Why is there not nothing?

[WindInTheLeaf]

10 hours ago, ground said:

Something is empty of self which means something is empty of something or what appears is empty of that as which it appears. If something is conceived as full then one should investigate what could be the substratum of fullness. One can impute whatever one likes to emptiness. The question simply is whether one's imputations can bear rational analysis.

Same applies to 'void'. Every object (or subject) is void of self, i.e.it is void of that as which it appears. That as which it appears is not nothing, but something. Being void of something however does not qualify it as nothing according to the middle way.

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]

6 hours ago, purerogue said:

Please stop calling it Middle way , middle way is path , not name of Nothing. 

'middle way' short form of 'middle way vision' or  'middle way contemplation'. "'middle way' is not name of Nothing" is an appropriate expression.

[Channe79]

There is a difference between;

"Why is there something instead of nothing ?"
   and 
"Why is there not nothing ?"

The latter being the more important one.  The fact something exists is irrelevant because it does.  What's more intriguing is why nothingness isn't the standard.  All else being equal, it is more efficient and logical for nothing (time, space, matter, energy) to exist.

[Goldzilla]

There is more nothing than something. Something is too small to be compared to nothing. 

[Rishi9]

There is only nothing, but to experience it, you need to give up life, in your body. How can you be nothing with a mind, ego, body, wants, needs, a path, appetite, etc. to fully give up to nothing, you need fist of all to reach the state, and then to accept it, and merge in to it. Leaving the world behind.