Search the Community

And what is that nothingness? Who perceives? or what is being perceived by who? Is it possible to have perception without a perceiver? How consciousness perceives itself? Nothingness is another word too... in my opinion that Nothingness is the I AM, the one that Buddhist call it Buddha Mind or Big Mind. and they call our perception or wrong idea of I am this or that as Small Mind. I feel there's a lot of confusion on this topic.

It's all a wonderful mystery. I mean, who can really say for sure from this perspective. What is awareness? What is the I am? what is nothingness? What is this? Why does existence happen at all? What happens to me when I pass? Is there anything that remains of the "I am" after the body falls away? These are questions that can't be answered by the mind. I have heard many different answers to all these questions. Which would be truth? There are so many inspirational teachers out there. There has always been for all of time. But so many differ too from each other too. My gut feeling is what it has always been since the first day I realized that there is more to us than meets the eye as an individual self. For some reason this universe (existence) wants to experience itself through awareness. It does through the entirety of the universe. Through different expressions of itself as different organisms that best suit it's environment. Imagine the diversity out there. The human organism being just one of a countless number on different planets. But one thing remains the same, awareness of the surrounding environment. When that organism dies, it's individual experience of awareness comes to an end. It's cycle is complete. But awareness is unstoppable, it continues without missing a beat through producing a new organism that continues that cycle of awareness that the previous organism physically produced ( the children of the human organism for example). So do I think there is an I Am? I think " I am that I am" answers that best. As long as the "I Am" remains within the awareness of reality- there is an "I Am". After that, it's lights out. If there is anything of the "I Am" that continues after my mind and body drops away, that would be an extra bonus. But I'm not counting on it at this point. At the core of the individual as a separate self there exists the I Am or beingness. As Mooji has said, "The I Am is not the final state". I wonder what that "Final State" could be and what of the I Am will remain if any? Who really knows what happens???

I understand I AM is just words. The truth cannot be really named because it's not a concept and not an object. Having said that, I don't understand why people tend to say I AM is just words but Nothingness is the truth. The same thing happens with nothingness. So what is the point saying this is the real way to call it, there's nothing and if you say I AM is wrong is a concept. The concept that we have of I AM is wrong, we as a separated being are not the "I". There's no I in that sense. But we are one with reality, that's is what I AM. I AM = Truth = reality = everything = nothing. But is there a perceiver?

From what I can see, there is only perception, other than that; nothingness.

How do you define the I AM? I ask this because I see that a lot of people like to say "there's nothing", "nothingness", "the void". That all this is true, but in my opinion it can be a bit deceptive, because the ego is always going to extremes. If it's nothing the other possibility doesn't exist. That's not how reality works. In reality all the possibilities are there, in one. The I AM (or the self) is nothing, and everything. It doesn't exists and it exists. So I see like confusion when people ask me what is no-self. I tell them that you can't find a self. "I" when is identified with the body, with impermanent things, like thoughts, feelings, skills, etc.... that I am doesn't exists, is fake. But there's pure awareness, not identified with nothing yet it is everything, that's the I AM I talk about. I searched some information about it, mostly from two of my favorites Advaita teachers, Nisargadatta Maharaj and Ramana Maharshi. Maharaj wrote the book that in my opinion is like the Bible of Advaita called "I AM THAT". And that is what it says about them on wikipedia: "The South Indian sage Ramana Maharshi mentions that in the Hindu Advaita Vedanta school, of all the definitions of God, "none is indeed so well put as the biblical statement 'I am that I am'". He maintained that although Hindu scripture contains similar statements in the Mahavakyas, these are not as direct as given in Exodus. Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj explains the "I am" as an abstraction in the mind of the Stateless State, of the Absolute, or the Supreme Reality, called Parabrahman: it is pure awareness, prior to thoughts, free from perceptions, associations, memories." I wanted to post this question several days ago but I was always postponing it so I wanna thanks because we were talking about the topic on another thread and what he has to say got my attention, even when we don't agree in this point. But he was very respectful and I really like to change opinions with others, that's how we grow. Let me know guys what do you think about all this thing, does the I AM exists??? Or there's nothing at all??? How do you define "reality"? In my opinion reality and the I AM are the same. What is not the same is the thought that I AM this body, I am a loser, I am ugly, etc... the identification with a separated self, that's not real. The self is one, and is the I AM, is nothing and everything. Is non-dual. It has both characteristics, is a self and no-self. Is there a self, a no-self, awareness, reality, I AM that this or those, I AM not, etc etc etc...??????? And yara yara yara as Leo says.

Haha I've reread my answer and I realized that there was no point to write it. It's a fun thing to attempt to rationalize, but it is an ineffable thing to explain. You will not understand it by reading explanations, even from those who are truly awakened, and it's pointless to seek definitions to explain it because nothingness is a very abstract thing. It's like attempting to recreate the feeling one has in a new country they visited for another person. It simply won't work until they have been there and experienced it for themselves.

I gave up on the nothing-less method of meditation as it was something I did without any success when was suffering with insomnia for over a year. During that time I mastered the nothingness technique of meditation for hours and hours at a time. A few weeks ago I was talking with a friend about meditation who has also had insomnia , she spoke of how she had mastered the nothing-less technique and like me without benefit. Think nothing get nothing It was at that point I switched my meditation to the focused technique for its reported benefits. To expand on the method I have begun doing sessions where I meditate to visualize a goals successful completion. Focused attention meditation Focusing the attention on a single object during the whole meditation session. This object may be the breath, a mantra, visualization, part of the body, external object, etc. As the practitioner advances, his ability to keep the flow of attention in the chosen object gets stronger, and distractions become less common and short-lived. Both the depth and steadiness of his attention are developed. Examples of these are: Samatha (Buddhist meditation), some forms of Zazen, Loving Kindness Meditation, Chakra Meditation, Kundalini Meditation, Sound Meditation, Mantra Meditation, Pranayama, some forms of Qigong, and many others Types of Meditation – An Overview of 23 Meditation Techniques http://liveanddare.com/types-of-meditation/

Very beautifully poetic, Dodo! Although I'm not asking for more bullshit stories in your catalogue of bullshit stories. I'm asking you to actually look with no preconceived notions in your direct experience. Any question I ask is a focus point to confirm in direct experience, not an opportunity to spew logical proofs, quotes, or something someone else told you. Forget about "unmanifest nothingness" for a second. The I-thought. Is it not just another thought that arises? Just the same as "the sky is blue" or "chicken is for dinner" or "Jesus said ____"? If so, it comes and goes like all thoughts. But what you really are is still there, is it not? That which knows experience, without the need for logical knowledge?

So beyond the I am thought, there is the unmanifested nothingness surrounding it, that the i feeds itself new thoughts from? And if the i thought becomes aware of itself and starts looking in the darkness conciously, it shines its light on the darkness, like a ray of light? Is the I the light of this world as Jesus puts it?

@comp13 It's really quite simple. Thoughts just love to complicate it. Surely there's an I-thought. But it pops out of nowhere, just like all the other thoughts about there being a "thinker," a "chooser," a "doer." You can discover this in direct experience. Once you do, you realize furthermore that the I-thought that claims ownership over any aspect of experience is just another thought, and really, nobody can own experience. The ego never existed in the first place. There is no central experiencer, only experience experiencing itself. Enlightenment is actually your present experience, just overlayed with thought-stories appearing out of nowhere (all false) such as: How can I attain enlightenment? Surely there must be something outside of experience? But science says _____! But Advaita Vedanta says I need to do Karma Yoga for another year so I can become enlightened! I experienced this vast loving openness, so I must stay in that openness and re-experience it to become re-enlightened! But everyone says I'm going to die! Look at all the bodies dying around me! I must be the body! Agh! I need immortality or else my experience is incomplete! But Leo says I'm nothingness! So I must look for that nothingness as if it were an object of experience! There must be such thing as objects. Otherwise I wouldn't exist! Maybe Mooji will have the answers... I'm so unhappy! I'm so upset! I'm so angry! Ooo Benhito Massaro talks about manifestation! That may be of use for ME. They say "Find out who is experiencing," but of course I'm experiencing! And on and on and on...until.....

Thanks, I found your reply very helpful! I can now see how awareness might be the fundamental form of existence that doesn't need anything. I suppose the problem is that it's not possible for science to explain this. It's something that can only be experienced. What if this experience or aware nothingness is an illusion created by the mind in a meditative experience? What if it's just the most basic part of the brain being experienced without all the thought and sense perception parts? I don't know, I just have a lot of doubts. Sometimes I intuitively feel it to be true and I totally get it and don't even doubt it and other times I'm totally unconvinced and skeptical.

I understand that it's not supposed to be something in the brain and that it transcends physicality and rationality. I've watched Leo's videos on it closely. However, I'm not even sure that consciousness isn't produced by the brain. I'm open to the possibility, it would be much more interesting after all but I need to do more research (research includes meditation and so on as well as reading scientific books etc). So if nothingness has no qualities at all how can it be aware? This is where I'm stuck. Surely awareness is a quality of SOME kind. I mean, if it wasn't a quality we wouldn't be talking about it. Or is the word nothingness misleading in this case. Surely it's not actually nothing as it does exist.

@Atticus I think you're thinking that it takes a brain to be aware. It does not. It takes a brain to form thought, memories, emotions, etc., but awareness, is what YOU ARE, not a quality or ability of yourself. It is not a "thing" at all. It's not even nothingness. When you picture nothingness, you probably picture empty space. It's not even close to empty space. It has no qualities at all, other than IT IS. We take awareness for granted, when it is absolutely fundamental for our existence. It actually is existence.. Try to view awareness (being aware) with absolute importance, and deduce what it actually is from there.

These things do inspire me to work on my life purpose with the focus on the nothingness / everythingness (transient morality). Then, I can't think of a better mission in life than to align the life purpose with world peace. Is it possible that these things trigger these kinds of experiences with a combo of meditation / contemplation / self-inquiry? Time to find out. So awesome...

I was doing some self inquiry yesterday and was thinking (not through my mind but through experience): Who is aware of my breathing? I am breathing in and out irregularly and sometimes holding my breath so therefore i am not my breath. And i became fully aware of everything in my body. Am i the awareness of my body? sometimes i am aware of my body and sometimes i am not, my awareness shifts from inside my body, to my external surroundings, to my thoughts. You are always aware, so you are 'awareness', but you are not anything you are aware of/observing. But what about when i am asleep? At this point i literally fell asleep. When i am sleeping, i am not aware. I am still me, even though i am not conscious/aware of existence in deep sleep. So i cant be awareness. So if i am not awareness/consciousness, what am i? Thats when i think: i am nothingness, when im sleeping. So now im thinking, is my journey in this life to get me to consciously feel as calm and unatttached as i am when i am asleep? Because when i sleep, i literally merge with reality without judgement and ego. Is this my true self? Your thoughts are appreciated xxxx

Hello all! So a few weeks ago during my meditation session I started trying to observe things without putting a label on it, I started moving my hand around and looked at my hand to see it as it is, to see the formless thing it was, and then the awareness of my mental sensations shot backward (inward) I felt a huge vast open space and nothingness, it was frightening and i felt a surge of panic, I didn't know who i was anymore, All i felt was a vast ocean of emptiness. It only lasted for a minute and then i lost it again. Since then I ''know'' on an emotional level that I don't exist, because I've experienced nothingness, but somehow it wasn't a permanent transformation like for example Eckhart Tolle went through. Any suggestions to make it reoccur and make it permanent?

It's one of those paradoxes in the Enlightenment game that's not really reconcilable via rationality. To say that Nothingness is self-aware would be to attribute some sort of quality to it, in this case awareness. So no, Nothingness is not self-aware. That implies a "thing" that's doing something. At the same time, Enlightened people would tell you that Nothingness is self-aware. And I'm guessing that's because that's really just the best way you can understand it with your mind. Anyway, it's not really that important. This is not about learning, it's about un-learning. These kind of questions will reconcile when the time comes.

Nothingness can be better described as formlessness. Reality is in essence a nothingness because it is an endless abstraction of transient forms descending from a common root of subatomic energy. Furthermore, nothingness is not aware in the sense of how we are aware during our daily lives or how a dog or cat is aware of their environment. Rather it's awareness is instantaneous and and integral in all matter. It's awareness is the way in which life progresses and balances harmoniously. I hope this helps.

This questions relates to what Leo has said about nothingness in his video "The Enlightened Self - A Description Of Your Existential Nature" and "All of Religion Explained in One Video" also I think. He talks about how nothingness is where reality comes from, how it is the fundamental reality and how that is what you are. Then he says that this nothingness is aware (and self-aware, if I remember rightly). I can't find any description of Nothingness or Emptiness being aware in Buddhism. His discription seems like a much more fanciful one. The Buddhist discription seems very plain in comparison to this all encompassing awareness in which reality exists. So is nothingness aware? How can it be if it is nothingness? Leo, if you could also respond to this that would be great! I commented about it on the video and you replied but I still don't understand this.

Ah nice, cool man. See I view it in much the same way, but the difference is I don't let it all collapse into my mind as one thing (not saying/assuming you are, just speaking in general)... I protect the nuance of it all from being discarded in the name of simplicity. There is connection, but not as complete fusion or nothingness. Instead I see multiple tiers of ecosystems and sub-ecosystems, all connected, but distinct. SHARING sovereignty, as well as sharing in the ability to be moved and influenced by the confluence of other systems moving and inter-relating near each other. I've devoted myself for many years to studying and living and expanding my senses in regard to the actual "substance" that connects and chains all these micro and macro systems together. The push, pull, and balance of connective tension, which in other words could be labeled as attraction, repulsion, and harmony (a flavor of balance akin to what is known as the goldilocks zone). Working to harmonize greater and greater degrees of inter-connectivity, protecting them from collapse into polarities of extremes with their consequent extreme influences of attraction/repulsion, and expanding deeper from the understandings gained from the details in between these shifting tiers of connection. I don't let who I am be consumed by my connections to the rest of the universe. I am both an individual and a part of a larger system, with my own conatus (innate inclination of a thing to continue to exist and enhance itself), just like the cells and organs and bacteria in my body have their own conatus. But, also I have my own sense of satisfaction in devoting myself to something greater then I am, which I also depend on, much like my organs, cells, and bacteria also do. I balance both. Personally, I feel people who don't balance both and let their identity and individuality be consumed or discarded limit themselves from certain thresholds of development. For instance, internalization is the degree to which new information/patterns/connections embed themselves within our body and mind and is a required part of all learning. However, there are different degrees of internalization and one of the deepest tiers is identity level internalization, where information/skills/abilities become a part of who you are and can be accessed and expressed with as much ease as breathing, due to harnessing the automation of such skills that come when one's level reaches such a threshold of integration. What this means, is self-referencing, identity, and many other things are all system level functions with a purpose that is not to be discarded, because of some story of penultimate oneness people are chasing, but instead it is to be balanced and harmonized. Synergized, for continued expansion and evolution. I can see why a person might think that way, but if such a statement attempting to describe reality crossed my mental landscape, I'd be wary of attributing such a simple generalization to such a wide and deeply nuanced topic as connection/attachment. There are many different kinds of connection/attachment and there are many different kinds of ways to relate to different kinds of connection. Is it the attachment itself that causes suffering or the LOSS of connection that does? Is it really suffering we feel or does that label depend upon a multitude of other things, like abundance/diversity of other connections, individual levels of resiliency, chosen ways of relating to the connection and it's impact on our reality, and the meanings or stories we ascribe to it? How does the connection balance in contrast to other ones? Is it a connection that consumes and shrinks who we are or does it expand and nourish us? For me love isn't pure acceptance... acceptance is kind of meh, it's more comfort than love based when it comes to my personal feels. It helps with engendering ease and aiding flow, but that isn't always a constructive thing, because there are shitty patterns in the world that aren't worth accepting and internalizing, like depression patterns or forms of oppression and marginalization. Just like there are gasses and climates physically speaking that would kill me if I just passively accepted them and allowed them to connect and inter-mingle with my body's system. In my experience, intimate, deep-abiding love is a living thing nurtured and protected over time between people. With all due respect, I'd caution you to hold some space for your view of what unconditional love is until you've built that love over many years with another person in an intimate setting. I'm not trying to belittle you with that statement, but instead share with you the realizations I had that only came after I did experience such a thing myself after many years of devotion... I can feel connection and love with everyone, but it's nothing compared to the deep, intimate love that comes from my connection with my wife. They're both nice of course, but there is a difference and we can have both. @Raquel Our first show is up. I thought we did pretty good, it was a little rough and all over the place in some spots, but hopefully people liked it. If you give it a listen, please let me know what you think

Free will vs Determinism debates have always been weird for me... No free will doesn't imply determinism, it's like forgetting about randomness and my simple theory goes: God is randomness in every direction, and the randomness creates random shit and we are one of that shit that that ball of randomness created. Hurray for randomness! Randomness is pretty hard to produce tho, like even computers can't create real randomness. (If they could, maybe we start looking at real super-AI and that's another story - maybe we get obliterated then) So randomness is everywhere around us and we have no idea how it works. It's an explosion in every direction in every dimension, it's a happening without a cause, because what can be more random! Even the almighty infinity, i.e. god, is probably created by randomness. We create more randomness by every little random decision we do as the captains of our ship (be it ignorant captains) and probably that is something God, being randomness, likes, because we enhance him :D(whatever we choose to do, that's why he always laughin at us, we try to be mean but we always work in his favour! Maybe maybe, who cares tho! x) ) . And then the other God, the boss God, 0, nothingness, will claim us again and we will happen again! If the 1 says so! We just dancing between 0 and infinity, or 0 and 1 - in both those ranges exist infinite amount of numbers inbetween!!!!! OMG!!! One of them is us! Then the gods 0 and 1 and 2 and infinity realize they r 1 god and heaven and hell, and you and me and everything else always exists and is part of this big ass axes (in all infinite dimensions) and then I realize I am rambling too much. And I then realize I do not care because the ppl in this thread say I have no free will so that means i can do whatever I want as the captain of my ship and they will be like he didnt do it! Dont blame the captain, he doesnt even exist. It's the ship that is doing everything on it's own, so why blame the captain. My ego goes unpunished. But don't worry, even the biggest ego doesn't exist if you look at it from the right angle! PS: I am the ignorant captain, I am pointing the way to a machine that I do not understand fully (at all) and I try constantly to take credit for what the machine is doing. Will write a book I feel inspired - or will the ship write the book and me just standing there as the captain showing it the way?? When the captain thinks he is the ship, he can't escape from it if it starts sinking!!!!!! Woah that was sick metaphor lol IMHO randomness stems from the mathematical fact that there are infinite amount of numbers between any 2 numbers, but we can pick and choose which numbers we see, or how far down we zoom and dare to dive into. Start imagining, in your mind going deeper and deeper, more and more numbers after the decimal point, and they keep on increasing and generating infinite amount of new numbers between each of the newly generated infinite amount of numbers - so tiny, but so many! Now think about the big numbers (maybe we are one of those big numbers, multiplications of infinities, growing, as all the other infinities that make us grow from the root stem). That's a hard task, generating all those numbers, isn't it. So The universe itself expands in every direction because at the smallest level, imaginary numbers are expanding as we speak. They can't stop, Change is always there, unless we stay on one number. at the deepest level, beyond what the scientist can see, I think we are expanding numbers, going infinitely deep. Creating infinite possibility. We are children of Mathematics! PS: Ego corner: -trust me i've won math competitions -trust me im a programmer x_x -trust me im not crazy, i just wanted to splash on my keyboard, because of randomness. TLDR: If you read it maybe you will think, oh, that's somewhat interesting if u think bout it - especially the last bit (IMHO), might explain the constant expansion of teh universe n shit.. Are we travelling between 0 and 1? Between Bajjilion and BajillionOne Between nothing and God?... I should stop myself man, before I write another page. ... I mean.... I should tell the crew to stop ship!

I have recently been contemplating the ideas about science that I am learning now that I am a high school student and I am 17 by the way and I know a bit about enlightenment. I have tried to grasp the fact that science might be deeply flawed because of a general groundlessness in its assumptions. Here is what I mean: When we do science, we use formulas (a combination of numbers and letters) to describe the objective nothingness that reality is. We also use language and create these models thinking they are real. And I have started to notice that all of these descriptions and formulas - they are ILLUSIONS and the stort they tell is FALSE. It has nothing to do with reality and is a distraction from the truth that science is. When you look at things that are related to science, all there is is what is. There is no H2O, there is no molecule, there is no magnet. All there is is direct experience without any meaning, story whatever. It is just complete fiction. It is kind of funny that there is this distinction between genres that are fiction and non-fiction. Fuck that, it is all fiction - every story, belief, model. Calling a story non fiction is very self deceptive and a lie that the self uses to create reality to its own preference. When I write 2, notice that thing is not two. Two is a fucking story - an illusion. The same goes with all other models. What do you think of science in general. Do you agree/disagree with me on this? What is your idea?

I have watched Leo's video on the Netti Netti method as well as some of his other Enlightenment videos, and I haven't been practicing Netti-Netti yet because of this one hang-up that I'm having. How can I question the self if I already have the intellectual concept in my mind that, " Oh, well Leo and the others tell me that I'm pure awareness or nothingness detached from the identity of the ego- eternal, nondual, etc. etc." So when I'm doing it, that concept always comes up in my mind and I can't shake it. It feels like I can't genuinely question the self because whenever I start to question something such as the sense that I'm in my skull, it always goes something like this. " Am I somewhere in my skull?" " Well Leo said that I'm not because any sensation that you have is not there constantly, you are not aware of the sensation that you are the skull, so at that moment do you disappear?" " I guess not, it also seems like an illusion because it's the center of the senses, but we are not merely a collection of senses." " GAAH what's the point of going on? I already think that I'm nothing or awareness or some crap like that." I don't think that I can genuinely question myself because the conclusion is foregone. I mean, what else can I question other than my senses, my memories, and my mental processes? Or maybe I'm not questioning them deeply enough?

@Leo Gura Yes, I do switch my mind to the absolute nothingness. That's what i mean by being detached with "there is no you." That is always the best. Yes, for the most part, I totally agree. Btw, what was that shroom trip for? What were you trying to get a hint of experiencing? Divine love?

@Key Elements There's no you now. There's just an ever-changing flux of phenomena. Doesn't matter what the phenomena is from the point of view of absolute truth. Whether you're sipping a cup of coffee, floating through astral realms, visiting aliens via a DMT trip, meditating your ass off, or whatever, it's all just phenomena and none of it has any permanence. After the body dies, who the hell knows what might happen? But I would conservatively bet my money that it's the same thing as before you were born. Whatever stuff you cling to now, including your "soul" or any aspect of personality, identity, or being, will be gone. But Absolute Nothingness will remain. So it's a good idea to switch your identity to it, otherwise you're screwed.