A Universe from Nothing?

[Ben Dhyan]

That's where our inherent multidimensional nature comes into play, quite literally.

So where does our inherent multidimensional nature leave off and the universe begin?

 

[godnotgod]

That's where our inherent multidimensional nature comes into play, quite literally.

Perhaps so, but this "inherent multidimensional nature" is part and parcel of The Universe at large, is it not? IOW, it is all part of the One. There is no separation from it in any way. Or is there?

 

[godnotgod]

... our inherent multidimensional nature comes into play...

Not sure if you lend credibility to the Buddhist concept of Sunyata (Emptiness) or not, but it says that all phenomena, including ourselves, are empty of inherent self-nature. How do you respond to that in light of what you just said?

 

[godnotgod]

Yes that's what I meant. What I find interesting is why there is something instead of nothing and why your quote just stopped there with "then, there is". Where to go next? "Then, there isn't"? and is that something that can be achieved?

There is no 'something', but always only Nothing, masquerading itself as 'something', that 'something' being The Universe.

Firstly, the 'something' that we call The Universe is an illusion of a higher calibre than what we usually think of as 'illusion'. It is what the Hindus call 'maya'. We now even have scientific evidence from Quantum Physics that this so called 'material' reality is virtual in nature, since all of the mass of the atom is created by fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs Fields, thereby creating virtual mass, rather than 'real' mass. Hence, this is a virtual reality Quantum Physics calls 'possibility' now, rather than a real material world.

But the Zen aphorism in question has to do with how the conditioned mind sees the material world, which is as a collection of unconscious 'things' via their description, rather than via their reality, and via the observer/observed duality. This first view is how we see 'mountain'. When we look closer, we see that what we call 'mountain' is interconnected to all other 'things' and arises together with them, so Buddhism says that all phenomena are empty of an inherent self-nature, that is to say, empty. In that respect, there is no such 'mountain'. Then, when enlightenment comes into play, consciousness becomes transformed in a manner where the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation merge into a single Reality. You and 'mountain' and Everything else are now one Reality. The background of No-thing (ie The Absolute) that is manifesting this world (ie maya) as real is now seen and understood as the world itself. As Kalu Rinpoche put it in a nutshell:

“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.”
Kalu Rinpoche
*****

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

"Swami Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute. Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because division and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it. Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."
http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

 

[godnotgod]

I don't know what you mean. Does it have something to do with this?
"For newborns, play peekaboo by covering your face with your hands — newborns are fascinated by faces, and your sweet newborn would rather look at your face than almost anything else in the world. As baby grows and starts to "get" the game..."
http://www.whattoexpect.com/first-year/peek-a-boo/

What I am suggesting is that, fresh from The Universe, a baby knows the basic game of The Universe, which is Hide and Seek, in the form of Peek A Boo. It was never taught to the baby. It just knows it intuitively.

 

[YmirGF]

Not sure if you lend credibility to the Buddhist concept of Sunyata (Emptiness) or not, but it says that all phenomena, including ourselves, are empty of inherent self-nature. How do you respond to that in light of what you just said?

I couldn't care less what Buddhist dogma states. Get over it already.

 

[Thief]

The 'you' that knows is not 'I'.

someone else twisting your arm?

 

[godnotgod]

I couldn't care less what Buddhist dogma states. Get over it already.

OK, so then, show us this 'inherent multidimensional nature' you claim you possess. The Buddha could not find such an inherent nature, not just in man, but in everything.

I think you're deluding yourself.

 

[godnotgod]

someone else twisting your arm?

What on earth are you talking about? I am only saying that there is no such identity known as 'I'. It is an illusion. What is real is consciousness, without an identity.

Do you see a 'whirlpool' that whirls water, or only whirling water?

Do you see an 'it' that rains, or only rain?

 

[Thief]

OK, so then, show us this 'inherent multidimensional nature' you claim you possess. The Buddha could not find such an inherent nature, not just in man, but in everything.

show everyone your lack of existence....'you' first

 

[godnotgod]

show everyone your lack of existence....'you' first

'You' and 'I' are just an idea in the mind, created to represent a collection of impressions and experiences frozen in time called 'I'. They're illusions.

You should know by now that a negative cannot be proven or disproven.

 

[Thief]

'You' and 'I' are just an idea in the mind, created to represent a collection of impressions and experiences frozen in time called 'I'. They're illusions.

You should know by now that a negative cannot be proven or disproven.

'you' claim it's all an illusion

'you' prove yourself wrong every time you post

 

[godnotgod]

'you' claim it's all an illusion

'you' prove yourself wrong every time you post

Look here: you are the one claiming it is real, so the burden of proof is on your shoulders. So knock yourself out. The more you make the claim, the longer I will ask you where this 'I' dwells. So far, after umpteen pages of text, you cannot show me a single shred of evidence for such an entity. So I am once again announcing:

CHECKMATE!

You have exhausted my patience with your erroneous logic. Now go to your room.

 

[YmirGF]

OK, so then, show us this 'inherent multidimensional nature' you claim you possess. The Buddha could not find such an inherent nature, not just in man, but in everything.

I think you're deluding yourself.

I don't particularly care what Buddha was purported to have said.

You do understand that this is like a Muslim saying that my ideas run counter to what Muhammad claimed, right? And I should care because?

To quote a wonderful line from Neil Young, "It doesn't mean that much to me to mean that much to you."

 

[YmirGF]

Look here: you are the one claiming it is real, so the burden of proof is on your shoulders. So knock yourself out. The more you make the claim, the longer I will ask you where this 'I' dwells. So far, after umpteen pages of text, you cannot show me a single shred of evidence for such an entity. So I am once again announcing:

CHECKMATE!

You have exhausted my patience with your erroneous logic. Now go to your room.

Just by the fact that you are interacting with him is indicative that he exists and is certainly as real as you are. If anyone's so-called logic is at fault it is yours.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't particularly care what Buddha was purported to have said.

That's just as well, because you won't get a reliable account from new-agers and DIY religionists.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Not sure if you lend credibility to the Buddhist concept of Sunyata (Emptiness) or not, but it says that all phenomena, including ourselves, are empty of inherent self-nature. How do you respond to that in light of what you just said?

But sunyata is also incompatible with your new-age beliefs like "Cosmic Consciousness" and the big-bang being an "event in consciousness." Sunyata means that consciousness also lacks inherent existence and only arises in dependence on conditions, consciousness too is empty.

Your new-age dogma is really a sort of pseudo Hinduism, so I don't know why you keep harping on about Buddhism and pretending to be a Zennie. Perhaps you are trying to distract from the fact that you are really preaching Choprism?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That's where our inherent multidimensional nature comes into play, quite literally.

Could you say some more about the multi-dimensional aspect, that is quite interesting?

 

[godnotgod]

I don't particularly care what Buddha was purported to have said.

You are continuing to attack the pointing finger, while ignoring what it points to!

May I direct you to the CONTENT of what the Buddha said, never mind who said it. I am simply asking you if you see what he is pointing to as valid, which is that all phenomena is empty of self nature. If you disagree, fine, but in that case, then, show us all where this 'inherent multidimensional nature' exists.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I am simply asking you if you see what he is pointing to as valid, which is that all phenomena is empty of self nature.

Apply this principle to your new-age beliefs like "Cosmic Consciousness" and the big bang being an "event in consciousness".