'Holes' come in for much philosophical treatment too. Early atomist theories made much of them and voids. Newton got rather a long way by construing space as separate from body. If the experience of emptiness is to make all relative then I can't make it as I'm sure I wouldn't stay here if all was such.
On 28 Nov, 06:06, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I would doubt Nom that any of this kind of void has anything to do > with thoughts in physics about the nature of emptiness. This is about > essential conditions in being. I'd admit to some similarities with > relativity. There is stuff to learn from these sources though I don't > see it boiling down to much. > > On 27 Nov, 19:32, "Serenity Smiles" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Madhayamaka Buddhism vis a vis Hindu vedanta - this is a very good site to > > visit. have not studied it fully myself yet > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > From: "nominal9" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 4:57 PM > > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > > Subject: [epistemology 10995] Re: Different points of view. > > > > 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. > > > head[1].gif > > 15KViewDownload -- 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.
