Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[godnotgod]

An idea is an existent. It's not ego or denial that needs to exit the image, but the author.

Edit: Where you jump up and deny ego is where you support it in its existence. We can't deny non-existents--they don't exist.

But we think they do, and so deny/affirm them as if they are real, when all that is required to see ego for what it is: an illusion.

Isn't the author of the ego the mind/self/ego itself?

 

[godnotgod]

So why are you saying this to people who are not seeking the miraculous ?

Because it is The Miraculous that is causing them to seek. Having said that, they ARE seeking The Miraculous, but they don't realize it. You know. Hide and Seek. They themselves are the very essence of The Miraculous, pretending to be only The Ordinary.

 

[Papoon]

Because it is The Miraculous that is causing them to seek. Having said that, they ARE seeking The Miraculous, but they don't realize it. You know. Hide and Seek. They themselves are the very essence of The Miraculous, pretending to be only The Ordinary.

Ummmm....yeah. Right. Ciao.

 

[godnotgod]

Ummmm....yeah. Right. Ciao.

LOL

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's a good point. When I use the word interaction for example, it is not my intention to express a specific duality of any sort. Anyone who sees interaction solely as a duality is not understanding what I mean correctly. I am expressing interaction as a total action of the universe... Interconnectivity. In actuality, the word interaction indicates that which is not quite singular, yet not quite dual. It is neither, but at the same time it is both. Not one, not two. It is All. The apparent duality acting as a singularity. The apparent singularity acting as a duality. I believe there is no true singularity or "oneness" anymore than there is a true duality or "twoness". Not this, not that. All.

That's right...and that's the point...the conceptual explanation or teaching is used only as a temporary expedient, once the underlying non-dual nature of the apparent multitudinous reality is realized...one can dwell endlessly in awe of the unspeakable glory of cosmic being...

 

[Runewolf1973]

Zen would say that the Ordinary and the Miraculous are one and the same.

I would say the same thing.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The simple complexity of the singular multitudinal reality is miraculously ordinary.

 

[godnotgod]

The simple complexity of the singular multitudinal reality is miraculously ordinary.

LOOK! THE MOON!

 

[godnotgod]

That's right...and that's the point...the conceptual explanation or teaching is used only as a temporary expedient, once the underlying non-dual nature of the apparent multitudinous reality is realized...one can dwell endlessly in awe of the unspeakable glory of cosmic being...

Yes, but is That which is beheld in awe conscious or our beholding it?

(and if this question poses a dual view, what then?)

 

[Runewolf1973]

LOOK! THE MOON!

One does not simply look at the moon.

 

[YmirGF]

Yes, but is That which is beheld in awe conscious or our beholding it?

Obviously, I can't speak for Bendy, but my experience was that it was most certainly aware though it did take a bit to get its attention. It's sort of like what a microbe would have to do to get your attention. It was certainly like that during my visits with Vishnu.

(and if this question poses a dual view, what then?)

You could simply put aside limited ideas about duality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, but is That which is beheld in awe conscious or our beholding it?

(and if this question poses a dual view, what then?)

No problemo.....that which beholds is this which is beheld...and that which is beheld is this which beholds...

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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

Could we exhaustively describe an object like the earth in terms of mathematics? I think the answer would have to be yes. So if mathematics can exhaustively model the earth, could there then be such a thing as is exhaustively modelled with just zero. Zero is what it is, no more, or less. I think again the answer would have to be yes.

All our prejudices about things being tangible, visual, particulate, etc. must all be thrown out the window in favor of pure mathematics as the theory of everything.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Could we exhaustively describe an object like the earth in terms of mathematics? I think the answer would have to be yes. So if mathematics can exhaustively model the earth, could there then be such a thing as is exhaustively modelled with just zero. Zero is what it is, no more, or less. I think again the answer would have to be yes.

All our prejudices about things being tangible, visual, particulate, etc. must all be thrown out the window in favor of pure mathematics as the theory of everything.

I would agree. Math is the language of the universe.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I would agree. Math is the language of the universe.

Yes, like Galilei also said already hundreds of years ago.

I find it is a satisfying solution that the theory of everything is both easy in that everybody understands some maths, and also complicated, as maths can get very complicated. It makes the playing ground even among people. That there is no hidden atavistic "truth of the universe" to be found by scientific experts which is any more significant than the plain readily apparent facts.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Could we exhaustively describe an object like the earth in terms of mathematics? I think the answer would have to be yes. So if mathematics can exhaustively model the earth, could there then be such a thing as is exhaustively modelled with just zero. Zero is what it is, no more, or less. I think again the answer would have to be yes.

All our prejudices about things being tangible, visual, particulate, etc. must all be thrown out the window in favor of pure mathematics as the theory of everything.

There is a number of flaws in your belief about describing reality....for example the earth....for the earth is not a closed system...its climate is determined by other factors such as the sun, orbital cycles, etc...and then the solar cycles and orbital cycles are in turn affected by other milky way galactic factors, and so on... Understand that a model is not that which it is meant to represent....it may begin to approximate certain aspects of the reality it is meant to represent....but the reality is forever on the other side of the conceptual mathematical model...

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There is a number of flaws in your belief about describing reality....for example the earth....for the earth is not a closed system...its climate is determined by other factors such as the sun, orbital cycles, etc...and then the solar cycles and orbital cycles are in turn affected by other milky way galactic factors, and so on... Understand that a model is not that which it is meant to represent....it may begin to approximate certain aspects of the reality it is meant to represent....but the reality is forever on the other side of the conceptual mathematical model...

Well a model is also reality of course. To point out insufficiencies in the model, does not deny that modelling is the proper procedure for doing science, it rather confirms it by saying it is an insufficiency. You would want to make progress in getting rid of insufficiencies, and progress can and is being made. It makes no sense that you give up on having an exhaustive 1 to 1 (0 to 0) model.

That mathematics is the theory of everything suggests that our minds, as excellent modellers of the universe, are little universes in their own right, that minds have the same mathematical ordering as the universe proper, that they are also ordered by zero as mathematics is ordered by zero.

So to say, a mathematical model of the earth has to be placed in the framework of the general ordering of mathematics, the theory of everything. I think that is the more important point than what is also true, that many aspects of the earth only exist in relation to other objects like the sun.

 

[godnotgod]

No problemo.....that which beholds is this which is beheld...and that which is beheld is this which beholds...

Yes, thanks for the confirmation. Adios!

 

[godnotgod]

One does not simply look at the moon.

No, and that's where the problem lies.

In the Soto Zen school, one is instructed to 'just sit'; no more; no less. It is amazing how many people cannot 'just sit', without any other activity going on. This simple instruction is applied to our daily lives as well: when eating, just eat; when walking, just walk; when sweeping, just sweep, and so on, the point being to be here in the present moment at all times, and is applicable even at death:

When dying, just die.

 

[godnotgod]

....pure mathematics as the theory of everything.

It's much simpler than all that.

Mathematics is the clinical, even sterile, analysis and description of the universe as an object with white gloves on, but still doesn't tell us what the universe actually IS.

The description is not that which is described.