A Word about Nothing...

[godnotgod]

If you can please do me a favor and please explain where you're coming from in this regard so it'll save me the trouble of going back through a myriad of posts? By chance, are you referring to what some call a "cosmic consciousness" that generated everything?

Not exactly, as Cosmic Consciousness is specifically a potential state of human awareness. But yes, in the sense that it is out of Pure Abstract Intelligence that the 'material' Universes emerge, and to which they return. Some call this Intelligence 'The Unified Field'; 'Brahman'; 'The Ground of Being'; 'Tao'; Nothingness; The Void; etc.

In terms of the materiality of 'Everything', Quantum Physics does not see a 'material' world', but instead a world of possibility; of infinite potential and superposition. In addition, we now know that ALL of the mass of the atom is virtual mass, rendering this 'material reality' a virtual reality. This interfaces with Eastern wisdom, which says that this world is maya, or illusion, and that our current state of awareness, which we only think to be an awakened one, is actually a kind of Waking Sleep, from which we can further awaken and realize union with a conscious Universe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hahaha

No, your premise has the same problem as any other premise that uses the same equations. The duality is there, you realize this, but you are trying to say that somehow it isn't ''dualistic''. Anyone can immediately notice the problem, here. Merely stating that the universe isn't ''dualistic'', does not fix your equational mistake. Either you really do not understand what dualism means, or you are trying to fit this faulty concept into other theories.

Dualism is dualism; any sort, presents the problem that you have with your equation.

All I can see is you saying that I am wrong, but you offer no proof. I offer a way forward to clarify my point if we proceed methodically and logically, To begin with, can we both agree that your mind sees the universe dualistically in all it perceives and conceives....yes?

 

[godnotgod]

What is this " trying to explain the origin of 'something'? The origin of 'something' does not require explaining as it is a given, it exists now, it existed in the past, it will exist in the future, it had no beginning because it is eternal and not the smallest iota can ever be removed from existence or added to it. Nothing otoh does not exist now, nor did it in the past, nor will it in the future, it is merely a concept to represent the relative absence of some aspect of being, but being itself in non-dual and unborn.

And yet, this 'something' you claim is eternal is understood as maya; illusion. So what is this 'something' that 'exists'? It's like saying that the snake you see that is actually a rope is real and has existed forever. It has not. Only the rope, as metaphor for The Absolute, is real.

Nothing neither exists, nor not-exists. It appears you are caught in the subtle web of duality.

Religion and Science have been attempting to explain the origin of something since Day One. There is no such past or future in which anything exists or has existed. What we call material reality can only 'exist' in this present moment, but it exists as illusion, detected as such only when consciousness has become transformed from a conditioned to an unconditioned state.

There is nothing there. Only Brahman is real.

Are you confusing 'things' with form?

 

[Desert Snake]

All I can see is you saying that I am wrong, but you offer no proof. I offer a way forward to clarify my point if we proceed methodically and logically, To begin with, can we both agree that your mind sees the universe dualistically in all it perceives and conceives....yes?

No...
I hope that isn't part of your equation, either.

I don't need 'proof', your equation doesn't work/makes sense.
You really need to examine why/how you are fitting this fantastical ''something'', into your theory, because as of right now, it aint working

 

[godnotgod]

Hahaha

The duality is there...

Duality is an illusory view of what the actual state of Reality is, and exists only in the mind. It does not understand that the One it sees as This and That, is always One.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No...
I hope that isn't part of your equation, either.

I don't need 'proof', your equation doesn't work/makes sense.
You really need to examine why/how you are fitting this fantastical ''something'', into your theory, because as of right now, it aint working

Hmmm....you seem to be avoiding a mature exchange..

I do not have an equation, my attempts to convey to you conceptually the non-conceptual nature of non-duality is purely as an expedient, for language itself is conceptual and therefore dualsitic in nature. Nevertheless, there is no other way to communicate with someone who knows nothing else but duality to explain that non-duality can not be apprehended by duality...that is only logic.

 

[Desert Snake]

Duality is an illusory view of what the actual state of Reality is, and exists only in the mind. It does not understand that the One it sees as This and That, is always One.

No, I meant, the duality in his theory.

ie there is an inherent duality in that theory

 

[Desert Snake]

Hmmm....you seem to be avoiding a mature exchange..

I do not have an equation, my attempts to convey to you conceptually the non-conceptual nature of non-duality is purely as an expedient, for language itself is conceptual and therefore dualsitic in nature. Nevertheless, there is no other way to communicate with someone who knows nothing else but duality to explain that non-duality can not be apprehended by duality...that is only logic.

You are trying to mix dualism with non-duality, and it isn't working. This is why/how you are getting goofed with the something.



Nothing new, here.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hmmm....you seem to be avoiding a mature exchange..

I do not have an equation, my attempts to convey to you conceptually the non-conceptual nature of non-duality is purely as an expedient, for language itself is conceptual and therefore dualsitic in nature. Nevertheless, there is no other way to communicate with someone who knows nothing else but duality to explain that non-duality can not be apprehended by duality...that is only logic.

No, it is more than language. Obviously. You are attached to the 'something', and therefore you are presenting duality by default.

you are presenting an equation whether you realize it or not.

 

[metis]

Not exactly, as Cosmic Consciousness is specifically a potential state of human awareness. But yes, in the sense that it is out of Pure Abstract Intelligence that the 'material' Universes emerge, and to which they return. Some call this Intelligence 'The Unified Field'; 'Brahman'; 'The Ground of Being'; 'Tao'; Nothingness; The Void; etc.

In terms of the materiality of 'Everything', Quantum Physics does not see a 'material' world', but instead a world of possibility; of infinite potential and superposition. In addition, we now know that ALL of the mass of the atom is virtual mass, rendering this 'material reality' a virtual reality. This interfaces with Eastern wisdom, which says that this world is maya, or illusion, and that our current state of awareness, which we only think to be an awakened one, is actually a kind of Waking Sleep, from which we can further awaken and realize union with a conscious Universe.

Thanks for the clarification.

I gotta be brief here, and I won't be back on-line until Monday, but I don't take maya in the same way you do, as I think it reflects a missed perception of materialism or even non-materialism. Also, the PAI is, to me, more of a religious construct versus that which can be confirmed objectively. However, I am not saying nor implying that it is false. Maybe we can discuss these two items in a couple of days.

Anyhow, sorry for my misunderstanding earlier here, and I hope you have a great weekend. Take care.

 

[metis]

There is nothing there. Only Brahman is real.

Religion.

However, read my signature statement at the bottom of my posts as my approach is more of a left-wing lunatic version of yours.

 

[Desert Snake]

non-duality is plagued by perceptive duality, ie the ''obvious'' duality that is observed. Complete ''physical'' non-duality , with duality accepted per perception, is not actual non-duality, it is partial duality.

Duality, =good argument
partial duality=good argument
complete nonduality with no ''something'', ie illusion=not very good, but arguable argument

complete non-duality with duality by necessity ie 'something'', =not a good argument.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are trying to mix dualism with non-duality, and it isn't working. This is why/how you are getting goofed with the something.



Nothing new, here.

There is no theory and no mixing except in your dualistic mind..non-duality is real, duality is maya.. If you can ever can transcend the dualsitic nature of your mind, theories, ideas, thoughts, etc., the non-dual nature of reality is present....begin to think about it and you are lost in the confusion of duality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, it is more than language. Obviously. You are attached to the 'something', and therefore you are presenting duality by default.

you are presenting an equation whether you realize it or not.

That is your perception, that is your dualistic mind at work...

 

[Desert Snake]

There is no theory and no mixing except in your dualistic mind..non-duality is real, duality is maya.. If you can ever can transcend the dualsitic nature of your mind, theories, ideas, thoughts, etc., the non-dual nature of reality is present....begin to think about it and you are lost in the confusion of duality.

The duality isn't illusion unless it doesn't exist. Your refusal to accept that ''nothing'', is necessary for your theory, is where you are making the mistake.

This is all theoretical, of course, as 'duality', is obvious, anyway. Your theoretical idea has the problem, not any actual confirmable idea.

 

[Desert Snake]

That is your perception, that is your dualistic mind at work...

Fantasy. Everyone notices the duality. If you perceive within the construct of dualism, it's dualism.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

non-duality is plagued by perceptive duality, ie the ''obvious'' duality that is observed. Complete ''physical'' non-duality , with duality accepted per perception, is not actual non-duality, it is partial duality.

Duality, =good argument
partial duality=good argument
complete nonduality with no ''something'', ie illusion=pretty good argument

complete non-duality with duality by necessity ie 'something'', =not a good argument.

You are conceptualizing....you are stuck in duality. Otoh, I am pointing out the irony of my use of conceptual language is only an expedient to convey to you that conceptualizing prevents the realization of non-duality. Still your mind so there are no thoughts, no concepts present, and reality is present without conceptual interpretation..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The duality isn't illusion unless it doesn't exist. Your refusal to accept that ''nothing'', is necessary for your theory, is where you are making the mistake.

This is all theoretical, of course, as 'duality', is obvious, anyway. Your theoretical idea has the problem, not any actual confirmable idea.

Illusion exists, your mind is producing it. Cease thinking, cease speaking, cease conceptualizing, stop neuron firings in your brain for a moment!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Fantasy. Everyone notices the duality. If you perceive within the construct of dualism, it's dualism.

You can only speak for yourself....you do not apprehend the underlying unity of the apparent multiplicity that appears from thought processes.

 

[Segev Moran]

Despite the fact that we've had progressively, increasingly more human-hours, as a species, to devote to large, abstract, and complex questions, the reality is that we're not any closer to answering, or even framing, the "big" questions than we ever were.

What are the "big" questions? As I see it, people sometimes ask questions that will probably never have an answer... Those might be considered at times as big questions. But for me, It is far more intriguing understand how we came to be, rather than "why". The "why" question, is subjective.

If anything, taking into account scientific, philosophical, and religious perspectives, it's clearer that the big questions get further away the more we learn,

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Asking the wrong questions?"

we aren't even able to frame those questions in a meaningful way according to our abilities and limitations.

Yet every day we discover more and more... And we slowly learn about the actual events that led us to where we are today.

As an example, the whole idea of "something" vs "nothing," may be completely inadequate in terms of describing any underlying root causes, let alone the added layer of the limitations of language in regards to defining concepts.

I Agree, I think nothing is irrelevant in its literal form. No one really ever uses it literally.
Same goes for science...
Nothing has a meaning (That will probably change many times). It can describe the lack of matter or lack of energy or vacuum or whatever.
That why I think the crowd laughed out of misunderstanding Dawkins question.

Human beings have a sense of self understanding and abstract, symbolic conceptualization. Regardless of how you see other species on our planet, as far as we know, we are the only ones who can do this, to this level. And, it's a huge gap, however you slice it.

Key point her is "As far as we know". There are many things we don't know.. I Can't see reason to insist that we do.

We've accomplished amazing things. However, it's difficult to not project our concepts onto the universe at large, whether it's a god or a scientific explanation.

That's interesting. I can agree with that statement on a "spiritual" POV, but less on the scientific one.
Can you elaborate a bit how Science is projected from our concepts? (Just want to make sure I understand what you mean by that)

On both accounts, I tend to think that humans ovetestimate their similarity to anything larger

Science quite (rightfully) explains how insignificant and mere a fraction of the universe humans are...
On the other hand, spirits and religions and all the spiritual concepts, cannot accept the fact that we are just humans. so the question araise and the imaganitaion starts running wild, while the fact remainins, that NO ONE really knows.

incidentally, because of arbitrary evolutionary side-effects.

Evolution is far from being random and based on side effects.. thats only a small part of the evolution process.
You are missing the whole Natural selection concept, which is basically how we know how species might look in different locations on earth, for example, and how humans will probably look in the future.
Nothing random about that.

However, if there are larger forces/reasons/causes, I don't see any reason why we should think we could measure/discover/comprehend them, as whatever level of self-consciousness or cognition we have is not only recent, but also likely highly limited if it is a mere evolutionary side-effect.

I See your point. which makes me emphasize that as long as we don't know for a fact, there is no point in claiming that we do
Cheers