Search the Community

@RMQualtrough I brought that up because some other user brought up that it's perspectival with why is there something rather than nothing. We got a subject, who's experiencing, an object. Subject-experience-object. 3 point perspective, therefore nothingness(point zero), somethings (objects point 1), and a conscious subject(I/you point 2), experiencing(point 3) other somethings(loop of points). So enlightenment has to contain in total 4 points of view that feedback loop.

Well there is a chain reaction, the original something was just a single dense point of energy (the big bang), everything after this is self propagating (like you describe, its just segments of something actualizing the potential of another something). Take everything in the Universe in this moment, and imagine deleting parts of it one by one, imagine doing this until you delete all of what exist in the universe in this moment. Not just materiality, but all the thoughts, feelings and ideas that exist too, think about the sheer complexity of all these in this one moment, delete them all. Now imagine doing this for all previous states in the universe all the way back to the moment after the big bang - a single dense point of energy before forming a soup of particles. Can you see how as you remove or delete things from the universe, you increase the potentiality of the universe, such that the moment after the big bang there was the most potential for how the universe might possibly manifest? Can you see how the proliferation of each moment was a reduction of overall possibility? The more things manifest in a certain way, the less their potential to manifest in another? Now delete the very first moment of the Universe, the single point of immense energy - nothing would be left, but your degree of potentiality has reached Infinity, in this state of Nothing, there is now nothing constraining or limiting it, not a single point of any energy at all; there is an Infinite amount of possibilities. This is Nothingness, this is Infinity^Infinity

There is no consciousness. There’s no one conscious. There’s not two, it’s One. What the experiencer is equates to nothingness. What they experience equates to nothingness. The ground of being is nothingness. Out of this arises what appears as somethingness, but it’s also nothingness appearing as somethingness. The entirety of the Universe is happening in a completely unified field. Reality is not being projected individually, It exists infinitely and is fully aware of itself. How does the idea of infinite nothingness know itself to be infinite nothingness? By appearing to end at infinite everythingness. There are no two consciousnesses, only infinite apparently-finite brains inside of infinite consciousness perceiving itself as itself. The unified field of consciousness exists without your human form, it does NOT rely on the human brain to exist...the human brain is not creating this, it’s always a singularity appearing in finite reflections. Two consciousness’ appear to exist, but it’s only One.

An old writing I had on this. It’d be a bit different now after a lot more insight but a lot of the fundamentals are similar. Solving the mind-body problem by understanding dreams When you go to sleep at night, you often find yourself in dreams. In these dreams, most people will still have a human body. In waking reality, there is an unsubstantiated claim or story given by people that consciousness is somehow generated by the brain. The experts aren’t so sure, or at least they don’t have any solid evidence. Look up the “hard problem of consciousness” to understand how this is unsubstantiated. In the dream, you typically do not think along the same lines. If you were to lucid dream, you would certainly not think you were the dream body or somehow generated by the brain in your dream head. I say you, but I need to clarify exactly who you are. You are consciousness. Consciousness is the only constant you can find in all realities. In the dream, you are literally everything perceived in the dream. It’s all generated by your consciousness. We understand fully that everything created in our dreams comes entirely from us and is an extension of us. Surprisingly enough, there’s no solid argument against this being exactly the same case in waking reality. Your brain, body, and mind are all generated by consciousness in the same fashion consciousness generates the entire reality in dreams. Beyond your mind, body, and brain, you as consciousness generate this entire reality. This entire reality IS consciousness and nothing else. It’s the same way in a dream; nothing is separate from you as consciousness. You as consciousness are the sole source for everything in the dream. No one thinks everyone in their dreams are conscious, separate entities once they’ve come back to the waking state. It’s the same in this reality. There’s absolutely no way you can actually be shown something outside of your consciousness. There will never ever be proof that other beings are conscious separately or outside of your consciousness. Even if you merged consciousness with another being in the waking state as a way to somehow prove the existence of another consciousness, guess what it would be? It would be fully engulfed in exactly one thing: you as consciousness or otherwise put your consciousness. You are the source of everything that exists in your consciousness, and your consciousness is the entirety of your universe and always will be. Nothing can ever exist outside of your consciousness. Existence relies completely on perception and consciousness to even be relevant. What is the difference between a fairytale land in a book, the black void people typically conceive of as nothingness or nonexistence, and a reality you imagine exists like heaven? They’re all just imagination. The only thing that’s real is what you can experience in this very moment. As soon as something exits consciousness, it exits existence. There’s no proof for something existing outside of consciousness, and there never will be because the most fundamental building block in any proof is, you guessed it, consciousness. Before using reason or logic or any other conceptual tool to prove something you use precisely one thing first: consciousness. Even if you and I are both conscious entities, we live in completely different “universes of consciousness.” Precisely, that is to say that one consciousness can never be shown another consciousness to exist without perceiving the other consciousness through the lens of the original consciousness. As soon as one consciousness comes into the other, the secondary consciousness immediately becomes an aspect of the primary consciousness. So if you were to completely merge your consciousness with mine, your consciousness would be held within my consciousness, and it would be the same for you if the process were done from your perspective. This is a clear mechanic of consciousness. We can never know if the person sitting across the lunch table from us is conscious. We can only assume one way or the other. Anything imagined to be separate from the perspective of the original consciousness will always just be one more aspect of the original consciousness. In this way, we are entirely alone as consciousness. We are not alone as human beings. There are plenty of humans walking around. You can clearly perceive that, but by the very nature of perception, consciousness cannot perceive another consciousness without it immediately becoming another aspect of itself. Consciousness cannot perceive another consciousness as some sort of separate thing. Once the “other” consciousness is viewed, it only exists as long as it is in contact with the primary consciousness - the point of perception, and it is only truly the primary consciousness the entire time. In this way, you can never truly share space with another consciousness. You cannot perceive another consciousness. Anything you perceive is just you. You are consciousness. Everything is you. Everything is consciousness. It will be this way for eternity. You as consciousness will likely visit innumerable dreamt up worlds that you’ve created. You’ll perceive yourself as some kind of avatar or character as far as we can tell. You’ll at first see all the rest of the characters in your dreamt up creation as separate from you, but in truth those dream characters are just as much you as your primary character is. They’re just characters held within consciousness. One, your primary character who you at first feel to live inside, simply exists in your consciousness more of the time than the others. Ultimately neither the other characters or your perceived primary character is you because you are the consciousness that permeates all aspects of the dream world including its laws of physics, characters, objects, and everything else. You aren’t the characters any more than you are the objects or the laws of motion that govern that reality. You are all aspects of that reality. You are all aspects of all realities. A reality can only exist within you. Something is only real to you if it is held within your consciousness. No realities exist outside of the one you are experiencing right now. This waking state planet Earth does not exist when you are in a dream. Your wife could tell you that the world still existed while you were asleep, but you have to see how this is exactly the same as if your dream wife told you the dream reality was there while you were asleep. It means nothing because you as consciousness were not there. That seems to be the pattern in what we can verify between both the waking state and dreams.

It's easily knowable that nothingness HAS to be infinite. The exact mechanism is very easy to understand. A boundary is something. If there's not something, there's no boundary, making nothing infinite, which must be infinite something (else it would be finite/limited if it did NOT appear as something); and that something creates boundary, if there wasn't something, there's no boundary, making nothing infinite, which- Etc etc to infinity. You see the pattern? Nothingness cannot exist without somethingness because the lack of something would necessitate something into being. There's just infinity. Outside, inside, nothing, something, up, down, left, right; all just infinity. That's all there is. Infinity. But that is precisely why... If there's no limit, no law, no boundary, there's infinity: If there's infinity, there must be something otherwise it wouldn't be infinite.

Here's something I wrote previously that can help you understand: something is the limitation and constraint of Nothing. something is contained within Nothingness. Nothingness is the metaphysical substrata of all of material reality and existence. It’s the substrate of something. To understand the above we have to abstract. You have to imagine a place before any material form exists, outside of any space or time, colours or shapes. This place is Infinity, as you will see Infinity and Nothingness are the same thing. Starting with something and removing the constraints and limits continuously you would inadvertently end up with Nothing. The process of removal will show you that as we progressively remove something’s limitations and constraints, we get closer and closer to Nothing. And that Nothing has the highest possible (infinite) potential to be anything or something. Nothingness is pure unconstrained, unconditioned, unlimited potentiality, or Absolute Infinity, or infinity^infinity. It contains all mathematical, logical or scientific infinities. Notice how math is a limit, qualifier or constraint of Nothing or a limit or constraint on Infinity. There are infinite possibilities of paintings, films, art, games, human interactions, buildings, music, thoughts and so on and so forth. There are infinite possibilities for an infinite number of things. All thanks to Nothingness. As soon as you have something, there is now an infinite amount of things that it isn’t. something is the negation of potentiality. If you ever wondered why something exists at all, it’s because within Absolute Infinity, there has to contain within itself, the negation of itself, and that negation is something. For any objection to the previous sentence; why does Nothingness have to contain the negation of itself? Well it has to by definition. Nothingness is Absolute Infinite potentiality, and the negation of itself is a possibility, because it contains all possible possibilities, it contains everything. Take a metaphysical Nothingness, now create anything from an electron, to an atom, to a finger. As soon as we can specify anything in any form of any scale whatsoever, there is now something, and an infinite amount of things it isn’t or can’t be. Something is a constraint, limitation and removal of possibilities. It is a constraint on Infinity or Nothing. Nothingness is actually the fabric of change. Because everythings true nature is Nothing. If its true nature was something, it could never become something else, it wouldn't be able to change. Nothingness is what allows form to mutate, grow, change and metamorphosize. It’s also the true nature of the person reading this.

This anti psychedelic propaganda is more damaging rather then doing people a service, especially in the metaphysics circles and spiritual circles. Psychedelics is and will always be an insane source of wisdom, insights , healing etc. There is nothing which even come close to a full breakthrough experience IMHO, there is no drug or meditation that is so out of this world as a breakthrough experience with psychedelics. Please note that I speak from my own experiences since that is the only measure i can compare with. But if you are immature in your mind and then goes on to do psychedelics you are setting yourself up for alot of self deception. Every practice is in a way necessary, they build on eachother, I dont understand this either or mentality that is destroying more then it is helpful imo. Psychedelics is mimicking death more or less, even science can show the decreased brain activity during a transcendental psychedelic experience. Also i want to add that why is enlightenment the only measure of truth? Why is it important? It is just an ego game if you think that an enlightened being somehow knows truth more then an philosopher/mystic which is illuminated by insights and direct awareness of GOD etc. Intuitive and discursive knowledge go hand in hand i would say, and they both together produce a wholeness to truth. Also i want to add, why would a silenced mind be more true then a contemplative mind which can deduce certain truths about the world we live in etc, that is a bias which plenty of spiritual people fall into. Balance is the key i would say. You can reach GOD using logic and reason as well, and let me tell you that you do not end up in some nihilistic emptiness/nothingness of the atheist philosophy's, which to me is completly illogical and unrational, you end up at the uncaused cause, completly unlimited in scope, closer then close, there is nothing in this world that is even remotely close to the majesty of GOD. But paradoxically, there is only GOD and nothing else, but GOD as it is in itself is not the limited human that we are at this particular moment, this is an creation.

Oh look... another mystical dick measuring contest so I say this in the most spiritual way possible, there is no dick because what you think you have is really just infinite absolute nothingness.

just came across a quote which I think may be useful for thinking about matter and nothingness, and where 'something comes from, or continues to exist: 'All matter is created out of some imperceptible substarum. This substratum is not accurately described as material, since it uniformly fills all space and is undetectable by any observation. In a sense it appears as nothingness _ immaterial, undetectable, and omnipresent. But it is a peculiar form of nothingness, out of which all matter is created' (Richard F Plzak, 'Paradox East and West'. This seems to me to capture the big question of where matter comes from initially. Any thoughts

You can find nothingness (in the presence of something) by being it. You can be made of nothingness at all, it's what you are and it can be known, because everything that is something is in front appearing to you... Even you are a something. The you I am trying to describe is nothingness.

Perceptions ARE nothingness. How can you know what somethingness is? How can you define what is and what isn't something? If I show you a big hairy dick, how do you know it's not nothing? How do you know it is something? Treat this question seriously. Stop taking somethingness for granted. It's not a given. You take for granted that you can accurately distinguish something from nothing, but this isn't true. This distinction you're making is not objective, it is arbitrary and biased.

You still don't get it. You don't have a reference point for what a "zero" or "empty" is. You are assuming these are objective things. They aren't. They are relative. ONENESS means you cannot have a reference point for anything, since all reference points are inside the ONENESS you're trying to define and therefore all definitions ultimately fail. There exists no objective definition for "something" nor "nothing". Therefore they literally collapse into an identity. Everything you think of as something, is simultaneously also nothing. Your mind is being too biased towards equating form with somethingness to realize this. What you're missing with this bias is that form IS nothing. You are stuck equating nothingness with formlessness, which is not the full picture. You have to realize that this is a bias which God does not share. This is a dumb human bias, so drop it.

Well, maybe, but who said logic is true? Just because you can't currently imagine nothingness, doesn't mean you won't ever be able to. How many things you could not imagine and then you came to experience? Plus, even if you can't ever imagine it at all, still doesn't mean something always existed. Consider that you didn't exist before your birth.

I don't know why. But I know that we can't know anything beyond perception. And perception is something, therefore it can't point to nothingness. The notion of "eternal universe" cannot be verified. And it could be the case that at some point in time, there was an actual nothing and then that void somehow/magically/IDK turned into something.

@mandyjw the god of nothingness ? It is zen primordial energy temple (dhyanalinga). I have a yantra and a picture to support and deepen my zen insight into the source of all things. It can be used to deepen ones meditation. I've even been in that temple so I have a strong etheric connection to it now. ? a video on dhyanalinga

Haha sorry ? I hope it really sinks in because it contradicts the fundamentals of what leo is teaching this is huge stuff im talking. Yes I agree to some extent. Nothingness and love are two sides of the same coin really. That's cool. ? I have a feeling a didn't comprehend fully the previous post of yours. Sometimes it takes a long time to sink in what you write for me ? ? P.S. just arrived my a course in miracles book. Lets see what Jesus have to say about it ?

Fundamental truth of who you are is nothing, not love. Nothingness is the source, love is the manifestaion. Both are you. But to say love is your absolute nature is not true. Nothingness is your absolute fundamental nature. Nothing beats nothingness. Yet all qualities like love and bliss and peace are one with nothingness. Nothingness is King. No logic can beat this. Mic drop. Michael jackson moon walking away...

If love arose / arises of nothing / nothingness, even that arising would be a property or quality of some sort attributed to nothing, and thus not truly nothing in an absolute unblemished untarnished sense. Another way to say that (property / quality) is condition. Even to taste itself, to think itself, to know itself, would be conditional.

What I wrote has value. It was not to debate people. People need to realize that love is not the source, nothingness is the source. Love comes out of nothingness and therefore are one. Everything is one. Nothing and love is one. But to say love is the source is a false teaching...

@Shin end of experience is not an experience. At least it is not a phenomenal experience. Maybe a non phenomenal experience that can't be put into words becouse it's beyond all words and all qualities. Nothingness is the best word for it. Yeah we may have some difference is what we mean by nirvana. Nirvana in my language means the end of phenomenal experience or cessation could be called

Well there's a thing called cessation or nirvana or nirvikalpa samadhi where all manifestaion and and love and bliss dissapears. What is left is only nothingness. So obviously love and manifestaion is secondary. And nothingness is the fundamental source of all creation. At least it makes sense to me.

Do you think? I would say that nothing has always been, there is no beginning in being. if it is always, it is loved always. If it has loved always, it has always manifested . nothingness, love and manifestation are right now, which is the only moment that exists. There is not like: nothing at the beginning, then love and then manifestation. everything is now, and now is always

Manifestaion is secondary. It cames and goes. Nothingness doesn't come and go. It's the fundamental nature of who you are. Love is a secondary nature of who you are. Love is your fragrance. Nothingness is your true self.

@BenG i see. Fair enough. if you're new to nonduality it may take some time to grasp this that all manifestaion comes from nothing. Manifestaion can cease to exist. When everything dissapears. That which is left is called Nothingness/absolute/Shiva is the Source of all things. If it's not sinking in at the moment it's okey. I don't know if I can say something to make it more clear.

That which has no quality of it's own is called Nothing. It's consciouness, pure awareness, Shiva. The creation that comes out of nothingness is Love/Shakti/Manifestaion Both are ultimately one. There's no duality. All creation is ultimately nothing because it comes out of nothing. But you can't call the source Love. The source is Nothing, the manifestaion is Love. That's why consciouness/nothingness is more fundamental than love. And consciouness is what you are, and consciouness has no quality. So... do you see what I'm pointing at? ? Nothingness and love is sort of the same. But if you want to be 100% logical than your fundamental nature is nothing. Your manifest nature is Love. Manifestaion is a secondary thing. Nothingness is absolute. In cessation love and creation dissapears. Obviously love is not the absolute thing then.