Are there any religions/philosophies where literal nothingness is fundamental?

[RMQualtrough]

A user here, @Mason Riggle, wrote something which has now been deleted, describing the mechanism via which everythingness arises from literal absolute total nothingness (if I understood him correctly).

The mechanism was about how in absolute nothing there is no such thing as limit or boundary and followed from there, that nothingness can be anything because it's without limit.

This to me was very strong. I have attempted to find religions or philosophies which expand upon or share this idea, but every time I find someone who says "nothing" they mean a something. Including physicists with their BS "nothing" (actually quantum fluctation), pushed as literal nothing due to the ulterior motive of attempting to rek Theists.

So is there anything at all which lays down literal, absolute, total nothingness as necessitating infinite everythingness?

If so would be very curious to read upon that.

[Nahm]

Even ‘can be anything’ would be a limit. 

38 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

So is there anything at all which lays down literal, absolute, total nothingness as necessitating infinite everythingness?

Yes, pretty much every religion. God = no thing, nothing, nothingness. But then likewise “necessitating infinite everything ness” is a self imposed limit. If there is a nothing, that is a duality. If not, there isn’t. 

[RMQualtrough]

@Nahm Usually they say nothing then later are like "the nothing is consciousness", which isn't actually literal nothingness (since consciousness is something which exists). I am searching for total non-existence as fundamental.

Infinite everythingness is rather the opposite of limitation I feel? Unlimited things it can be. To me it feels like nothing having to REMAIN as nothing would be a limit. Nothingness without limitation or boundary on the other hand can be anything as there's nothing stopping it from doing so, and no finite boundary to stop it from being infinite and as such then being everything?

[allislove]

It's like the whole universe whispers about it but we won't listen. You can find the pointers in any book if the eyes wide-open. Investigate the nature of "I"-thought, investigate who really wrote any book.

[Nahm]

10 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

I am searching for total non-existence as fundamental.

How would ya know if ya found it, since what is said to be potentially found - does not exist by definition of the inquiry? 

[RMQualtrough]

5 minutes ago, Nahm said:

How would ya know if ya found it, since what is said to be potentially found - does not exist by definition of the inquiry? 

You couldn't ever find it, only by inference. What is observer without observed? Some Buddhist traditions tie the two together for the reasoning that they are necessary as a pair (I may be wrong?).

We can say for example that a rock is consciousness (as are landscapes in our dreams), but prior to relative experience, if we envision a universe of nothing but rocks, the observer is dormant as we would be in deep sleep or under general anaesthetic. But these things and this universe still exist.

It seems more basic if awareness is a property OF the nothing, that can go into and out of "deep sleep". When there is experience it wakes up, when there is no experience it rests. That way there is no "what caused THAT to exist?" because it is a something, and people like somethings to have an explanation. Nothingness does not need an explanation for how it exists, because it doesn't.

It ties up some things neatly. I like this theory presently but I am subject to change a lot (lol).

[Nahm]

17 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

You couldn't ever find it, only by inference.

But even by inference… what literally does not exist (nonexistence) simply isn’t, and can not even be inferred.

17 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

What is observer without observed? Some Buddhist traditions tie the two together for the reasoning that they are necessary as a pair (I may be wrong?).

“If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound?” Points to that the tree, ear & sound are all (equally / parallel) vibration. There is no duality of observer / observed. There is no ‘the two together’, the seeming two are One. 

17 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

We can say for example that a rock is consciousness (as are landscapes in our dreams), but prior to relative experience, if we envision a universe of nothing but rocks, the observer is dormant as we would be in deep sleep or under general anaesthetic. But these things and this universe still exist.

Same factor… there is no observer, only the thought that there is. Scrutinize direct experience… is that thought - ‘that there is an observed’ - that very thought ‘itself’… is it ‘observed’ in any separate manor really? Is there a separation of any kind present? 

Is there the direct experience of a ‘dormant observer’ in deep sleep or an aesthetic? Or is there the hindsight thought / assumption that there is?

Not that there is a separate body mind, but analogously… if the body mind so to speak, RMQualtrough, right now appeared as John Doe… the thought might arise ‘for’ ‘John Doe’ - where did RMQualtrough go? 

Another approach… what you’re saying about deep sleep and an aesthetic isn’t evidence for an observer which is dormant, but is evidence that there really is no ‘time’. No time passed… but if it is believed time passed… then the mind if you will, fills in with an explanation, for that which is unexplainable & being the very explanation and mind it’s arising in. 

17 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

It seems more basic if awareness is a property OF the nothing, that can go into and out of "deep sleep". When there is experience it wakes up, when there is no experience it rests. That way there is no "what caused THAT to exist?" because it is a something, and people like somethings to have an explanation. Nothingness does not need an explanation for how it exists, because it doesn't.

It ties up some things neatly. I like this theory presently but I am subject to change a lot (lol).

If nothing is said to have a property it is not being said to be nothing. What is not two of course can not - does not even know - ‘sleep’. Asleep & awake are a mental duality. All “awakening” and or “awakenings” is / are mental duality, thought attachment, monkey mind (a bit extreme language for emphasis). Finger & moon situation. God be’s by not being and sleeps by not sleeping. 

Also, if it is said awareness comes and goes in any way or manor… and that is based on direct experience… then what is being said is that awareness is aware of awareness coming & going, thus awareness doesn’t / isn’t coming & going. 

 

 

[RMQualtrough]

@Nahm The foundation is what I am trying to say is literal nothingness. Everything exists there all at once by the mechanism outlined by Mason. From Nothing comes Everything I think... Things don't come and go because there's only one thing fundamentally where infinity resides. Which is this nothing/everything conglomerate.

I heard someone verbalize a similar idea. That intuitively we BELIEVE we come out of reality into a dream and then into deep sleep. But they proposed it is the other way round, and deep sleep is in fact the natural state where we in fact always are and all things are.

That seems correct.

Why that deep sleep cannot be literal nothingness (which is literal everythingness at the same time, that is the catch) I'm not sure. I like the loose ends tied up if it in fact is that way.

I have heard some other users discuss similar thoughts but I am not sure what religion or philosophy reflects such a thing.

I don't know why it has to be consciousness and why consciousness cannot merely be one of the infinite things "it" is. That is, all things exist simultaneously from this source.

Similar to neutral monism.

NOT the same as it but similar.

It is still possible to have mind prior to matter. And the underlying something is just "____". There's no term. Just a literal nothingness which is an everythingness.

Edited June 15, 2021 by RMQualtrough

[VeganAwake]

"Taoism and Buddhism believe that the universe is created or originated from "Nothingness" or "Emptiness". It is interesting that the modern science also proposed that there is "nothing" before the creation of universe. ie. Before time and space exist, there is "nothing".

Buddha had all sorts of quotes on emptiness or nothingness.

Jainism also points to nothingness as ultimate reality.

Check out: AjataSunyata project by Robert Wolfe

❤

[RMQualtrough]

I found this by Alan Watts:

Which seems similar. I see he followed Buddhist teachings.

That sounds like the Nothingness/Everythingness I mean. I see why it might be labelled consciousness considering it is impossible for humans to experience anything outside of our relative viewpoint (even in a void trip).

But why should consciousness not merely be something that the everything IS. Rather than the everything being something consciousness is?

[Nahm]

@RMQualtrough

Might sound redundant or even critical, not meant that way… if everything is said to come from nothing, or if nothingness is a foundation, then these are properties, features, facets, aspects, etc, and nothing is no longer nothing, but is now misappropriated as “that which” is two, -and- has properties, features, facets, aspects, etc. (As pointings of course, great, no ‘issue’.)

If there is one thing in or by which infinity resides, then there is either not that one thing, or there is not infinity, or there is neither… but by definition there can’t be both. 

Yes on the “deep sleep” pointing. When one is “awake” God is asleep, so to speak, so all “awakenings” are seen as delusion / duality. That appears to be a very ‘way down the path’ comment or perspective, but that is the ‘sneakiness’ (if you will) of now, or we might say, of now vs experience, in the opening the door sense to identifying by “a past” or “a future”. 

37 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

Why that deep sleep cannot be literal nothingness

Because deep sleep is being said to be a property of nothingness, which is then no longer nothingness. Even ‘literal’ upon nothingness implies a ‘not literal’. Otherwise, if I am caught up in language here and that is precisely what you’re saying, then just - yep. 

37 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

I don't know why it has to be consciousness and why consciousness cannot merely be one of the infinite things "it" is. That is, all things exist simultaneously from this source

Because ‘it’ is never things, ‘consciousness’ is kind of the ultimate pointer, such that consciousness can inspect and realize there is no actuality of separation / things. Also, consciousness, or awareness, points to the most prior, and then the label also goes. What is or would therefore be aware of awareness, or conscious of this consciousness (minus the dualistic implication via language there).

Also - the instant consciousness realizes it is consciousness which can never come, go, awaken, fall asleep, yada yada, eternity is ‘realized’. 

37 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

It is still possible to have mind prior to matter. And the underlying something is just "____". There's no term. Just a literal nothingness which is an everythingness.

Even ‘the underlying’ must go. 

It is not possible to have mind before matter. Matter = Mind. Mind = matter.  ‘Matter’ is just a thought, a label. Inevitably, so too is Mind, as in finite and or infinite. Points back to the ultimate pointing of “consciousness’. Again though, might be saying the same thing here… and also, me saying whatever seems to be being said must also be ‘seen through’ / cancelled out. Not a word of it is true. It’s literally being made up ‘on the fly’. 

 

Edit: reply to your last comment… there are no “humans”…there is no “relative viewpoint”… there is no “void”! 

That is all consciousness… and even that label (consciousness) must go. 

 

 

[RMQualtrough]

@VeganAwake Thanks for your recommendations. I just found Alan Watts before seeing your post, who has many many videos on this, and I see that is Buddhism. I already knew of him but had not gone into his work.

I was not aware of Jainism.

[VeganAwake]

@RMQualtrough

 

[Nahm]

It’d be most beneficial instead (just opinion here) to go outside, breathe it all in and notice - that / this, is flat out fucking impossible. Every single explanation is absolutely wrong as in not it. Kensho might be a thought, sure, but Kensho can not be thought. 

[RMQualtrough]

@Nahm Do we perhaps all mean the same thing?

Thank you for the reminder that mind EQUALS matter. When conceptualizing things in sober life that tends to be done by heirarchy. E.g. "appearances IN mind".

I like the term nothingness because of the implicit answer to most difficult metaphysical questions. If the term "everythingness" is used (nothingness = everythingness, infinity), a typical person may ask "where did the everything come from?" If the term "nothingness" is used, the question is defeated.

They mean the same thing because there cannot be literal nothingness, but that is WHY there is everythingness?

But yeah to me it seems like in this paradigm, consciousness is simply an ASPECT of the infinity, of this eternal and infinite nothingness/everythingness. All things are equal to (literally ARE) that Source. Godhead. Void. Etc.

Edited June 15, 2021 by RMQualtrough

[Nahm]

?

? 

[Adamq8]

If you like this theme of nothingness I can suggest a book that goes right up your alley so to speak.

God is nothingness- andre Halaw

[TreyMoney]

@RMQualtrough my dear friend, I do not know you, but we are very like minded.

I define spirit as the nothingness from which everything arises and to which everything ultimately returns.

I define spirituality as having reverence for that absolute, eternal, infinite, objective, ultimate nothingness. A cute little AEIOU mnemonic.

The Buddhist saying "Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form" perfectly encapsulates the idea of everything being nothing.

Nothing is the only thing, which is simultaneously everything. That may seem like a duality, but only from our unenlightened pov.

"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." - Walt Whitman

Nothingness is Brahman....undifferentiated, undivided, indivisible, indescribable, devoid of attributes or characteristics.

Somethingness is Atman....differentiated, divided, divisible, describable, containing attributes or characteristics.

Brahman is truth. Atman is false. 

Atman is everythingness. Everything is Atman. I am Atman. You are Atman. Rocks are Atman.

Brahman is nothingness. No thing is Brahman. I am not Brahman. You are not Brahman. Rocks are not Brahman. (which is why I vomit in my mouth a little, every time Leo says He is God, or You are God!)

But ultimately, Atman, (which is everything), is also nothing fundamentally. (Duality)

And if Atman is nothing, and Brahman is nothing, then Atman is Brahman, and nothing is nothing (Non-Duality).

I hope this helps....but if not, just ignore it.

Cheers to health, wealth, peace and love.

Trey

 

 

[impulse9]

Buddhism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śūnyatā

[RMQualtrough]

45 minutes ago, Adamq8 said:

If you like this theme of nothingness I can suggest a book that goes right up your alley so to speak.

God is nothingness- andre Halaw

I saw this actually and was going to purchase it

I saw it proposes nothingness is in fact just consciousness though. And I mean it is infinite consciousness LOL but like, the precise metaphysics and mechanics of the hows and whys are important to me (I'm more of a philosopher than a self-improver), and I feel that it is not "just" consciousness but all things. I am judging based on a review I read though.

---