Difference Between Nothingness And This Moment?

[Leo Gura]

If you really are this moment, then when this moment disappears, do you disappear?

[HereNowThisMoment]

@Leo Gura

If I were to cling onto any one moment, even after it has passed, then that is the dysfunctional state that most people are in. That doesn't mean we disappear (not like "poof" I'm gone!), just that we are clinging to a false self (which, essentially means that the "true self" does disappear, so I guess the answer to that question is a convoluted yes). But to answer more directly: 

This moment = Now --> every moment is Now --> Now never disappears --> Now is the only constant --> Therefore I am Now

Edited June 9, 2016 by HereNowThisMoment
Expanded an idea

[Telepresent]

15 hours ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

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.

I like this.  "Am" prime.  Seems like a good way to look!

 

15 hours ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

An object is tangible, so we call it real. A thought is intangible, so it is not real.

I find the word 'real' becomes tricky when considering things this way.  It's the subjective/objective distinction, I think.  Subjectively, my thoughts are just as real as any other sensation: either perception (sight, sound, etc.), or bodily sensation.  The thought is here and that is indisputable.  But objectively, in the 'external' world, they don't have corporeal substance.  So what do we mean by 'real'?  Of course, this might lead us on a loop to say that 'real = tangible'.  But there's an argument to be made that all you can ever know for certain is that which you experience, in which case a thought - which you cannot deny you experience - is just as real as a sound, which you also cannot deny you experience.  Whether or not the sound is indicative of the actual corporeal existence of, say, a singing bird is irrelevant - the sound itself is real to you, right now.  So which is more real: the sound or the object it 'comes from'?

*EDIT* No, wait, hmm... I both agree and disagree with what I wrote there.  About thought, specifically.  It's... gah.  The thought is here and that is indesputable, but the content of the thought, that's something else entirely...

Edited June 10, 2016 by Telepresent

[HereNowThisMoment]

@Telepresent I agree with you that my original definition is a bit too black and white. For example, awareness itself is not a tangible thing but it is definitely very real or we would not be having this conversation right now. So to say that the only things that are real are those that are tangible, while unreal things are intangible was incomplete and a bit misleading. 

 

7 hours ago, Telepresent said:

But there's an argument to be made that all you can ever know for certain is that which you experience, in which case a thought - which you cannot deny you experience - is just as real as a sound, which you also cannot deny you experience.

They are both experiences, however, a thought is conceptually derived while a sound is true in and of itself. They both feel very real. But a thought can be changed anyway you want it to be changed (For example, I can think that I can fly but that does make that real). The sound, on the other hand, exists as what Is. 

[Saarah]

@HereNowThisMoment if you are the ever present now is that not the same thing as saying you're ever present awareness (of the contents of the now) which is what Leo describes the Nothing to be if I remember correctly, so maybe you're reaching the same idea 

[HereNowThisMoment]

I'm wrapping my head around it but that description (kinda) makes sense haha! I also love that Buddhist saying, but it's definitely easier said than experienced lol 

@Saarah Maybe, I am beginning to question myself on whether they are the same thing. Logically, that statement makes sense, and maybe that is it. But after ruminating on this topic for a couple of days I don't think it's the whole picture, at least not at my current level of understanding. Anything that I am perceiving (or not perceiving) now is still biased. The things that I have a positive or negative response towards go noticed in the Now while all other things do not. As Peter Ralston would put it, my perceptions plus my mind experience effects as a result of an ongoing need for self-survival. I've fought the notion that enlightenment cannot be experienced logically for a long time, but the only way for me to dig deeper is to let go. I've been clinging to this answer, but it's not a complete experience of Being. No logical statement is. Must keep looking! 

[Ayla]

The only difference between this moment and "nothingness" is the direct experience. What I mean by direct experience is the physical senses, with no meaning (of the neuronal paths) attached.

In other words, remove what it is felt through body and what it is thought through mind. That is nothingness... and that is who you really are  

[HereNowThisMoment]

@Ayla Thanks! That's basically what I figured it was too, until I read a bit more of Peter Ralston's stuff and saw the differentiation between things related to self (which is how most people perceive things), things for-itself (which is what you described), and things as-itself. So the direct experience of a thing can be had by not attaching any meaning to it, but I'm still trying to experience that layer of things "as-itself."