Infinite Nothingness vs Infinite Mind

[James123]

13 minutes ago, Adamq8 said:

so the Truth would be that, TRULY NON EXISTENT is not possible.

Possible. If you have no thoughts even 20 minutes during the day, you will get it. It will be like completely sleeping. Because if there is no thoughts, there is no seer, experiencer, experience or world. Just “being”. When “you” even think for a mini second or say even a word, it comes from so called “mind”.

13 minutes ago, zeroISinfinity said:

Well you will have to actually die.

You are already death. Just so called thought process makes “you” alive. Because, you keep thinking. Just dont think. Than “you” see. 

Edited January 9, 2021 by James123

[BipolarGrowth]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Here you've already fucked up.

Infinite Nothingness is NOT zero colors and zero consciousness. It is precisely all colors and your present experience.

Stop thinking that Nothingness is lack of experience.

Experience = Nothingness

Nothingness is identical to somethingness.

From the perspective of a nondual experience, you’re right, but these insights lose all value once you use the English language to describe them. 
 

In the framework of the English language, which we are using, the statement Experience = Nothingness means as much as taco cat = fat bear. By definition in English, neither is true or makes any sense as things that are clearly not the same are being said to be the same. 
 

Now I’m seeing more clearly why spirituality does not make any sense yet is the most true thing there is. No wonder Zen Buddhists used koans to create enlightenment in students. 
 

“What is Buddha?” and its answer, “Three pounds of flax.” Makes just as much sense as Experience = Nothingness 

[BipolarGrowth]

16 minutes ago, Adamq8 said:

Thats what iam pointing to, just that the NOTHINGNESS iam speaking about, is non existent. 

so the Truth would be that, TRULY NON EXISTENT is not possible.

so truth is that everything IS and will always BE.'

then we can conclude that nothing=something.

Existence IS and there is no opposite to it, non existence exists as non existent.

That’s not what you’re pointing to imo. You are using the accepted definition of nothingness which does not align with what he is saying as he is using a completely different definition. 
 

“so truth is that everything IS and will always BE.” 
 

Dude, go grab a piece of paper and a lighter. Take the THING that IS your piece of paper. Right now, it’s a thing. Right now, it IS. Use your lighter to catch the paper on fire. Soon you’ll have some ashes in front of you. Is that thing that was the piece of paper still IS’ing anymore? No. The piece of paper is completely eradicated from your direct experience. There is a different thing now IS’ing in front of you. The ashes. Is the paper still IS’ing out there in some unverifiable spirit realm designated for college-ruled papers only? Maybe. That’s the only shot the paper has at still BE’ing. You’ll likely never know one way or the other. If everything, literally separate the two words for simplicity in understanding, there’s every and thing. Every = all. Thing = any object, person, place, etc. Every thing will certainly not always BE. The very nature of the reality is for things to constantly be morphing into other things which constantly makes the previous forms no longer existent. 
 

Existence IS. Yes, you’re right. There’s no opposite to it? There’s no way to verify this either way for nonexistence literally, by definition, is the state of not IS’ing. 

[Adamq8]

8 minutes ago, BipolarGrowth said:

That’s not what you’re pointing to imo. You are using the accepted definition of nothingness which does not align with what he is saying as he is using a completely different definition. 
 

“so truth is that everything IS and will always BE.” 
 

Dude, go grab a piece of paper and a lighter. Take the THING that IS your piece of paper. Right now, it’s a thing. Right now, it IS. Use your lighter to catch the paper on fire. Soon you’ll have some ashes in front of you. Is that thing that was the piece of paper still IS’ing anymore? No. The piece of paper is completely eradicated from your direct experience. There is a different thing now IS’ing in front of you. The ashes. Is the paper still IS’ing out there in some unverifiable spirit realm designated for college-ruled papers only? Maybe. That’s the only shot the paper has at still BE’ing. You’ll likely never know one way or the other. If everything, literally separate the two words for simplicity in understanding, there’s every and thing. Every = all. Thing = any object, person, place, etc. Every thing will certainly not always BE. The very nature of the reality is for things to constantly be morphing into other things which constantly makes the previous forms no longer existent. 
 

Existence IS. Yes, you’re right. There’s no opposite to it? There’s no way to verify this either way for nonexistence literally, by definition, is the state of not IS’ing. 

Im talking about the fabric of existence = Ising, ofcourse objects is not infinite in that way.

But lets presuppose that non existence is true, how can ising arise out of non ising?

And if non existence is true, that means that ising perhaps came first but you will go to non ising and you will never ever return, dead and gone forever.

does that make sense at all?

Existence IS but is not dependent on the content it displays i would say.

IF non existence was real and is truth, then there wouldn't be conciousness either.

and WHY do we have the possibility of realizing infinity if this was not the case?

Why can we realize our immortal nature?

non existence is not immortality it is nothing forever.

So a " relative" nothing is possible ofcourse but it also everything.

IF you get what i mean here?

[VeganAwake]

An Empty Answer

"You want me to “say more” about nothingness. Could anything be more paradoxical for the reader than to try to understand “nothing”?

Why? Because most people start from the conviction that there is something which does exist; if nothing more, at least “me”.

So, you will not likely appreciate nothingness unless you have come to realization through advaita. At least we will, then, begin without the assumption that a “me” really exists.

But even for the realized advatin, there will almost certainly be a presumption that “something” exists in the realm of reality. Even “reality”.

Advaita points to ajata, and ajata is about nothingness, or emptiness. The Diamond Sutra of Buddhism, points exclusively to it. Hui Neng, the Sixth Chinese Patriarch, declares flatly: ‘There is nothing from the start.” These sources, among others, set your foot on the path, but recognize that most people are then going to immediately be lost.

I have written clearly about advaita, and several have understood what I’ve said. I have spoken, to some of these, about what lies beyond the “Absolute,” and a couple have understood. So I will try to explain it, as best I can.

The “ultimate condition” (if any) is nothingness, the complete “absence” of anything—no thing, of any possible description.

The (approximate) comprehension of this would be to conceive of “emptiness”, as the emptiness of which not anything could be emptied; pure unassociated emptiness, and not even an emptiness which is within some imagined boundaries.

The word “void” could be applied; but this “actuality” is not void of something—in any positive sense.

So the nothingness of which we speak is totally empty, free of any subtlety which could even be envisioned.

Hence there is not anything “within” it that can be subject to any kind of movement, or even change.

Not anything can “come from” nothingness, nor “return” to it. It is not the “origin” of anything.

In fact, it could not be applicable to say that it exists, or does not exist. Thus we can’t say that this is the “beginning” condition or the “ending” condition. At best, we could say that (if it were “existent”) it would be the ever-present condition.

Yet, it is not an abstraction: its presence is “eternal”.

“In” its presence are supposed creatures, and the world and universe they seem to inhabit. But all of these supposed things are “in” nothingness. They have not appeared from nothingness, or out of nothingness, or because of nothingness. In fact, they have not actually “appeared”, except as nothingness.

The creatures take their reality, their “existence”, for granted; and thus also the reality or existence of the world and its universe—not knowing that they are nothing.

The assumption is: ‘There was a time when I didn’t exist, a time when I existed, and a time when I will no longer exist”. But there are no such times. Not anything has ever “existed”, from the standpoint of nothingness. In nothingness, there is no “time”.

What makes this so difficult to understand, is that because we say that “I have existed”, we conclude that there is some thing. And indeed we look around and say there are other things, such as a world or a universe.

But the presumption that there was a time when I did not exist (or do; or will not exist) is false: no arising, abiding or decaying exists in nothingness. In other words, not anything “happens” in nothingness.

“We” are nothing, the “world” is nothing, the “universe” is nothing. In nothingness, there is neither existence nor nonexistence. There is only nothing.

From the standpoint of nothingness, no questions can arise. We can not ask for, nor expect, an explanation: not anything ever happens, in nothingness.

The value of this understanding is that not anything really matters. Even understanding this does not matter. All is emptiness. That is the “empty” answer.

The scriptures speak of one who is in sahaja samadhi as having “no mind” or an “empty mind”. It is this appreciation of nothingness that is referred to.

 

Contemplation on Emptiness

Ajata has the same basis as advaita. Instead of pointing out that all things are the Absolute, ajata asks the question, “What is true nature of the Absolute”? The Absolute’s nature is empty of any qualities whatsoever: It is emptiness.

Any name which we have given to anything tells us that it is a form, and that means that this form has simply been given its identity by thought.

Even the notion of “existence” itself depends upon a mind to give it acknowledgement as a particular quality. But does a mind actually exist?

In advaita, we have been saying that all manifestations are the Absolute. In ajata, we’re going further and saying that the Absolute is empty. All manifestations, of whatever kind, are empty.

Advaita says that the Absolute is all that is. Ajata says there’s not even the Absolute. Ajata is just a matter of going beyond the idea of the Absolute, recognizing that it is no thing, nothing.

Advaita teaches that you are not real. And ajata, that all that is seen is not real either.

If the self is you, there is one you. If the mind is you, there are two yous. Can the mind exist without you?

To know that the self is empty, and that there is no I, does not prevent the organism from living out its apparent role.

To the extent that we have had a dream, we say that it is “real”. But as a tangible form or object, we know that it is not real.

When you dream, dream figures are present. But upon waking, you do not inquire into the health or activities of the dream figures.

When we know that we do not exist, nor does the world, there is not anything which needs to be changed or improved.

If in a dream someone told you “Don’t believe anything you see going on here—it’s all simply being presented to fool you”, would you take this to be the truth?

Every thought is about something which the mind has given a name to. What is the value of a thought when we can know that every name is simply an arbitrary creation?

When you know that ‘what is’ is not, does this have an important impact on how you live your life?

Emptiness is as important a factor in your life, as your life is to you.

In advaita, we say you are not who you think you are. In ajata, we say not anything is as it appears to be.

Emptiness is not form: it is the condition which indicates that form does not exist as it appears to.

There are no forms in our deep sleep. Emptiness is there.

We have to use words—which are unreal—to explain emptiness. We must talk about forms, in order to indicate their emptiness. But, in reality, there are no forms.

The face in the mirror appears to really be a face. But it is empty of true existence. Foolishly would we attempt to defend its realness.

When we speak of emptiness, we are saying that something is empty. That is the role of the “something”, to be empty. But if all things are empty, where is emptiness? Emptiness does not “exist”.

The I does not truly exist. It appears to exist. So—from the standpoint of its appearance—we say that it “exists”. But, from the standpoint of truth, we say that it does not exist.

There is not anything which your mind is apart from: everything depends on your mind. And yet, your mind is simply one of those things.

Empty yourself of all ideas of ‘what is’ and/or ‘what is not’.

Where there is no I, there is no other-than-I. As surely as you know that there’s no I, you know that there’s no thing.

Advaita says you are the Absolute. When the seeker (you) and the sought (Absolute) disappear into each other, what is left? Nothing. In the same way, ajata’s teaching is that emptiness itself is empty.

Even emptiness does not truly exist. This is why, in advaita, it’s said that there is not anything to realize.

There is not any thing that is real. And what is not real cannot arise to become existent.

Anything which could arise into existence must be caused. But all causes themselves are empty, as are any other phenomenon.

Only if phenomena were real would we need to explain its “existence” or lack of it.

The philosophy of nihilism does not apply here. There is no truly existent self that can hold any view.

In advaita, we often speak of the dualities, such as me and you, right and wrong. In ajata, no dualities exist as real, from the start.

A sky must exist in a space. A space needs something to define it. Each is dependent upon another for its reality. As independent realities, neither can exist.

Except for there being the cause of form, 
Form would not be seen. 
Except for there being what we call “form,” 
The cause of form would not appear either.

                    —Nagarjuna
 

Taking yourself to be more than an appearance, you assume your world is real also, and more than an appearance. But a non-existent you can only be seeing a non-existent world.

We establish a presumed universe, and then ask “How can we say that this is a void?”

Impermanence means that everything is in change constantly, moment by moment. No thing, in fact truly exists as a fixed “thing”, at any time.

If there is a time that had a beginning somewhere, then time can come to an end. Time, then, is not a lasting reality.

Since you do not exist, you cannot ask, “How am I here?”, because in reality you aren’t.

You appear to be real, to an unreal you—as the you in a dream takes its reality for granted.

If you were in deep sleep, where “you” and your “mind” do not appear;, and the heart stopped: would you know that you had died?

Come to know that there is no death, and therefore nothing after it (especially a sensate “individual”) and you will end such questions as “what comes after death?”

If there were a non-emptiness of emptiness, it would be where we impute any qualities to emptiness.

An actor can have the knowledge that he is not real, and that the character whose role he is playing has never been, and yet he can play out the role he is living as his life.

When you “get” emptiness, you need not concern yourself about anything that preceded emptiness.

The world is a dream. You who say it exists is saying so within that dream.

A figure in a dream is entertained by a magic-show world. What becomes of the dream figure and the world when the dream ends?

When you close your eyes for the last time, this will all disappear. The slate will be wiped clean. You may say, “But it will be there for others”. No: the others disappear with you, not anything remains. So is the world real or did it appear when you opened your eyes—and ends when you die? If the world is not real, are you real?

Any answers we can get to erroneous questions, will be erroneous answers.

The world is an illusion. Yet here it is—as an illusion.

You say the mind is real because we both experience it. No, if it were real we would both have the same experience of the mind. And if the world were real, we would both have the same experience of the world. Anything that’s real must be real to both of us in the same way.

Since there is no self, there is no mind. And because there is no mind, there is no perception or consciousness of a world or universe. There are, therefore, no legitimate questions about anything.

“No mind” is the consequence of the realization of emptiness.

Emptiness tells us that there’s not anything we need to get. Anything we could get would be empty. The getter itself is empty. Where there is nothing we need to get, there is nothing we can become. All that could remain is to be as you are—empty.

When you get to nothing, there’s no further to go.

When you can end all of your problems—as well as the world’s—peacefully, why concern yourself with how that came about?

Do the wise abide somewhere between self and no-self? The wise do not abide.

If you insist on having a meaningful explanation, then you’re not understanding emptiness.

“Phenomenon” are not empty because of emptiness. Emptiness is what phenomenon are.

“Nothing can come from nothing.”

—Lucret

 

- Ajata Project Robert Wolfe

 

Edited January 9, 2021 by VeganAwake

[Adamq8]

@VeganAwake Okey.

So this is a dream and after it everything is gone forever like nothing ever existed.

Then how did it arise from the first place?

The dream just appeared i guess.

And the thing he says about that we don't see the same world, well we do, how can we see the same objects?

I feel that this teaching is not fully the truth.

but i might be delusional.

But this does not say anything about anything.

Why is there alot of different teachings?

Why do some people claim GOD IS others claim this is nothing , nothing ever happend, there is no conciousness no mind no person no universe no objects.

So if " existence" is an illusion and has not arisen, why have it arisen like this? cause to deny it seem to me a bullshit thing to say.

Why is there order to things?

Why is things the way it is?

And why can we reach conclusions that fit together with alot of people's experiences and mind?

And if nothing comes from nothing, this is nothing and nothing is dreaming existence?

Time arise out of no time.

alot of enlightened people and so forth claim the opposite of this as well.

That nothing is fullness.

But i guess we will all see in the end when death is here.

SO reality is a dream, then it is imagination.

So nothing can imagine a dream with different worlds, what is it that imagines the dream?

How can we imagine anything if nothing is always?

The organism apparently act like it exists, like all other thing in the " universe " 

How has robert wolfe experienced something outside of the Absolute?

so he can claim this things?

IS it not possible that he imagines that he has left the dream but it is still within the dream, cause remember "he" knows nothing other then the dream.

so in the dream it is possible to go beyond the Absolute.

Well everything is imaginary apparently.

But here he claims to know exactly what happens after "death" 

He wouldn't be here to tell us about if he has gone beyond the Absolute.

Can you see where im coming from here?

like i said i might be delusional.

And if nothing and so forth is causeless, then the dream must be causeless or it is caused by nothing?

We can keep deconstructing what he is saying aswell..

but hey im open to the possibility that he is right, but it does not fit anywhere for me in my own experiences.

We can talk about being no person and emptyness, i know that my " personality" is only thoughts, there is also thoughts when im writing this, thought wanna know thought lol.

But he is using thoughts as well.

Edited January 9, 2021 by Adamq8

[VeganAwake]

4 minutes ago, Adamq8 said:

@VeganAwake Okey.

So this is a dream and after it everything is gone forever like nothing ever existed.

Then how did it arise from the first place?

The dream just appeared i guess.

And the thing he says about that we don't see the same world, well we do, how can we see the same objects?

I feel that this teaching is not fully the truth.

but i might be delusional.

But this does not say anything about anything.

Why is there alot of different teachings?

Why do some people claim GOD IS others claim this is nothing , nothing ever happend, there is no conciousness no mind no person no universe no objects.

So if " existence" is an illusion and has not arisen, why have it arisen like this? cause to deny it seem to me a bullshit thing to say.

Why is there order to things?

Why is things the way it is?

And why can we reach conclusions that fit together with alot of people's experiences and mind?

And if nothing comes from nothing, this is nothing and nothing is dreaming existence?

Time arise out of no time.

alot of enlightened people and so forth claim the opposite of this as well.

That nothing is fullness.

But i guess we will all see in the end when death is here.

SO reality is a dream, then it is imagination.

So nothing can imagine a dream?

How has robert wolfe experienced something outside of the Absolute?

so he can claim this things?

IS it not possible that he thinks he has existed the dream but it is still within the dream, cause remember he knows nothing other then the dream.

so in the dream it is possible to go beyond the Absolute.

Well everything is imaginary apparently.

But here he claims to know exactly what happens after "death" 

He wouldn't be here to tell us about if he has gone beyond the Absolute.

Can you see where im coming from here?

like i said i might be delusional.

 

LOOK and find out who "YOU" are that wants to know.

Starting from a misunderstanding or skewed assumption will only further the confusion.

Kind of like looking for a needle in a haystack when all along there never was a needle.

"The greatest obstacle to Discovery is not ignorance, it's the illusion of knowledge"

Empty the glass completely ❤

[Someone here]

@Adamq8 if you assume something and nothing are different.. Then a problem arises.. How come there is something rather than nothing??? And forget about it.. There is no fucking answer.  However.. If you realize that something literally is nothing.  There is no mystery. 

Form is empty. Emptiness is form. 

Edited January 9, 2021 by Someone here

[Adamq8]

12 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Adamq8 if you assume something and nothing are different.. Then a problem arises.. How come there is something rather than nothing??? And forget about it.. There is no fucking answer.  However.. If you realize that something literally is nothing.  There is no mystery. 

Form is empty. Emptiness is form. 

That is what iam pointing to, that this is nothing cause LITERAL NOTHING does not exist.

Atleast thats how i see it.

This nothing=something.

so they are one and the same.

i just mean that existence IS.

even if it can " seem" " non existent" it is actually existence.

GOD is nothingness in that sense, always been always will be in one way or another.

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, Adamq8 said:

Thats what iam pointing to, just that the NOTHINGNESS iam speaking about, is non existent. 

so the Truth would be that, TRULY NON EXISTENT is not possible.

so truth is that everything IS and will always BE.'

then we can conclude that nothing=something.

Existence IS and there is no opposite to it, non existence exists as non existent.

Of course non-existence is imaginary.

[ajai]

@Leo Gura Sir, I would like to ask a question:

Can there be an understanding without experience?

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, ajai said:

@Leo Gura Sir, I would like to ask a question:

Can there be an understanding without experience?

I don't know what you mean.

[ajai]

13 minutes ago, ajai said:

Can there be an understanding without experience?

In other words,

Is it only experience, the only medium, for a Human Being to possibly know everything, experience has nothing to do with knowing the Absolute I mean!

The basis of any experience are Senses and Mind i.e various physiological or psychological processes , isn't it?

[Leo Gura]

17 minutes ago, ajai said:

In other words,

Is it only experience, the only medium, for a Human Being to possibly know everything, experience has nothing to do with knowing the Absolute I mean!

The basis of any experience are Senses and Mind i.e various physiological or psychological processes , isn't it?

This really depends on how you define your terms.

"Experience" and "understanding" are tricky relative terms and people use them differently. You can't treat them as simple things that all agree upon.

When I say "experience" I basically mean everything possible. In the way I use the word, enlightenment is still an experience. The Absolute is still experience.

It's very problematic when you create a duality between experience vs the Absolute, as if they are two separate things. By definition the Absolute must include experience as well since Absolute is everything and one.

Or, another way to frame it is like this: there is dualistic experience of the ego-mind and then there is nondual experience without an ego-mind. When spiritual teachers speak negatively about experience what they really mean is the dualistic ego-mind kind of experience.

[ajai]

22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

By definition the Absolute must include experience as well since Absolute is everything and one.

You came here on point, Sir,

It's only this I find very problematic, that which is One and everything, it encapsulates all, okay! good,

but when it is about an organic separate(here Human) grasping that Absolute by means of that which is "part" of Absolute, like in this case, experience, seems impossible, since it might be a part of one Absolute, but it is not the ABSOLUTE,

My hand is a part of my body but it is not the Body, so-to speak.

Also, just like the limitations of Logic to understand or know it-All.

Anyway, I see myself going into the realm of Duality again, and maybe it's just the game of unnecessary distinctions.

 

Edited January 9, 2021 by ajai

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, ajai said:

but when it is about an organic separate(here Human) grasping that Absolute by means of that which is "part" of Absolute, like in this case, experience, seems impossible, since it might be a part of one Absolute, but it is not the ABSOLUTE,

My hand is a part of my body but it is not the Body, so-to speak.

Again, it gets a bit tricky here given the dualistic and limited nature of language. But...

Your hand is not just a part of your body. Your hand IS the body!

Experience is not just part of the Absolute. It IS the Absolute. Although of course the Absolute is not limited to any particular experience. Experience has infinite range and diversity.

Yes, it's paradoxical and strange-loopy.

[ajai]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Experience has infinite range and diversity.

Yesh, I agree.

But just like, and it will be my last question in this regard,

Just like here, you mentioned,

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Your hand is not just a part of your body. Your hand IS the body!

Isn't it just imagination, like death or anything else is?

[ajai]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, it's paradoxical and strange-loopy.

Yeah!

 

[Leo Gura]

40 minutes ago, ajai said:

Yesh, I agree.

But just like, and it will be my last question in this regard,

Just like here, you mentioned,

Isn't it just imagination, like death or anything else is?

Your physical hand is imaginary, but imagination is Absolute Truth.

[Inliytened1]

@ajai i like the finger / hand analogy.  Look at one of your fingers.   Acknowledge it or become conscious thar it is the finger.  Now shift your consciousness and understand that it is the whole hand.  Do you see how it is the finger or the hand based on what perspective it takes?   This is why reality is Perspectival.  God can shift perspectives or states of consciousness but it is still One.  It can narrow itself down to the finger or it can expand to the whole hand.  Of course the hand is not Actual Infinity but it's a really good analogy which shows how Infinity can expand and contract.  That's what's its doing when it's looking through your eyes...its being the finger..