A Universe from Nothing?

[Ben Dhyan]

You only assume so. It doesn't make it so. I'm merely doubting your ability as a teacher of people.



That's a mistake on your part to assume so. It's your ego speaking: That you believe that you're in such a position as to teach me or supplement my information, DIRECTLY implying that YOU know more than i do.

You cannot know this, therefore it's an assumption.



And you still think it's not your ego speaking? You think you're a teacher.

Fine; Answer my questions, Master?

I bet it does not come as a surprise to you when the concept of 'scatter brain' is raised, for I am sure others have explained it.

You have not provided any indication that you have yet understood even the most basic tenets of what non-duality or oneness means.

 

[Darkstorn]

I bet it does not come as a surprise to you when the concept of 'scatter brain' is raised, for I am sure others have explained it.

It's not a surprise at all that you would succumb to the lure of personal attacks, no.

You have not provided any indication that you have yet understood even the most basic tenets of what non-duality or oneness means.

But i have also not provided any indication that i have NOT yet understood even the most basic tenets of what non-duality or oneness means. You were just very quick to jump to your conclusion.

You should know this of me: I only rarely even mention my beliefs. And even then in very special cases. This is one such special case. I try to argue objectively. As much as that is even possible. But i am usually actually not arguing from the side of my own views. This is pretty much key. I wasn't arguing from my own side in this topic in any instance: I was arguing from the side of someone who's just a random person who DOESN'T understand what you are saying. And to a person like that, i don't think your methods are effective. Too much blind faith is involved.

These are the things you know of me: I'm a Buddhist. You don't know how Buddhist i am. And you also know that i am arguing with you. I'm specifically asking questions regarding the validity of your experience which you are very reluctant to answer for some reason.

I am literally asking: What faculties did you use to come to the conclusion that what you're experiencing is not an illusion? How did you determine, using your conceptualizing mind, that your mind was not conceptualizing? How did you determine, using your own senses, that what you experienced was actual reality rather than something fed through those very same senses?

HOW did you come to your conclusion without using said faculties? By definition, if you used any of them, then you have no direct understanding of reality. The end.

 

[gnostic]

Saying its rubbish is not evidence, to the contrary, it reflects your lack of a logical and reasonable argument.

I can and do use my conceptualizing mind as an expedient to explain that if one ceases using their conceptualizing mind, the reality directly present is no longer a conceptual interpretation of reality, but non-conceptualized absolute reality itself. Understood?

You are being obtuse when you ask for evidence of the transcended state as it has been explained to you often that the goal of religion is not the goal of science, the latter is 100% conceptual, the former is 100% non-conceptual. So you do not misunderstand, posting here is not religious practice, it is discussing the differences between science and religious practice.

Your habit of frequently doing ad hom attacks is immature and is no substitute for serious exchange.

Sorry, but I don't see how that I can provide evidences for something that mythological, like yours or godnotgod's "Cosmic Consciousness".

If godnotgod or you are going to make outrageous claims about the universe, then it is either you or him that needs to provide the evidences.

When scientists write hypothesis about something, then he is the one who need to be the one to first test it (repeatedly and rigorously) or provide empirical evidences, that his hypothesis is true. If he can't test it or the test go against his explanation and prediction, then he would have debunked his own hypothesis.

It is only if the tests are successful, then he should allow other scientists to test it, hence the peer review. It is the duties of independent scientists, ie the peers, to attempt refute the hypothesis or find errors.

It is godnotgod's religion, not mine, who make claims as to what the consciousness is, then it is up to him to provide the evidences.

Don't waste my time, with your stupid attacks.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes Christine, that's it.

Yes, unfortunately most religious institutions are corrupt. I do make a distinction between personal efficacious religious practice and corrupted human religious institutions.

Your belief s yours alone, just don't pay the preacher

 

[ChristineM]

Your analogy is inappropriate. Breathing is a natural activity; measuring space is not.

Do you agree that space is a reality even before the mind defines it as 'the dimensions of height, width, and depth'? That such a description was applied after the fact.

Space is...believe or or not.. Natural.

Why are you insisting that space is not space until it's measured?

 

[ChristineM]

"The spirituality found in Zen (for example) is not to think about god while peeling the potatoes; it is simply to peel the potatoes"
Alan Watts

The discussion was religion, Buddhism does not fit the criteria of a religion.

 

[godnotgod]

Space is...believe or or not.. Natural.

Why are you insisting that space is not space until it's measured?

I never said that space is not natural; I said that measurement of it is not.

I did not say that 'space is not space until measured'; quite the opposite: I said, and I quote, that: "space is a reality even before the mind defines it as 'the dimensions of height, width, and depth'? That such a description was applied after the fact."

 

[godnotgod]

The discussion was religion, Buddhism does not fit the criteria of a religion.

That's debatable, but my reply was not in response to a religious issue, but to your comment re: ben's view, which was:

"So you don't think about belief in god, you transcend that thought?"

"Transcending that thought" is like 'just peeling the potatoes', where no thought of god is present.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's not a surprise at all that you would succumb to the lure of personal attacks, no.



But i have also not provided any indication that i have NOT yet understood even the most basic tenets of what non-duality or oneness means. You were just very quick to jump to your conclusion.

You should know this of me: I only rarely even mention my beliefs. And even then in very special cases. This is one such special case. I try to argue objectively. As much as that is even possible. But i am usually actually not arguing from the side of my own views. This is pretty much key. I wasn't arguing from my own side in this topic in any instance: I was arguing from the side of someone who's just a random person who DOESN'T understand what you are saying. And to a person like that, i don't think your methods are effective. Too much blind faith is involved.

These are the things you know of me: I'm a Buddhist. You don't know how Buddhist i am. And you also know that i am arguing with you. I'm specifically asking questions regarding the validity of your experience which you are very reluctant to answer for some reason.

I am literally asking: What faculties did you use to come to the conclusion that what you're experiencing is not an illusion? How did you determine, using your conceptualizing mind, that your mind was not conceptualizing? How did you determine, using your own senses, that what you experienced was actual reality rather than something fed through those very same senses?

HOW did you come to your conclusion without using said faculties? By definition, if you used any of them, then you have no direct understanding of reality. The end.

You keep on repeating the mistaken belief that the state of a still mind involves a personal experience, it is simply not true. If anyone tells you that they have or can experience non-duality, then they are in error and or under delusion. The logical reason for this has been explained to you many times but you do not understand, there are no senses and no conceptualizations involved in the expanded awareness of non-duality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, but I don't see how that I can provide evidences for something that mythological, like yours or godnotgod's "Cosmic Consciousness".

If godnotgod or you are going to make outrageous claims about the universe, then it is either you or him that needs to provide the evidences.

When scientists write hypothesis about something, then he is the one who need to be the one to first test it (repeatedly and rigorously) or provide empirical evidences, that his hypothesis is true. If he can't test it or the test go against his explanation and prediction, then he would have debunked his own hypothesis.

It is only if the tests are successful, then he should allow other scientists to test it, hence the peer review. It is the duties of independent scientists, ie the peers, to attempt refute the hypothesis or find errors.

It is godnotgod's religion, not mine, who make claims as to what the consciousness is, then it is up to him to provide the evidences.

Don't waste my time, with your stupid attacks.

Haha....it is you who consistently attack the idea that there is a state of being beyond that apprehended by human senses and thought processes. Science uses the conceptual mind, non-dual still mind is non-conceptual, simple as that and you still don't get it.

Now it matters not to me that you believe there is nothing beyond the conceptual, so why does it bother you that others may have realized there is more to religion than the conceptual beliefs?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your belief s yours alone, just don't pay the preacher

There is no belief involved in stilling the mind, it is a religious practice. Belief in nothing that caused everything otoh is classic belief...

 

[godnotgod]

This statement doesn't actually demonstrate how the universe is infinite. It merely posits that there's something outside of it. But in turn, you cannot know that what's outside the universe is infinite either.

Let's use Logic, OK? If the Universe were finite, it would be contained and have an inside and an outside. That necessitates the fact that something is on its outside. And if that is also contained, there is, by necessity, something further on its outside, ad infinitum. It cannot have a final end, logically speaking, and therefore must, by definition, be infinite. There is no other argument. If there is, please present it.

I don't think you understand your lack of knowledge in this subject as well as you should. But yes the universe is finite, and there's something "beyond" it. Probably other universes.

OK, I see what the problem here is. you are using the word 'universe' to mean one of possibly many, while I am using it to mean Everything that is or will be, as in this Wiki definition:

Definition

The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents, which includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy. The size of the entire Universe is still unknown.

The Universe can be defined as everything that exists*, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist. According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of spacetime, forms of energy (including electromagnetic radiation and matter), and the physical laws that relate them. The Universe encompasses all of life, all of history, and some philosophers and scientists suggest that it even encompasses ideas such as mathematics and logic.

*For my working definition, I also include all possible multi-verses.

Synonyms
A term for "universe" among the ancient Greek philosophers from Pythagoras onwards was τὸ πᾶν tò pân ("the all"), defined as all matter and all space, and τὸ ὅλον tò hólon ("all things"), which did not necessarily include the void

Universe - Wikipedia

You haven't demonstrated this to be true in any way. You merely proclaim it. Like faith.

And i am sorry, but i don't have enough faith in you to believe what you are saying just because.

You need something else.

Again, let us use Logic, shall we?

I said: Because it has no beginning, it therefore can have no end.

So all you need to do is to demonstrate that space does have a beginning, which necessitates an end. Not having beginning or end, however, means it is infinite.

I am not. I'm impressed by your use of flashy talk to make a so called point.

"Because it has no beginning, it therefore can have no end" is flashy? Wow! You really ARE impressionable! Be that as it may, how about: Space: no beginning ∴ no end = infinite. Not too flashy for 'ya, huh? I mean, I don't wanna scare you away, now.[/QUOTE]

You haven't demonstrated how it's not a doctrine though. You merely proclaim. Therefore, you proselytize.

My goodness! You're just not being rational or logical today. You said I was proselytizing, but where is the doctrine that is being proselytized? IOW, by claiming proselytization, you imply that some doctrine is being proselytized. Show me that doctrine. I, for one, never claimed to be proselytizing any such doctrine.

So you proclaim. But you haven't actually refuted it with logic.

Man, oh, man! Look here: I am in no way trying to convert you to any kind of doctrine. Emptiness is not something you hold as a belief; it is something you SEE, without thought, to be the case. It cannot be conceptualized via thought. Belief and doctrine are the product of thought. It's like you jump into a pool of water and instantly realize, without thought, that the water is cold. 'Coldness' is not a doctrine that you can be converted to or hold as a belief. It is just the way things are.

So it's a bit like a god?

And funny how it still seems like it's a concept the way you conceptualize it. And i say it needs a cause in order for your explanation of reality to make any actual logical sense.

Right now it's an assumption instead of a logical conclusion.

No, it's more like there is no rain god; there is just rain. So there is no Agent of Pure Abstract Intelligence; there is only Pure Abstract Intelligence. Likewise, there is no one called 'Darkstorn' who posts on a forum; there is only posting on a forum, in spite of the fact that That which is posting thinks itself the agent of posting called 'Darkstorn'.

PAI CAN be a concept, but when realized, is beyond all concepts, and is not an object of observation in a subject/object split; subject and object actually merge as One. This merging is called 'yoga'. It is direct experience of, rather than conceptual thought about.

Heh, you even have an acronym for it. Okay.

I'll show it to you once you provide evidence for every single one of your proclamations. Deal? Just trying to be fair here.

Don't bother; I know for certain it is over 4000 years old, so anything you come up with was taken from what already existed. You just want to associate me with something you consider to be without credibility. Keep trying.

That's not how it works. It's naive to consider our sense-perceptions to be trustworthy in determining reality. They are by definition, not direct.

You said it. This post demonstrates clearly that you haven't a clue as to what ben d and myself are trying to convey, though you insist you have us pegged 100%. Firstly, 'seeing' what is pointed to is not a function of sense-perception; it is a seeing with one's consciousness at full attentiveness, a seeing that instantly transcends all of the senses. It is beyond dualistic perceptual reality, and a glimpse into non-dual Ultimate Reality.

You did not get the meaning of 'a finger pointing to the moon', but you continue to insist that you know all about it.

So there is absolutely zero possibility to use both your senses AND your reasoning to come to a conclusion? Firstly, what makes you think so? And secondly, how did you determine that your senses are the ultimate in all there is?`

I never said anything of the sort. Seeing things as they are is a function of an awakened consciousness, that is beyond all sensory experience AND Reason. It is not thinking; it is the direct seeing into the true nature of things as they actually are, rather than only perceiving appearances (ie 'the material world') and then using reasoning to verify that such appearances are reality, which is the method of science.

I'm actually going to posit the claim that you can't actually see "what is." And i do mean both generally and you specifically.

....which confirms what I said earlier, that you don't think anyone can see things as they are, and only delusion is the default state. So you don't see things as they are, and see things as they are not? IOW, you're deluded?

TBC

 

[ChristineM]

I never said that space is not natural; I said that measurement of it is not.

I did not say that 'space is not space until measured'; quite the opposite: I said, and I quote, that: "space is a reality even before the mind defines it as 'the dimensions of height, width, and depth'? That such a description was applied after the fact."

Yet space is not space without those dimensions which do not need human intervention to be dimensions. This you have agreed once you actually read the definition of space and still you are trying to modify the definition and still you insist that dimensions are a human concept.

To be honest i am getting tired of your misrepresentation, and ill founded nonsense about dimensions being a human concept. Several people have explained and pointed out your error and misrepresentation. I'm not into banging my head against a wall so unless you can provide proof that dimensions are a human concept then I'm done.

 

[ChristineM]

That's debatable, but my reply was not in response to a religious issue, but to your comment re: ben's view, which was:

"So you don't think about belief in god, you transcend that thought?"

"Transcending that thought" is like 'just peeling the potatoes', where no thought of god is present.

Considering Buddha did not consider his philosophy of life a religion then no debate is needed.

Cherry picking does not earn you any get to heaven points

 

[ChristineM]

There is no belief involved in stilling the mind, it is a religious practice. Belief in nothing that caused everything otoh is classic belief...

No, it is a practice, religion is only involved if you personally wish it to use it as a vehicle to achieve a result.

And belief that nothing caused everything is scientific theory based on understanding of quantum mechanics, which it seems you have no intention of comprehending

 

[godnotgod]

Yet space is not space without those dimensions which do not need human intervention to be dimensions. This you have agreed once you actually read the definition of space and still you are trying to modify the definition and still you insist that dimensions are a human concept.

To be honest i am getting tired of your misrepresentation, and ill founded nonsense about dimensions being a human concept. Several people have explained and pointed out your error and misrepresentation. I'm not into banging my head against a wall so unless you can provide proof that dimensions are a human concept then I'm done.

I posted the Wiki definition of space only as reference, but especially to highlight the fact that such a definition is a concept and a mathematical utility that works as a scientific tool. It does not tell us the nature of space. The dimensions you are referring to are specifically those of height, width, and depth, all measurements, which do not exist perse prior to space being measured. All of these dimensions must have a point A and a point B to be what they are. Such points of reference are arbitrary or have as a reference some other spatial object. IOW, they are not absolute, but relative values, both to each other, and to some other reference point, which also is relative. Ultimately, there is nothing in space itself that has any reference points. Even when applied, height, depth and width are only a skeletal framework, whereas space itself goes off in all directions from any single point. But the point is that, since there are no existing reference points in space, the dimensions of height, width, and depth are not inherent characteristics of space but are superimposed over dimensionless space by the human mind.

You are confusing the description of space with the nature of space.

If you wish to bow out, so be it, and thanks for the discussion, but my question remains:

"What is space prior to the mind's conception of height, depth, and width as being space itself?"

 

[godnotgod]

Considering Buddha did not consider his philosophy of life a religion then no debate is needed.

Cherry picking does not earn you any get to heaven points

The reference was not to the Buddha's experience, but to Zen, which came about after Buddhism. Anyway, the point is that the spiritual experience is not about belief in the supernatural, but to simply be here now, without forming any idea in mind about what you see, which leads me to the question I have been asking all along:

'Before the formation of ideas of dimensions and the like, what is space?'

I'm not interested in getting into heaven as I never left it in the first place, or more accurately, it's never not been inside of me.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, it is a practice, religion is only involved if you personally wish it to use it as a vehicle to achieve a result.

And belief that nothing caused everything is scientific theory based on understanding of quantum mechanics, which it seems you have no intention of comprehending

Haha..I said it was a religious practice to realize transcendence, and you say no it is not a religious practice, religion must be involved...

There is no absolute nothing in QM, the QV zpe is omnipresent.

 

[godnotgod]

 

[godnotgod]

Haha..I said it was a religious practice to realize transcendence, and you say no it is not a religious practice, religion must be involved...

There is no absolute nothing in QM, the QV zpe is omnipresent.

Is this QV zp energy in space?