while most schools of Tibetan Buddhism do make a synthetic separation, call it void/not-void for now, ... etc./ ornamentalmind
I'm lazy, Orn, especially when it comes to the "meditative religions- philosophies" named....can you save me some reading and give me a notion of what is contained in the "void" or whatever else the different views may care to call it?.... and what is the character or the special way in which the "synthesis" interaction you speak of takes place between the two... void .. non-void... nominal9 On Nov 25, 1:56 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “…The Tibetan Buddhists call these two aspects the void and > nonvoid. The nonvoid is the reality of visible objects. The > void,…” – soc > > A slight addition to this statement…while most schools of Tibetan > Buddhism do make a synthetic separation, call it void/not-void for > now, how these two truths are apprehended/understood varies from one > school to the next. That is, the very notion of ‘reality’ and what > ‘visible objects’ are differs greatly from one system to another. > > For a simple overview, see: > > “Appearance & Reality, The Two Truths in the Four Buddhist Tenet > Systems” by Guy Newland, Snow Lion. > > On Nov 24, 9:47 pm, socratus <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > ‘ The idea that the universe can be viewed as the compound > > of two basic orders, the implicate and the explicate, can be > > found in many other traditions. > > The Tibetan Buddhists call these two aspects the void and > > nonvoid. The nonvoid is the reality of visible objects. The > > void, like the implicate order, is the birthplace of all things > > in the universe, . . . > > . . . only the void is real and all forms in the objective world > > are illusory, . . . . > > The Hindus call the implicate level of reality Brahman. > > Brahman is formless but is the birthplace of all forms in > > visible reality, which appear out of it and then enfold back > > into it in endless flux. > > . . . consciousness is not only a subtler form of matter, > > but it is more fundamental than matter, and in the Hindu > > cosmology it is matter that has emerged from consciousness, > > and not the other way around. Or as the Vedas put it, the > > physical world is brought into being through both the > > ‘ veiling’ and ‘ projecting’ powers of consciousness. > > . . . the material universe is only a second- generation > > reality, a creation of veiled consciousness, the Hindus > > say that it is transitory and unreal, or ‘ maya’. > > . . . > > This same concept can be found in Judaic thought. > > . . . . in shamanistic thinking . . . . . . > > . . . . . . > > Like Bohm, who says that consciousness always has its > > source in the implicate, the aborigines believe that the > > true source of the mind is in the transcendent reality of > > the dreamtime. Normal people do not realize this and > > believe that their consciousness is in their bodies. > > . . . . . > > The Dogan people of the Sudan also believe that the > > physical world is the product of a deeper and more > > fundamental level of reality . . . . . .’ > > === . > > Book / The Holographic Universe. > > Part 3 / 9. Pages 287 – 289. > > By Michael Talbot. / > > ==================== . . . > > My questions after reading this book. > > > Is it possible that Physics confirmed and proved the > > Religion philosophy of life ? > > How is it possible to understand the Religion philosophy > > of life from modern Physics view? > > # > > My opinion. > > Fact. > > The detected material mass of the matter in the > > Universe is so small (the average density of all > > substance in the Universe is approximately > > p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it cannot ‘close’ the > > Universe into sphere and therefore our Universe > > as whole is ‘open’, Endless Void / Nothingness / > > Vacuum : T=0K. > > Quantum Physics says the Vacuum is the birthplace > > of all ‘ virtual’ particles . Nobody knows what there are, > > but ‘the virtual particles’ change the Vacuum in a > > local places and create Non Void / Material / Gravity > > World with stars, planets and all another objects and > > subjects in the Universe. > > === . > > Without Eternal/ Infinite Void / Vacuum physics makes no sense. > > But as Paul Dirac said: > > " The problem of the exact description of vacuum, > > in my opinion, is the basic problem now before physics. > > Really, if you can’t correctly describe the vacuum, > > how it is possible to expect a correct description > > of something more complex ? " > > === . > > # > > But there is a strong tradition ( scientific and religious) that > > insists > > that any time we say we know who God is, or what God wants, > > we are committing an act of heresy. > > == . > > Best wishes. > > Israel Sadovnik. Socratus. > > == .- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
