« "No-self" isn't a spiritual goal -- it's what we already are | Main | Give up on making life itself a project »

October 03, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Given what we know now, it would appear that nothing is fundamental. This cuts religion off at the knees, if by "religion" we mean belief in some immaterial, immeasurable, inscrutable "ground" from which all things arise and return to.

The assumption that there is a reality (of whatever nature) that actually exists independent of consciousness is merely that - an assumption. Assumptions require consciousness.

You can assign primary relevance to either consciousness or matter - a consistent logic can be realized from either perspective - but it should be obvious that they can never be found apart. That is because they are not apart. Whatever "reality" is - both consciousness and matter are intrinsic aspects of it's nature.

Survival is always going to be a struggle, and it will always fail. That is also intrinsic to both consciousness and matter.

Figure out the "how" any way you like, but this is definitely the "what". The "who" is irrelevant.

"both consciousness and matter are intrinsic aspects of it's nature."

Why separate them? Is consciousness not matter?

Human consciousness finds it's foundation in the human brain. Isn't the brain a type of matter?

Consciousness finds its expression in the Human brain. Yes, the brain is the King of matter. Did not Buddha Turn His Head Around?

I though that I was unequivocally succinct in my "interpretation" of what reality might be. Both consciousness AND matter are conceptual. That they could constitute an essential difference is also conceptual. The point is - however an individual human being might feel about the issue is irrelevant to whatever "reality" is.
But, it is entertaining to speculate. Did you ever see a cat toying with it's prey? That is the reason we have a cerebral cortex - to play with ideas.

Willie R.,

What was matter before it was conceptualized? What was a "thing-in-itself" before it was conceptualized? Or, what exactly is the non-conceptual, non-subjective, non-objective, non-thing-ness supposed reality?

What did "God" do before he "created" the world?

Robert Paul Howard

"What did "God" do before he "created" the world?"

Before God created "the world", He created "you" to bear witness to what you weren't there to bear witness to.

Looking at the vast,magnanimous, emotion invoking, shining, clear night sky, I understood how absurd it is for any individual or group to claim that they know what "Reality" is.


The defining traits of matter are that it is (mostly) three dimensional and takes up space. The real nature of matter can only be understood by conceptions from different sources/disciplines. Matter and Space appear to have come into being at the same time.


Big Bang excerpt:
"After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons."

Another interesting perspective:

Albert Einstein and the Fabric of Time

Surprising as it may be to most non-scientists and even to some scientists, Albert Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. In 1952, in his book Relativity, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes:

Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

Einstein's belief in an undivided solid reality was clear to him, so much so that he completely rejected the separation we experience as the moment of now. He believed there is no true division between past and future, there is rather a single existence. His most descriptive testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died. Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."


".......for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."

Janya, what did those physicists use to engage in the belief of separational illusion? While I can resonate with the basic message, didn't those guys/gals use their brain/mind to formulate such a belief?
Therefore, with the brain/mind would there not be moments of separation?

This is an interesting area, which relates to the potentially different models, levels or ways that reality is perceived.

the budhist concept of emptiness or codependent origination or whatever doesn't really do it for me either, its almost like we have the ingrained tendency to want to force a quasi-spiritual explanation to fill in these gaps that science cannot answer. Its meant to be less religious, or irreligious, but it offers nothing more to know about nothing, and it still does not explain how something can come from nothing.

I guess one can look at what is reality, or what is real, in many different ways, not just in the 2 ways put forward by this chap vesterhoff.

Realism is what classical science is based on, the idea that there is a mind-independent universe of things/forces that exist independent of whether we can sense or measure them (with our minds or otherwise) or not. But science is not realism, science is based on empricism, so it is a type of knowledge limited to what can be sensed, measured or proved.

Idealism seems to be what mysticism and non-dual advaita and most spirituality is based on, which is that there is NO mind-independent reality, that at base there is only mind, that mind creates the world of things and the universe, in short a delusion.

Then between these two there is that old twatface Kant who reckoned that we cannot ever really truly understand reality, since even if there is a mind-independent reality, we can only ever observe it through the imperfect or subjective mind.

And then there's quantum theory, which throws everything out the bathtub with the baby, and no-one understands a gdam thing, with its all obersever effect, entaglement, qunatum indeterminacy and the uncertainly principle - which seems to again position itself between realism and idealism, or the objective and the subjective.

In reality, no-ones got the foggiest.

Roger, I too was wondering how Einstein arrived at the past-present-future all happening at the same time conclusion. Its got a special meaning for me because of my NDE (my babble post), and how I actually fully experienced this Einsteinian "single existence". Its apparently some construct where time either does not exist or is different. (Its also entirely possible that this construct /space/state/dimension is also accessible in meditation.) Einstein nested his "single existence" work on "Minkowski space" to an extent.


George brings up some really good points pertaining to the vastness of the subject. This is precisely why Science proper should be artistically and lovingly taught using the hand head and heart, right from grade 6 onwards by insightful teachers so that when my age is reached, one does not feel like a science ignoramus!

Here's some preliminary stuff on what Quantum Physics is telling us:

The double slit experiment


The Buddhist codependent origination, in a very important sense appears to be a euphemism for the chain of cause and effects;Dharma and Karma chains. These chains apply to mortal beings as well as to the creation and dissolution of worlds. (solar systems, galaxies, galactic clusters and more. At the mortal levels, reincarnation is implied and at the universe levels, Pralayas.
How does something come from nothing?

Some understandings may be gained by understanding Differential Calculus. It is the study of the rates at which quantities change. This has implications for the differentiation of the one substance into the many.

Then there is Projective Geometry,which has more points in any given dimension than in Euclidean space. "And that geometric transformations are permitted that move the extra points (called "points at infinity") to traditional points, and vice versa." (Wiki)

But as to the very nature of the primal substance itself, its possible that Science will someday know and understand it but until then a fair place to start looking would be into our very own nature and makeup, the study and wisdom of MAN himself/herself.

I'm trying to read some of this wu-wu written by Wei wu Wei - tge bugger seems to have a hankering for Taoism and Non-dual thought generally.

far as I can gather, this sage old fart seems to reckons tge heart of the diamond sutra and all budhism and all wisdom traditions is based on a recognition that what is key is not tge nature of things but how they are perceived. I think this is what minfulnness hints at - that we mindful of rye aspect of mind (ego-centric) which apparently interferes with our perceptions of reality and in the process distorts it.

Wei pu more poopoo seems to call it split-mind, as opposed to whole mind. It seems that mindfullness and all wisdom traditions appear to still or confuse or distract this split mind with all it's evil powers of differentiation, conceptualization and intellectualisation (either through contemplating ones navel or bring confused by a nonsenical joan or battered over tge head by sone fkd up master).

In other words, the aim is to get in touch with our orginal nature, and the nature and source of all things and the universe itself, pure awareness.

Ommmmm - ting, someone hit a bell I just dissapeared up me own nought.

Wei Wu say if bear break wind in forest, does forest really exist?

Me thinks thou art on to sublime profundities, Phantom, I bid you what be your name,?

Split mind, what they be calling it,eh, duality, be naught but a coping strategy, just like no-self? 'cos who wish to be have U.G Krishnamurthy's Calamity, it be, methinks epitome of pure awarenes thing but by my troth!to aks be to split mind again but naught to, be certain way to loony bin yonder.

Perchance it be good to know moor.

Wei Wu Wei's (Terence James Stannus Gray) chief mentor was Sri Ramana Maharshi at Sri Ramanashram in Tiruvannamalai, India.

Perchance - who woulda guessed you got a sense of humour - I thought you were a fella but then brian said u a lady so I apologise for russling your uptight breeches.

Yip gray big fan of maharshi.

Ywis, kyendele acceptd.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.