14
   

The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe

 
 
Reply Tue 10 Feb, 2015 08:10 pm
Hi guys. Smile

The following is essentially my 'theory of everything'. I just felt like sharing with you, and would love to know what you guys think of it.

In truth, any given 'particular thing' (for example, a tree) can ONLY exist if the right conditions are present. These conditions are 'not the tree', and are necessarily comprised of 'other things', ALL of which can ONLY exist if the right conditions are present. These conditions are 'not those other things', and are necessarily comprised of 'other other things', ALL of which can ONLY exist if the right conditions are present....and so on, ad infinitum.

Therefore, 'the tree' could not possibly appear in exactly the way that it is without the ENTIRETY of 'not the tree' (which is, in this context, most accurately defined as the all-inclusive and as such fundamentally singular and ultimately boundless presence that lies beyond 'the tree') appearing in exactly the way that it is.

In this way, 'the tree' and 'not the tree' are realized to be an absolutely inseparable 'pair' of opposites, which (like ALL such pairs) is inextricably indicative of the 'deeper' (and MORE ACTUAL) Reality that is itself fundamentally seamless and as such completely devoid of BOTH. Therefore, it isn't actually true that there exists EITHER 'the tree' OR 'not the tree', that are intrinsically different from and/or independently other than each other in the way in which they SEEM to be. EXACTLY the same is true of 'Me' and 'Not Me' (and of 'You' and 'Not You').

In truth, both of these 'two' are absolutely equal. That is, equally non-existent. NEITHER are actually Here.

Ultimately, what IS actually Here is Reality itself, which, in truth, can have no real ultimate 'edge', in any direction at all, in expanse or duration.

The very presence of any conceivable 'absence of Reality' that may intuitively seem to inherently remain boundlessly beyond such an edge would forever ensure, in and of itself, that its own essential condition of 'absolute lack of presence' could NEVER be met. Consequently, this apparent absence is always already encompassed by (and therefore, included 'within') the ever-remaining causeless, boundless presence that is Reality itself, which is, as such, not a 'thing', nor is it any number of 'things'.

In truth, Reality fundamentally equals 'ZERO'. That is to say, actually, there isn't anything.

Yet, the very 'ISness' of this 'ZERO' inextricably equals 'ONE'.

Being intrinsically infinite and eternal, 'ONE' is forever choicelessly aware of (and is therefore effortlessly experiencing) the eternal infinity that is 'ONE', all the while remaining (due to its fundamentally attributeless nature) absolutely unrequiring of (and thus, completely devoid of) any capacity for the formation of any kind of 'knowledge' of 'itself', or of 'anything else'.

This is the stateless state of 'pure awareness'. It simply 'is', without beginning, ending or edge, always already perfect and complete, and absolutely sufficient unto itself. As such, it remains forever in an unfathomable state of unthreatenable bliss.

This, alone, is 'What Actually 'IS'', 'Here' and 'Now'.

As 'ONE' experiences 'ONE', 'ONE' SEEMS to be 'TWO'. These illusory 'TWO' are 'the seer' and 'the seen'. The seen is fundamentally manifested as the state of 'absolute chaos' (finite, ever-changing and moving form). The seer is fundamentally manifested as the state of 'absolute order' (infinite, ever-changeless and still emptiness).

'From' the eternal interaction between this apparent 'pair', 'Everything' happens, in the ONLY way that it possibly can;

'THIS' way.

In other words, the so-called 'big bang' (which is one in an infinite series of such bangs) can be described as an instantaneous event of pure chaos (the seen) that happens in the infinite field of changeless and orderly emptiness (the seer). When this occurs, the passive 'gaze' of the field causes the event to coherently 'evaporate', unresistingly, via the orderly path of least resistance until it has completely dissolved, and then another bang happens, and so on forever. The evaporation itself (which can ONLY happen perfectly) is the seemingly causal and sequential 'life' of the universe, along with all of its apparently coherent hierarchical structure and physical 'laws'.

Being an evaporation, it doesn't really have any actual 'parts', that are fundamentally different from and/or independently other than each other in the way in which they seem to be.

Therefore, every'thing', every'one', and every 'event' EVER is actually an 'apparent part' of the forever fundamentally seamless and effortless unfurling of this one choiceless effect, which is itself comprised ONLY of the one causeless, unencompassed, self-experiencing presence that is 'ZERO'.

Amongst the myriad finite and temporary undulations that arise and dissolve within this illusory unfurling, there arise certain undulations of such extreme physical complexity that they have the choiceless and effortless capacity to 'reflect' the gaze of the infinite emptiness back upon itself from their own particular positions, as well as upon all surrounding undulations within a certain coherent distance from themselves. This makes it seem as if there is a uniquely autonomous, finite and temporary awareness operating within each one of these extremely complex undulations, consequently concealing the true oneness of the universe.

Ultimately 'Here' and 'Now', without another, forever and ever;




((((('THIS'-EXPERIENCING-'THIS')))))



Thanks very much for reading.
Smile
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Feb, 2015 08:34 pm
bookmark
...
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2015 12:46 am
@Relinquish,
Well said ! You are basically describing aspects of a well known philosophical position called "non-duality". References to Buddhism, Taoism, Existentialism and Postmodernism will yield most of the ideas you present here. The problem with exposition is of course that we are stuck with our linguistic conditioning in the face of the "ineffable". As one of our members has said, "Reality, may be a concept with no referent".
0 Replies
 
Lordyaswas
 
  4  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2015 01:06 am
I once experienced a big bang which was somewhat a moment of instantaneous chaos, and vowed to myself that I would never attempt having a barbecue ever again.

I still have no eyebrows.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2015 01:14 am
@Relinquish,
I see you have already aired your views on "Philosophy Forums". You are more likely to get a sympathetic reception there, than here. Lets see !
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2015 01:15 am
@Lordyaswas,
Of course there's "banging" and "banging" ! Wink
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2015 01:36 am
If I were to argue for non-duality, I would take a less a priori tack. For example, electromagnetic and gravitational fields are, in principle, of infinite expanse, meaning that everything in the universe is "connected" by electromagnetism and gravity, if nothing else. Not sure what that means to the price of squid in Korea, though.
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2015 02:27 am
@Relinquish,
Relinquish wrote:
Being intrinsically infinite and eternal, 'ONE' is forever choicelessly aware of (and is therefore effortlessly experiencing) the eternal infinity that is 'ONE', all the while remaining (due to its fundamentally attributeless nature) absolutely unrequiring of (and thus, completely devoid of) any capacity for the formation of any kind of 'knowledge' of 'itself', or of 'anything else'.

This is the stateless state of 'pure awareness'. It simply 'is', without beginning, ending or edge, always already perfect and complete, and absolutely sufficient unto itself. As such, it remains forever in an unfathomable state of unthreatenable bliss.


An interesting post, but the quote above is where you lost me... being is, at least in this discussion, and at least theoretically, a state that can be stripped down to the bare minimum, ie 'a thing "is"'. But "awareness" is not only an attribute, but one incredibly complex to describe. An attribute that requires other contributing "attributes" to explain, and ultimately, the necessity of both a (historical?) context and a critical observer.

You use a tree as your model of what it is to "be", or so i read your post. While i'm perfectly comfortable saying that a tree interacts with its environment, even if that includes everything that isn't the tree in question, i'm not comfortable saying that the tree is aware of anything. If the one-ness of the universe is to be a thing, is "awareness" too anthropocentric to ascribe to it-ness-self? (Screw you, common-methods-of-translating-German-philosophy, i found new, even more theoretically vague word compound!)

This also elicited a complicated response:

Relinquish wrote:
In other words, the so-called 'big bang' (which is one in an infinite series of such bangs) can be described as an instantaneous event of pure chaos (the seen) that happens in the infinite field of changeless and orderly emptiness (the seer). When this occurs, the passive 'gaze' of the field causes the event to coherently 'evaporate', unresistingly, via the orderly path of least resistance until it has completely dissolved, and then another bang happens, and so on forever. The evaporation itself (which can ONLY happen perfectly) is the seemingly causal and sequential 'life' of the universe, along with all of its apparently coherent hierarchical structure and physical 'laws'.

Being an evaporation, it doesn't really have any actual 'parts', that are fundamentally different from and/or independently other than each other in the way in which they seem to be.


Philosophy is a discipline built of metaphors, but the key to using metaphors effectively is to not to abuse the original example. i know that this will seem picky in the extreme, but evaporation seems like a poor example of what you seek to imply.

Perhaps you were drawn to the, plainly-ontological-in-nature, "evaporation" metaphor by the even more obvious metaphor between "being" and "water" (hello, Thales!), as well as the relative invisibility of the process (hello and goodbye, awareness!). However, in evaporation the change of states between a given liquid and gas actually distinguishes that substance from its surroundings and solutes. The event of evaporation generally discloses many different "parts", and doesn't happen in a "passive", inert environment.

i know that particular objection is probably extremely ridiculous, is purely rhetorical, and is undoubtedly reliant upon a layman's understanding physical science, but there it is...kinda...

a few, last minor thoughts:

Relinquish wrote:

The evaporation itself (which can ONLY happen perfectly) is the seemingly causal and sequential 'life' of the universe, along with all of its apparently coherent hierarchical structure and physical 'laws'.


Why are the hierarchical structures only "apparently coherent"? If the evaporation can only happen perfectly, which, i'm assuming, implies a unity of the observer and the observes, then shouldn't we also assume that the observed hierarchies are actually perfectly coherent? Extrapolating the possible directions this sort of inevitably perfect question takes us, can we answer this question in a way that strengthens the given argument?

Relinquish wrote:

Therefore, every'thing', every'one', and every 'event' EVER is actually an 'apparent part' of the forever fundamentally seamless and effortless unfurling of this one choiceless effect, which is itself comprised ONLY of the one causeless, unencompassed, self-experiencing presence that is 'ZERO'.


What functions do "apparent every'thing', every'one', and every 'event' EVER" serve in the "forever fundamentally seamless and effortless unfurling of this one choiceless effect [...] that is ZERO". And if they serve no function, but merely are, then why are there "apparent every'thing'[s], every'one'[s], and every 'event'[s] EVER" at all? What does the "theory of everything" actually explain or reveal?

Not to **** in your cheerios...i like big ideas, and the thoughts your sharing with us are filled with a lot of them, but sometimes big ideas, while impressive, hide critical questions in their shadows.

PS: i don't have a problem with non-duality. I find it philosophically interesting, and, occasionally, personally useful. As a thought experiment, it's a great meditation technique. But the name of the concept, or practice of thought, as it were, is fairly accurate--it denotes a negative. It's a concept, or practice, or process that, ironically, defends the status quo and avers the discovery of new concepts, practices and processes. It represents a useful strategy in a crisis, but in the long term, philosophically speaking, it's execution is about as efficacious as a Pyrrhonian walking off a cliff.

0 Replies
 
Relinquish
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2015 02:42 pm
Firstly, I'd like to thank you all for taking the time to reply.

Just to clarify any confusion as to what I'm trying to get at here, my ultimate position is that nothing (except for causeless, boundless awareness/consciousness) exists. The reason I still say It has no attributes is because It doesn't 'have' awareness, It IS awareness. Other than this, nothing can be attributed to Reality; not size, not shape, not color, not location, not duration. I'd also say that Reality itself is neither form nor emptiness, neither moving nor still, neither changing nor changeless, and so on.

Nothing exists.

The assertion that 'something actually exists' is actually equal to the assertion that the presence of Reality is finite and temporary.

The problem with this is that the 'absolute lack of presence' that would inherently remain boundlessly beyond the ultimate spatial and temporal boundaries of a finite, temporary Reality would ITSELF be irreducibly present, and thus could never actually qualify as an real lack of presence.

Therefore, the very presence of Reality must ITSELF be an infinite, eternal presence, and as such, the assertion that 'something actually exists' must be a fundamentally paradoxical and false one.

An infinite, eternal presence does not qualify as a 'thing', or as any number of 'things'.

Yet, in some way or other, 'experiencing' IS undeniably taking place.

So in light of this undeniable fact, my OP attempts to conceptually explain how and why there SEEMS to be a univers, in spite of the fundamental impossibility of such a thing, or anything else for that matter.

For the record, I'm absolutely aware that these concepts are not new, and am fairly well versed in the ideas of non-duality, Zen Buddhism and Taoism. I also think Robert Lanza's Bio-centrism hypothesis makes some interesting points. I have watched more youtube clips about this stuff than one could poke a stick at. Speakers like Alan Watts, Rupert Spira, Mooji, Adyashanti, Tony Parsons, Eckhart Tolle, Deepak Chopra, Nisargadatta, and plenty more. I don't necessarily agree 100% with every single word each one of them has to say about this stuff, but certainly most of it resonates with me. I'm basically just putting the parts I agree with in my own words.

Again, thanks heaps for reading.
Smile
layman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2015 03:34 pm
@Relinquish,
Sounds like something Parmenides might have said. But I really wouldn't know. It's all over my sorry head.
0 Replies
 
Relinquish
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2015 03:44 pm
Just to further clarify, my position is that all there ever really IS is causeless boundlessness, and that all that is ever really HAPPENING is the eternally choiceless and effortless experiencing OF causeless boundlessness BY causeless boundlessness.

For that reason, I would say that another name for causeless boundlessness is 'pure awareness'.
Relinquish
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2015 03:56 pm
@layman

And THAT sounds like something Socrates might have said. A very practical worldview if there ever was one. Smile
0 Replies
 
Rickoshay75
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2015 03:57 pm
@Relinquish,
Relinquish wrote:

Ultimately, what IS actually Here is Reality itself,



Or you could just say that all things of substance, our five senses, pain and what we do are real. What we think, believe, know are illusions.

“You want people walking away from the conversation with some kernel of wisdom or some kind of impact.” Henry Dean Stanton

“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2015 01:33 am
@Relinquish,
Thank you for not being offended by my questions; i always appreciate the views of a new contributor. However, i will continue with my interrogator technique:

Relinquish wrote:
my ultimate position is that nothing (except for causeless, boundless awareness/consciousness) exists. The reason I still say It has no attributes is because It doesn't 'have' awareness, It IS awareness. Other than this, nothing can be attributed to Reality; not size, not shape, not color, not location, not duration. I'd also say that Reality itself is neither form nor emptiness, neither moving nor still, neither changing nor changeless, and so on.

Nothing exists.


Let me see if i understand: nothing exists, with the exception of causeless, boundless awareness? Awareness and nothingness...coexist? And awareness has no attributes, aside from boundlessness and causelessness? So nothingness and awareness both exist, and awareness has the attributes of causelessness and and boundlessness. But it has no other attributes...aside from being real...which makes causelessness, boundlessness, and awareness the same thing -- attributes to the real. Right?

Relinquish wrote:
The assertion that 'something actually exists' is actually equal to the assertion that the presence of Reality is finite and temporary.


i think that is possible, but why do you think so?

Relinquish wrote:
For the record, I'm absolutely aware that these concepts are not new, and am fairly well versed in the ideas of non-duality, Zen Buddhism and Taoism. I also think Robert Lanza's Bio-centrism hypothesis makes some interesting points. I have watched more youtube clips about this stuff than one could poke a stick at. Speakers like Alan Watts, Rupert Spira, Mooji, Adyashanti, Tony Parsons, Eckhart Tolle, Deepak Chopra, Nisargadatta, and plenty more. I don't necessarily agree 100% with every single word each one of them has to say about this stuff, but certainly most of it resonates with me. I'm basically just putting the parts I agree with in my own words.


I appreciate that you've put the time in to watch those youtube videos, but i have to ask, have you read any of the books where those authors have developed and defended their various ideas?

And one more question:

Relinquish wrote:

Just to further clarify, my position is that all there ever really IS is causeless boundlessness, and that all that is ever really HAPPENING is the eternally choiceless and effortless experiencing OF causeless boundlessness BY causeless boundlessness.


So, can i ask how "circularity" avoids being an attribute of the causeless boundlessness of that eternally choiceless and effortless HAPPENING experiencing the eternally choiceless and effortless experiencing OF causeless boundlessness BY causeless boundlessness?
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2015 02:14 am
@Relinquish,
Do you think that it's possible that your own personal awareness, however triggered, of the causeless boundlessness of it all is the reason that you identify the latter as "awareness"?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2015 02:37 am
"Oneness" is a meaningless term. It can be defined at the convenience of the person offering propositions based on a concept of "oneness."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2015 02:49 am
Dualism is an intellectual dodge in which in which one posits "A" (as an example) and then "not A," from which one then castigates one's interlocutor for being a "dualist." The concept seems to have first been promulgated as a rhetorical trick of Hindu mysticism between 4000 and 5000 years ago. It has been popular ever since, and not just among Hindus.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2015 05:02 am
@Relinquish,
Consider this.

An "enlightened" non-dualist has nothing to say. He has no interlocutors for he is "one" with all. Any words he uses are functioning at the level of dualistic "thinging". There is no "path to truth" which can be described. In short there is only "spiritual quiescence"....perhaps what you want to call "awareness".

This is the antithesis of "In the beginning was the word..." (John 1:1)
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2015 12:23 pm
@fresco,
"Spiritual quiiescence" is a good synomym for meditation. This is different from mere quietism, which is what we seek with unconsciousness. When you said "dualistic 'thinging'" I though you said "thinking" because thinking generally is dualistic insofar as it uses language. But "thinging" makes equally g9od sense insofar as "things" are conceptual inventions. I think it was Nietzsche who said that when we conceptually abstract that concrete "properties" from "things" --e.g. the roundness, redness, taste, from an apple--we end up with its purely abstract or artificial thingness.



0 Replies
 
Relinquish
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2015 03:24 pm
The main point I'm trying to make here is that Reality is not actually the vast multiplicity and diversity of objects that it seems to be, or any other kind of 'thing'.

There is ONLY Reality itself, and It is nothing. It is non-local, sizeless, shapeless and durationless. We could call it 'The Void'. Yet, as I said, in some way or other, it is actually the case that 'experiencing' IS UNDOUBTEDLY happening. That is to say, 'experiencing' can not possibly be an illusion. However, the objects that are apparently being experienced can't possibly be real, as they are all finite and temporary.

What's REALLY happening is what I would call 'pure experiencing'; the eternally choiceless and effortless experiencing OF 'The Void' BY 'The Void'.

So there isn't BOTH 'Nothingness/The Void' AND 'Pure Awareness'. These are simply two (or three) different names for Reality itself.

It should also be noted that Pure Awareness does need to (and therefore, has no capacity to) have any kind of 'memory'. It has no 'knowledge' of a 'past' or 'future'.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/19/2017 at 12:42:13