WindInTheLeaf

Why is there something rather than nothing? What do we assume here, by this question? What is its foundation? There seems to be two main assumptions as far as I can see: 1) there is something, 2) it makes more sense for there to be nothing than something. Realizing that the 'something' is not really something is one way to kill the question. But this realization is well hidden and to find it one must shed many layers of self. But what about the second assumption? Perhaps it is more easily broken. Does it make more logical sense for there to be nothing rather than something? In math we have an expression for nothing, 0, which is the lack of anything as it has no value, no energy; it is void of something so therefore it is nothing. But this nothing, this conception of nothing, exists only in relation to something, to the conception of something. Void of what? Void of something, of course! And so something? It is naturally void of nothing! See, it is not something, but rather is it the lack of that which it is not. So if nothing and something exists in a sort of codependent relationship, how could it make more sense for there to be nothing rather than something? Well you might say: But this is not the true nothing! And perhaps you are right. But what is 'true nothing'? If it is truly nothing, then it must not even be nothing. It must be void of even that which is void of something. Now what would such a thing be? Another way to break the question is to flip the question on its head, to mirror it upon itself. 'Why should there not be something rather than nothing?'. What if all is as weeds in the garden, arising unless kept from arising? And what should keep something from arising out of nothing? What before was your trouble is now the solution.

Empty/Void of what? The last part you wrote: "being void of something however...", is what I am referring to with the 'beyond beyond' or the 'true nothing' - at least I believe we are on the same page here. Sure at first glance, and coming from the position of believing in something where there is not something (solid/static, form), it now seems that there is nothing and that any perceived something is illusion - but as you said earlier truth and illusion does not truly exist. So freeing yourself from the illusion of self, 'stepping outside nothing', and looking back you may conclude that nothing is. But that categorization is applied relative to that illusion which you believed before and thus it is also of an illusionary nature. If you get to 'true middle'/'true emptiness'/'true nothing', would such distinction not fall away? So instead of all being illusion all is truth. For illusion implies truth but truth does not necessarily imply illusion if it is in and of itself of an illusionary nature. or perhaps put another way. If all is illusion then what is illusion but truth ? And if all is empty then how can that which is empty not be full? Empty relative to what? Void of what?

@ground could there be something so empty it is full; so void that it is void of nothing?

Haha yeah, I just thought 'mu'-state sounded rather fitting. My merging 'yes' vs 'no' and 'something' vs 'nothing' had more to do with both being dualities dividing the world into black and white. Yes, 'middle' does bring some confusion, but I believe we are on the same page in this regard. I agree with you on the part about there is no 'true middle' - if middle implies a position and not that place beyond positions. But it sort of hints at the 'neither yes or no' kind of nature of it so perhaps it is fitting despite the confusion it may create. So if 'middle' is not found anywhere it is safe to assume it is nowhere. Nowhere as in a position that is beyond positions as it stands relative to nothing else. If it were relative to somewhere else it would naturally be somewhere; relative to something else it would naturally be something. It is then not in duality, but is duality in it? If anywhere is actually nowhere, then nowhere must be everywhere. Would it then not be natural to assume 'middle' to be everywhere? And if you came to this 'middle' and thus became this middle that knows itself in and of itself (without the need of 'something' to mirror; stand relative to; conceptualize itself by.), would you not then see the truth in every kind of position that you, as 'middle', may be?

I see what I see, you see what you see. One does not have to be wrong for the other to be right. Sure we can come to free ourselves from any position and see nothing in everything and everything in nothing, but does this mean that every other way of seeing is wrong? Or right? Does such categorization even exist to such a non-being? Well surely if he is able to see things from the point of view of someone believing in right and wrong - although he won't be bound by such concepts. Does the 'mu'-state exclude yes and no or does it contain yes and no? Is maybe a neither yes or no kind of thing or is it a yes and no kind of thing?

@purerogue @ground I believe the fault is mine. I thought you, @ground, merely used the expression 'middle' for that emptyness that is beyond something versus nothing. I believe the middle way is a way to the middle that is the 'mu'-state. And if something and nothing are like yes and no, then the middle is sort of the same place as that place beyond. But to get beyond the edge to 'true middle' (let's say that this middle is what I referred to as true nothing in the original post), the idea of middle must be let go, as that holds the two sides of middle. It's like the extremes are still present in the middle until you stop perceiving them and thus stop perceiving yourself to be in the middle of anything as that anything is no longer there. Can you know the middle non-conceptually? hmm... how can you know that place that is no place where you are not you? Don't know if I understand what you mean by non-conceptual knowing though, perhaps you care to elaborate?

@tsuki I would rather say perception. Expectation is the child of perception (if it is bound by the idea of causality and duality - time and space).

@ground how so?

@TheAvatarState but what then of my brothers and sisters? Should I just leave them spinning? And not feeding the wheel of thought seems like a rather hard thing to do. It almost seems as if it feeds itself.

@TheAvatarState striving for simplicity seems rather complicated, but it is perhaps the antidote for my foolish attempt to be wise.

A harmonic oscillator sure sounds rather fancy, but I love the way it sounds. What is can never be described, but how to get to this realization is a question with a thousand answers. One way is not feeding the wheel with more nonsense. THis is perhaps the surest way, but also the slowest (seems to me, I don't know am still confused on whether it is the only way). Feeding the wheel with the right nonsense can perhaps bring about faster change, but it comes with the risk of prolonging the confusion.

@TheAvatarState hehe, I managed to do exactly what I was advocating against, and see how little you got out of my reply because of it. No worries, there were no hard feelings involved just silly old me trying to be wise. @LastThursday seems like a tougher question to me, as it leaves no way out for the ego. But perhaps this is exactly why it is a stronger question. Put someone in a white room with that question playing from the speakers over and over till he breaks. Perhaps give him psychedelics to open up his mind so that whatever stands in the way will pour out quicker.

@TheAvatarState surely it is a matter of perception. But for he who is looking around and seeing something and nothing it is of no use to be told he is wrong. And if he cannot be blamed for what he sees it is on the shoulders of he who sees the bigger picture to align himself according to he who does not - if his wish is to guide that is. Imagine a vibrating string. It is constantly vibrating on its own accord. But in its vibration are certain spots where the string is completely still. Imagine someone as that string. To bring him to rest either the energy of the string must carry out itself - which is impossible as long as it exists so it will happen upon death - or you must aid him in moving to the restful spot - the middle if you wish. To get there is all a matter of changing his perception. But his defense mechanisms are naturally tuned to keep him alive and what you wish to accomplish is to bring him to death while still alive. If he clings to life as a young soul tends to do you may try for as long as is possible and you will not move him an inch. If he has been on this ride for a long time and finds no satisfaction anywhere and perhaps he starts questioning what the hell this is all about, you may speed up his comedown-phase by aiding him in seeing through whatever illusion he is currently struggling to let go. To do this you must lead him to see the contradictions of his beliefs and actions. You must help him slowly empty his cup - at whatever speed he feels comfortable with. How shall you accomplish this if you stand towering above him with a lifted finger? How shall you know what he is ready to let go if you don't see through his eyes? Now why am I then writing on a public forum with a thousand eyes watching? How can I ever reach them all? Well I cannot and this is probably all for nothing but then it is as a sacrifice to nothing so that nothing may give something in return. And some questions exist on a collective scale, as they are amongst the last to break. No matter which road you travel you will eventually come to the same crossroad. But then again, this may act not as something to ease the transitioning but as a more complicated obstacle than what stood before. I hope there is not too much sense in my words. But then again the hardest puzzles are the most fun to break.

@non_nothing your welcome, altough I don't know if I deserve thanks, I didn't do nothing.

@tsuki that is a nice question. My mind is blank, so either I cannot see the answer or there is none. Perhaps they are one and the same; Is there an answer if I don't see it? And if I saw an answer, would that be wrong if there is none there to see? Perhaps there are ten thousand answers, all of them neither right nor wrong - and how could any of them thus not be as right as the next? But a still mind holds neither answers nor questions, so no answer must, in a way, be closer to the truth of silence. But if an answer is sought as part of a conversation somewhere like here, then the lack of answer would seem to leave a hole in the conversation would it not? He who asked the question is looking for some answer that is not there, so to him it must surely feel like there is nothing where there should be something. To him who seeks something, nothing must surely be the lack of that something. If he were to realize the true nature of that something he seeks, he would perhaps no longer see any intrinsic difference between nothing and something, but until he does the difference must surely exist to him. To help alleviate him of such nonsense(if you believe it to be nonsense), it is crucial to take him by the hand from where he stands and lead him from the inside out. You cannot stand outside and tear at his beliefs, for he will merely turn away. You cannot speak the voice of silence, for he cannot hear it. So, if I were in a conversation with someone who believes there to exist a difference between something and nothing, I would say there exists such a difference, and yes it does make sense for that difference to be as he sees it. And then, from common ground, it is easier to slowly close the gap between the two categorizations. Perhaps I found my answer - that they are same same but different. But am I really saying anything? Perhaps this is no answer disguised as an answer - nothing as something.

@ground the middle cannot be known, but to get to the middle one must first overcome each and every question. How do we kill the questions without answers? Like a fire with no water; let it burn out itself. But how can I aid this transition? Can I put a fire underneath the fire and choke it to death by its own smoke? Make the flames turn back on themselves? Questioning the questions and beliefs underlying those questions may aid in the transition to the questionless state. At least this is what I have come to believe. Is my belief rotten? Perhaps. You tell me, for I cannot see it from where I stand. @non_nothing nice little scheme you made. Be careful with that. The more sense something makes the harder it is to let go off. The biggest obstacle to enlightenment is not what one does not know but rather what one believes to know. Is absolute truth present as relative truth or are they exclusive of one another?

Yes, I fully agree with you. And I have kept quiet in times where it was perhaps time to speak because of it. I cannot provide any answers, since I hold none. But I can perhaps provide some questions to this sea of questions, that questions the questions keeping one from returning to silence. Or maybe not, but then the question is but another wave on the wave of waves and I find it pretty groovy.

@Salvijus any sort of worship is a step away from unconditional love, although it can still be a link to love for those still in darkness. It acts, however, like a bonfire in a cave, and may easily lead to confusing the shadows cast on the walls for the light itself. Embodying Jesus is a surer way to love, than keeping him outside as an idol, as you reap the fruits of the seeds of love and compassion planted by your very being.

A chance to grow

How can there be nothing without there being something and something without nothing? How can either exist without its opposite? Only a blank canvas holds the potential of every painting.

It depends how you look at it. From above everything is one consciousness, from within everything is this or that. Your subjective world may have ups and downs, angels and demons, good and evil, war and peace, but 'objectively' - that is the from the point of view of no-subjectivity, no-self - no division or distinction exists. In the eyes of God, war and peace is the same thing as they are not separated in time and space but happening simultaneously, as two sides of an eternally spinning coin. Imagine the objective, all-seeing perspective as the still center of a ball of consciousness. In actuality it exists as a sort of center that is present everywhere at once so the center is not something that lies within time and space (time and space is expressions of it sort of like the spider's web is an expression of the spider). Now you can never enter that absolute center and still be bound by time and space. So you will, until you are no more, be bound by time and space to a certain degree. As you are someone, you exist within the field of relatives and as such you have some position, some angle on things. From whatever angle you observe reality change as time goes, you will experience winter following summer, ups following downs etc., and as such you will have both war and peace, freedom as opposed to slavery and so on. Although relative pairs exist not in the absolute sense of things, they do so for anyone in the web of relativity (in it as it like flies are part of the web once they get entangled in it). This is why it is important to know yourself first and foremost, and if you dont know yourself then get to know yourself. For if you come to some larger insight as to the objective view on things, and solve your mind-body problem by eliminating body (no-self), you may turn away from things that still needs your attention in the relative domain of things. If no-self becomes a sort of escape it holds little value as it then becomes an obstacle to your further growth. I believe the first part of what you posted, in which he talks of the danger of cognitive dissonance (it reminds me of the concept of 'zen devil'), he is talking within the relative domain of things, while in the second part he is in the absolute sense of things. It is indeed important not to confuse the two, or you may become the fly that started flying before it was free and entangled itself deeper than it was before. TLDR: In the absolute sense of things war is peace and peace is war, but in the relative sense war and peace are opposites. Be careful not to confuse absolute and relative truth, or you may come to see war as peace and slavery as freedom.

Like attracts like. You will naturally encounter more of such people the more you live out your truth.

@Arhattobe so meaning is not found where i'm looking for it ? Is that why meditation is useful - letting meaning come to me in a state of non-doing?

@SoonHei Go to the ocean and ponder where the movement of each wave has its origin. Observe a leaf blowing in the wind and ask where to divide leaf from wind. Start at any part and keep inquiring about its essence and you'll eventually end up at the whole.

@Arhattobe good, there is no point to be understood. Another question arises in the chaos that is my mind: how do I know that what I see as making sense and what I see as incoherent nonsense is in fact so? That what I believe to be up is not down and what I believe to be right is not in fact wrong? That what I believe is chaos is not in fact a harmony I lack the vision to see?