What is your take on the Void.

[Snoopy]

I interpret the Void as a plane of limitless potential, somewhat linked to the source or a palate for the source. Too many the mind can be seen as a Void, as much as a piece of clean paper. How do you interpret the Void into your workings and/or ideologies? I have my own knowledge and take on the topic at hand, I wish to stir up and see what can be made with such question.

 

[Thee Nightfool]

I've always thought the concept of Kali's womb via Kaula tantra was a real-world example of The Void being embraced by a sorcerous few.

 

[Snoopy]

I've always thought the concept of Kali's womb via Kaula tantra was a real-world example of The Void being embraced by a sorcerous few.

I have heard of this but personally never truly looked into it, I will today thank you brother.

 

[Thee Nightfool]

I have heard of this but personally never truly looked into it, I will today thank you brother.

It's just my UPG. I wouldn't say it's "traditional" in terms of a tantric sense. Just so you're aware.

 

[IllusiveOwl]

The Void is empty, it is negation, the divine Feminine, Yin. Without it, the expression of Yang, of Life, would have nowhere to express itself, and nothing to dissolve into at its conclusion.

Like a song, the notes work with the eternal silence to make a melody. Can you imagine a song without any silence or pauses between notes? It would get annoying pretty fucking quickly.

The void is part of a whole, I use it in my work to re-center myself, pause, and most importantly to receive energy. It is easy to fall into it and get lost, just as easy as it is to get lost in the generative madness of Yang expression. The two work together, and the practitioner should use them as they are needed to maintain balance.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What is your take on the Void
SUBTOPIC; Understanding the question?
⁜→ Snoopy, et al,

What is this "void" you are talking about?

IF you are referring to a region of space(-time), THEN a region of space that light penetrates is not a true void.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Taudefindi]

I see the void as nothingness.
It can be the spaces in-between "something" or it can be the true "nothing", which ends up becoming something since nothing can't truly be nothing as we give it a name and...you get my point.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What is your take on the Void
SUBTOPIC; Understanding the question?
⁜→ Taudefindi, et al,

I see the void as nothingness.
It can be the spaces in-between "something" or it can be the true "nothing", which ends up becoming something since nothing can't truly be nothing as we give it a name and...you get my point.

(COMMENT)

I don't think there is any place in the known universe where some form of cosmic energy, most often electromagnetic energy (for example, Visible Light) is NOT Present. Remembering that there is a direct relationship between "mass" (the tangible) and "energy" (particle and waveform) • E = mc^2.

Even a Black Hole has a galactic coordinate for the singularity.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SkullTraill]

I see the void as nothingness.
It can be the spaces in-between "something" or it can be the true "nothing", which ends up becoming something since nothing can't truly be nothing as we give it a name and...you get my point.

One million percent my same view.

The void is nothing. And nothing cannot exist. The same way you can't "have" 0 apples. You just don't have apples. It doesn't exist. The whole reason (in my estimation) that the universe (and we) exist, is because nothing can't possibly exist.

I mean, maybe it did/does/will exist. But it is inconsequential because it is nothing. It's a philosophical overthought and an exercise in cognitive excess.

That being said, the word "void" is just a word in the english language. As you have already done in the OP, you can assign any meaning you want to it. You could call the astral plane "the void" you could call a mirror universe "the void" you could call all those things "the warp" or whatever word you could think of.

It's meaningless to assign an unconventional definition to a word and then debate that word's definition.

 

[IllusiveOwl]

The void is nothing. And nothing cannot exist. The same way you can't "have" 0 apples. You just don't have apples. It doesn't exist. The whole reason (in my estimation) that the universe (and we) exist, is because nothing can't possibly exist.

How do you see the universe? What shape is it? Does it have a shell, an inside & outside? Because only that which is outside the universe could be nothing, but that would then be something, and then would that nothing have an end? What was before the big bang, nothing? Was there such a time?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What is your take on the Void
SUBTOPIC; Understanding the question?
⁜→@ IllusiveOwl, et al,

All excellent questions. Let us take them one at a time.

How do you see the universe?

(COMMENT)

The universe is viewed in many different ways.

• By examining objects using visible light (optical astronomy).
• By looking at objects with detectors sensitive to Infrared, ultraviolet, and other emitted radio waves (including objects at submillimetre wavelengths).
• By performing spectrum analysis on all the energy that can be detected from the distant object.
• By looking at the Red-shift and Blue-shift of objects in the expanding fabric of space.
• By examining the gravitational effect the object has on nearby objects.
• By focusing detection capabilities on the x-rays, gamma-rays, cosmic-rays, and searching for neutrinos.
• etc

What shape is it?

(COMMENT)

This question is beyond the knowledge of science and is one of the many metaphysical boundaries. There are some very good theoretical conjectures and some nice mathematical presentations. But it is still supposition and speculation. The Milky Way is over 100K Lightyears in its diameter. Right now the terrestrial radio bubble is about 120 Lightyears in radius. That represents the farthest intelligence of out species could have traveled, plus the electromagnetic noise that might be considered a signal associated with a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere planet that would reflect stellar radiation.

Does it have a shell, an inside & outside?

(COMMENT)

Again, science cannot answer this question. The study of science includes the use of the scientific method. At the current time, things like "String Theory" (as an example) cannot be tested using the scientific method.

I am pretty sure that no one in my generation knows the answer to your question. The probability is that there is no shell, that the fabric of space-time is already out there and the universe is just expanding into it. (Someone can probably write you a lot of mumbo-jumbo quantum field theory (QFT) and relativity (GR) using quantum mechanics (QM). I'll be honest, I have a minuscule understanding of QM. It takes people like Sir Roger Penrose to figure out if. there is a realistic and probable. answer. I get a headache just thinking about.

Because only that which is outside the universe could be nothing, but that would then be something, and then would that nothing have an end?

(COMMENT)

Inside and outside (a three-dimensional object) are concepts that are better left behind in the realm of Newtonian mechanics. The Milky Way is in a local group of galaxies, - which is part of a Virgo Supercluster, - which is in turn part of the giant Laniakea Supercluster. It is ≈ 500 or 600 million Lightyears with 100 million billion solar systems. These numbers and distances are so big that writing them down cannot stimulate the mind to understand the enormity.

What was before the big bang, nothing?

(COMMENT)

The Big Band (bad scientific notation) is the theoretical location from which the first energy was ejected.
.

Was there such a time?

(COMMENT)

Many claim that the observable universe is ≈ 90 to 100 Billion Lightyears in diameter.

I am not so sure that I am even qualified to answer this question.

Most Respectfully,
R