I get it now.

[krazzer]

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Well, if there was nothing, in comparison to what would it be nothing? Something! So there HAS to be something! But for something to exists, it must be compared to nothing! So all of existence is nothing and something at the same time. A strange loop. Boom. All of existence explained.

I don't know if this makes sense to other people but it does to me now. This question has bugged me ever since I was a little kid. Now, with the help of Leo's videos, and lots of meditation, self-enquiring and contemplating, I'm starting to get it.

Really awesome stuff.

[Leo Gura]

@krazzer Yes, that's correct of course. But you still haven't penetrated the full depth of it.

Not only is something a necessary contrast to nothing, and vice versa, but something LITERALLY is identical to nothing.

Contemplate this even more deeply.

Until you can walk outside for a stroll, and each tree you encounter, you look at it, and you clearly see it does not exist.

[Joseph Maynor]

1 hour ago, Maxx said:

...and clearly see it does exist.

Why do we need to label reality at all?  

[Jamie Universe]

I don't get why something has to be compared to something for it to exist. Is it perspective? 

[Shin]

If you want to get practical, realize you've never seen your face.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Shin

[RichardY]

Something to do with the creation or manipulation of a linear narrative perhaps. History.

"Something" - George Harrison (Beatles)

Something in the way she moves
Attracts me like no other lover
Something in the way she woos me

I don't want to leave her now
You know I believe and how

Somewhere in her smile she knows
That I don't need no other lover
Something in her style that shows me

Don't want to leave her now
You know I believe and how

You're asking me will my love grow
I don't know, I don't know
You stick around now it may show
I don't know, I don't know

Something in the way she knows
And all I have to do is think of her
Something in the things she shows me

Don't want to leave her now
You know I believe and how

[Nahm]

9 hours ago, krazzer said:

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Well, if there was nothing, in comparison to what would it be nothing? Something! So there HAS to be something! But for something to exists, it must be compared to nothing! So all of existence is nothing and something at the same time. A strange loop. Boom. All of existence explained.

I don't know if this makes sense to other people but it does to me now. This question has bugged me ever since I was a little kid. Now, with the help of Leo's videos, and lots of meditation, self-enquiring and contemplating, I'm starting to get it.

Really awesome stuff.

It ‘makes sense’ to ‘me’ too. ❤️ Felt great to read your post. 

[krazzer]

15 hours ago, Jamie Universe said:

I don't get why something has to be compared to something for it to exist. Is it perspective? 

In duality it does, therefore existence can only be non-dual.

17 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Until you can walk outside for a stroll, and each tree you encounter, you look at it, and you clearly see it does not exist.

16 hours ago, Maxx said:

...and clearly see it does exist.

There just is a tree... It exists and doesn't exist simultaneously. Also it doesn't not exist nor exists simultaneously. It is as much as it's not.

[Viking]

@Leo Gura is it possible to have an experience (in this case, sight) of nothingness just by contemplating what it is?

[Nahm]

The tree is God guys. 

[Jamie Universe]

11 hours ago, krazzer said:

In duality it does, therefore existence can only be non-dual.

Are you saying that non-dual is 'without comparison?'

[abrakamowse]

2 hours ago, Jamie Universe said:

Are you saying that non-dual is 'without comparison?'

It can no be measured and it can not be converted into an object. It can't be known. Whatever you know is not you.

The only thing you don't know is your essence, because everything that is an object is not you... neti neti... (not this not this)

To find the Brahman or your essence you have to do like an sculptor, that removes the rock that is not the piece of art until the sculpture appears.

By removing what is not, you find what is... but if you have the experience of knowing your self, after the experience you won't find words to describe it accurately, because there aren't. It's not possible.

:-)

[Nahm]

@Maxx ?

 

separate...?

[Moreira]

Your post makes me think if we didnt had a CNS the world wouldnt exist for us. This sounds terrible.

[Nahm]

@Moreira they’re your meanings.....unless...

[StrangerWatch]

I like to demonstrate an answer to the question of "why is there something instead of nothing" through mathematics.

 

We all agree that 2 + 2 = 4, right? There can be no alternate reality where 2 + 2 = 5? If you grant this, you admit that the laws of mathematics transcend existence, and would therefore exist even in a state of "nothing". Or, more accurately, if we were to go back to nothing and then into something else entirely, the laws of mathematics would remain intact no matter what.

[ajasatya]

2 minutes ago, StrangerWatch said:

I like to demonstrate an answer to the question of "why is there something instead of nothing" through mathematics.

 

We all agree that 2 + 2 = 4, right? There can be no alternate reality where 2 + 2 = 5? If you grant this, you admit that the laws of mathematics transcend existence, and would therefore exist even in a state of "nothing". Or, more accurately, if we were to go back to nothing and then into something else entirely, the laws of mathematics would remain intact no matter what.

we assert "2+2=4" as true because we defined mathematics to work like that. arithmetic is built upon predefined axioms and so is the entire world of mathematics as we know it. don't think that mathematics hold some deeper truth about the universe because it doesn't.

first we defined a set of truths and then we defined rules about how to manipulate them. it's a creation of the human mind.

[StrangerWatch]

5 hours ago, ajasatya said:

we assert "2+2=4" as true because we defined mathematics to work like that. arithmetic is built upon predefined axioms and so is the entire world of mathematics as we know it. don't think that mathematics hold some deeper truth about the universe because it doesn't.

first we defined a set of truths and then we defined rules about how to manipulate them. it's a creation of the human mind.

The language of mathematics is artificial (as is all language, ultimately), but the fact that twice the amount of two objects makes four objects is infallible unless you want to assert that all logic is somehow a construction that’s impossible for humans to see through, but I think such an assertion is comparable to denying the existence of subjective experience. At the very least you should bring some evidence to back that up.