Duality; A Requirement of Creation

[Starman]

Originally Posted by wstein

So where did the first something come from?

Are you asking me where did God come from? God, or that first something, in my understanding is the alpha (first) and omega (last) with no beginning or end, everything else is an adaptation of that and extends from that. Again, in my opinion where that first something came from is not comprehensible to the human mind. But everything in creation came from something else which had already been created by that first something. Everything rests on something else and is an outgrowth of something else. That initial something else many call "God," the universe, the prime mover, energy, consciousness, spirit, etc. That first something is called by many names but is actually beyond any name or label, description, thoughts or mental construction. Of course there are also lots of scientific theories as to how the universe, creation, etc., began; with the "big bang" theory being the most popular. But humanity believes much more than it actually knows, and I am no different.

[wstein]

Originally Posted by Starman

Are you asking me where did God come from? God, or that first something, in my understanding is the alpha (first) and omega (last) with no beginning or end, everything else is an adaptation of that and extends from that. Again, in my opinion where that first something came from is not comprehensible to the human mind. But everything in creation came from something else which had already been created by that first something. Everything rests on something else and is an outgrowth of something else. That initial something else many call "God," the universe, the prime mover, energy, consciousness, spirit, etc. T ...

For me, creation includes the 'first thing'.

[Starman]

Originally Posted by wstein

For me, creation includes the 'first thing'.

What do you call that first thing? Just curious.

[wstein]

Originally Posted by Starman

What do you call that first thing? Just curious.

The Primary Separation.

[Jyotir]

Hi Starman,

Whether it is a 'requirement' depends on the premise that an apparent condition was purposeful to the Will of the Creator/Creative Force, All-Consciousness, etc.

So as to avoid some of the arguments that have come up, I'd say that duality is an apparent fundamental, or fundamental condition of our Universe.

If one accepts both the Creator premise, and the purposeful requirement premise, both seem to be true for you and for me as well, but the OP statement seems to hinge on both premises, one or both of which many do not accept.


~ J

[Starman]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hi Starman,

Whether it is a 'requirement' depends on the premise that an apparent condition was purposeful to the Will of the Creator/Creative Force, All-Consciousness, etc.

So as to avoid some of the arguments that have come up, I'd say that duality is an apparent fundamental, or fundamental condition of our Universe.

If one accepts both the Creator premise, and the purposeful requirement premise, both seem to be true for you and for me as well, but the OP statement seems to hinge on both premises, one or both of which many do not accept. ~ J

Oh, I definitely agree that this is all based on a particular premise and that premise may be unacceptable to others. I think your re-wording is commendable, a fundamental condition is more palatable than a requirement.

There are many who do not accept the cohesiveness of creation and therefore believe that separateness is a fundamental truth, I see separateness as an illusion which allows for duality. Opposites are connected in my opinion and opposites are the fundamental basis of duality.

So now I am happily stuck on using your wording of "fundamental," instead of requirement. Thanks!

[r6r6]

There exists no 'first thing' or initial 'primary seperation.

Our finite, occupied space Universe is externally existent, as is the macro-infinite non-occupied space that embraces, and does not restrain our occupied space Universe.

At best, we can say there exist a various times, within eternity, initial set of conditions from which events follow.

The big bang can be stated as an initial set of conditions, of eternally existent, occupied space Universe.

No one knows what our eternally existent, occupied space Universe, looked like before the big bang. Many believe, that, we can never know, while some others believe there may be a way to extrapolate from current data what existed before the big bang.

1} Space: { eternally existent }.

...1a} macro-infinite, non-occupied space,

...1b} finite, occupied space.

This is simple to grasp, not complex to understand. To comprehend may take more effort for many people.

A closed mind will never understand the above much less comprehend it. imho

However, to be clear, infinite may exist beyond comprehension. Same goes for eternity.

r6

[Starman]

I embrace a point of view that infinity is the absence of space, because all space is occupied by energy, spirit, God, consciousness, the prime mover, sacred divine, or whatever one chooses to call that fundamental essence of all. So if all space is occupied, even at the subatomic-level or quantum level, then there is no such thing as “space” as we know it.

Eternity, in my opinion, is the absence of time, because if there is no space than there is no time. If the presence of God is everywhere then there is no empty space, and if there is no empty space then there is no such thing as distance and thus time does not exist. Time is dependant on motion and is based on light, or the speed of light, rotation of planets, etc. Time is a dance of shadow and light, night an day, etc.

I have already stated that I think separation is an illusion, and in my cosmological view there is really no such thing as “first.“ When there is only The One and everything is an adaptation of that one, then we may call those adaptations first, second, etc., when actually they are all still The One. Everything comes from everything else and in my opinion nothing is really separate.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Starman

I embrace a point of view that infinity is the absence of space, because all space is occupied by energy, spirit, God, consciousness, the prime mover, sacred divine, or whatever one chooses to call that fundamental essence of all. So if all space is occupied, even at the subatomic-level or quantum level, then there is no such thing as “space” as we know it.

Eternity, in my opinion, is the absence of time, because if there is no space than there is no time. If the presence of God is everywhere then there is no empty space, and if there is no empty space then there is no such thing as distance and thus time does not exist. Time is dependant on motion and is based on light, or the speed of light, rotation of planets, etc. Time is a dance of shadow and light, night an day, etc.

I have already stated that I think separation is an illusion, and in my cosmological view there is really no such thing as “first.“ When there is only The One and everything is an adaptation of that one, then we may call those adaptations first, second, etc., when actually they are all still The One. Everything comes from everything else and in my opinion nothing is really separate.

Most of your opinion seems to be words that mean nothing in our experience of life. There is no gist in opinion, just a few irrelevant facts and analogies. Sorry to be so blunt but I have given you my honest opinion, as have you.

[bees]

Originally Posted by Starman

Opposites are connected in my opinion

I haven't considered these points in detail but your comments such as "separateness is an illusion" have great resonance with the deeper (i.e. Past surface level, transcendent) Buddhist teachings and scriptures.

One of Buddhism's most sacred scriptures is called the Heart Sutra. This talks to some of the more fundamental aspects of "reality" as we know it.

The Heart Sūtra is a famous sutra in Mahāyāna Buddhism. Its Sanskrit title, Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya, literally means "The Heart of the Perfection of Understanding".