Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Rick O'Shez]

Something else. State of mind irrelevant. Stilling the mind may have been a prerequisite, to notice, but like the sky it is not contingent on presence or absence of clouds. Almost impossible to say anything sensible about it really. I am now thinking I should have said nothing, because I have no way of making what I mean comprehensible. I certainty don't understand it. I think I was wondering if anyone else might recognise what I mean.

From my point of view everything is experienced in the mind, so state of mind is pivotal to how we experience things. But maybe you could say some more about what you mean? I had a look for your original post but I couldn't see it in all the back and forth.

 

[Papoon]

'Everything comes out of Nothing!"

So tell me: in your newfound experience, would you say that consciousness is local or non-local?

No, I wouldn't.

 

[Papoon]

From my point of view everything is experienced in the mind, so state of mind is pivotal to how we experience things. But maybe you could say some more about what you mean? I had a look for your original post but I couldn't see it in all the back and forth.

Hmm. WTFN ?
'Mind' and 'experiencing' seem to me to be synonyms, so to say that everything is experienced in the mind is a tautology. I have just spent another ten futile minutes trying to find a way to express what I mean,. The closest I can come is attributeless presence in which mind arises. Paradoxically impersonal yet the essence or origin of personality. Who I am regardless of what phenomena arise.

 

[Papoon]

From the POV of Higher Pure Ultimate Cosmic Consciousness, it is only The Changeless Ultimate Reality Nothingness Thingy manifesting as Ultimate Universal Background Change Somethingness Whatsit, but from the POV of the 3rd level of consciousness Maya is seen through a glass deeply beyond Time and Space so IOW Two is none other than One...

Yeah. The exact opposite of being aware of space. The laundromat.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Hmm. WTFN ?
'Mind' and 'experiencing' seem to me to be synonyms, so to say that everything is experienced in the mind is a tautology. I have just spent another ten futile minutes trying to find a way to express what I mean,. The closest I can come is attributeless presence in which mind arises. Paradoxically impersonal yet the essence or origin of personality. Who I am regardless of what phenomena arise.

The semantics are tricky, but I think I sort of understand what you're talking about. In my language it would be spaciousness of mind.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yeah. The exact opposite of being aware of space. The laundromat.

We're all lost socks in the laundromat of oblivion.

 

[YmirGF]

Hmm. WTFN ?
'Mind' and 'experiencing' seem to me to be synonyms, so to say that everything is experienced in the mind is a tautology. I have just spent another ten futile minutes trying to find a way to express what I mean,. The closest I can come is attributeless presence in which mind arises. Paradoxically impersonal yet the essence or origin of personality. Who I am regardless of what phenomena arise.

I'd say you are doing a pretty good job. It's not a simple to describe as the average garden gnome might think.

 

[YmirGF]

We're all lost socks in the laundromat of oblivion.

I don't know why but that reminds me of "The restaurant at the end of the universe". The laundromat at the end of the universe?

Then again, I'm still waking up..

 

[Unification]

Experience is knowledge. Imaginings are just imaginings, pseudo-science is just pseudo-science and beliefs are just beliefs.

Knowledge is just knowledge also.

For me, there is a massive difference between direct experience/to know something, and to have knowledge of something.

 

[Unification]

In the brains of sentient beings and devices created by them.


It's created in stars, isn't it? Stars also create light of course.

Again you are trying to reify light and make it your god, ignoring all evidence to the contrary. Why this need to reify?

There is having knowledge of light and experiencing light.

There is no "need." What evidence is contrary? It's not possible to make something out to be more than what it is if it's all that there is.

I think you're the opposite of me, degrading light to be less than what it's already been evident and shown to be.

I may ask the same thing, why the need to degrade light, ignoring all evidence to the contrary?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There is having knowledge of light and experiencing light.

I've been working with the experience of seeing light for many years as part of a Buddhist practice. I'm also an amateur naturalist and astronomer. So yes, light is cool, but it's not god.

 

[Unification]

I've been working with the experience of seeing light for many years as part of a Buddhist practice. I'm also an amateur naturalist and astronomer.

If all is mind, you're not seeing that light though... you're experiencing it.

En-LIGHT-en, what else would you call it...seeing visible stars in the cosmos?

So I must ask, why degrade it?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So I must ask, why degrade it?

I'm not trying to degrade it, I'm questioning your need to reify it.

 

[Unification]

I've been working with the experience of seeing light for many years as part of a Buddhist practice. I'm also an amateur naturalist and astronomer. So yes, light is cool, but it's not god.

It's also light that is continuously running across and through synapses of your brain through your bloodstream, water, fluids, altering neurons, other cells, ionically bonding all of your atoms, carrying information and instruction, making the mind more aware or less aware.

 

[Unification]

I'm not trying to degrade it, I'm questioning your need to reify it.

There is no "need" and it's not possible to make something more than what it is if its all there is.

 

[Unification]

I've been working with the experience of seeing light for many years as part of a Buddhist practice. I'm also an amateur naturalist and astronomer. So yes, light is cool, but it's not god.

Light isn't a supernatural, deity. Light is natural and organic.

 

[Unification]

In the brains of sentient beings and devices created by them.


It's created in stars, isn't it? Stars also create light of course.

Again you are trying to reify light and make it your god, ignoring all evidence to the contrary. Why this need to reify?

You also experience stars, they are named astrocytes.

 

[Unification]

You also experience stars, they are named astrocytes.

 

[Unification]

I'm not trying to degrade it, I'm questioning your need to reify it.

How do you want to be en-LIGHT-ened, assist others in seeing the LIGHT when you see light as nothing special.

That is what I would call a contradictory, hypocritical seller of snake oil. The very thing you're trying to sell is "nothing special."

 

[Unification]

How do you want to be en-LIGHT-ened, assist others in seeing the LIGHT when you see light as nothing special.

That is what I would call a contradictory, hypocritical seller of snake oil. The very thing you're trying to sell is "nothing special."

Buddah: seek enlightenment for yourself and others.
Spiney: nope, light is nothing special.. no need to reify it.