There is Not Nothing

[WokeBloke]

This is a quote from Rupert Spira that I just want to expand on.

 

If there was truly nothing then we wouldn't be able to say it because there would be nothing to say it and nothing to speak about.

 

This is why I suggest that reality is not nothing.

It is ONE-Thing that has differentiated itself into everything.

 

There is only One-thing or one existence and you are that.

 

The nature of this one-thing is deeply mysterious however it knows that it is hence why it says I am.

 

 

[BipolarGrowth]

My authentic reaction: 

 

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, WokeBloke said:

If there was truly nothing then we wouldn't be able to say it because there would be nothing to say it and nothing to speak about.

Bad dualistic logic.

The problem here is that you're assuming speech is something.

Speech is Nothing. That's the point.

Something vs nothing is a distinction without any underlying reality. Speech is something according to you, because you hold it that way.

[VeganAwake]

26 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Bad dualistic logic.

The problem here is that you're assuming speech is something.

Speech is Nothing. That's the point.

Something vs nothing is a distinction without any underlying reality. Speech is something according to you, because you hold it that way.

Nailed it ? 

[WelcometoReality]

8 hours ago, WokeBloke said:

This is why I suggest that reality is not nothing.

It is ONE-Thing that has differentiated itself into everything.

If it's ONE then how could it be separate from nothing?

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Bad dualistic logic.

The problem here is that you're assuming speech is something.

Speech is Nothing. That's the point.

Something vs nothing is a distinction without any underlying reality. Speech is something according to you, because you hold it that way.

Good point. Words are nothing  and since they are we cant hold onto any idea because that would be holding onto something.

[BipolarGrowth]

I see a lot of value and accuracy in Rupert Spira’s quote if we are considering more what is pointed to through going through cessation as the nothing. The gap of experience brought about by cessation presents itself as what a full/hard nothing would actually be like in the sense Rupert is potentially bringing up here. 
 

I’ve personally had reality shattering insight into the same type of something vs. nothing that Leo seems to describe in multiple videos and forum posts. This is fundamentally different than the type of nothing pointed to in the non-experience aspect of cessation. It seems like people commenting here are not actually refuting the quote at all but rather reinforcing it with their responses. There is not actually disagreement other than clashes in lexicon, at least how I see it. 

I personally would not use nothing as the word. I would use non-existence. I think this would be less vague/more precise to showcase the point he appears to be making from my perspective. 

Maybe Rupert is meaning something totally different. More context for that quote would be nice to see exactly what he meant. 

[WokeBloke]

3 hours ago, WelcometoReality said:

If it's ONE then how could it be separate from nothing?

Good point. Words are nothing  and since they are we cant hold onto any idea because that would be holding onto something.

My view is the One is not nothing. It is one thing.

There isn't nothing.

[Tim R]

@WokeBloke

12 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

My view is the One is not nothing. It is one thing.

There isn't nothing.

"One thing" and "no thing" are 100% identical. 

If there is only ONE thing, then there isn't anything "outside" of this one thing to compare it to. Because there is nothing to compare it to, you can't speak of there being any "it" or any "thing", because that requires comparison.  Hence the identity with "nothing". 

[WokeBloke]

2 minutes ago, Tim R said:

@WokeBloke

"One thing" and "no thing" are 100% identical. 

If there is only ONE thing, then there isn't anything "outside" of this one thing to compare it to. Because there is nothing to compare it to, you can't speak of there being any "it" or any "thing", because that requires comparison.  Hence the identity with "nothing". 

No thing means 0 thing.

1 != 0

0 + 0 != 1 + 1

So 1 thing is not 0 thing.

 

 

[WokeBloke]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Bad dualistic logic.

The problem here is that you're assuming speech is something.

Speech is Nothing. That's the point.

Something vs nothing is a distinction without any underlying reality. Speech is something according to you, because you hold it that way.

Okay first let's agree on a definition of nothing in this context.

I'll propose my definitions and if you disagree then give me yours.

 

Nothing: The absence of something.

Something: A particular thing.

Thing: I feel like it is best to use examples here. A computer is a thing. A cup is a thing. A word is a thing. Essentially a thing could be regarded as a discrete object or aspect of experience.

 

Now let me talk about speech. Speech consists of meaningful sounds also known as words. Words are are things based on my definition. Each word is one-thing as opposed to no-thing. So speech consists of a bunch of things making it something. 

Thus in my opinion to equate speech with the word nothing seems like absurdity to me.

 

 

[Someone here]

Something and nothing are identical. 

Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form. 

[The0Self]

19 hours ago, WokeBloke said:

If there was truly nothing then we wouldn't be able to say it because there would be nothing to say it and nothing to speak about.

That's an assumption.

Actually there is only nothing, and it apparently speaks (is speaking; is everything). It's not some thing. There's no separation.

If there were ONE thing, that would mean there'd be a limitation outside of reality, because the infinite is not a thing, it's absolutely nothing and everything.

There is only nothing = there is only everything = there is only oneness. There is only one thing = reality is truly limited (false).

The jewel in the lotus points to the all-encompassing center that is everywhere and nowhere.

Can't be found or lost.

There's just unknowable life immediately appearing, or nothing being everything (merely points to the lack of a position or separation in which knowing can occur).

Edited November 11, 2021 by The0Self

[Yog]

There wont be "a thing" without comparison, having a "thing" requires at least 2 things so you can make the comparison.
If there is only one thing in total, comparison is impossible, you would have nothing to compare it to that is outside of itself.

No comparison, no thing.
Do not mistake "everythingness" for "infinite many-thingness".
Contemplate more on what makes a "thing", a "thing" I would say.
 

[WelcometoReality]

10 hours ago, WokeBloke said:

My view is the One is not nothing. It is one thing.

There isn't nothing.

From the perspective of ONE which view is true and which is false? Aren't they all finite views within ONE?

[snowyowl]

When I think about "one" or "unity", in normal life, I'm putting a boundary around an area and calling it one 'thing'. 

Example, when I count one orange, I'm using the skin of the orange as the boundary to separate it from everything else - even though within that boundary there are many other possible groupings such as segments, layers of skin pith etc, cells, seeds, molecules, atoms. So in a sense I'm creating the oneness with my thought. 

The trouble is, that type of oneness needs a boundary with an inside and outside. But the oneness of everything is different because it is boundless, outside-less, and infinite. Nothing / non-existence also seems to have the same qualities, it has zero dimensions but has an infinite number of members (think of how many things that don't exist). That's why I use oneness as a limited metaphor for truth rather than saying that reality is actually one. 

Except can we say there is a boundary between existence and non-existence: something either exists or it doesn't? This is a duality I haven't collapsed yet. It feels like I exist now and after I die I won't exist. But if this duality is an illusion then it means I neither exist nor not-exist already, and won't after death  

Edited November 11, 2021 by snowyowl

[VeganAwake]

There is apparent separation between objects like the body, a cat, a dog, a rock a tree, a fence.

It's the sense of self or individuality within the body which is the completely unreal part. The "I am" is not a real entity.

No real individual = No real separation

❤ 

[Breakingthewall]

nothing is a bad word, since it leads to mistakes. we say that reality is nothing in the sense that there is no differentiation. contrasted with infinity, any something, or differentiated thing, ceases to be "something", it is nothing, but still is. it is the undifferentiated infinity itself. the word nothing suggests non-existence, and non-existence is impossible, since existence is

Edited November 11, 2021 by Breakingthewall

[Tim R]

@nuwu It's so simple. Look at anything (any thing) and begin by removing the word/concept from it. Then go on to remove the idea of there being any "it". What are you left with? Nothing.

[VeganAwake]

2 minutes ago, nuwu said:

Distinction creates everything and there is nothing behind them, despite that, there is nothing else but distinctions. 

Exactly or another way of saying it is:

Conditioning creates a dream story or overlay of meaning, purpose and value over top of reality and then functions from that perspective.

[Tim R]

@nuwu

8 minutes ago, nuwu said:

Distinction creates everything and there is nothing behind them, despite that, there is nothing else but distinctions. If they didn't exist consciousness wouldn't be able to notice its own existence in the first place.

That's right and precisely why reality is illusion. 

Consciousness can never be conscious of "itself" because it's infinite. The infinite can not know the finite (for the very reason you put forth). It can only appear to be so by appearing to be finite (distinctions). 

But "something" is only appearance. There isn't actually something. "Something" is illusory.