Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Nothing becomes everything

  1. #21
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Nothing becomes everything

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté


    Once one experiences nothing, then there is a better appreciation for the conversation at hand.

    But is that possible ? Yes. When one goes to bed and total forgetfulness ( deep sleep) perfect tamas is in play , one is within the field of nothingness. But the pickle is, can one experience it. If one said I experienced it, then it would not have been deep sleep, as this state is the absense of every-thing - even the world does not exist.
    So the only way to experience this nothingness is while awake. Perfect deep silence can be experienced and is possible to be aware of. This is śūnyatā शून्यता ' adding nothing'.


    If I may let me extend this idea just a bit for those that take interest in this idea ( and for those that may have had this experience).

    This śūnyatā शून्यता is emptiness , loneliness , desolateness; it can also be used for absence of mind , vacancy; we know it as nothingness , non-existence.

    Now śūnya शून्य also means empty , void. Why bring this up ? Because it (śūnya) gets us to śūnyī... śūnyī = śūnya. Why care? Due to the fact it brings us to its root (√) k . This k has a list of meanings - yet one is 'to cause to get rid of , free from' - getting rid of is obviously 'emptying' and we can see the fit.

    Let's go a little further. śūna शून- (neuter gender) is 'emptiness' , yet also comes the meaning of a 'swollen state' . This śū ( sometimes written as śvā) is rooted in śvi which means to swell , grow , increase ' to swell much'.

    If we look at the path of words we have just been on we see śū to śvi - to swell much ; we see the influence of śūnyī = śūnya rooted in kṛ 'to cause to get rid of to be free from' . We bring this together we can see this 'swelling' to the extent of 'getting rid of ' that brings us to emptiness or śūnyatā, the ultimate 'getting rid of' to the exent of swelling to pure emptiness.


    praṇām
    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  2. #22

    Re: Nothing becomes everything

    I think this has been a fascinating topic of conversation for people especially in the last 50 years (when the Big Bang was accepted).

    Existence from nothing, no "thing", or something?

    (It used to be accepted by science that everything always existed as it is now, but at least that much we know is false.)

    I'd like to quote an unusual commentator on this subject. Unusual because he wasn't alive during these discoveries! I'm talking about Issac Newton who described the mathematics of calculus and the universe. He believed that his science would be the end of atheism (that's one thing he was wrong about). He argued, three hundred years before the Big Bang Theory, that his worked necessarily concluded that mathematics and the universe must have had an abstract creator behind them.

    I will just quote his wiki page because I'm tired now, but you can find an endless analysis on this if you're interested;

    For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation.

    ...

    Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.[6] This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being... The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.[2]
    ...
    Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_N...eligious_views

    Isaac Newton knew this almost four hundred years ago. The rest of the scientific community, who have followed his scientific framework, have ironically, disregarded these explanations until now. Maybe it is the nature of science to come up with every other possible explanation, but it seems like they are running out of options!

  3. #23
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: Nothing becomes everything

    Namaste Yajvan,

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté


    Once one experiences nothing, then there is a better appreciation for the conversation at hand.

    But is that possible ? Yes. When one goes to bed and total forgetfulness ( deep sleep) perfect tamas is in play , one is within the field of nothingness. But the pickle is, can one experience it. If one said I experienced it, then it would not have been deep sleep, as this state is the absense of every-thing - even the world does not exist.
    So the only way to experience this nothingness is while awake. Perfect deep silence can be experienced and is possible to be aware of. This is śūnyatā शून्यता ' adding nothing'.


    If I may let me extend this idea just a bit for those that take interest in this idea ( and for those that may have had this experience).

    This śūnyatā शून्यता is emptiness , loneliness , desolateness; it can also be used for absence of mind , vacancy; we know it as nothingness , non-existence.

    Now śūnya शून्य also means empty , void. Why bring this up ? Because it (śūnya) gets us to śūnyī... śūnyī = śūnya. Why care? Due to the fact it brings us to its root (√) k . This k has a list of meanings - yet one is 'to cause to get rid of , free from' - getting rid of is obviously 'emptying' and we can see the fit.

    Let's go a little further. śūna शून- (neuter gender) is 'emptiness' , yet also comes the meaning of a 'swollen state' . This śū ( sometimes written as śvā) is rooted in śvi which means to swell , grow , increase ' to swell much'.

    If we look at the path of words we have just been on we see śū to śvi - to swell much ; we see the influence of śūnyī = śūnya rooted in kṛ 'to cause to get rid of to be free from' . We bring this together we can see this 'swelling' to the extent of 'getting rid of ' that brings us to emptiness or śūnyatā, the ultimate 'getting rid of' to the exent of swelling to pure emptiness.


    praṇām
    The concept of Sunyata or emptiness is a relative status within a concept of space. Without having a mental framework of space ... we can never think of Nothingness. We all know that this universe is expanding beyond its limits. What is there beyond this universe into which this universe grows ? That must be space.

    Now, can we say that emptiness beyond the boundaries of this universe is really empty ? No. This emptiness is full of space. Where is this space located ? Does it have any boundary ? .... if that has any boundary then it must be covered by another space ... so that leads to endless regression. Why do we get stuck here ? ... because of our mental limitations to conceive the concept of Infinite.

    The Space which is emptiness is the mother of everything, that is Infinite and that is Self/Brahman.

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  4. #24
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Nothing becomes everything

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~


    namasté devotee

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    Namaste Yajvan,
    The Space which is emptiness is the mother of everything, that is Infinite and that is Self/Brahman. OM
    There is no doubt that the infinite is an expression of brahman. Yet there is a fine line between space and brahman. Brahman gives rise to space, so say the upaniṣad-s. Hence brahman is subtler then space.

    praṇām



    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  5. #25
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: Nothing becomes everything

    Very interesting exchange between Ananda and devotee. I seem to find myself in Ananda's corner on this one.

    I dont know if this commentary from Shankara's Bhashya was quoted thus far, but Shankara does go into great pains reconciling the conflicting verses on existence vs. non-existence in BSB 1.4.15. Quoting from there:

    Quote Originally Posted by Shankara Bhashya
    The Sankhyas raise another objection. They say: There is a conflict with reference to the first cause, because some texts declare that the Self created these worlds (Ait. Ar. II-4-1-2-3). Some Vedanta passages declare that creation originated from non-existence (Tait. II-7). Again in some passages existence is taught as the First Cause (Chh. Up. VI-1-2). Some Srutis speak of spontaneous creation. It cannot be said that the Srutis refer to Brahman uniformly as the First Cause owing to the conflicting statements of the Vedanta texts.

    The Siddhantin gives the following reply. We read in the Tait. Up. II-7 "This was indeed non-existence in the beginning." Non-existence here does not mean absolute non-existence. It means undifferentiated existence. In the beginning existence was undifferentiated into name and form. Taittriya Upanishad says "He who knows Brahman as non-existing becomes himself non-existing. He who knows Brahman as existing, him we know himself as existing" Tait. Up. II-6. It is further elaborated by means of the series of sheaths viz., the sheath of food etc. represented as the inner self of everything. This same Brahman is again referred to in the clause. He wished 'May I be many'. This clearly intimates that Brahman created the whole universe.

    The term 'Being' ordinarily denotes that which is differentiated by means and forms. The term 'Non-being' denotes the same substance previous to its differentiation. Brahman is called 'Non-being' previously to the origination of the world in a secondary sense.

    We read in Chh. Up. VI-2-2 "How can that which is created from non-existence be?" This clearly denies such a possibility.

    "Now this was then undeveloped" (Bri. Up. I-4-7) does not by any means assert that the evolution of the world took place without a ruler, because it is connected with another passage where it is said, "He has entered here to the very tips of the finger-nails" (Bri. Up. I-4-7). 'He' refers to the Ruler. Therefore we have to take that the Lord, the Ruler, developed what was undeveloped.

    Another scriptural text also describes that the evolution of the world took place under the superintendence of a Ruler. "Let me now enter these beings with this loving Self, and let me then evolve names and forms" Chh. Up. VI-3-2.

    Although there is a reaper it is said "The corn-field reaps itself." It is said also "The village is being approached." Here we have to supply "by Devadatta or somebody else."

    Brahman is described in one place as existence. In another place it is described as the Self of all. Therefore it is a settled conclusion that all Vedanta texts uniformly point to Brahman as the First Cause. Certainly there is no conflict on this point.

    Even in the passage that declares Asat i.e. non-being to be the cause there is a reference to Sat i.e. Being. Even the text that describes Asat as the Causal force ends by referring to Sat.

    The doubt about the meaning of a word or passage can be removed by reference to its connection with a distant passage in the same text, for such connection is found to exist in the different passages of Sruti. The exact meaning of such words as 'Asat' which means non-entity, apparently, 'Avyakrita' which means apparently non-manifest Pradhana of Sankhya, is thus ascertained to be Brahman. Compare the Srutis: "He desired, I will be many I will manifest myself" Tait. Up. II-6-2. The meaning of the word Asat of the second passage is ascertained to be Brahman by reference to the first passage where the same question namely the state of the universe before creation is answered in a clearer way.

    The meaning of the word Avyakrita in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad I-4-7 in the passage (thus therefore, that was the undifferentiated) is ascertained to be the Brahman as still undeveloped by a reference to the passage (the same is pervading all through and through down to the tips of the nails of the fingers and the toes). Avyaka is recognised in the last passage more clearly by the words 'Sa esha' (the same-self one).

    The Pradhana of the Sankhyas does not find a place anywhere in the passages which treat about the cause of the world. The words 'Asat' 'Avyakrita' also denote Brahman only.

    The word 'Asat' refers to Brahman which is the subject under discussion in the previous verse. Before the creation, the distinction of names and forms did not exist. Brahman also then did not exist in the sense that He was not connected with names and forms. As he has then no name and form, he is said to be Asat or non-existent.

    The word 'Asat' cannot mean matter or non-being, because in this very passage we find that the description given of it can apply only to Brahman.

    Brahman is not 'Asat' in the literal meaning of that word. The seer of the Upanishad uses it in a sense totally distinct from its ordinary denotation.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    June 2011
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Age
    35
    Posts
    53
    Rep Power
    280

    Re: Nothing becomes everything

    Hello wundermonk,




    Brahman is not 'Asat' in the literal meaning of that word. The seer of the Upanishad uses it in a sense totally distinct from its ordinary denotation.

    Thank you for bringing this passage to our attention, I overlooked it; it seems to be saying the same thing that I have said in this thread, only much more succintly.




    http://rajahamsah.blogspot.com/ Rāja Haṃsaḥ
    Unfolding the teachings of Advaita Vedānta- my Blog, Updated Daily.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: Nothing becomes everything

    Namaste Yajvan,

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~


    namasté devotee



    There is no doubt that the infinite is an expression of brahman. Yet there is a fine line between space and brahman. Brahman gives rise to space, so say the upaniṣad-s. Hence brahman is subtler then space.

    praṇām



    Brhaman gives rise to space ... exactly ! Now, if we go to the second step, the space has name when there are things within space. So, we say that where there is no-thing ... there is nothing ... i.e. we indirectly refer to the space. Space can be referred to with no name or form in absence of things.

    So, the space or nothingness arises from Self/Brahman. This Avyakta or unmanifest is perceived as "nothingness" and that is what Taitriya Upanishad says when it says, "In the beginning there was Asat alone". This Asat is not absence of Brahman but absence of manifest ... i.e. absence of the things. Again the Upanishad says that from Asat Sat came into being. So, it simply says that from the Unmanifest arose this manifested universe.

    Thus there is no error/fault in the Upanishad's assertion that "From Asat alone Sat came into being". There is a logical explanation to it too. If there was a creation ... then there must be "nothingness" to begin with otherwise there was no creation ever ! If there was ever a creation, every-thing must come from the unmanifest i.e. Nothingness or the Asat. Taitriya doesn't say that there was absence of Brahman to begin with. It simply says that in the begining it was Asat.

    We cannot say that as there always was Brahman to begin with ... there was always Sat to start with. No. Then it would violate this, "That (Brahman) is called neither Sat nor Asat" (Bhagwad Gita).

    Namaste Wundermonk,

    What I am trying to say all along in this thread is again given above. I hope it helps.

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  8. #28
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: Nothing becomes everything

    Namaste Tikkun,

    Quote Originally Posted by Tikkun Olam View Post
    I think this has been a fascinating topic of conversation for people especially in the last 50 years (when the Big Bang was accepted).

    Existence from nothing, no "thing", or something?

    (It used to be accepted by science that everything always existed as it is now, but at least that much we know is false.)

    I'd like to quote an unusual commentator on this subject. Unusual because he wasn't alive during these discoveries! I'm talking about Issac Newton who described the mathematics of calculus and the universe. He believed that his science would be the end of atheism (that's one thing he was wrong about). He argued, three hundred years before the Big Bang Theory, that his worked necessarily concluded that mathematics and the universe must have had an abstract creator behind them.

    I will just quote his wiki page because I'm tired now, but you can find an endless analysis on this if you're interested;


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_N...eligious_views

    Isaac Newton knew this almost four hundred years ago. The rest of the scientific community, who have followed his scientific framework, have ironically, disregarded these explanations until now. Maybe it is the nature of science to come up with every other possible explanation, but it seems like they are running out of options!
    The presence of intelligence within this state of Universe doesn't prove existence of a God by default. It just proves that this whole seemingly dumb universe including the atoms, the planets, Stars & the space covering all this creation ... is running under some intelligence system or this everything is Intelligence itself.

    If we consider that God is a separate being from this creation & God's intelligence is behind all this systematic design and running of the universe ... it becomes an easy route ... but it still leaves the basic question unanswered. Our assumption that for an intelligent system to be created there must be an intelligent mind ... there must be another intelligent mind to create that intelligent mind and that would lead us to an endless regression. So, why not stop at the self-sufficient intelligent system itself ? Can't there be a possibility that this whole Universe is the self-sustained intelligent system ... it creates itself ... it runs itself as per some definite rules and it destroys itself when there is time for destruction ?

    By theory we cannot prove existence of God or even absence of it. God has to be realised ... many have realised God in the past and we too can do it ... this is what Hinduism says. There is no need of a prophet or anything to be the mediator between universe & the Creator ... once reality dawns upon you ... you don't need a third person to tell you what the Truth is.

    That is the difference between Hindu's understanding of the Reality and that of the Abrahimic religions.

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  9. #29

    Re: Nothing becomes everything

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    Namaste Tikkun,



    The presence of intelligence within this state of Universe doesn't prove existence of a God by default. It just proves that this whole seemingly dumb universe including the atoms, the planets, Stars & the space covering all this creation ... is running under some intelligence system or this everything is Intelligence itself.

    If we consider that God is a separate being from this creation & God's intelligence is behind all this systematic design and running of the universe ... it becomes an easy route ... but it still leaves the basic question unanswered. Our assumption that for an intelligent system to be created there must be an intelligent mind ... there must be another intelligent mind to create that intelligent mind and that would lead us to an endless regression. So, why not stop at the self-sufficient intelligent system itself ? Can't there be a possibility that this whole Universe is the self-sustained intelligent system ... it creates itself ... it runs itself as per some definite rules and it destroys itself when there is time for destruction ?

    By theory we cannot prove existence of God or even absence of it. God has to be realised ... many have realised God in the past and we too can do it ... this is what Hinduism says. There is no need of a prophet or anything to be the mediator between universe & the Creator ... once reality dawns upon you ... you don't need a third person to tell you what the Truth is.

    That is the difference between Hindu's understanding of the Reality and that of the Abrahimic religions.

    OM
    Imagine that you're at your computer (well, I guess you are when you read this). You open up The Sims, and to those bits inside the program, YOU are God. You created them, you are more complex than them, yet they can't see you. But that doesn't mean they can deduce anything about you or where you came from. So it is with the God of our universe, of humanity.

    We don't know everything about God, for sure. We do claim that He is in some sense, a universal divinity. While we often try to understand God in humanistic ways (as in me calling God a "Him" earlier, even though He's not literally a Him!), He has no personal qualities as such.

    I can claim that God is this divinity, this underlying complex force that was here before the creation of the universe, but not the same thing as the universe. Indeed, the latter is impossible. We can mathematically disprove it- there is no such thing as a universal set, assuming so much only results in paradoxes. For an informal explanation;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_s...te_complements

    The only thing that I cannot claim is that the Creator of this universe is not actually a part of another universe. That's the only thing we don't know for sure. What's the step above us? But the point is that it doesn't matter. Even if there ARE other universes, all created by different gods, then ours was still created by one, and we have to live inside the bounds of our universe anyway, so speculating about others doesn't help.


    And, to set the record straight, my religion makes a distinction between "believing" and "knowing". We are not supposed to just believe, we are not supposed to just have faith; we are commanded to know. That's our very first commandment, in fact. Why the emphasis on knowing, how is that a commandment? Because it is an action, a life long conscious act of perusing knowledge in order to understand our universe (and our Creator) better. That's why we have written so many books, the pursuit of knowledge.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    September 2008
    Location
    Sri. Valkalam, Kerala, SI
    Posts
    604
    Rep Power
    977

    Re: Nothing becomes everything


    Dear Members,

    Before appearing as pots, they simply existed as clay, with potential to assume the form of pots already hidden. Such potential existence of an effect in its cause is NOT nothingness; this ‘nothingness’ is an anterior non-existence (prag abhava).

    As the anterior non existence of the pot was already there in the clay, so is the anterior non- existence of ‘everything’ already existing in Brahman.

    Suppose the clay its own assumes the form of pot, the same way the One casual reality self- manifesting as ‘everything’ with its inner indomitable urge for self -unfoldment.

    So, if an actual creation had taken place at all, it’s merely an actualization of the potentials hidden in Brahman, as if in a dream (A dream had no beginning, nor will it cease to be; and will continue forever).

    Though compared here to the emerging of the of pot, the emerging of ‘everything’ from the One casual reality is NOT to be treated as if having happened at any particular time, it really being a process that goes on begginglessly and endlessly.

    There is no actual existence of Brahman(in perception) without its assuming form of the phenomenal world, like the water having no existence separate from waves and ocean, or gold having no existence separate from Ornaments.
    This core fundamental fact of existence is put in Sri. Mad Gita as

    ”No sat exists without bhava(becoming), and no bhava is there without sat existing” 2:16


    IMHO: its not "nothing becomes everything" but 'nothing' is everything


    Post ultimately concludes that the One reality is an unthinkable and ineffable mystery.

    Love


    ---For pondering--

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •