Difference Between Nothingness And This Moment?

[HereNowThisMoment]

What is the difference between being "nothingness" and this moment? I realize that the egoic self is illusory, culturally conditioned, etc. but my realization was that my real self is this moment. Is "nothingness" just another way to describe this? For example, in Leo's "Enlightenment Guided Inquiry" he speaks about how the true self must remain constant and that is why "I" am not the senses or my thoughts. I understand that, but something that is constant in experience is the fact that every moment is this moment. However, what exists within the framework of this moment does change constantly (but even though things/thoughts/etc. change in this moment, the fact remains true that it is still this moment). But, is the true self something else? 

Also, I understand that enlightenment must be experienced, not intellectualized, but isn't the process of self inquiry intellectualizing it? Yes, it has been necessary for me to have the realizations that I have had so far, but is full enlightenment only possible at the suspension of all thought? After all, if the noumena is things as they are then any thought or intellectualization is an abstraction of what Is, right? Which would explain why enlightenment cannot be talked about because any description or interpretation of something is a conceptualization of reality. Am I the silence in which all other things can arise? 

I know this post may ask too many questions at once, but any guidance would be greatly appreciated, thank you!

[Telepresent]

24 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

but isn't the process of self inquiry intellectualizing it?

That's a very important question, and a difficult one to deal with.  I certainly find myself returning to it again and again to check my approach.  There's a very real risk of building a conceptual or intellectual model as a 'goal' or 'target', and calling that "enlightenment" (in fact, I'm willing to bet almost all of us on this forum do that almost all of the time).  Because that's how we typically understand things.  It's a problem calling the 'end result' a result, or enlightenment, or anything else, because as soon as you do that you've turned it into a mental object and you're dealing with that rather than what IS.

On the other hand, intellect and inquiry are incredibly useful for recognising what is not.  And that, for me, is the distinction: it's a process of using intellect to recognise the mental objects that I hold, seeing that they are not absolutes and are in fact concepts/structures/models, and seeing what's left when you look past them.  Then rinse and repeat.  In that process I continually make new mental models, and then have to rip them apart, which makes a new (but slightly smaller) model, which I then have to rip apart, which leaves a new model...

I'm not sure where this all leads but I've had a couple of glimpses of something behind the curtain, leading me to understand that it cannot be understood as a mental model.  The word "I", on the other hand, implies a mental model: an object or thing you can point at and say "that's it, there: that's 'me'!"  I'd suggest when you focus on "I", focus on what is not, and when you focus on what is, try not to label it (I, enlightenment, non-duality, whatever... they're all mind-objects)

Edited June 9, 2016 by Telepresent

[HereNowThisMoment]

@Telepresent Thank you for your detailed answer. 

Quote

There's a very real risk of building a conceptual or intellectual model, and calling that 'enlightenment'

Which is why I'm wondering if by labelling this moment as being what I am, I am just building a framework... but I can't find anything with the same degree of constancy as the underlying truth that this is this moment. 

Quote

 I'd suggest when you focus on "I", focus on what is not, and when you focus on what is, try not to label it (I, enlightenment, non-duality, whatever... they're all mind-objects)

This is a cool idea, but it seems a bit circumferential. I could go on endlessly labelling all the things that I think I am not ("I am not the plant I'm looking at, I am not the carpet under my feet, etc."). But then that contradicts with ideas of non-duality and by saying "I am not this" it creates a separation between "me" and "something other than me." So, in essence, even if I am thinking about what I am not, I am still labelling things in accordance to precepts. I don't know. After many, many hours spent doing self-inquiry I'm at the point where I think I'm just thinking too much about it haha and that what it really Is, is just the current reality that I find myself in without my egoic self bringing prior concepts/biases/thoughts/labels into it.

 

[Telepresent]

@HereNowThisMoment Yeah, I can see that.  It's tricky to get across quite what I mean, but I certainly agree that going around pointing out every object you see, hear, etc., and going "that's not me!" won't do very much.

I suppose what I mean is more mental than that; more internalised or personalised.  So...  when I focus on the idea of me, I do it based on the structures and definitions I've built up in my head.  A very simplified version might be ideas such as  "I am educated, I am English, I am capable but slightly lazy, I am left-wing, I have trouble with authority, I don't like rules, I have to have a job to be successful, I need to be seen to be smart", etc.  (The problem with stating them like this is it makes them look simple - they're more like a Gordian Knot of inter-related complexities).  And so when I start deconstructing 'me', determining what I am not, it is a process of untangling these mental definitions I've made for myself.  Definitions which come from all kinds of influences: parental instruction; cultural and societal rules; the limited understanding of the world I had when I was three or four years old which has been taken on as 'true'; what other people have told me I am (particularly when I was a teenager); what various pieces of paper (qualifications, or job history, or passport) define me as... none of these are existentially me, but for the most part when I refer to myself as a person, a conceptual object, it is these ideas that I refer to.

There is a whole other issue of body-vs-the rest of reality, and going around separating my physical body from, say, the cup I see or the keyboard I am touching very much labels things in a physical duality the way you say.  What I found helpful when attacking that issue was to take things one sense at a time: what do I see when I see?  What is sight made of?  Where is me/my body in sight, and where is everything else?  And what - if any - is the distinction between them?

All of this, of course, is not to say "I am / my approach is right" - I'm still working out this game myself!

35 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

Which is why I'm wondering if by labelling this moment as being what I am, I am just building a framework

You probably are.  But frameworks aren't de facto bad, or wrong, or anything else.  So long as you recognise them as frameworks, and don't treat them as absolutes.  The mind works by abstraction: it's how we understand anything.  The trick with this, of course, is that ultimately we're seeking not to understand existence, but to experience it.  However, if frameworks help to progress things, I don't think they're necessarily to be avoided.  Just dropped when the time is right.  I've played with a lot of frameworks which have helped me to see through some much deeper-entrenched frameworks (those ones that are effectively assumptions posing as FACT).  Seems to me that the importance in doing it is to remain aware that that is what you are doing, and not allow your new framework to take the position of FACT in your head... Awareness, awareness...

[HereNowThisMoment]

Ohhhh okay, I understand what you were referring to now. Yes, I've learned through this process that I am not the labels that I place on myself or the ones that other people place on me. So then is it fair to say that the only true description of the self is "I am?" Once all precepts are pared away all that is left is Being. Which again points to the self being nothing more than this moment, this current reality because if I am not the conceptual framework of my mind the only thing that is constant is Now (sorry to keep harping on this point, I don't know if I am just trapped or if this is It and that's what I'm trying to figure out.). 

In regards to the physical body vs. rest of reality, my understanding is that the body is just another object, but it is one that we happen to identify with. However, even as the body changes, grows old, and eventually dies the ultimate reality of the universe continues on (for example, in the grand scheme of things life and death is not really a big deal). Just as a thought has a birth, life, and death the body has the same. All things arise in and fade out of Now. So in "life" and "death"  there is change, but the stage in which it takes place, the ultimate reality of this moment always remains as this moment. Eckhart Tolle speaks about the inner body which remains radiant, vibrant, and alive as long as we are aware of it. So while the body will get older, the inner body will still have the same constant feeling (I have felt this sensation myself and it is inexplicably calming). He also speaks about how this inner body connects us more deeply into the Now. Similarly, Leo has said in a video something along the lines of "reality is only what is happening right now in my senses... if you realize that every moment is reality then you will become enlightened." Furthermore, in Peaceful Warrior, a film about enlightenment, Dan Millman has a narrative that says "Where are you? Here. What time is it? Now. What are you? This moment." (Fun fact that is what my username is in reference to haha). Reading "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind" also led me to the same conclusion that zazen, especially shikentaza is about being aware of this moment. Peter Ralston begins his book by talking about the profound realization he had that every moment is Now. I could go on but the point that I'm trying to get at is that in all cases the common thread that all of these spiritual works have is an emphasis on this moment. So how can I be anything else other than right Now? Please feel free to pull me out of this trap if that's what it is, but for what it's worth I've felt much more at peace ever since I came to this realization, but I don't know if that is nothing more than complacency. 

[cetus]

1 hour ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

But, is the true self something else? 

The true self is that which exists beyond our 9-5 self. Sometimes also referred to it as pure being,, atman, soul ect. It seems to an essence of self as just a silent observer to pure awareness that exists beyond personal identification. When the mind and all it's noise is transcended, all that remains is pure awareness/emptiness for all things to arise within.

 

1 hour ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

What is the difference between being "nothingness" and this moment?

 Nothingness is a field that surrounds everything within the moment. This field can be experienced really strong  after a deep meditation. Nothingness, pure awareness and existence within this moment are realized as one unified field.

 

1 hour ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

what exists within the framework of this moment does change constantly

Each moment is a still or snapshot that is static. The illusion of time flowing from past to future is stills strung together, one after another like a movie reel that allow for change from one static moment to the next.      *I understand that everything explained here is a conceptual framework, but sometimes it has to be digested by the conceptually thinking mind before it can be experienced directly.  I do that often.  BTW- "Zen Mind, Beginners Mind" is one of the first books I read about Zen. Good choice! "In the beginners mind there exists all possibilities".

[Telepresent]

28 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

sorry to keep harping on this point, I don't know if I am just trapped or if this is It and that's what I'm trying to figure out

No, please don't apologise: it's a heck of a wall to be knocking your head against!  A biggie, and I'm not nearly through it myself.  In a similar way, I'm knocking my head against "I", which is probably why I keep focusing on that part of the discussion!

Probably they're related.  The struggle I have with "I am" = the present moment is that there's still (in my head, at least) an implicit element of distillation/separation in the use of the word "I".  Always a label, always an idea.  But then it's pretty much impossible to write about without doing that, so... yeah... 

Have you addressed time at all?  As in, have you clarified for yourself what time IS?  What it actually is, versus what most people think it is?  Again, being and thinking are very different things, and time resides almost entirely in memory and future projection.  The reason I ask this is because Now means different things to different people, and I'm trying to gauge what your meaning/understanding/definition of Now is.  I think a lot of people fall into Now being a moment in time (hence the question "how can we remain in the moment if it's always slipping away?")  But I wonder if you've already dealt with that, seeing as you state:

28 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

for what it's worth I've felt much more at peace ever since I came to this realization, but I don't know if that is nothing more than complacency

Once I recognised - really recognised - that my concept of future was imaginary, and my concept of past was memory and no longer real, I calmed a great deal.  I wonder if you've done the same?

However, there's a third note to hit: what is Now?  What is the moment?  I'm still batting that around and I'm happy to keep knocking ideas about, but alas can't give a quick answer!  But let's look at a couple of things you've said.

28 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

the only thing that is constant is Now

Great, cool: we have a constant, and we're calling it Now.  What I'm investigating right now (no pun intended ) is "what is Now, and what is not Now?"  It can be very easy to look around and go "well everything that's here/happening is now, isn't it?"  But you've identified Now/the moment as a constant, and that means that almost everything (if not, in fact, everything you perceive) CANNOT BE THE CORE OF NOW, because they are all temporary.  So - for me - it's a question of stripping away again: take away everything that arises and disappears, and what is left?

(I recently started a thread called 'Energy' which addresses one of my thoughts about this)

But to return to your very first question:

2 hours ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

What is the difference between being "nothingness" and this moment? I realize that the egoic self is illusory, culturally conditioned, etc. but my realization was that my real self is this moment. Is "nothingness" just another way to describe this?

Maybe I'm interpreting you wrongly, and you're actually ahead of the things I've just written, but if not I wonder whether asking if "nothingness" and this moment are the same thing, is putting the cart before the horse.  One of the perennial issues I find in this work is a desire to understand, understand, understand: "is this that?", "oh, does that mean XYZ?" and so on.  Questions that are very useful as a process of inquiry, BUT if you actually get given an answer, then things may halt in their tracks.  I wonder here if you're asking this because you are striving to understand "nothingness"?  Trying to define it?  And if so, my only suggestion would be to focus on getting to the truth of what this moment is.  Once you have the truth of it, you will know whether or not it is the same as "nothingness".  And if not... well, there'll be a new question to ask!

Edited June 9, 2016 by Telepresent

[HereNowThisMoment]

@cetus56 Thank you! That really clears up a lot of things. "Each moment is a still or snapshot that is static." Mind blown. I never though about it like that. 

Conceptually the things that you said all make sense, so if I want to move deeper, should I stop trying to intellectualize things and just sit instead? What would you suggest I do?

[Telepresent]

37 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

In regards to the physical body vs. rest of reality, my understanding is that the body is just another object, but it is one that we happen to identify with.

Also, for some extra fun: what is an object?

[HereNowThisMoment]

@Telepresent Great post, thank you!

8 minutes ago, Telepresent said:

The struggle I have with "I am" = the present moment

See the thing is, I think the I in that statement is secondary. It's unnecessary. The moment can exist just as it is without needing to project oneself into it.  The focus of that statement is more on the Being aspect of it. "Am" implies present moment and exists without precept. 

 

12 minutes ago, Telepresent said:

Have you addressed time at all?  As in, have you clarified for yourself what time IS?

Yeah, this is one of the things that I've thought about quite a bit. There is the illusory nature of time that includes past and present in its context. For example, a weather forecast may say that it will rain at 3 PM today, but that is not real, it is a prediction/projection. I can think about what I had for breakfast this morning, but again that is a memory which can only exist as a conceptualization. So then that leaves us with this moment, in which reality occurs. cetus56 brought up a great point that these are all actually snapshots that are strung together which I hadn't thought about before. But this idea of time becomes convoluted because I also have to think about the difference between what is real in the moment. An object is tangible, so we call it real. A thought is intangible, so it is not real. I can think about a microwave and conceptualize it, but I can't use that thought to heat my food. I need the real object to do that. I'm going off on a tangent again haha

 

20 minutes ago, Telepresent said:

how can we remain in the moment if it's always slipping away?

Because if you are clinging on to any one moment then that is already in the past. It is experiencing each thing without holding onto any one thing. 

 

21 minutes ago, Telepresent said:

Once I recognised - really recognised - that my concept of future was imaginary, and my concept of past was memory and no longer real, I calmed a great deal.  I wonder if you've done the same?

This is exactly it. It got rid of unnecessary emotional baggage. More importantly it turned my actions from a means to an end to an end in and of themselves. By not being so attached to a vision of the future, I can focus more fully on what is right in front of me. I still have goals that I'm working towards, but I'm not as concerned about the fruits of the labor anymore. 

 

24 minutes ago, Telepresent said:

what is Now?  What is the moment?

Well, I guess that is the next question that I have to focus on because it is essentially the same as asking, "what is reality?" All I can say about that is, reality just is. Hahah very unsatisfactory answer I'm sure, but I don't think there's any way to describe what is real. I can describe what the plant in front of me looks like, but anything I can say is only a concept. The plant is the truth in and of itself. To think about it another way, it is like the park bench scene in Good Will Hunting. Robin Williams' character says something along the lines of "you have read about the Sistine Chapel, but can you tell me what it smells like?" There is no description for reality. Nothing that can fully capture the essence of what is true. 

 

28 minutes ago, Telepresent said:

But you've identified Now/the moment as a constant, and that means that almost everything (if not, in fact, everything you perceive) CANNOT BE THE CORE OF NOW

This is an excellent point. If we are holding that reality must be constant, then the only answer for that is a paradoxical one: nothing is constant. Everything changes. The only constant that can be is nothingness. Holy shit. Oh my. If everything is changing, then the only thing that is unchanging is nothing. 

 

31 minutes ago, Telepresent said:

 I wonder here if you're asking this because you are striving to understand "nothingness"?  Trying to define it?

Yeah, I think without realizing it that is exactly what I was trying to do. 

[HereNowThisMoment]

I'm a bit confused by what you mean that the essence does not change. If I am interpreting it correctly does it mean that if we take an infinitely small time point to be the Now, then in that instant there is no change? Like a time point so small (infinitely so) that it would mean that even the vibrations of the atoms are frozen, etc.? So that would mean that even what seems to be occurring Now is an illusion? For example, I'm looking out of my window right now and seeing leaves blowing in the wind. But the only way I can detect motion is based on knowing that in a previous instant the leaves were in a different position. So reality is actually a standstill?

[cetus]

What is infinite and boundless is found deep within the stillness of the moment. If you can step back and let there be only pure awareness of one sunset , you realize the awareness of infinite sunsets. Your labels of the conceptual mind break down as in "counting sunsets". Every sunset that has ever been and will ever be is happening within the moment. Everything melts into oneness/emptiness and all the remains is what is boundless and infinite. It opens that door where there no longer exists "this" or "that" or you or any constraints of the mind...

[HereNowThisMoment]

@cetus56 Is this practiced by observing stillness?

12 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

If you can step back and let there be only pure awareness of one sunset , you realize the awareness of infinite sunsets.

I'm going off on a tangent now, but is this kinda like what the koan "what is the sound of one hand clapping" refers to? One hand clapping makes no perceivable sound, but when two hands come together the sum is greater than its parts. It is out of silence that the sound seemingly arises out of nowhere. But is it actually that in the silence the sound always existed? In the same way, what we see as one sunset is actually every sunset that ever existed or ever will?

[HereNowThisMoment]

@Telepresent

1 hour ago, Telepresent said:

Also, for some extra fun: what is an object?

I would say that an object is anything that is tangible. To loosely quote Peter Ralston "I have a concept of a chair in my head, but I cannot sit on that." Basically, that's the difference between a thought (intangible/unreal) and an object (tangible/real). 

[cetus]

Koans are questions with no logical answer that are used to break the mind of it always wanting the answer to every question. Like breaking in a wild horse, it finally gets so exhausted it gives up.  At some point the mind totally gives up and surrenders causing a gap. Than true progress can be made when the student realizes how futile it is to use the logical thinking mind.  Allow pure awareness to be present as much as possible by becoming totally silent. It will consume what has never been true.

[HereNowThisMoment]

2 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

Allow pure awareness to be present as much as possible by becoming totally silent. It will consume what has never been true.

Great, thanks!

 

And that's good to know about koans, I haven't used koan practice much at all, but that one popped into my head for some reason when I read your earlier post. 

[cetus]

38 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

Great, thanks!

 

And that's good to know about koans, I haven't used koan practice much at all, but that one popped into my head for some reason when I read your earlier post. 

@HereNowThisMoment Here is something that I find very beneficial and is so effortless and natural. Every chance I get I will sit in nature in a secluded spot. Like the deep woods.  Maybe do some meditation to quiet the mind and than just sit quietly. In no time you will totally loose yourself and all that will remain is pure awareness of existence. It's like god is looking through your eyes. It may feel little freaky the first time, like your really letting go of yourself because you vanish as a self being the one doing the looking. Just rest as awareness and let it happen of it's own. It's great.

[HereNowThisMoment]

@cetus56 Awesome, I'll give that a try today!

[cetus]

31 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

@cetus56@HereNowThisMoment  Awesome, I'll give that a try today!

I would imagine meditating in a Zen garden would work really nice too.

[HereNowThisMoment]

 

Starting point huh? hahaha I thought that was already the point of realization

After becoming grounded in the emptiness and silence of Now, is that just a starting point for getting deeper into Now (i.e. deeper enlightenment)?