The metaphysics of Existence

[dwai]

I recently watched a few physics documentaries produced by the BBC.

For professional physicists, these would seem quite pedestrian I feel, but in general I found these very refreshing/interesting.

The first one in the series is this --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_z...

The second one is this --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioP...

All the while, during the course of these two episodes, I started thinking of a vision I had a few months back (and the meta-physics that was made more apparent to the limited me), in which I was shown how this material universe really is.

Just progressively subtler dimensions of thought-objects, starting with the most gross (physical matter). All of these are just appearances in Consciousness. As they increase in subtleness, there exist "beings" who are progressively holier and more powerful (as the rules that govern these dimensions are more fluid than in the material world). Ultimately there is just one consciousness in which all this happens.

Nothing new about that (as it is the basis of Vedanta, etc)...but was still quite the experience when I saw it unfold.

Along with this thought, I was given another answer to my question of "How does the material universe arise, out of the One Consciousness?"

To which the answer was, through the rise of polarity. Opposites. Yin and Yang, Positive and Negative, Purusha and Prakriti. Polarity is the primary cause for movement, which is necessary for phenomena to exist. If there is no movement, there can be no phenomena.

What is the necessary condition for all this? A witness...hence a subject predicate arises (I AM), which observes these various dimensions simultaneously rise and fall. Even time is itself a result of this polarity. The grosser the dimension is, the more solidified time becomes.

Keep in mind the concept of polarity if you get a chance to watch those two documentaries. I think it will become self explanatory...

The ancients had seen all this so very clearly...life is not getting better at evolving, it is actually doing exactly what it has been doing all through "time". We are going towards a progressively greater degree of disharmony, between the two poles, until all that remains is nothingness (chaos leads to annihilation). But this annihilation creates the ground for the cycle to resume again.

Why does this happen? Because it is the nature of being. The void gives rise to form and form falls back into the void, over and over again...

That is the cycle of thoughts rising and falling, in Consciousness...

[3bob]

• I'd say Supreme Being (as Sat) gives rise - not non-being or a devolved chaos...

Edited March 4, 2017 by 3bob

[Phosphorose]

Look up Richard Feynman and listen to some of his lectures on physics - extremely passionate about science and a brilliant man. You'll love him.

 

Polarities are interesting because if you think about it, they really only exist in the mind. Take hot and cold for example. Hot is just molecules vibrating really fast. Cold is a slower vibration. There is nothing about these two states that ties them together. Only when we look at it, think about it, and compare the two do the opposite poles appear.. otherwise there are only present states of existence.

 

So for this reason I do not see how existence could be moving to a more polarized state, at least not in reality... but maybe you're on to something if we think about polarity as being mostly a way we view things through our mental lens. We could say that humanity sees more or less polarity depending on how much our minds weigh and measure phenomenon.

 

___________

 

spiritmapper.com

Find and share sacred places around the world.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Phosphorose

[dwai]

Look up Richard Feynman and listen to some of his lectures on physics - extremely passionate about science and a brilliant man. You'll love him.

 

Polarities are interesting because if you think about it, they really only exist in the mind. Take hot and cold for example. Hot is just molecules vibrating really fast. Cold is a slower vibration. There is nothing about these two states that ties them together. Only when we look at it, think about it, and compare the two do the opposite poles appear.. otherwise there are only present states of existence.

 

So for this reason I do not see how existence could be moving to a more polarized state, at least not in reality... but maybe you're on to something if we think about polarity as being mostly a way we view things through our mental lens. We could say that humanity sees more or less polarity depending on how much our minds weigh and measure phenomenon.

 

___________

 

spiritmapper.com

Find and share sacred places around the world.

 

You are right...the movement itself is apparent. Yet within the context of the dualistic world, it is real. That's why there is the 2-level model in Vedanta and Buddhism. There is the absolute (paramarthika) and the relative (vyavaharika). Absolutely, despite all the phenomena rising and dissipating, the non-dual remains unchanged. Yet, the appearances/phenomena that seem to rise and dissipate do change all the time.

[roger]

You are right...the movement itself is apparent. Yet within the context of the dualistic world, it is real. That's why there is the 2-level model in Vedanta and Buddhism. There is the absolute (paramarthika) and the relative (vyavaharika). Absolutely, despite all the phenomena rising and dissipating, the non-dual remains unchanged. Yet, the appearances/phenomena that seem to rise and dissipate do change all the time.

 

I agree with what you're saying about the absolute, which is the non-dual, changeless reality, and the ever-changing, impermanent relative.

 

The thing that I think is so important, and that gives one a higher perspective on the nature of everything, is that the relative is a manifestation of the absolute, and is therefore perfect just as the absolute is.

 

That's why everything is in "divine order," and is happening as it should.

 

I think it's good to (although I'd like to do this more than I currently do) remind oneself of this when something upsets you.

 

If you know that the thing was exactly what was supposed to happen, you won't be as upset.

[[email protected]]

Seems very interesting and at least worth of thinking. The question is why and how do the opposites appear. So lets imagine that firstly (or in the 0 phase of a cycle) there were no opposites (say yin-yang). How did initial impulse appeared that created or stimulated the birth of these opposites? This question of wuzi-taizi transition is unclear for me and I suppose it is one of the simplest and at the same time most unclear things.

Rgrds, Ilya

[dwai]

Seems very interesting and at least worth of thinking. The question is why and how do the opposites appear. So lets imagine that firstly (or in the 0 phase of a cycle) there were no opposites (say yin-yang). How did initial impulse appeared that created or stimulated the birth of these opposites? This question of wuzi-taizi transition is unclear for me and I suppose it is one of the simplest and at the same time most unclear things.

Rgrds, Ilya

 

Hi Ilya,

 

There are no clear explanations.

I think that this is just the nature of existence. As the I AM subject predicate arises, it also gives rise to the polarity. Why the I AM predicate rises, I don't know, I only know that it does.

 

One of the hymns of the oldest veda, the Rg Veda, is called the nAsadiya sukta -- it goes like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasadiya_Sukta) --

 

 

 

 

नासदासीन्नो सदासीत्तदानीं नासीद्रजो नो व्योमा परो यत् |

 

किमावरीवः कुह कस्य शर्मन्नम्भः किमासीद्गहनं गभीरम् ॥ १॥

 

न मृत्युरासीदमृतं न तर्हि न रात्र्या अह्न आसीत्प्रकेतः |

 

आनीदवातं स्वधया तदेकं तस्माद्धान्यन्न परः किञ्चनास ॥२॥

 

तम आसीत्तमसा गूहळमग्रे प्रकेतं सलिलं सर्वाऽइदम् |

 

तुच्छ्येनाभ्वपिहितं यदासीत्तपसस्तन्महिनाजायतैकम् ॥३॥

 

कामस्तदग्रे समवर्तताधि मनसो रेतः प्रथमं यदासीत् |

 

सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन्हृदि प्रतीष्या कवयो मनीषा ॥४॥

 

तिरश्चीनो विततो रश्मिरेषामधः स्विदासीदुपरि स्विदासीत् |

 

रेतोधा आसन्महिमान आसन्त्स्वधा अवस्तात्प्रयतिः परस्तात् ॥५॥

 

को अद्धा वेद क इह प्र वोचत्कुत आजाता कुत इयं विसृष्टिः |

 

अर्वाग्देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यत आबभूव ॥६॥

 

इयं विसृष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न |

 

यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे व्योमन्त्सो अङ्ग वेद यदि वा न वेद ॥७॥

 

Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,

There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.

What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?

Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

 

Then there was neither death nor immortality

nor was there then the torch of night and day.

The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.

There was that One then, and there was no other.

 

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.

All this was only unillumined water.

That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,

arose at last, born of the power of heat.

 

In the beginning desire descended on it -

that was the primal seed, born of the mind.

The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom

know that which is kin to that which is not.

 

And they have stretched their cord across the void,

and know what was above, and what below.

Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.

Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

 

But, after all, who knows, and who can say

Whence it all came, and how creation happened?

the gods themselves are later than creation,

so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

 

Whence all creation had its origin,

he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,

he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,

he knows - or maybe even he does not know.^[11]

    —Translated by A. L. Basham

 

 

I'd also written about this a long time back -- http://www.medhajournal.com/index.php/en/articles/philosophy/345-nasadiya

[dwai]

I agree with what you're saying about the absolute, which is the non-dual, changeless reality, and the ever-changing, impermanent relative.

 

The thing that I think is so important, and that gives one a higher perspective on the nature of everything, is that the relative is a manifestation of the absolute, and is therefore perfect just as the absolute is.

 

That's why everything is in "divine order," and is happening as it should.

 

I think it's good to (although I'd like to do this more than I currently do) remind oneself of this when something upsets you.

 

If you know that the thing was exactly what was supposed to happen, you won't be as upset.

 

Yes, beautifully explained. I too am cultivating this awareness, as well as the loving kindness that is so inherent in our true nature.

[Perceiver]

 

We are going towards a progressively greater degree of disharmony, between the two poles, until all that remains is nothingness (chaos leads to annihilation).

 

 

We are going towards a progressively greater degree of individuation AND integration. "Disharmony" AND harmony. It is both of these at the same time. Evolution has to bring about both of these at the same time. Nothing else makes sense. The universe does not evolve in one linear direction. It evolves as a beautiful paradox unfolding - with two opposite forces evolving together. It has to be both. As above so below. Every force to be balanced by a counter-force.

 

The thing that remains at the end is not just a nothingness. It is an enlightened nothingness. A paradox of sorts once again: An enlightened nothingness/allthing-ness. The sum of all our beauty, wisdom and goodness as consciousness-in-motion.

 

I agree with your other observations though.