to merge the observer with the observed.
*Likewise, there is no 'it' that rains; there is only raining;
no 'whirlpool' that 'whirls'; only whirling water;
no 'river' that flows; only flowing water;
no 'i' that thinks, nor thinker of thoughts; only thinking itself, etc.
oooooh! 'animating factor'...sounds impressive...i want one.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Indeed. I'm surprised the snake-oil sellers are still in town, it seems that nobody is buying.
And yet, they still hang around, like you, because what the mystic is pointing to is far, far more compelling than the frozen, sterile view of Reality that science describes.
Imagine that:
You are the very thing you seek, causing you to seek.
OMG! Did you see it? THE MOON!
Instant Enlightenment!
(but if you missed it because you stubbornly cling to the old paradigms, you may have to wait another 10 million kalpas for another opportunity!
)Get a grip, already!
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Fortunately, unlike delusions of grandeur, the mystical view is not based on beliefs, such as 'the Animating Factor', and the 'Theory of Interaction' are.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Anyone who requires accurate information. The dual view of Reality is that of subject/object split, where no such split is the case.
Your 'theory' seems to have quite a bit of slop to it, obviously created by someone who doesn't care.
godnotgod
Thou art That
The mystical view is neither right nor wrong, as it is a non-dual view of Reality.
A dogmatic view requires dogma. Since there is no dogma in Reality, and since the mystical view is a perfect reflection of Reality, the mystical view cannot possibly be a dogmatic view.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
You keep telling yourself that, Sunshine.The mystical view is neither right nor wrong, as it is a non-dual view of Reality.
A dogmatic view requires dogma. Since there is no dogma in Reality, and since the mystical view is a perfect reflection of Reality, the mystical view cannot possibly be a dogmatic view.
What you have described IS your dogma.
godnotgod
Thou art That
You keep telling yourself that, Sunshine.
What you have described IS your dogma.
OK, show me the doctrine that is dogma. Belief treated as Absolute Truth is dogma; seeing, without thought, is no dogma, as there is no belief attached to seeing.
godnotgod
Thou art That
godnotgod
Thou art That
Your link describes delusion of grandeur as follows:
People with a delusion of grandeur often have the conviction of having some great but unrecognized talent or insight. They may also believe they have made some important discovery that others don’t understand or appreciate.
How often have I stated that Enlightenment is 'Nothing Special'. If the Buddha were guilty of delusions of grandeur, he would not have said that Buddha Mind is none other than Ordinary Mind. He would have advertised himself as having special knowledge, which he did not, nor do I. Seeing things as they are is not special knowledge. 'The Animation Factor' is.
You advertise your 'Theory of Interaction' as if it were something new, but that things interact within the universe,( from the POV of the conditioned mind, ) is quite obvious and requires no special 'theory' to describe it.