• 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?

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Actually, that is the case. However, they do not exist separately from one another; they are, in fact one and the same. If you THINK 'everything' and 'nothing', they are separate; a duality, but if you SEE 'everything' and 'nothing', without conceptualization, they are the same Reality.
What? I don't understand this.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Could it be possible that "nothingness" is an actual dimension in and of itself just like space and time? If nothingness, void, vacuum, or empty space is an actual dimension, perhaps if we do not take that dimension into our equations of the universe, we could never hope to understand why there is such thing as "something". If virtual particles can briefly "pop" into and out of existence, there must be some sort of non-existence or "nothingness" (another dimension?) from whence they appear.

BTW, I do not believe that nothingness is "Pure Consciousness" or "Ultimate Reality" or anything mystical in nature. My understanding or my idea is that consciousness is a complex form of interaction. The physical world is a reality, but perhaps nothingness is another real dimension which forms that which we call existence.

Here is a link...

http://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html
Nothingness does not and can not exist in absolute terms...

If anyone thinks otherwise...what evidence is there apart from the concept?
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Undivided, I suppose. My worldview is a mixture of idealist monism, existentialism and nihilism.

If it is undivided, where does the distinction, if any, lie between 'no-thing' and 'every-thing'?

yin_yang_small.jpg
 

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
Of course....for logical reasons...the concept of pure consciousness implies the existence of something....but the concept of nothing implies the absence of anything...


I like that perspective. I've had this discussion before with Godnotgod and his view of "Ultimate Reality" seems to be that pure consciousness is absolute nothingness. So basically all energy, matter and interactions are illusions and that nothing really exists. I have a hard time accepting such a view.

I can see pure consciousness as being another word for the underlying interactive, unifying force of the entire universe...a Unified Field perhaps, but not nothingness.
 
Last edited:

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
I like that perspective. I've had this discussion before with Godnotgod and his view of "Ultimate Reality" seems to be that pure consciousness is absolute nothingness. So basically all energy, matter and interactions are illusions and that nothing really exists. I have a hard time accepting such a view.

I can see pure consciousness as being another word for the underlying interactive, unifying force of the entire universe...a Unified Field perhaps, but not nothingness.
Agreed....the absolute is one and thus is not directly subject to complementary opposite conceptual distinctions...but from the non-conceptual Tao comes the one, the concept of Tao, from the one comes the two, from the two comes the three, and from the three come the the ten thousand things....
 
Last edited:

godnotgod

Thou art That
There isn't a distinction. There is not 'no-thing', only everything. Nothing is just a useful explanayory concept that doesn't exist beyond imagination.

OK, but if there is only Everything, how do you know that? That is to say, what is the reference against which you know that 'Every-thing' is a reality? Don't all things have space between them, to define them as the forms that they are?

For example: you know that black exists because of white; shadow because of light; female because of male; good because of evil, etc.

In reality, there are no 'things' as what we term 'things' are all interconnected to everything else. So there is no such thing as 'every-thing-. There is only The One.
 
Last edited:

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
OK, but if there is only Everything, how do you know that? That is to say, what is the reference against which you know that 'Every-thing' is a reality? Don't all things have space between them, to define them as the forms that they are?

For example: you know that black exists because of white; shadow because of light; female because of male; good because of evil, etc.

In reality, there are no 'things' as what we term 'things' are all interconnected to everything else. So there is no such thing as 'every-thing-. There is only The One.
The one that is all... :) Without conceptual distinctions of the perceived aspects of the one, there can be no discussion and thus nothing further to be said... So it is always important to remember that we can never say anything about the one reality beyond conceptualization, but only about the the reality perceived and conceived...There is this Chan saying....the true teaching is that there is no true teaching, nevertheless this teaching that there is no true teaching is the true teaching.. :) It means that while the absolute is beyond concepts, one needs to use concepts as an expedient to teach that only when the mortal mind is free from concepts will the absolute reveal itself...
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
The one that is all... :)

Yes, The One, The Absolute, that projects/plays itself as The All; ie; 'Every-Thing" that is the world, or maya, while its true nature is that of No-Thing.

It means that while the absolute is beyond concepts, one needs to use concepts as an expedient to teach that only when the mortal mind is free from concepts will the absolute reveal itself...

So is this simply to say that the mortal mind is in the sphere of duality, while the free mind is of the merging of all dualities?
 
Last edited:

godnotgod

Thou art That
I like that perspective. I've had this discussion before with Godnotgod and his view of "Ultimate Reality" seems to be that pure consciousness is absolute nothingness. So basically all energy, matter and interactions are illusions and that nothing really exists. I have a hard time accepting such a view.

I can see pure consciousness as being another word for the underlying interactive, unifying force of the entire universe...a Unified Field perhaps, but not nothingness.

Nothingness is Pure (ie 'clear') Consciousness, 'clear' meaning unconditioned, and therefore, universal.

Nothing exists as the conditioned mind perceives things to be. Quantum Physics is now giving us a glimpse of that experience.


'First there is a mountain;
then there is no mountain;
then there is'
 
Last edited:

godnotgod

Thou art That
Agreed....the absolute is one and thus is not directly subject to complementary opposite conceptual distinctions...but from the non-conceptual Tao comes the one, the concept of Tao, from the one comes the two, from the two comes the three, and from the three come the the ten thousand things....

Yup! Everything comes out of No-Thing. There is no duality here, as Everything and Nothing are one and the same Reality. It is like saying 'Brahman is the world', or, as Vivekenanda said it:

'The Universe IS [none other than] The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'.

 
Last edited:

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Yes, The One, The Absolute, that projects/plays itself as The All; ie; 'Every-Thing" that is the world, or maya, but its true nature is that of No-Thing.

So is this simply to say that the mortal mind is in the sphere of duality, while the free mind is of the merging of all dualities?
The one/universal mind is non-dual so there are no dualities to merge...
 
Top