or if you will no-thing is not nothing

[3bob]

quote from Swami Krishnananda:

 

"...There are some people who think that, originally, Non-Being was, not Being, but Non-Being. Non-Being is sometimes regarded as an origin of things under peculiar conditions. How is it possible that Being can come from Non-Being? Has anyone seen such a phenomenon?

 

Something can produce something; how can nothing produce something? We have never heard of such a possibility. So Uddalaka says: "My dear boy, though it is true that there are people who hold the doctrine that Non-Being was, originally, and Being proceeded out of Non-Being as an effect, this is not a practicability. It is inconceivable. Non-Being cannot be the cause of Being, nor can we say that Being is the cause of Being. It is a tautology of expression. ‘A is the cause of A’—you cannot say that. It is a meaningless way of speaking. If Being is not the cause of Being, then what is the cause of Being? Non-Being? Not possible! Non-Being cannot be the cause of Being. Being also is not the cause of Being. Then what is the cause of Being? No cause. There cannot be a cause for Being. So it must be a causeless Being. If it has a cause, we must explain what that cause could be, and the cause should be either Being or Non-Being. There cannot be a third thing. Being cannot be the cause of Being; Non-Being also cannot be the cause of Being, so there is no cause for Being. It is causeless existence. It is useless and pointless to say that Non-Being can be the origin, in any manner whatsoever, of Being. Kutas tu khalu, saumya, evam syat, iti hovaca: How is it possible? It is an aged doctrine, a humorous saying indeed, to hold that something can come out of nothing. Katham, asatah saj jayeteti: How can Being come from Non-Being? Sat tu eva, saumya, idam agra asid: Now please listen to my conclusion. I hold that Being alone was, and not Non-Being. Ekam evadvitiyam: So I repeat what I have told you already. Being alone was. Now, it is non-dual Being. It is not like my ‘being’ or your ‘being’ or ‘being’ of this or that. It is not an individual ‘being’. It is not a particularized ‘being’. It is not something connected with any object. It is Being as such, inconceivable, because it is not an object. The mind can think what is outside it. It cannot think anything else. But Being cannot be something outside the mind, because the mind also is rooted in Being. Therefore, it is not a subject for comprehension by the senses or conception by the mind. It is not an object of any kind, either physical or conceptual; that means to say, it cannot be investigated scientifically nor argued about philosophically. What sort of thing is it, then? Well, if it could be understood so easily, then you would be blessed. But it cannot be understood like that, because, who can understand That which is the preconception of even the very act of understanding itself. Even the mind cannot move unless Being is there at its background. So it is a presupposition of even the faculties of understanding and thinking. Thus, there is no such thing as understanding it, thinking it, sensing it, conceiving it, describing it, explaining it or arguing about it."

 

Now This is, to put it plainly, the origin of everything. The commentators on this Upanishad go into vast details of the method of the effect coming from the cause and how creation was originally effected by this Supreme Being..."

 

(highlights added by me)

[Marblehead]

Interesting. Stephen Hawking recently did a TV documentary which concluded that the universe was created out of nothing. I didn't buy it then and I still don't buy it.

 

In the above I really liked where he pointed out that: Now, it is non-dual Being.

 

If Stephen had said "no-thing" instead of "nothing" I would have been able to agree with him.

[gatito]

Nice find 3bob!

 

It reminds me pf Parmenides' Fragments: -

 

 

Born around 515 BC., Parmenides, was a citizen of Elea, a small town in the south of Italy. His poem "On Reality" was probably comprised of three parts of which we have only the first two largely intact.

The first part takes the form of an allegorical poem in which we see the poet, impelled by a strong desire, travel toward the domain of the Goddess, in a chariot pulled by powerful runners. After unveiling their faces for him, the Maidens of light guide him to the "threshold where the roads of Night and of Day converge", and he is allowed to cross it as a result of their intercession. He is then welcomed with benevolence by the Goddess who takes his right hand in hers and commences her teaching.

The second part, translated here, is the metaphysical section and contains the teaching of the truth.

The third, which is fragmentary, is the physical part. It represents ignorant public opinion according to which reality is the physical universe which came into existence in the past, exists today, and is destined to disappear one day.

 

fff

 

Now then, I will instruct you; hear what I say:

Two paths are open to investigation.

The first says: being is and non-being is not.

It is the path of certainty, because it follows the truth.

The other says: being is not, therefore non-being is.

This misdirected path, I tell you, cannot lead to a sound conviction

For, if this statement were true, it would not be possible for you to conceive of non-being, nor to name it.

 

Speaking and thinking necessarily arise from being, because being is.

And non-being is not. I invite you to reflect deeply on this point,

And to move away, in your search, from that other path

As from the one traveled by those ignorant mortals

Who are the men of two minds: the uncertainty which resides in their hearts

Misleads their wavering reason. They are swept along,

Deaf and blind, benighted, the masses without discernment

Who pretend that being and non-being are simultaneously identical

And different, they for whom, for any statement, the opposite is equally true.

 

No power will ever bring non-being into existence.

So direct your thinking away from this path of exploration.

May habit, so often resumed, not force you to return to it,

With eyes blinded, ears filled with noise

And mouth with words, and may your intelligence alone resolve this contentious issue.

 

Only one path remains for us to pursue:

Being is. And countless signs prove

That being is free from birth and death

Because it is complete, immutable and eternal.

It never was, it never will be, because it is completely whole in the now,

One, endless. What beginning, indeed, should we attribute to it?

Whence would it evolve? Whither?

I will not allow you to say or to think that it comes from nothingness,

Nor that being is not. What exigency would have brought it forth

Later or earlier, from non-being?

Thus, it can only be, absolutely, or not at all.

Our firm innermost conviction will never admit

That something can spring forth from nothingness.

In this way the goddess of Justice, forbidding birth and death,

Preserves without respite the existence of being. Whereas the question was to resolve

Whether being is or is not. We must therefore decide to abandon as false

The second hypothesis, the path which can neither be thought nor formulated,

And to hold to the first, which is the path of the truth.

How could what is, one day cease to be? How could it have, one day, come to be?

What is born, is not, neither what is to be born.

Thus dies birth and thus dies death.

Within being there remain no differences because it is completely identical to itself.

There is not, here, something more that comes to break continuity

Neither, there, something less: but everything is filled with being.

Thus it is all continuous: being adjoined to being.

On the other hand, maintained motionless by powerful links,

It is without beginning and without end, since birth and death

Have been rejected as contrary to our intuition of truth.

Remaining itself, existing within itself, supported by itself,

Thus, immutable, it remains in the same place because the powerful necessity,

Hemming it in from all sides, keeps it firmly unified.

That is why it is not permitted that being be unfinished,

Because there is nothing missing in it; unfinished, it would be missing everything!

Thought is identical to being, and so it is for the object to which thought refers;

Thus there is nothing, and there will never be anything, outside of being

Which Destiny compels to an eternal bliss. Thus,

To be born and to die, to be or not to be,

To change place or appearance,

All of these events are but names superimposed by man’s ignorance.

Being the ultimate, it is everywhere complete.

Just as an harmoniously round sphere

Departs equally at all points from its center.

Nothing can be added to it here nor taken away from it there.

What is not, cannot interrupt it’s homogeneous existence.

What is, cannot possess it more or less. Out of all reach,

Everywhere identical to itself, beyond all limits, it is.

http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/Francis_Lucille_Translations

www.stillnessspeaks.com/Francis_Lucille_Translations

 

 

 

[forestofclarity]

I also learned that from Parmenides. Nothing or non-existence is an empty concept, like the son of a barren woman. Which means there is no "non-existence" to be born out of nor "non-existence" to die into.

[thelerner]

Interesting. Stephen Hawking recently did a TV documentary which concluded that the universe was created out of nothing. I didn't buy it then and I still don't buy it.

What if I offered it to you at 75% off?

 

I can't get into these pure philosophy questions. In my mind they're mostly 'how many angels can sit on the head of a pin', style questions.

 

I suppose if they're pondered like a koan it can be fruitful, but intellectually what does a question like this affect?

[Marblehead]

What if I offered it to you at 75% off?

 

I can't get into these pure philosophy questions. In my mind they're mostly 'how many angels can sit on the head of a pin', style questions.

 

I suppose if they're pondered like a koan it can be fruitful, but intellectually what does a question like this affect?

That gave me a chuckle. Thanks.

 

Actually, getting into these purely philosophical questions is not much different from getting into a discussion about religion. It requires some assumptions and some "givens".

 

Does the difference between "nothing" and "no-thing" have anything to do with what I am going to have for supper this evening? No.

 

But it is a proven fact that if we keep our brain juices flowing as we age we lessen the possibility of having dementia later in life. It doesn't take much brain power on my part to decide whether or not I need to water my gardens or feed my fish.

 

All my fellow TaoBums are helping me keep mentally alert. (I know, some would question that statement.)

 

And BTW, it takes only one angel to sit on my lap for many things to happen.

[3bob]

Thelerner,

 

I didn't hear a question per-se although there were some rhetorical type questions included if that is what you mean?

Edited May 23, 2014 by 3bob

[3bob]

MH,

 

I have not studied the "singularity" concepts but from what you have brought up it sounds like I should.

 

A little black pepper, ancient sea salt, onions, etc... should go well with that dinner thing to-night that came out of no-thing :-)

[thelerner]

That gave me a chuckle. Thanks.

And BTW, it takes only one angel to sit on my lap for many things to happen.

I think only a sadist would make an angel sit on a pin.

 

Thelerner,

 

I didn't hear a question per-se although there were some rhetorical type questions included if that is what you mean?

It could also be my attention span. By the time he's on the 4rth 'no-thing' and 6th 'cause', my head is spinning.

[Marblehead]

I think only a sadist would make an angel sit on a pin.

Totally agree. She would be much more comfortable sitting on my lap.

[forestofclarity]

The idea of "pure philosophy" tends to be Western (if you believe the Eastern yogis) and modern (if you believe Pierre Hadot). For me, it is only purely intellectual if it doesn't relate to an ongoing practice or tie into experience. But Parmenides, and Krishananda both have practices to go along with their theories. If you look at the ancients Greeks, they had very practical goals to their philosophy: to produce equanimity, peace, well-being and so on (ataraxia or euthymia, etc.).

[GrandmasterP]

Interesting. Stephen Hawking recently did a TV documentary which concluded that the universe was created out of nothing. I didn't buy it then and I still don't buy it.

 

In the above I really liked where he pointed out that: Now, it is non-dual Being.

 

If Stephen had said "no-thing" instead of "nothing" I would have been able to agree with him.

 

 

"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.”

 

(Terry Pratchett: Lords and Ladies)

[gatito]

-

Edited May 30, 2014 by gatito

[Marblehead]

"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” (Terry Pratchett: Lords and Ladies)

Good try but you will have to do better than that in order to convince me.

[Marblehead]

Yes, I think that I'm with you on this – there seems to be “pure” philosophy and practical philosophy. The former holds no interest for me, although it seems to provides some entertainment value for others.

I enjoy and engage in both.

[GrandmasterP]

Good try but you will have to do better than that in order to convince me.

 

Just quoting is all.

I don't buy it.

Nor does Pratchett I suspect.

[3bob]

I don't know about some of that since one could find enjoyment in doing "pure" math problems that were not being applied to anything at the time except in seeing and being inspired by the working out of mathematical laws...

[3bob]

Nice find 3bob!

 

It reminds me pf Parmenides' Fragments: -

 

Yes Gatito, the similarities are rather amazing! Thanks for your shared quote.