A Universe from Nothing?

godnotgod · Jul 25, 2017

ChristineM said:
Space was space, the rise of humanity has not altered it in any way

Therefore, space cannot be 'the dimensions of height, width, and depth' because that is a description in human terms, and 'space', as you say, has always been 'space'.

What is it, sans the definition and the name of it? Height, width, and depth define it. But what is it intrinsically? I assume you realize that the definition/description of something is not that thing.

It appears to me that 'height, width, and depth' cannot apply to 'space', because such descriptions are about a measurement between two points. We say, for example, that 'he grew to a height of 6 feet', '6 feet' being a finite description. But space itself is infinite, and in order to define height in infinite terms would require that there be no beginning point nor an end point, which would negate the dimension of height, as well as width and depth. Therefore, the dimensions of height, width, and depth cannot possibly be what space ultimately is. They can only describe finite points within space.

ChristineM · Jul 25, 2017

godnotgod said:
Therefore, space cannot be 'the dimensions of height, width, and depth' because that is a description in human terms, and 'space', as you say, has always been 'space'.

What is it, sans the definition of it? Height, width, and depth define it. What is it intrinsically? I assume you realize that the definition/description of something is not that thing.

It appears to me that 'height, width, and depth' cannot apply to 'space', because such descriptions are about a measurement between two points. We say, for example, that 'he grew to a height of 6 feet', '6 feet' being a finite description. But space itself is infinite, and in order to define height in infinite terms would require that there be no beginning point nor an end point, which would negate the dimension of height, as well as width and depth. Therefore, the dimensions of height, width, and depth cannot possibly be what space ultimately is. They can only describe finite points within space.

The dimensions existed before humans, the labels for those dimensions are simply labels

godnotgod · Jul 25, 2017

ChristineM said:
The dimensions existed before humans, the labels for those dimensions are simply labels

The dimensions ascribed as 'height, width, and depth' refer to how space is measured; but measurements are a human invention; something superimposed over reality, and not existing prior to their imposition. These dimensions are referred in science as concepts, and concepts can only exist in the human mind. You stated that such concepts are one and the same as 'space', but that is impossible since 'space', as you stated, existed before humans applied such concepts to 'space'.

ChristineM · Jul 25, 2017

godnotgod said:
The dimensions ascribed as 'height, width, and depth' refer to how space is measured; but measurements are a human invention; something superimposed over reality, and not existing prior to their imposition. These dimensions are referred in science as concepts, and concepts can only exist in the human mind. You stated that such concepts are one and the same as 'space', but that is impossible since 'space', as you stated, existed before humans applied such concepts to 'space'.

No they represent the dimensions, humans choose to measure but it is not necessary, space is still space with its dimensions whether humans measurement it or not

gnostic · Jul 25, 2017

To godnotgod.

You do realise that one of the purposes of science is to test its theory?

Testing required observation. Observation can be done:

through observing using the normal senses or with the aids of devices,
through detecting, again using instruments or devices,
or through measuring.

So what if measuring dimensions involved "human invention"?

These inventions have their purposes of testing and of applications. Do you think measuring is useless or have no application?

Do you want to know what have no application, godnotgod?

There is no application for believing in your Cosmic Consciousness or eternal Being, or whatever you want to call it.

There is no application for some "Ultimate" or "Absolute" Reality. What use of such reality if you cannot access it?

godnotgod · Jul 26, 2017

ChristineM said:
No they represent the dimensions, humans choose to measure but it is not necessary, space is still space with its dimensions whether humans measurement it or not

How do we go about detecting those inherent dimensions without applying measurement, ie mathematics?

godnotgod · Jul 26, 2017

gnostic said:
To godnotgod.

You do realise that one of the purposes of science is to test its theory?

Testing required observation. Observation can be done:

through observing using the normal senses or with the aids of devices,

through detecting, again using instruments or devices,

or through measuring.

So what if measuring dimensions involved "human invention"?

These inventions have their purposes of testing and of applications. Do you think measuring is useless or have no application?

Do you want to know what have no application, godnotgod?

There is no application for believing in your Cosmic Consciousness or eternal Being, or whatever you want to call it.

There is no application for some "Ultimate" or "Absolute" Reality. What use of such reality if you cannot access it?

Why do you say that? It is immediately accessible at all times.

No, it has no practical utility other than that it allows you to see things as they are, rather than how the conceptual mind thinks they are.

I have no quarrel with the utility of science, other than the fact that it gets into the hands of those in power who lack the wisdom in their application. If our leaders practiced spirituality and higher consciousness, they would develop more mature minds, and change their immature leadership., steering mankind toward a more peaceful world.

re: 'human intervention': what I am saying is that the dimensions of height, width, and depth you call 'space' don't exist until measurement is applied. And that is because those dimensions are finite, while space is infinite.

gnostic · Jul 26, 2017

While I can admire people's quest for seeking out spiritual understanding and peace, it is an impossible to achieve such ideals, because it is unrealistic.

Unless you can get agreement from all sides, but people being "human", no two people think alike, nor have the same personality and traits.

And people who do seek spirituality, doesn't guarantee they would be more responsible or more wise...because people being what they are...human.

Ben Dhyan · Jul 26, 2017

gnostic said:
While I can admire people's quest for seeking out spiritual understanding and peace, it is an impossible to achieve such ideals, because it is unrealistic.

Unless you can get agreement from all sides, but people being "human", no two people think alike, nor have the same personality and traits.

And people who do seek spirituality, doesn't guarantee they would be more responsible or more wise...because people being what they are...human.

It appears you think the goal of religion is to change this world, it is not about the world of thought, but about transcending it....

Darkstorn · Jul 26, 2017

ben d said:
It appears you think the goal of religion is to change this world, it is not about the world of thought, but about transcending it....

I just have to say, most people who talk about transcending "this world" have in fact not been able to show that they have: To my perspective it still looks like they're in this world, and their thoughts are most definitely something within the realm of regular understanding.

For all intents and purposes, they tend to look like regular people who think very highly of themselves.

Here's my view of it: There's no transcending reality: Once you experience something, you are not actually transcending it. You are experiencing it. And understanding of it might follow. And once you understand, then there is nothing more to "transcend." And if it's not beyond understanding, it is not beyond explaining.

I also say that people who think they have experience of something that cannot be explained, do not truly understand the thing they are experiencing. It's confirmation bias to assume you have experienced something non-subjective.

/E: Forgot to mention the point that brings this together:

If you can experience something "directly" and without senses, and to come to an "objective truth" by said experience, why are other people disqualified from possessing the same ability? Because this is the common theme: The people who think they've experienced something "higher" than other people, actually think they have received special information because they are special little snowflakes.

/E2: I feel it's part of the "right effort" concept to consider this: It is not important to tell people of a special reward they are going to get for hard work. This is not the point. The point IS the hard work.

So, i feel it's wrong to go around telling people of a higher plane of existence, or concept-less existence, or even nirvana for that matter.

I think you should instead be telling of its methods. The reward doesn't matter. It's impermanent and subjective just like everything else.

I feel the only thing that matters is HOW you get there: Through right effort. And by right effort you should help people. Not tell them fantastical stories. Help them to better themselves. This is NOT achieved through telling optimistic stories of "universal consciousness" or other new-age concepts.

Remember: And this is important. No matter what happens, no matter what you transcend, or if you transcend anything, you are still not actually leaving this world behind unless you somehow lose your physical body. And anything beyond the death of one's body, is mere speculation because there is not a single example of someone with direct experience, coming back to us to explain what happens after. It's ALL speculation.

I just feel it's part of "the wrong effort" to first imagine a result and then try to rationalize it. Rationalize the methods instead. If the methods don't make any sense, then the reward isn't going to make any sense either. If you have no methods, you have nothing.

I just feel there are a lot of people proclaiming the result. But few are ready to help people actually achieve anything close to that. They just proselytize: Believe. Believe their subjective experience to be more valid than others. That's what's asked. It's too much. It's literally analogous to this:

"Hi, i'm a guy with more understanding than you. You should listen to me. Now: There's a level of understanding higher than your current one. How to get there? I have no idea. "

Ben Dhyan · Jul 26, 2017

Darkstorn said:
I just have to say, most people who talk about transcending "this world" have in fact not been able to show that they have: To my perspective it still looks like they're in this world, and their thoughts are most definitely something within the realm of regular understanding.

For all intents and purposes, they tend to look like regular people who think very highly of themselves.

Here's my view of it: There's no transcending reality: Once you experience something, you are not actually transcending it. You are experiencing it. And understanding of it might follow. And once you understand, then there is nothing more to "transcend." And if it's not beyond understanding, it is not beyond explaining.

I also say that people who think they have experience of something that cannot be explained, do not truly understand the thing they are experiencing. It's confirmation bias to assume you have experienced something non-subjective.

/E: Forgot to mention the point that brings this together:

If you can experience something "directly" and without senses, and to come to an "objective truth" by said experience, why are other people disqualified from possessing the same ability? Because this is the common theme: The people who think they've experienced something "higher" than other people, actually think they have received special information because they are special little snowflakes.

/E2: I feel it's part of the "right effort" concept to consider this: It is not important to tell people of a special reward they are going to get for hard work. This is not the point. The point IS the hard work.

So, i feel it's wrong to go around telling people of a higher plane of existence, or concept-less existence, or even nirvana for that matter.

I think you should instead be telling of its methods. The reward doesn't matter. It's impermanent and subjective just like everything else.

I feel the only thing that matters is HOW you get there: Through right effort. And by right effort you should help people. Not tell them fantastical stories. Help them to better themselves. This is NOT achieved through telling optimistic stories of "universal consciousness" or other new-age concepts.

Remember: And this is important. No matter what happens, no matter what you transcend, or if you transcend anything, you are still not actually leaving this world behind unless you somehow lose your physical body. And anything beyond the death of one's body, is mere speculation because there is not a single example of someone with direct experience, coming back to us to explain what happens after. It's ALL speculation.

I just feel it's part of "the wrong effort" to first imagine a result and then try to rationalize it. Rationalize the methods instead. If the methods don't make any sense, then the reward isn't going to make any sense either. If you have no methods, you have nothing.

I just feel there are a lot of people proclaiming the result. But few are ready to help people actually achieve anything close to that. They just proselytize: Believe. Believe their subjective experience to be more valid than others. That's what's asked. It's too much. It's literally analogous to this:

"Hi, i'm a guy with more understanding than you. You should listen to me. Now: There's a level of understanding higher than your current one. How to get there? I have no idea. "

You are correct, there is no transcending reality, reality is the goal, but there is the potential to transcend the conceptualizing mind which can never in all eternity realize reality, and only is ever capable of thinking about it.

Because your mind only ever thinks, you imagine that all soul's minds are limited in this way. Correct religious practice will allow the mind to transcend thought, though not lose the ability for communicating and experiencing conceptually when appropriate.

Darkstorn · Jul 26, 2017

ben d said:
You are correct, there is no transcending reality, reality is the goal

But that can only be achieved through direct understanding: And either no-one has it, or everyone has it. I'm leaning on no-one as long as we live; Because we do have senses no matter how much you manage to dull them: "Lack-of-senses" is still entirely dependent on sensory input.

but there is the potential to transcend the conceptualizing mind which can never in all eternity realize reality, and only is ever capable of thinking about it.

I think you're stuck on the first level of meditation. And thinking it to be the end. This has stopped your progress. NOTHING is permanent. Not even your current state.

Losing conceptions is not as hard as you think. Meditate. Focus on one thing: Eventually only that one thing remains. With enough concentration, the one thing remaining will also "blend" into "nothingness." Problem: This is still your senses giving you input. As long as you have your body, this will be the case.

Lack of concepts is a concept itself. It's also not the end. You still have your body.

Because your mind only ever thinks, you imagine that all soul's minds are limited in this way.

Ah, so you are one of those who think they have more understanding than others, and that you don't need to actually explain the methods to achieve the result. ALL you ask for is faith and belief. That's not how it works. You do not proclaim a result and then work the methods to fit your result.

Correct religious practice will allow the mind to transcend thought, though not lose the ability for communicating and experiencing conceptually when appropriate.

You are the example i was talking of in my previous post. Consider that, and use it to better yourself.

/E: I need to add: There is nothing special about abandoning concepts. And in general one should be careful of illusions. You seem to have been trapped by the most obvious one: That there's an end point of reasoning and understanding.

Ben Dhyan · Jul 26, 2017

Darkstorn said:
But that can only be achieved through direct understanding: And either no-one has it, or everyone has it. I'm leaning on no-one as long as we live; Because we do have senses no matter how much you manage to dull them: "Lack-of-senses" is still entirely dependent on sensory input.

I think you're stuck on the first level of meditation. And thinking it to be the end. This has stopped your progress. NOTHING is permanent. Not even your current state.

Losing conceptions is not as hard as you think. Meditate. Focus on one thing: Eventually only that one thing remains. With enough concentration, the one thing remaining will also "blend" into "nothingness." Problem: This is still your senses giving you input. As long as you have your body, this will be the case.

Lack of concepts is a concept itself. It's also not the end. You still have your body.

Ah, so you are one of those who think they have more understanding than others, and that you don't need to actually explain the methods to achieve the result. ALL you ask for is faith and belief. That's not how it works. You do not proclaim a result and then work the methods to fit your result.

You are the example i was talking of in my previous post. Consider that, and use it to better yourself.

/E: I need to add: There is nothing special about abandoning concepts. And in general one should be careful of illusions. You seem to have been trapped by the most obvious one: That there's an end point of reasoning and understanding.

You are not understanding what I am saying, reality is on the other side of thought about reality. All you do in response is tell me what you think about reality...

Until you are able to cease all thought, you are not in a position to say anything about what exists when thought is transcended. If you think a mind free from thought is not possible, then I just say...start and/or keep on meditating, it's a long and difficult process.

Darkstorn · Jul 26, 2017

ben d said:
You are not understanding what I am saying, reality is on the other side of thought about reality.

I am understanding what you are saying, you are not understanding what i'm saying:

How did you come to that conclusion? How is your experience more valid than other peoples'? How is your direct experience not an illusion? ETC.

All you do in response is tell me what you think about reality...

That's because you didn't actually read my posts. You clicked reply and then invented the argument.

Until you are able to cease all thought, you are not in a position to say anything about what exists when thought is transcended.

Funny. ALL i was saying is that YOU aren't in a position to say anything about what exists when thought is transcended. At best you have is your subjective assessment of it. THAT is it.

I'm saying the pre-requisite for all thought ceasing is the loss of your brain functions. And you don't lose these while being in your so called "state of understanding."

If you think a mind free from thought is not possible, then I just say...start and/or keep on meditating, it's a long and difficult process.

I never said anything of the sort. I merely said you haven't been able to demonstrate that i should listen to you about it. I also never said i don't have similar subjective experience than yourself, i just know how to categorize it properly: Subjective. And it could just be illusion, or my ego speaking too. I think it's... Alarming you don't consider these as possible options.

How did you come to the conclusion that your... "Knowledge" is actually true and NOT merely an illusion caused by your ego? From the looks of it, you were WANTING for... Whatever result you have, to happen. And "so it did."

From your posts, that is the image i get. Sorry. I feel your methods are too... Well. You aren't using enough effort. You are proclaiming "this is how it is." Without either demonstrating or detailing the methods to achieve your level of understanding. You merely proselytize. You are doing more harm for your goals than good. This is what i'm trying to make you see.

Because i approve of your "result;" Just not unconditionally. It must be through right effort. Your posts seem to imply that you skipped that part entirely. You are wishing for your result to be the actual result, and are fully content proclaiming it here ineffectually. I honestly don't think you're being effective for your own cause.

Ben Dhyan · Jul 26, 2017

Darkstorn said:
I am understanding what you are saying, you are not understanding what i'm saying:

How did you come to that conclusion? How is your experience more valid than other peoples'? How is your direct experience not an illusion? ETC.

That's because you didn't actually read my posts. You clicked reply and then invented the argument.

Funny. ALL i was saying is that YOU aren't in a position to say anything about what exists when thought is transcended. At best you have is your subjective assessment of it. THAT is it.

I'm saying the pre-requisite for all thought ceasing is the loss of your brain functions. And you don't lose these while being in your so called "state of understanding."

I never said anything of the sort. I merely said you haven't been able to demonstrate that i should listen to you about it. I also never said i don't have similar subjective experience than yourself, i just know how to categorize it properly: Subjective. And it could just be illusion, or my ego speaking too. I think it's... Alarming you don't consider these as possible options.

How did you come to the conclusion that your... "Knowledge" is actually true and NOT merely an illusion caused by your ego? From the looks of it, you were WANTING for... Whatever result you have, to happen. And "so it did."

From your posts, that is the image i get. Sorry. I feel your methods are too... Well. You aren't using enough effort. You are proclaiming "this is how it is." Without either demonstrating or detailing the methods to achieve your level of understanding. You merely proselytize. You are doing more harm for your goals than good. This is what i'm trying to make you see.

Because i approve of your "result;" Just not unconditionally. It must be through right effort. Your posts seem to imply that you skipped that part entirely. You are wishing for your result to be the actual result, and are fully content proclaiming it here ineffectually. I honestly don't think you're being effective for your own cause.

When the mind is still and free from thought, there is no 'I' present to have an experience, that is what is meant by transcending thought. And no....there is no death of the person, the heart keeps beating, etc..

But of course there is an extraordinary state of awareness that the temporarily still mind experiences, which state the 'I', when it does arise again to disturb the still mind, attests to.

I do not proselytize, I could care less about your beliefs, I just point out that your beliefs about the goal of religion being a conceptual one is in error. If you are just unhappy with what I convey, and want me to stop then best you just say so and I will be happy to cease accordingly.

Darkstorn · Jul 26, 2017

ben d said:
When the mind is still and free from thought, there is no 'I' present to have an experience, that is what is meant by transcending thought.

I understood this when you first said it, you need not repeat it like some empty meaningless mantra.

I'm saying what you're describing is the first level of meditation. You have a sense of "I" when talking with me on the forums, or performing your daily mundane activities. The point being: Your lack of conceptions, or the self, are impermanent states.

Even when there's no "i" there's still your body, and its functions. You cannot escape this fact. They are influencing you even as you "think" that you are actually beyond thoughts. You might be, or you might not be. So:

How did your mind come to the conclusion that what you experienced is "transcending thought" instead of simply "no perceived thought?"

And no....there is no death of the person, the heart keeps beating, etc..

And the brain keeps functioning, yes? You cannot escape your brain unless you part with it.

But of course there is an extraordinary state of awareness that the temporarily still mind experiences, which state the 'I', when it does arise again to disturb the still mind, attests to.

You're telling yourself "of course" because there is no logical conclusion regarding your result found within your posts. You didn't tell us the reasoning for your way of thinking, you merely proclaimed it. You cannot say "of course" when you haven't actually provided the information for us to reach the same conclusion.

Here's the thing: I know what you're talking about.

And i still think you're mistaking your temporary state for direct experience of reality. Your senses give you this result. You are not escaping them. You are merely escaping perceiving them. Which is obviously not the same thing.

I do not proselytize, I could care less about your beliefs, I just point out that your beliefs about the goal of religion being a conceptual one is in error.

You are misunderstanding my beliefs then.

And you haven't shown how your religion is beyond concepts. You haven't even shown how YOU are beyond concepts. I can still describe you.

If you are just unhappy with what I convey, and want me to stop then best you just say so and I will be happy to cease accordingly.

Why would i want you to stop? I was just trying to tell you that your lack of effort isn't really going to convince as many people to believe you as you seem to want them to. You don't explain your views, you just assert them as they are. You say things are, you don't explain how they are, or how you even reached such conclusions. You merely proclaim.

Furthermore, you didn't address most of the points i posted here. And they all touch your claims. If you can't address points directed against your claims, then that doesn't exactly fill me with great confidence: You do to the best of your ability, and to be honest, your ability is not good enough for you to act like a teacher. You're still a student.

I repeat it once more: How did you determine your knowledge not to be an illusion? How did you determine that other people cannot have similar understanding? You even made direct claims that i don't know what you're talking about, and that i haven't experienced what you have. How do you know all this? Or do you just proclaim?

Ben Dhyan · Jul 26, 2017

Darkstorn said:
I understood this when you first said it, you need not repeat it like some empty meaningless mantra.

I'm saying what you're describing is the first level of meditation. You have a sense of "I" when talking with me on the forums, or performing your daily mundane activities. The point being: Your lack of conceptions, or the self, are impermanent states.

Even when there's no "i" there's still your body, and its functions. You cannot escape this fact. They are influencing you even as you "think" that you are actually beyond thoughts. You might be, or you might not be. So:

How did your mind come to the conclusion that what you experienced is "transcending thought" instead of simply "no perceived thought?"

And the brain keeps functioning, yes? You cannot escape your brain unless you part with it.

You're telling yourself "of course" because there is no logical conclusion regarding your result found within your posts. You didn't tell us the reasoning for your way of thinking, you merely proclaimed it. You cannot say "of course" when you haven't actually provided the information for us to reach the same conclusion.

Here's the thing: I know what you're talking about.

And i still think you're mistaking your temporary state for direct experience of reality. Your senses give you this result. You are not escaping them. You are merely escaping perceiving them. Which is obviously not the same thing.

You are misunderstanding my beliefs then.

And you haven't shown how your religion is beyond concepts. You haven't even shown how YOU are beyond concepts. I can still describe you.

Why would i want you to stop? I was just trying to tell you that your lack of effort isn't really going to convince as many people to believe you as you seem to want them to. You don't explain your views, you just assert them as they are. You say things are, you don't explain how they are, or how you even reached such conclusions. You merely proclaim.

Furthermore, you didn't address most of the points i posted here. And they all touch your claims. If you can't address points directed against your claims, then that doesn't exactly fill me with great confidence: You do to the best of your ability, and to be honest, your ability is not good enough for you to act like a teacher. You're still a student.

I repeat it once more: How did you determine your knowledge not to be an illusion? How did you determine that other people cannot have similar understanding? You even made direct claims that i don't know what you're talking about, and that i haven't experienced what you have. How do you know all this? Or do you just proclaim?

When there is no thought, reality is present directly and the mind expands beyond the body to apprehend the most awesome peace of being that can not be described. Th reason it can not be described is because 'I' was not present, thought only arises when the ego mind is present.

Yes, the body is currently present when the mind is still, but the goal is to transcend thought permanently, so sooner or later the body will be dropped to experience physical death.

You are being obtuse when you accuse me of purposely ignoring addressing all your points, when I've already explained that there is nothing that can be said of the expanded awareness present when the mind is still as there is no conceptualization taking place. One can only explain experiences of the active ego mind, not when it does not arise to disturb the apprehension of absolute reality. Of course I can and do use my conceptualizing mind as an expedient to explain that if one were to cease using the conceptualizing mind, the reality directly present is no longer a conceptual interpretation of reality, but non-conceptualized absolute reality itself. Understood?

You ask how I understand this, and it from many years of religious practice that has verified it.

Reiterating my point, science exclusively deals with conceptual reality, religion deals with non-conceptual reality. Paraphrasing Lao Tzu, the reality that can be conceptualized is not the eternal reality.

ChristineM · Jul 26, 2017

godnotgod said:
How do we go about detecting those inherent dimensions without applying measurement, ie mathematics?

what is the point? How do you go about breathing without i hailing and exhaling air?

ChristineM · Jul 26, 2017

ben d said:
It appears you think the goal of religion is to change this world, it is not about the world of thought, but about transcending it....

So you don't thing about belief in god, you transcend that thought? Interesting

The current aim of religion is to gain as many adherents as possible so the preachers, priests and televangelist's etc can boost their income. Prior to greed it was all about war., they needed more cannon (or spear or arrow) fodder to back up the "my gods better than your god and we'll invade if you don't agree" threat.

gnostic · Jul 26, 2017

ben d said:
You are not understanding what I am saying, reality is on the other side of thought about reality. All you do in response is tell me what you think about reality...

That's rubbish.

Everything you say about Reality, about Cosmic Consciousness existing beyond the physical - the whole transcending physical business through mediation - are themselves simply you conceptualising what you think reality are.

You have no evidences yourself have transcended, because you are still as bloody egotistic as ever.

You said, that there is no ego, that there are no "I" in this ultimate reality of yours, and yet here you are, your ego is larger than any barn door.

Your ego revealed your hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is just another sign of ego.

A Universe from Nothing?

Thou art That

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

Thou art That

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

The Lost One

Thou art That

Thou art That

The Lost One

Veteran Member

This shows how unique i am.

Veteran Member

This shows how unique i am.

Veteran Member

This shows how unique i am.

Veteran Member

This shows how unique i am.

Veteran Member

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

The Lost One