Alan Watts on "Ex nihilo nihil fit"

[Beyondo]

The Equations of Maya

Continue reading further down the page to the section titled: Counter-cheating the Genes. The East has long told us that our biological makeup is actually geared against our becoming enlightened. That is one reason why our authentic self is so hidden, that it seems non-existent, and why it is so very difficult to achieve the higher state. Nature is pulling us in the opposite direction!

What I see is eastern religion latching onto notions of science. You describe relativity, classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and then bend the religious concepts so they sound like science. The perfect example is the term "genetics" which isn't a concept in eastern philosophy, but you and others will equate the term to descriptions that would say "nature", or "body", or even "desires". But none of those terms are the real McCoy, "Genetics" None of those descriptions explain in any detail genetics, DNA, or evolution.

 

[godnotgod]

You still don't get, the peg is neither square or round!

You see, that is the problem: you are so attached to the peg that you don't see that it is indeed square, figuratively speaking, of course.

The model of reality is not reality.

Then A.I. should get there rather easily.

What are you talking about? The real intelligence behind the universe is not ego-based, so why would it require artificial intelligence?

Consciousness is already there. It has always been there. It's being there is what allows Mr. Watts to proclaim that "Everything comes out of Nothing", because he sees, via the enlightened mind, that this is the case.

A.I. is about becoming something. The universe is not becoming anything. It just is.

You seem to want to pattern the universe after that of a machine. The universe is not a machine. Machines are made. They are created and can be destroyed. They are artifacts. The universe is an intelligent living entity that was never created and will never be destroyed, because it is, in fact the Absolute as viewed through the distortions of Time, Space, and Causation. Humans are intelligent, and emerge from an intelligent universe, though you may see the activity on the atomic and molecular level as being non-intelligent. Everything is alive with intelligence, but we are looking for intelligence with a preconditioned mind. That is why the mind must be transformed first so that it can see reality the way it is, rather than the way it thinks it is via of learning and knowledge.

 

[godnotgod]

What I see is eastern religion latching onto notions of science. You describe relativity, classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and then bend the religious concepts so they sound like science. The perfect example is the term "genetics" which isn't a concept in eastern philosophy, but you and others will equate the term to descriptions that would say "nature", or "body", or even "desires". But none of those terms are the real McCoy, "Genetics" None of those descriptions explain in any detail genetics, DNA, or evolution.

It does not matter. You are still attached to the details and ignore the substance. Higher Consciousness reveals the simple fact that human traits are passed on, that the offspring follow a predictable pattern of behavior and that these patterns are born of desire, ignorance, and entail suffering, even if the gory genetic mechanisms are not known. Higher Consciousness breaks the bondage that the genes hold on man, even if the mechanics are not known. The comparison of the enlightened state to that of the ordinary karma-driven human path determined by the genes and social indoctrination shows the enlightened state to be far superior, at least in terms of real happiness is concerned.

The East is not trying to sound like Science. It has no need to. It's teachings were in place long before formal Science came on the scene. It is not changing any of its teachings to accomodate Science: It is Science that has crossed over to the East to find out what it is all about. Science is the tradition that first attached electrodes to meditators brains to study their brain waves. And still they are nibbling around the edges. All Science can say, is "WOW!" Just look at those Alpha Waves! Incredible!" But still they know nothing about what is producing those Alpha Waves. Because Science has made the first move, the East is just responding by saying that, yes, Science is confirming what they have been saying all along. That is all.

Now, if you are speaking about Christianity, for example, you would be correct, as it is intent on using History, Science, and anything else it can get its hands on to prove the existence of the Christian God.

You don't see Eastern gurus using Scientific tools to prove anything. There is nothing to prove. You still don't understand that the Eastern experience transcends the rational mind. It is not concerned with its trappings, Science being one of them. It is concerned with the Infinite.

 

[Beyondo]

Where is this "you" located? There is only calling, desiring, suffering and believing, without a caller, desirer, sufferer, or believer.

So if "you" is the conditioned self, then it is not real, as compared to the authentic self. It is just a collection of values input by societal indoctrination and the genes which creates the illusion of an "I". In other words, "I" is self-created.

Here you make no sense, while genes create a brain, the notion of "I" comes about by virtue of how neurons connect and operate. The reality is, there is no "I" at birth! But not because there is no ego it is due to the lack of neural circuitry and myelinated axons. The neural circuitry builds by interactions between mother and infant where several phases of imprinting occur, olfactory being first, tactile second, visual third and lastly auditory. This happens within a ten month period. A good book on the subject is "Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self" by Allan Schore. Corpus Callosum is not fully myelinated until the child is three years old! So right and left brain are developing independently, meaning two "I"s exist. Such duality has been demonstrated in "Split Brain" disorders where right and left hemispheres of the brain will answer questions differently.

But on another note: If as you say the whole of the body is the origin of the self, then how can those who have had limbs removed have no effect on their cognitive abilities where as those who suffer from brain damage do have cognitive deficits? Also experiments probing or stimulating neural circuits has prompted thoughts, memories, sensations, etc. All those effects are the artifacts of what the west calls the "mind"

Also how could the brain remotely control a machine with thoughts through a brain interface if the mind is not in the brain? From the fact that thoughts can be harnessed to interface with machines and machine replacements of neural circuitry is possible then the ability to replace all of the brain is possible making the "conditioned self" similar to momentum. If you remember your wave analogy to describing nothing you failed to realize that what caused the wave wasn't the "nothing"that rose from the ocean but is energy, E = mc^2. Because it is energy it can cross mediums, so the wave doesn't return to the ocean but is redistributed through other mediums. Looking at mind as a virtual product then it too can cross mediums, all that is required is that the medium emulate consciousness to at least the degree the brain does.

 

[Beyondo]

It does not matter. You are still attached to the details and ignore the substance. Higher Consciousness reveals the simple fact that human traits are passed on, even if the gory details are not known. Higher Consciousness breaks the bondage that the genes hold on man, even if the mechanics are not known.

The East is not trying to sound like Science. It has no need to. It's teachings were in place long before formal Science came on the scene. It is Science that has crossed over to the East to find out what it is all about. Science is the tradition that first attached electrodes to meditators brains to study their brain waves. And still they are nibbling around the edges. All Science can say, is "WOW!" Just look at those Alpha Waves! Incredible!" But still they know nothing about what is producing those Alpha Waves. Because Science has made the first move, the East is just responding by saying that, yes, Science is confirming what they have been saying all along. That is all.

Well...from the articles you have been posting lately you are contradicting yourself. You're trying to use science to rationalize your beliefs and you do it by stating what you just wrote. You take analogies and layman understandings of physics and claim that the Vedas already explained it all!

 

[Beyondo]

Can you explain why Maya conforms to mathematics? Why does Maya need order? I mean the order of the universe behaves according to mathematical relationships. Why does Maya need neurons that utilize feedback systems to converge on adaptable solutions? Why does Maya need to create a retina that captures red, blue and green light to produce all the colors of the universe to the brain? Why is it that the same rules of light apply to digital cameras? Why is Maya soo consistent? I mean an illusion, at least the ones I've experienced, are always temporary and inconsistent. If Maya is an illusion as you say, then there is no need to be consistent.

 

[Beyondo]

You see, that is the problem: you are so attached to the peg that you don't see that it is indeed square, figuratively speaking, of course.

Wrong, Einstein proved that the square peg is not square, no more than the line that is etched on the surface of the earth is straight! godnotgod if you really want to see reality take the "red pill"...

What are you talking about? The real intelligence behind the universe is not ego-based, so why would it require artificial intelligence?

What are you talking about? What does the universe have to do with A.I.?

You seem to want to pattern the universe after that of a machine. The universe is not a machine. Machines are made. They are created and can be destroyed. They are artifacts. The universe is an intelligent living entity that was never created and will never be destroyed, because it is, in fact the Absolute as viewed through the distortions of Time, Space, and Causation.?

Life is a machine and the universe will eventually die. But I do not want to pattern the universe after a machine. You failed to see the advantage to the approach to a computational universe.

Humans are intelligent, and emerge from an intelligent universe, though you may see the activity on the atomic and molecular level as being non-intelligent. Everything is alive with intelligence...

You are completely ignorant of my view points. I've read your articles and your rantings but You haven't read my thread on a virtual universe. If you had then you would know what I think about sub-atomic matter...

 

[godnotgod]

Also how could the brain remotely control a machine with thoughts through a brain interface if the mind is not in the brain?

It does not follow that consciousness must originate from the brain in order for it to work through the brain. In the example I provided, it is the kundalini energy located at the base of the spine which fuels the brain. BTW, kundalini is not a theory: it is a verifiable fact amongst those who have experienced it around the world. In classical Tantra, you see figures of Shakti and Shiva locked in ecstatic sexual embrace, transforming the carnal into the spiritual.

Tantra Kundalini

According to the philosophy of Tantra, the entire universe is a manifestation of pure consciousness. In manifesting the universe, this pure consciousness seems to become divided into two poles or aspects, neither of which can exist without the other.

One aspect, Shiva, is masculine, retains a static quality and remains identified with unmanifested consciousness. Shiva has the power to be but not the power to become or change.

The other aspect, Shakti, is feminine, dynamic, energetic and creative. Shakti is the Great Mother of the universe, for it is from her that all form is born.

According to Tantra, the human being is a miniature universe. All that is found in the cosmos can be found within each individual, and the same principles that apply to the universe apply in the case of the individual being.

In human beings, Shakti, the feminine aspect is called Kundalini. This potential energy is said to rest at the base of the spinal cord. The object of the Tantric practice of Kundalini-yoga is to awaken this cosmic energy and make it ascend through the psychic centres, the chakras, that lie along the axis of the spine as consciousness potentials. She will then unite above the crown of the head with Shiva the pure consciousness. This union is the aim of Kundalini-yoga: a resolution of duality into unity again, a fusion with the Absolute. By this union the adept attains liberation while living which is considered in Indian life to be the highest experience: an union of the individual with the universe.

In Tantrism the state of ultimate bliss is a transcendence of dualities male-female, energy-consciousness, Shiva-Shakti..

http://http://www.tantra-kundalini.com/index.htm

If you remember your wave analogy to describing nothing you failed to realize that what caused the wave wasn't the "nothing"that rose from the ocean but is energy, E = mc^2. Because it is energy it can cross mediums, so the wave doesn't return to the ocean but is redistributed through other mediums.

When I stated that the wave-form returns to the formless source that is the ocean, I meant that what the wave is composed of, formed water, is what returns to formless water, formless being its original state of being. "Wave" is only the temporary form the water takes due to the energy involved.

Likewise, all 'somethings' are temporary manifestations (forms) which emerge from the original state of formlessness, or no-thing-ness, and return to the formless. Because the energy involved in the form crosses mediums, as you say, the form collapses when the energy is spent, but the energy, being redistributed, is a returning as well to its source. Ultimately, there is only one source from and to which both energy and form arise and subside, and that source is Absolute Nothingness.

This 'return' of both matter and energy to their source is consistent with the Constancy Laws of Physics.

 

[godnotgod]

Well...from the articles you have been posting lately you are contradicting yourself. You're trying to use science to rationalize your beliefs and you do it by stating what you just wrote.

Not at all. I don't post these pieces for my benefit. I am already convinced of the Eastern view without any Science to support it, since the experience itself is sufficient. Science is just an extra. As I said, you don't see Eastern teachers running around with high tech equipment for the purpose of rationalizing or proving their 'beliefs'. They don't entertain beliefs; they focus on reality instead, without the baggage of science. Science only came about long after reality was already here. All you need is reality in order to experience reality. No electrodes necessary.

 

[Beyondo]

This 'return' of both matter and energy to their source is consistent with the Constancy Laws of Physics.

The conservation of energy rule doesn't claim that energy returns to its source. If that were the case a battery would never loose its charge. And again this is another example of how you bend layman physics to re-enforce your religion.

 

[godnotgod]

The conservation of energy rule doesn't claim that energy returns to its source. If that were the case a battery would never loose its charge. And again this is another example of how you bend layman physics to re-enforce your religion.

This has nothing to do with religion.

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.

The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.

You stated that the energy in a wave can both cross mediums and be redistributed. After the wave energy is spent, the water which had taken the energy form of the wave returns to its source, the ocean. Actually, it never left. It is just form returning to the formless.

My original illustration of the wave and the ocean is only a metaphor [m-e-t-a-p-h-o-r] designed to demonstrate both the idea of something coming out of nothing (form emerging from the formless) and the idea of the illusion of a separate "I" acting independently from the universe. Understanding a metaphor requires an intuitive [i-n-t-u-i-t-i-v-e] approach. (ie: "her eyes were like liquid pools of lapis lazuli").

In the wave metaphor, the wave is always connected to the source.

All forms of energy and matter are also always connected to the source, though they are transformed into other forms of energy and matter, or transformed from one state to another (ie: matter into energy or vice versa).

As far as the universe is concerned, there is no distinction between a layman and an expert.

 

[Beyondo]

As far as the universe is concerned, there is no distinction between a layman and an expert.

Not according to you, eastern religions have it all figured out! :jiggy:

 

[godnotgod]

Not according to you, eastern religions have it all figured out! :jiggy:

That is only how it appears to those looking from the outside in. When you finally decide to come in, you will see that there was never anything to "figure out" in the first place!

Phd's have been reduced to tears on their meditation mats trying to "figure it out". It is a truly humbling experience, but humility is the first step toward Enlightenment.

Leave your baggage behind for just awhile and come see. When you return, your baggage will take on a whole new look!

You may even catch a fleeting glimpse of everything in the act of coming out of nothing, if you are alert and attentive, that is.

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few."
Shunryu Suzuki, founder, San Francisco Zen Center

 

[godnotgod]

Everything Comes Back to Nothing

"Inexplicably it comes. When you least expect it. For a reason you can never know. One moment you are striving, figuring, imagining, and then, in the blink of an eye, it all disappears. The struggle disappears. The striving disappears. The person disappears. The world disappears. Everything disappears, and the person is like a pinpoint of light, just receding until it disappears. And there's nobody there to witness it. The person is gone. Only, only awareness remains. Nothing else. No one to be aware. Nothing to be aware of. Only that remains itself. Then it's understood, finally and simply.


Then everything-all the struggle, all the striving, all the thinking, all the figuring, all the surrendering, all the letting go, all the grabbing hold of, all the praying, all the begging, all the cursing, too-was just a distraction. And only then is it seen that the person was, is, and ever will be no more than a thought. With a single thought, the person seems to reemerge. With more thoughts, the world seems to reemerge right out of nothing. But now you know.


The incarnation is nothing more than a thought. A thousand incarnations are but a thousand thoughts. And this amazing miracle of a mirage we call the world reappears as it was before, but now you know. That's why you usually have a good laugh, because you realize that all your struggles were made up. You conjured them up out of nothing-with a thought that was linked to another thought, that was then believed, that linked to another thought that was then believed. But never could it have been true, not for a second could it have actually existed. Not ever could you have actually suffered for a reason that was true-only through an imagination, good, bad, indifferent. The intricacies of spiritual philosophy and theologies are just a thought within Emptiness.


And so at times we talk, and I pretend to take your struggles seriously, just as I pretended to take my own seriously. You may pretend to take your own struggles seriously from time to time, and although we pretend, we really shouldn't forget that we are pretending, that we are making up the content of our experience; we are making up the little dramas of our lives. We are making up whether we need to hold on or surrender or figure it out or pray to God or be purified or have karma cleansed-it's all a thought. We just collude in this ridiculous charade of an illusion pretending that it's real, only to reveal that it's not. There is no karma. There is nothing really to purify. There's no problem. There is only what you create and believe to be so. And if you like it that way, have at it!


But we cannot continue this absolute farce indefinitely. We cannot continue to pretend this game we play, indefinitely. It's impossible. Everything comes back to nothing.


And then it's a bit harder to hold a straight face consistently for the rest of your life."

Adyashanti: Everything Comes Back to Nothing

"And what is mind and how is it recognized?
If I clearly draw In sumi ink,
the sound of breezes drifting through pine is all that is seen."

- Ikkyu Sojun (1394-1481)

 

[godnotgod]

I asked a child, walking with a candle,
"From where comes that light?"
Instantly he blew it out.
"Tell me where it is gone --
then I will tell you where it came from."
- Hasan of Basra
*************************

Earth, mountains, rivers - hidden in this nothingness.
In this nothingness - earth, mountains, rivers revealed.
Spring flowers, winter snows:
There's no being or non-being, nor denial itself. ​

- Saisho (circa 1490)
Zen Poetry: Let the Spring Breeze Enter, p.32
Translated by Lucien Stryk and Takashi Ikemot
****************


​

We pray for our life of tomorrow,
Ephemeral life though it be;
This is the habit of our mind
That passed away yesterday.​

- Ikkyu
Zen and Zen Classics: Selections from R. H. Blyth, p. 111​

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Something cannot come from nothing. This is absolute and inviolate as to have otherwise would undermine tautology and contradiction (reality cannot exist if it does not equal itself absolutely).

Nothing needs nothing in order to be nothing. This has two meanings. Nothing does not require the addition of anything in order to be nothing. But also Nothing needs that there be no other thing in order to be nothing because as soon as there is something, then there is no longer Nothing.


The conceptions which allow for something to come from nothing are Not using an absolute definition of nothing. They are using a conception of "No Thing" where there is not any manifest existence, but that is Not the same as Nothing. "No Thing" is a state of pure potentiality but the quality of capability is something and thus Nothing is not the state of existence at that point.

In order to be Nothing there cannot be any qualities. Nothing can occur, nothing can happen, nothing can be allowable or permissible.

MTF

 

[godnotgod]

Something cannot come from nothing. This is absolute and inviolate as to have otherwise would undermine tautology and contradiction (reality cannot exist if it does not equal itself absolutely).

Nothing needs nothing in order to be nothing. This has two meanings. Nothing does not require the addition of anything in order to be nothing. But also Nothing needs that there be no other thing in order to be nothing because as soon as there is something, then there is no longer Nothing.


The conceptions which allow for something to come from nothing are Not using an absolute definition of nothing. They are using a conception of "No Thing" where there is not any manifest existence, but that is Not the same as Nothing. "No Thing" is a state of pure potentiality but the quality of capability is something and thus Nothing is not the state of existence at that point.

In order to be Nothing there cannot be any qualities. Nothing can occur, nothing can happen, nothing can be allowable or permissible.

MTF

You unwittingly define nothing in terms of something, and vice versa.

Something can indeed come out of nothing, as something needs a background against which its 'somethingness' is determined to be just that. You talk about something without paying attention to the field against which it exists. Something simply cannot exist without a background of nothingness. It is impossible.

Beyond that obstacle, how do you know that what you call 'something' is actually some-thing? That is to say, how do you know it is not illusory? Science, in delving into the most minute particles of 'something', cannot find anything of any real substance there that it can pin down as real. It ends up with such things that are neither energy nor matter, 'wavicles', as they are called, and mostly empty space. Now, if the phenomenal world that we normally call 'reality' is, in fact, an illusion, then it becomes very easy indeed to see how everything can come out of nothing, as it must. This is not to say that reality does not exist, but it is not what our thinking mind tells us it is. That is exactly why mystics for centuries have been looking beyond the rational mind for answers. It is all about the ability to see things as they actually are, rather than how we think they are, and that requires seeing beyond mere appearances.

There is relative nothingness, but there is also Absolute Nothingness, the negation of negation.

1st observer: "The flag is moving"
2nd observer: "No. Wind is moving"
3rd observer: "Wrong! Flag an wind both are moving!"
Passerby: "All wrong!. Your minds are moving!"

 

[Twilight Hue]

Something cannot come from nothing. This is absolute and inviolate as to have otherwise would undermine tautology and contradiction (reality cannot exist if it does not equal itself absolutely).

Nothing needs nothing in order to be nothing. This has two meanings. Nothing does not require the addition of anything in order to be nothing. But also Nothing needs that there be no other thing in order to be nothing because as soon as there is something, then there is no longer Nothing.


The conceptions which allow for something to come from nothing are Not using an absolute definition of nothing. They are using a conception of "No Thing" where there is not any manifest existence, but that is Not the same as Nothing. "No Thing" is a state of pure potentiality but the quality of capability is something and thus Nothing is not the state of existence at that point.

In order to be Nothing there cannot be any qualities. Nothing can occur, nothing can happen, nothing can be allowable or permissible.

MTF

Right. Agree here but you require an awareness as to what something is in order to write your post and to point out the distinction. It is because the influences of something makes the identification of nothing possible. You actually require this particular contrast in order to make those distinctions of something and nothing. That's the point that Alan was trying to make from what I gather, unless you see it differently. So to say that something cannot come from nothing (and vise versa for that matter) depends on ones perspective in order to qualify what is being said.
-NM-

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I will address both of you.

No you do not need a background of nothingness in order to get something to exist. That is PURE and utter nonsense. You need a spaciousness. That is NOT nothingness. What is required is potentiality. That is unmanifest potential. That is NOT nothing. Unmanifest potential is still a quality and therefore NOT nothing.

If this "background of nothingness" allows anything to occur (as in it is capable of doing or allowing anything in the first place), then it was never (at any point) Nothing in the first place. Nothing is a concept which we do not have any experience with. It is a theoretical construct born out of our understanding of what it means to lack.

It is only because of an incomplete understanding of Nothing and Logic that you would contend that Nothingness is defined by Something. It is logical to assert that Nothing is Everywhere because it lacks all qualities: it is able to be "present," in as much as Nothing is capable of "doing anything," because "adding zero to a quality changes nothing." And you need to understand that the preceding sentence can be understood both ways. Adding nothing to anything changes nothing into anything. So you might suppose that -- is Absolute Nothingness, but if you recall your basic logic a double negation is Always stripped away as it is always equal to whatever the original assertion was. Nothingness was not defined in terms of Something, but the other way around.

I am describing nothingness in terms related to something because that is the only thing it is possible to do. Absolute perfection is not real (or rather transcends the system if anything can be said of it), and Absolute Nothingness does not exist at all. So how else can I describe Absolute Nothingness except in relation to that which exists. Everything else other than Nothingness exists except Absolute Perfection and Absolute Perfection transcends all everything (including comprehension and description).

It is not Nothing that is required in order for Existence to be. Absolute Nothingness cannot give rise to anything. You all know this. It takes something more than nothingness to give rise to anything. Absolute Nothingness has no traits at all. So in order for there to be anything at all something other than Absolute Nothingness must be invoked. If Reality has a "beginning" then something which transcends reality must be invoked. If Reality is eternal, then Reality as a "whole" is perfect even if its "parts" are not. And if Reality is not eternal, then the consequences of this discussion are ultimately mooted by the end of everything (not just anything mind you, but by complete negation of existence).

MTF

 

[Tiapan]

Define nothing
In physics we have matter and energy. If we take a small set volume of the universe eg a cubic metre and it has some rocks and gas floating around within this volume of space, we consider it "not empty". If we remove the matter (gases liquids, solids, plasma) we call it a vacuum. Lets call this a classic physical vacuum. But if, at any point in time on average, the volume is always being traversed by photons, gravitons or other force carriers? Can this vacuum be considered really empty?

If the universe started as a big bang then the resulting expansion contains matter and energy and is therefore not empty or a vacuum, but is that which the universe is expanding into, truly empty and a true vacuum since the universe of expanding matter and energy has not yet reached it? ie it is nothing - a PURE vacuum,if so can "nothing" exist as an entity? This is why we model the expansion like the surface of an expanding balloon, because "nothing" is dimensionless.

Now this is on a macro scale, if we head in the opposite micro direction, to the subatomic universe, we find the majority of the universe is actually empty and in fact is mostly classical physical vacuum. The volume of an atom actually occupied with the matter component (ie electrons, protons and neutrons)is minuscule compared the volume an atom occupies. Atoms are 99.99999999999999999999% totally void, but we can still have force carriers eg photons present in through these voids, unless we are in a part of space, where the first photons etc from the expansion have not yet reached.

So is nothing, nothing, is a vacuum, a vacuum, and if so since we are 99.999999999999% nothing can we really exist?
Of course we can, such is the beauty of physics and chemistry.

Cheers