• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Word about Nothing...

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
It is relevant. If you have a 'nothing' in the equation, before matter /matter in the universe/, then you have the subject of cause, etc.
So you would say that God is Nothing?
If God really exists, It means that God is Something..
Something we can't understand.. but it is something, Thus (I'll give it to you in Craig style:
1. If God exists, God is something
2. God cannot have been created as it is always been
3. So.. There was always something.
Thus, the question of nothing is irrelevant.

If you'll try the Atheist approach:
Nothing is subjective and can be defined in relevant to its context.
Nothing can't represent Lack of matter.
It can represent An empty box
It can represent Vacuum,
And so on.
(Same goes for "God", BTW)

If it isn't relevant, then it has no relevance to atheism, either. You are mistaking the position of atheism, here, with non-position.
I Agree... It has no relevance to either Atheist or Theists,
Not in its literal sense.
And what exactly is the Atheist position?
Any time the atheism is presented as an oppositional to theism, you have the relevance of cause, etc.
Let's say that there is "Nothing" and We all came from "Nothing" (or whatever you choose to call that nothing)...
How does that imply to a "Cause" in the "Life meaning" way?
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
So you would say that God is Nothing?
If God really exists, It means that God is Something..
Probably
Something we can't understand.. but it is something, Thus (I'll give it to you in Craig style:
1. If God exists, God is something
2. God cannot have been created as it is always been
3. So.. There was always something.
Thus, the question of nothing is irrelevant.
This isn't very logical. These ideas are in the context that some deity, we'll say, does exist, /somehow/. Ok, however in the context of not knowing that, //where an argument might be contextually/, then the idea of ''nothing'', is extremely important, because we have no set point for cause or creation. If you already knew why the 'cause', was, or had pre-existing something, ,say, always the same parameters of matter, then there would be no need for the question, anyway. The fact is, in the universe, you have to consider cause/impetus, no matter if you're a theist, or not. Even cosmic goop, or rather the primordial soup, that you might assume, does not answer that question.

If you'll try the Atheist approach:
Nothing is subjective and can be defined in relevant to its context.
Nothing can't represent Lack of matter.
It can represent An empty box
It can represent Vacuum,
And so on.
(Same goes for "God", BTW)
It's arbitrary. You still have cause/impetus, to consider. Non-theism doesn't solve or answer any of these questions.


I Agree... It has no relevance to either Atheist or Theists,
Not in its literal sense.
And what exactly is the Atheist position?
Contextually, it's that deity isn't a logical conclusion, to the questions.
This is what I meant by, if an oppositional is presented, ie 'atheism', then it becomes a contextual argument to theism.


Let's say that there is "Nothing" and We all came from "Nothing" (or whatever you choose to call that nothing)...
How does that imply to a "Cause" in the "Life meaning" way?
I'm not presenting any idea of ''meaning''. 'Cause', means impetus, and anything aside from that is individual adherence or argumentation.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
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?
This infinite eternal omniscient 'something' represented by the name Brahman is real, and is not an illusion, it is any and all conceptions about IT that are illusions. The conception of the eternal infinite omniscient "something" is not the eternal infinite omniscient 'something'...
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
No, I meant, the duality in his theory.

ie there is an inherent duality in that theory

No, there is not. I think you need to carefully re-read his statement and how his references are positioned to see that the contradiction you see in his argument is only a seeming one.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
No, there is not. I think you need to carefully re-read his statement and how his references are positioned to see that the contradiction you see in his argument is only a seeming one.

Yes, there most certainly is. You are missing it, somehow, but with the claim that the 'universe', is non-dualistic, in entirety, requires no dualistic principles, to be present. Not only does he admit and present dualism , but dualism is present, /obviously/, thusly making it a contradiction. The only way that the theory can be non-contradictory, is if the theory does not claim reality to the perceived universe.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
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.:D



Nothing new, here.

Hmmmm....as I see it, he is presenting 'something' as an absolute, and not as a relative opposite to 'nothing', which he has said all along does not exist. He has clearly stated that energy is none other than the Void, or The Absolute.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Hmmmm....as I see it, he is presenting 'something' as an absolute, and not as a relative opposite to 'nothing', which he has said all along does not exist. He has clearly stated that energy is none other than the Void, or The Absolute.
Something as an absolute is dualistic, this is why absolute non-dualism requires illusory /nothing

You can't divide the perceptive duality from an absolute something non-duality
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
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.

No problem.

So you are saying that maya itself is flawed in that it sees the material world as unreal, when it is actually real? If this is the case, how do you determine the 'reality' of the 'material' world?

What is PAI?
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Something as an absolute is dualistic, this is why absolute non-dualism requires illusory /nothing

You can't divide the perceptive duality from an absolute something non-duality

No, they are not separate. Reality is always singular and absolute, but just because it is seen as dual does not mean it has been divided. It can never be divided. The illusion is that it is divided into a dual condition: that which is real, and that which is perceived as real. They are one and the same. It is for this reason that Buddhists, for example, say that Nirvana and Samsara are not different, and Hindus say that Brahman is none other than the world itself (ie: maya).

If 'something' is absolute, then there is no relative 'other' to which it can be compared, meaning that there is no inherent dual nature present. Where do you get that something that is absolute is dualistic?
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
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.

In fact, to call Reality 'non-dual' is already a dualistic concept. It is neither dual nor non-dual.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
No, they are not separate. Reality is always singular and absolute, but just because it is seen as dual does not mean it has been divided. It can never be divided. The illusion is that it is divided into a dual condition: that which is real, and that which is perceived as real. They are one and the same. It is for this reason that Buddhists, for example, say that Nirvana and Samsara are not different, and Hindus say that Brahman is none other than the world itself (ie: maya).

If 'something' is absolute, then there is no relative 'other' to which it can be compared, meaning that there is no inherent dual nature present. Where do you get that something that is absolute is dualistic?

Then arguing against my perceived 'dualism', or dualistic ideas, makes no sense. They would be the ''same'' in actuality, as any other positions.

That, (arguing that my dualism is illusory, is a contradiction in itself.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
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.

Are you confusing Brahma with Brahman? Brahma is a creator-god, and is definitely religious; Brahman is just the Source of All itself, The Ground of All Being.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Then arguing against my perceived 'dualism', or dualistic ideas, makes no sense. They would be the ''same'' in actuality, as any other positions.

That, (arguing that my dualism is illusory, is a contradiction in itself.

A fish in the sea does not know he is in the sea, but that does not mean he is not in the sea.

When you are asleep, dreaming, you do not know you are dreaming until you awaken. But the dreamer and the awakened person are one and the same.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
A fish in the sea does not know he is in the sea, but that does not mean he is not in the sea.

When you are asleep, dreaming, you do not know you are dreaming until you awaken. But the dreamer and the awakened person are one and the same.
This does not address what I wrote.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Yes, there most certainly is. You are missing it, somehow, but with the claim that the 'universe', is non-dualistic, in entirety, requires no dualistic principles, to be present.

There are no dualistic principles present in Reality as fundamental; they only apply to an illusory dualistic view of Reality as being fundamental. Having said that, the singular Universe manifests as being dual. Night/day; feminine/masculine; on/off phases; But the fundamental Reality is singular. The Chinese express the dichotomy this way:

"From the One came the Two;
from the Two came the Three;
and from the Three came the
Ten Thousand Things"

But even the Ten Thousand Things are still One.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
This does not address what I wrote.

The ordinary conditioned mind sees the One Reality as dual; when one awakens to his unconditioned mind, he sees Reality as it actually is: singular. That person is always at one with the One Reality that is The Universe.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
This infinite eternal omniscient 'something' represented by the name Brahman is real, and is not an illusion, it is any and all conceptions about IT that are illusions. The conception of the eternal infinite omniscient "something" is not the eternal infinite omniscient 'something'...

I agree, but the very real Brahman is playing itself as the material world, which is not real, even though Brahman is the world.

The rope (Brahman) appears as a snake (The Universe), but the snake is not real. Only Brahman is real, and that is why the true nature of Reality is singular and absolute.

Gold can be formed into gold chain, but at all times is still gold. Only the chain-form is temporal, but empty of self-nature.

The difficulty in this is that, in the illusion of rope/snake, the 'snake' vanishes upon detection of its illusory nature, while the Universe does not vanish upon detection of ITS illusory nature, making detection far more difficult, and that is because most are applying conditioned perception (ie: vision; hearing; taste; touch; smell) to determine the 'materialist' nature of the Universe, rather than via a consciousness transcendent of perception.
 
Last edited:
Top