Nothingness, Science & Perception

[cathutch]

May I remind both of you, my friends, probing the Noble search (and not the ignoble one,) that the unanswered questions or undeclared questions (avyākata) that Buddha refused to answer are:

The world is eternal.
The world is not eternal.
The world is (spatially) infinite.
The world is not (spatially) infinite.
The soul (jiva) is identical with the body.
The soul is not identical with the body.
The Tathagata (a perfectly enlightened being) exists after death.
The Tathagata does not exist after death.
The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death.
The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.

And that is it!

So I see no objection to have a look to what science has to say about nothingness; particularly when it seems that it stands side to side with the Indian philosophy and cosmology at large.

May I add, TaoSandwich, that you have omitted: "taking concepts we don't quite grasp from science (even if they SOUND good) and applying them to experiences derived from exercising the scriptures that we do grasp, SOUND good to the conviction drawn from the mental qualities of the dhamma; namely (among others) Sanditthiko (testable by practice and known by direct experience,) Akaliko( immediate results,) Opaneyiko (capable of being entered upon, acquired.)

Originally Posted by sunsoul

You are also using yogic terms when discussing Buddhism and I am not sure why..

Isn't your Occupation in your bio: Light Worker and Yogi?
and your Spiritual Beliefs: Transcendental bhakti yoga and cosmic rumba with a touch of zen BOOM.

I am sorry then if it has changed since. I used to be the same as well (yogi) (although back now to the original faith, so to speak (influence?) - Buddha has been in my "western" family since the 1800's; yet still "educating myself").

Good day!

[sunsoul]

To be fair the Buddha comes out fairly strongly against endless speculation when you read the full passage:

He put these questions to the Buddha who replied, "Now did I ever say to you that if you led a religious life you would understand these things? It is as if a man had been wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends, companions relatives were to get a surgeon to heal him, and he were to say, 'I will not have this arrow pulled out until I know who wounded me, of what caste he is, what his name is, whether he is tall, short or of medium height, what colour his skin is, where he comes from, what kind of bow I was wounded with, what it was made of, whether the arrow was feathered with a vulture's wing or a heron's or a hawk's…..' Surely the man would die before he knew all this." MN 63

It is the web of curiosity that draws the cat in... I would also say that the above list is fairly comprehensive and not worthy of a "that's all!"

The key as in most things is mindful action. These type of questions can easily lead to endless speculation which is my real point. The advancement of science is to be applauded, though.

[cathutch]

Ah, ok! - no problem. Don't bother.

If someone else sees this, not as a speculation, but as a mean to clear things up for me, by sharing views on their concept of nothingness related to this article, (which I have not yet attained, but infered from my current experience of the dhamma,) feel free. I'd appreciate.
All "points of view" before they disappear are welcome.

People who are still in that U.S. evangelical frame of mind, please, I beg you, abstain. I am not from the Bible belt. Sorry!
I have read Vedas, Upanishads, Samkhyakarikas, Nyaya, Vaisheshika and the Sutta Pitaka. So as far as knowing scriptures, you don't have to throw me references like a Christian zealot or try to proselyte like one or else show your great proficiency about the "Book". It makes me quite skittish. I don't need to be "saved!"
I am deeply sorry about the late paragraph (did I say skittish?).

[Gem]

It's the first philosophy. Why is there something rather than nothing? Of course there is no explanation, but I think more along the lines of, what is the difference between something and nothing. If it were a measure by distinction, the difference is, by definition, infinite, yet it would only take an infinitesimal amount of something to make that infinite difference. All things are are forms of energy, so this means any 'measure' of energy at all is infinite by distinction from nothing (though measure and infinite are contradictory terms). That means the universe on the whole is a mere quanta of energy, which can be seen to be infinite or infinitesimal, and the entirety of all things can only be the very slightest amount of energy... yet that is an infinite amount, too.

[Gem]

But I should go on to say, that since a distinction requires more than one thing, energy can not be infinitesimal since a quantity must exist where a distinction is made.

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by Gem

the very slightest amount of energy... yet that is an infinite amount, too.

Do you mean potentialy something infinite?

Can I ask you a big favor?
You are introducing the concept of distinction.
Can you read this page on Samkhya (the first Indian philosophy) and apply your concept of distinction to the dualism of this philosophy. That would be very nice of you and enriching for me.
bit.ly/YYsKxd
For it sounds to me like, what Samkhya says, is that there must be something (in Prakriti) for the distinction to trigger, when the self pervades. Something that is nothing until that distinction triggers; yet there (like something like the Higgs, or something even more subtle).

In the meantime, I will mull over your concept abit deeper. Very engaging indeed.

One more thing.
Does that distinction is derived from two opposites, or also from two distinct things (even contradictory)?

Cathutch,

I think Sunsoul is trying to express a fundamental danger that a lot of us as spiritual seekers and even moreso those from strict religions like the Judeo-Christian tradition are prone to fall into: getting lost in concepts! Concepts are necessary, sometimes, but if one pursues concepts and they lead to more concepts, one just confuses one's self and leads themselves away from awareness of their Buddha mind, which really doesn't require philosophizing (although from this Buddha mind, philosophy can arise).

If anything, Sunsoul is acting in an opposite way to those traditions (which, by the way, shouldn't be maligned, as they are a different path to enlightenment, fraught with their own dangers and benefits), as (s)he is saying that an overabundance of concepts can be harmful (look at ALL of the concepts in Abrahamic religion: "God", "Absolute truth", "heaven", "hell", "salvation" etc). I suspect (s)he is quoting the teachings not to show off knowledge, but rather to say that what (s)he has studied has a basis in more than his/her own opinion.

Anyways, as for the danger of concepts, I have a quote for you that is VERY difficult (given your intellectual propensities, you will probably understand it. The quote itself is ironically filled with concepts, but in an amusing Taoist twist, these concepts are meant to free your mind from the disease of concepts :

--

"There is nothing that is not a "that" and nothing that is not a "this". One does not see from the standpoint of another; knowing by one's self is knowing something. Therefore, it is said "'That' comes from 'this' and 'this' is based on 'that.'" This explains how "that" and "this" arise simultaneously.

But when there is arising, there is passing away; and when there is passing away, there is arising. When there is right, there is wrong; when there is wrong, there is right. By affirming, we deny; by denying, we affirm.

Therefore, sages do not go this way, but perceive it in the context of nature. This is also based on an affirmation.

A "this is also a "that," and a "that" is also a "this." "That" is one judgment, and "this" is also one judgement. Ultimately, are there in fact "that" and "this," or are there no "that" or "this"? Nothing can be opposite to "that and this" -we call this fact the pivot of the Tao. When the pivot is centered in its hub, thereby responding infinitely, then affirmation is one infinity, and negation is also one infinity.

That is why it is said, "Nothing compares to using clarity."

-Chuang Tzu

--

Best Wishes,
-TaoSandwich

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by TaoSandwich

when there is wrong, there is right.

Looks like Samkhya*

This is Samkhya made very simple.
Let's take an example to illustrate it quickly and simply:
This is Hydrogen (H or Purusha.) That is Oxygen (O or Prakriti).
The aggregate (from binding) is H2O or water (Nature).
Water has qualities, namely quenching that is good; as well as flooding, that is bad (right/wrong).
Where there is water there is right and wrong.
That applies, in Samkhya, to any aggregate in the phenomenal realm of nature. There is no opposition per se. Just the mere fact that aggregation leads to opposite qualities and its sorrowful dilemma.

In water, "There is nothing that is not a "that" and nothing that is not a "this". The "nothing" of Purusha and the "nothing" of Prakriti°. And as soon that there is the distinction from aggregation, there is the production of something (with the unavoidable dichotomy).


For the sake of me being "saved" (some will appreciate), I will therefore avoid to speculate about the infinity that unavoidably will pop up in the production of these aggregates, due to that differentiation.
Repent Taosandwich! For you are entering the realm of Satan; trying to drag me into the slippery land of the unanswered questions (avyākata) . Haha.

Farewell


* Indian philosophy: first attempt to categorize the Upanishads' metaphysics (1200 – 600 BC) - Taoism before its time; I'd say.
For an account of Samkhya and Buddhism, please read this Asvaghosha's Buddhacarita excerpt (Buddhacarita is the first ever account on Buddhism in litterature by an Indian brahman converted to Buddhism): bit.ly/1qBRu9T

° How this "nothing" of Prakriti stands, with what is said in the nautil.us article, was one of my interrogation.

[sunsoul]

I don't know what you are on about with the evangelical joke. We both quoted some parts of scripture and my point wasn't anything overly harsh. I saw a lot of speculation in the article, in the comments to it, and in this thread...

Anyway, please continue as you like!

[Gem]

Originally Posted by cathutch

Do you mean potentialy something infinite?

Can I ask you a big favor?
You are introducing the concept of distinction.
Can you read this page on Samkhya (the first Indian philosophy) and apply your concept of distinction to the dualism of this philosophy. That would be very nice of you and enriching for me.
bit.ly/YYsKxd
For it sounds to me like, what Samkhya says, is that there must be something (in Prakriti) for the distinction to trigger, when the self pervades. Something that is nothing until that distinction triggers; yet there (like something like the Higgs, or something even more subtle).

In the meantime, I will mull over your concept abit deeper. Very engaging indeed.

One more thing.
Does that distinction is derived from two opposites, or also from two distinct things (even contradictory)?

That was a nice bit of Eastern philosophy.

I liked that they mention how a sense of self is prior to any thought, as I have pondered about the thought of self preceding any other thought... and thought and creation are the same thing, but there is no thinker that thinks of self...

I also likes how it was pointed out that the Purusha doesn't make anything happen nor is it affected, for if it were a cause, or affected, it would be Prakriti.

I feel the 'error' is trying to draw a connection between Purusha and Prakriti, or assuming that Purusha is a 'source'... as this does imply cause... and at some point one has to resign to there being no reason, no cause, no source, as Purusha is entirely irrelative, and wholly apart from, the realm of thought and creation...

Distinction is a very subtle occurrence. It is prior to differentiation, so in itself it isn't opposed, nor does it create opposites (necessarily)... The creation of contrasting principles requires a set of distinctions. A 'true duality' has no differentiation because the mind cannot form objects that contrast with only two comparatives, and that means that the mind is ultimately uncertain, leaving Purusha beyond the grasp of the mind, or beyond the thought of self... or as the buddhist's would say, anatta.

My most fundamental agreement would be that there is a clear distinction between what is Purusha and what is Prakrati.