Originally posted by knightmeisteris this your chat up line knight?
Ok so here's another way of looking at the issue of nothing zzzzzzz.....
Whether you are a Something from Nothinger or into eternity one thing is common to both.
1) There must be at least one "thing" in existence that is uncaused and totally non-reliant on anything else. (either the universe , God whatever)
Now if, you don't agree with 1) go ...[text shortened]... having a dodgy hip , it makes you wonder what's going on.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI'm not saying there is an answer, only that I don't think you can rule out the possibility of finding one. It might be that some sort of reason for the existence of an infinite aspect of the universe could be discovered or conjectured.
Science has an amazing way of developing techniques to understand what were previously imponderable areas. AMMANION
But all science can ever do is keep scraping back the layers of life to explain phenomenon in terms of other phenomenon. What happens when you get to the final layer and there's nothing underneath ? How does one understand something i ...[text shortened]... ave to exist if it needs no reason or cause? All one could do is just appreciate (and worship?)
I don't know.
I do know that we should be wary about making absolute claims - this IS, that IS, this WILL NEVER, and so on. History tends to make fools of people who do.
I'll leave the worshipping to you. I'm happy just to appreciate.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo what? The universe is simply an emanation of the "force" and requires no "creation". Maybe you should try reading entire posts.
i.e. that there are faiths which resolve the non-causation issue by simply postulating that the universe itself is an emanation from a "force"MARAUDER
What a silly thing to say ?! The causation problem is solved by postulating that the universe emanates from a force? So what caused the force? You have simply dug one hole to fill another. The force would have to be uncaused.
EDIT: I see vistesd has already addressed your post with far more eloquence than I could.
Consider this: remove all the attributes of the universe, one by one. Its shape, its vastness, etc. etc. etc. What remains?
Apparently to you, nothing - the universe can be created or destroyed by something else. But to the disciplines I am referring to there was still an Ultimate Reality. The Tao, the Void, Brahman different names for the same concept. But the Universe itself is not separate from them, it is a mere manifestation of them. Thus, the Universe was not created at all.
I think it's interesting to think about whether a universe with all its attributes eliminated would "look" like a singularity.
Originally posted by no1marauderI think it's interesting to think about whether a universe with all its attributes eliminated would "look" like a singularity.
Consider this: remove all the attributes of the universe, one by one. Its shape, its vastness, etc. etc. etc. What remains?
Apparently to you, nothing - the universe can be created or destroyed by something else. But to the disciplines I am referring to there was still an Ultimate Reality. The Tao, the Void, Brahman different names for the ...[text shortened]... about whether a universe with all its attributes eliminated would "look" like a singularity.
Interesting question. Also illustrates the difficulty, once one starts to grasp non-duality, of expressing it in a language that has subject-predicate (-object) duality built into it. I think some of my more long-winded posts have come about simply because of my stumbling all around that problem.
It is also difficult for the constructed ego-self (a valuable thing that ought not be denigrated), which is based on duality/separability, to realize that that duality/separability is transient, is ultimately inseparable from the whole.
Based on something Starrman said, I’m trying to think about it in terms of fluctuations within a field (like energy fluctuations within an electro-magnetic field, yin and yang polarities within the Tao...).
I think what the Hindu rishis of the Upanishads, and the Taoists, did was “look” inside. Stripping away the onion-peels of thought, concept, emotions, they arrived at a realization of a consciousness that is simply aware. Now, our consciousness is always aware of something—visual impressions, sound, touch, etc.—and so what they sometimes call “empty-mind,” or the like, is simply a mind that is not making thoughts, concepts, emotions in addition to the awareness.
In that awareness, one realizes three inter-related things, all of which you have mentioned:
(1) The non-separability of ourselves, our consciousness, and the field, and the other form/fluctuations in the field—the Buddhists say it is all “mutually arising.”
(2) That our “true self” (the atman) is just that consciousness as it is—perhaps it is best thought of as a verb, as a going-on, rather than a thing.
(3) That atman is Brahman emanated or manifest or expressed.
And so the Upanishads say tat tvam asi—“You are [/i]that[/i];” and ayam atma brahma—“This very self is Brahman.”
Now, after that, some of them do begin to speculate and argue about the nature of that Brahman, arguing from both that realization of non-duality/non-separability and transient nature of the forms arising and passing away. Some say that ultimately it is just Being, and that consciousness is a form manifest from that Being; others say it is ultimately consciousness, and being and its forms constitute its dreamlike manifestation. Others probably say other things. All of which means that these folks have been thinking about your question of attributes and their removal for a long, long time.
I am just really at that basic realization, and trying to let it deepen and ripen and clarify, so to speak. That I can try to talk about—beyond that, no. But trying to talk about it—as long as I don’t get too caught in the makings of my own mind as I do, and lose touch with that realization (which happens; and then I take time off)—also seems to aid that deepening/ripening/clarification process. And I can’t say much about Brahman, except that it seems to be ultimately coherent and harmonious, in which—if we can clear away our illusion, confusion and clutching-mind—we can live eudaimonic lives, not painless, but with a minimum of inner turmoil and anguish.
_____________________________________
With regard to your thought-experiment of removing attributes from the Brahman, you might have come across this from the Isha Upanishad (it’s kind of like a Zen koan):
All this is full. All that is full.
From fullness, fullness comes.
When fullness is taken from fullness,
Fullness still remains.
🙂
Originally posted by no1marauderConsider this: remove all the attributes of the universe, one by one. Its shape, its vastness, etc. etc. etc. What remains?
Consider this: remove all the attributes of the universe, one by one. Its shape, its vastness, etc. etc. etc. What remains?
Apparently to you, nothing - the universe can be created or destroyed by something else. But to the disciplines I am referring to there was still an Ultimate Reality. The Tao, the Void, Brahman different names for the ...[text shortened]... about whether a universe with all its attributes eliminated would "look" like a singularity.
Apparently to you, nothing MARAUDER
An even sillier thing to say! Nothing remains???? I'm a theist remember...and God is not....erhem...nothing.
Amanniam:1. You have to be very careful about inserting words/terms such as 'will', 'create itself', and 'go away' in the context of a universe. We are talking - from a scientific perspective at least - about a thing rather than a life form. Some of your terms suggest direction or consciousness.
Why can't the universe be a life form in itself? We live in what looks lke a finite sized body, maybe the whole thing is like a single cell in a much larger body, each cell coming and going but the main body lives on like immune cells in our body causing apoptosis of bad cells but new ones get made and the bad ones killed off. Our universe could be just like on of those cells, all the activity inside like galaxies coming and going, exchanging energy and it had a definite beginning and will probably have a definite end but the latest TOE's suggest our universe is but one of many, like the whole thing being a multi-celled body of some sort, completely unaware of us lowly human lice and our whole solar system.
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhat remains of the Universe is the question.
Consider this: remove all the attributes of the universe, one by one. Its shape, its vastness, etc. etc. etc. What remains?
Apparently to you, nothing MARAUDER
An even sillier thing to say! Nothing remains???? I'm a theist remember...and God is not....erhem...nothing.
Please at least try to make an honest effort to read the posts and understand them rather than picking out one sentence and misreading it.
Originally posted by sonhouseMaybe you're right, but I've yet to hear anything in the way of a convincing argument for it.
Amanniam:1. You have to be very careful about inserting words/terms such as 'will', 'create itself', and 'go away' in the context of a universe. We are talking - from a scientific perspective at least - about a thing rather than a life form. Some of your terms suggest direction or consciousness.
Why can't the universe be a life form in itself? We live in ...[text shortened]... body of some sort, completely unaware of us lowly human lice and our whole solar system.
Originally posted by no1marauderOh come on marauder it's you that needs to appreciate the context of the entire thread. We are not talking about the universe as such we are talking about existence and uncaused existence. I'm much more interested in your uncaused Brahman than whether the universe is an emanation or a creation. To me the argument about emanation or creation is a mere side issue.
What remains of the Universe is the question.
Please at least try to make an honest effort to read the posts and understand them rather than picking out one sentence and misreading it.
Originally posted by amannionI do know that we should be wary about making absolute claims - this IS, that IS, this WILL NEVER, and so on. History tends to make fools of people who do. AMMANION
I'm not saying there is an answer, only that I don't think you can rule out the possibility of finding one. It might be that some sort of reason for the existence of an infinite aspect of the universe could be discovered or conjectured.
I don't know.
I do know that we should be wary about making absolute claims - this IS, that IS, this WILL NEVER, and so ...[text shortened]... fools of people who do.
I'll leave the worshipping to you. I'm happy just to appreciate.
So if I say that a cat that exists will exist as a cat and not a dog , or 2+2 will always be 4 , is history likely to make a fool of me? My assertion is not a prediction , it is based on basic logic. Something that is uncaused cannot by definition be explained because to explain it would mean referencing something else that causes it. One cannot by definition find a reason for it to exist because it is non-dependent on a reason. Come on ammanion , think about it , think harder!
Originally posted by knightmeisterThis isn't right. Not all explanations are causal explanations. The explanation of why 2+2 = 4, for instance, is not causal, and neither is the explanation for the validity of modus ponens. In other words, explanations for necessary truths need not be causal. If the universe (which I take to be comprised of everything that is) is a necessary existent, then the explanation for the existence of the universe will be "it couldn't have been otherwise". Of course, showing that the universe is a necessary existent will be difficult; many philosophers have tried (without success) to answer the question "why is there something rather than nothing?".
I do know that we should be wary about making absolute claims - this IS, that IS, this WILL NEVER, and so on. History tends to make fools of people who do. AMMANION
So if I say that a cat that exists will exist as a cat and not a dog , or 2+2 will always be 4 , is history likely to make a fool of me? My assertion is not a prediction , it is based ...[text shortened]... exist because it is non-dependent on a reason. Come on ammanion , think about it , think harder!