1 nothing or 0 nothing?

[WokeBloke]

For sake of discussion let's call this nothing. In other words reality is nothingness.

Now I wonder if you would say that there is 0 nothing or is there 1 nothing?

Since nothing could be defined as the absence of everything or complete nonexistence, is it appropriate to say there is 1 nothing if there is truly nothing here?

 

My reasoning is:

If there is nothing here then that means there is no nothing. No nothing means 0 nothing.

This is because nothing implies the absence of all things including itself!

So if there was truly nothing here then there wouldn't even be 1 nothing here. Just nothing nothing!

 

Anyway identifying yourself as the word nothing sounds like a mistake to me.

 

Edited December 8, 2021 by WokeBloke

[Nos7algiK]

1 thing (Infinity) becomes 1 Nothing but because there is 1 nothing there is 0 nothing due to there is no comparison to this 1 nothing.

1 = ∞ = 0

[OneHandClap]

There is no such thing as nothing, because nothing is no... thing. "Things" cannot be nothing. Nothing is a concept, especially mathematically. So I wouldn't try to wrap your head around the idea of nothing, because it has no form, no properties, no existence as a "thing." 

[Shin]

Realize what you are and you'll never need to ask those questions anymore.

On top of that you'd find the only thing you ever wanted in your life.

It's in every good song ever composed for a reason ?

 

Edited December 8, 2021 by Shin

[VeganAwake]

14 hours ago, WokeBloke said:

Anyway identifying yourself as the word nothing sounds like a mistake to me.

Yes it would be a misunderstanding because there already isn't a "yourself" to be or not be something.

❤ 

[Salvijus]

Nothingness means a non phenomenal existence. So it is "1 nothing" by your definition. Nonphenomenal existence is the source of everything and the source of who you are. So it's fair to identify with it. 

?

[RMQualtrough]

14 hours ago, OneHandClap said:

There is no such thing as nothing, because nothing is no... thing. "Things" cannot be nothing. Nothing is a concept, especially mathematically. So I wouldn't try to wrap your head around the idea of nothing, because it has no form, no properties, no existence as a "thing." 

You should try. It's very possible.

Dissociate from literally all something. Imagine a character in your head, that's a something. Have the character point towards you. What substance do you find where they're pointing to? You will find no substance. Nothingness. A thought is merely an object like the character.

Importance is: All something is finite. Nothingness is without limit and as such anything can magically appear out of it like the way red looks to a human. Because it's unlimited and unbounded. No limit exists in nothing.

See where the character points, the nothing it points at when it points towards you. Whether that's 1 or 0 I'm not sure. But it's nothing.

[OneHandClap]

2 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

You should try. It's very possible.

Dissociate from literally all something. Imagine a character in your head, that's a something. Have the character point towards you. What substance do you find where they're pointing to? You will find no substance. Nothingness. A thought is merely an object like the character.

Importance is: All something is finite. Nothingness is without limit and as such anything can magically appear out of it like the way red looks to a human. Because it's unlimited and unbounded. No limit exists in nothing.

See where the character points, the nothing it points at when it points towards you. Whether that's 1 or 0 I'm not sure. But it's nothing.

You're missing my point. "I" have "experienced" no-thing plenty of times, but that's the message... there is no experience one can recall of it. Because it's not... a thing. It's a lack of things. A potentiality beneath things. 

Edit: More to the point, there is literally not a single true word you can use to express the "qualities" of nothingness. Because all qualities are emergent from, latent within, and manifested as a modulation of nothing. But nothing, in itself, is a placeholder word. WokeBloke would be far better off trying to experience no-thingness instead of speculating about it logically. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by OneHandClap

[RMQualtrough]

3 hours ago, OneHandClap said:

You're missing my point. "I" have "experienced" no-thing plenty of times, but that's the message... there is no experience one can recall of it. Because it's not... a thing. It's a lack of things. A potentiality beneath things. 

Edit: More to the point, there is literally not a single true word you can use to express the "qualities" of nothingness. Because all qualities are emergent from, latent within, and manifested as a modulation of nothing. But nothing, in itself, is a placeholder word. WokeBloke would be far better off trying to experience no-thingness instead of speculating about it logically. 

I do wonder if the separation was real or just perception. I.e., was something seperated from nothing such that I genuinely experienced BEING nothing. Or was it such that there was only something, and the sense of distance was perceptual - as in I was not nothingness but straight up nonexistent.

I do recall the experience well. There was something, but it seemed that the something was a mirror wherein peering into it I could know myself to be literal nothingness. A nothingness which was present.

I'm not sure which. But the actual experience had, it seemed I was nothingness and nothingness was observing the something. My ego etc being an element of something.

Of course we see things come from nothing all the time (where is a thought before it is conceived)... But this is indeed a good line of inquiry...

I've seen Rupert Spira in particular explain why duality must appear to exist, and consciousness appear to limit itself. Here is where you have to figure out if it's limiting in pairs of nothing and something (meaning there is an Atman), OR simply limiting as slices of something, which would be Anatman... If the latter, there is still a total nowhere things do evidently come from using human language.

[OneHandClap]

10 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

I do wonder if the separation was real or just perception. I.e., was something seperated from nothing such that I genuinely experienced BEING nothing. Or was it such that there was only something, and the sense of distance was perceptual - as in I was not nothingness but straight up nonexistent.

I do recall the experience well. There was something, but it seemed that the something was a mirror wherein peering into it I could know myself to be literal nothingness. A nothingness which was present.

I'm not sure which. But the actual experience had, it seemed I was nothingness and nothingness was observing the something. My ego etc being an element of something.

Of course we see things come from nothing all the time (where is a thought before it is conceived)... But this is indeed a good line of inquiry...

I've seen Rupert Spira in particular explain why duality must appear to exist, and consciousness appear to limit itself. Here is where you have to figure out if it's limiting in pairs of nothing and something (meaning there is an Atman), OR simply limiting as slices of something, which would be Anatman... If the latter, there is still a total nowhere things do evidently come from using human language.

Interesting. I need to find the source, but I believe there was a Buddhist teacher who said, "At one point, there may be only one or two objects to note. This state is very blissful, but it is still not the end. We must abandon even the bliss by noting it." 

Something to that effect, anyway. 

You are spot on to say that duality is necessary, because otherwise "no-thing" could not ever know or explore itself. It needs both sides of the coin to be what it is as a unified whole. 

[Breakingthewall]

reality is nothing because something to be something, has to be contrasted with another something, have limits. if reality is unlimited it can't be something. it is nothing, or rather, everything, absolute. since nothing evokes non-existence, and non-existence doesn't exist

[Moksha]

Reality is beyond everything and nothing, beyond existence and nonexistence, beyond form and formless. All of these are dualities, and reality is beyond dualities.

Lord of the gods, you are the abode of the universe. Changeless, you are what is and what is not, and beyond the duality of existence and nonexistence. You are the first among the gods, the timeless spirit, the resting place of all beings. You are the knower and the thing which is known. You are the final home; with your infinite form you pervade the cosmos.

[WokeBloke]

2 minutes ago, Moksha said:

Reality is beyond everything and nothing, beyond existence and nonexistence, beyond form and formless. All of these are dualities, and reality is beyond dualities.

Lord of the gods, you are the abode of the universe. Changeless, you are what is and what is not, and beyond the duality of existence and nonexistence. You are the first among the gods, the timeless spirit, the resting place of all beings. You are the knower and the thing which is known. You are the final home; with your infinite form you pervade the cosmos.

why do you think I am changeless?

[Breakingthewall]

Just now, WokeBloke said:

why do you think I am changeless?

because if you are all that can be, infinite and without limits, what change can there be? you are already all changes

[WokeBloke]

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

because if you are all that can be, infinite and without limits, what change can there be? you are already all changes

The change I create for myself! I am what I become. Human awareness is not a static screen. It's a dynamic process of change and evolution. At least that's my opinion lol.

[Breakingthewall]

1 minute ago, WokeBloke said:

The change I create for myself! I am what I become. Human awareness is not a static screen. It's a dynamic process of change and evolution. At least that's my opinion lol.

It seems that there is constant change, because we are exploring infinity, being finite, relative, but we really are the totality, and the Totality cannot change because it is already all change. when you see the limitless, infinite field, you see ... shit ... it's nothing. the infinite eats the finite, there is no form, there is no definition, there is nothing. but in that soup, we do the magic and imagine what we want, the wonder. infinite wonders to explore, experience 

[WokeBloke]

5 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

It seems that there is constant change, because we are exploring infinity, being finite, relative, but we really are the totality, and the Totality cannot change because it is already all change. when you see the limitless, infinite field, you see ... shit ... it's nothing. the infinite eats the finite, there is no form, there is no definition, there is nothing. but in that soup, we do the magic and imagine what we want, the wonder. infinite wonders to explore, experience 

I don't think you can separate the changeless (deathless) from the changing. It is one.

[Breakingthewall]

5 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

I don't think you can separate the changeless (deathless) from the changing. It is one.

Imagine that you print all the books in the world on one page. all those that exist and those that could exist, infinite. It would be a page of black ink. it could change? if everything that can be written is already written there. What change? repeat another book? they are repeated ad infinitum, each one. You could imagine that you read a specific book, in the middle of the blackness of the ink, but nothing would really change on the page.

[WokeBloke]

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Imagine that you print all the books in the world on one page. all those that exist and those that could exist, infinite. It would be a page of black ink. it could change? if everything that can be written is already written there. What change? repeat another book? they are repeated ad infinitum, each one. You could imagine that you read a specific book, in the middle of the blackness of the ink, but nothing would really change on the page.

I don't think all creations already exist. Creation is being made right now. Creations don't exist until they are created. For example, this computer didn't exist until it was created.

[RMQualtrough]

1 hour ago, OneHandClap said:

Interesting. I need to find the source, but I believe there was a Buddhist teacher who said, "At one point, there may be only one or two objects to note. This state is very blissful, but it is still not the end. We must abandon even the bliss by noting it." 

Something to that effect, anyway. 

You are spot on to say that duality is necessary, because otherwise "no-thing" could not ever know or explore itself. It needs both sides of the coin to be what it is as a unified whole. 

Rupert has a number of videos around these sorts of lines, infinity vs finitude etc.

 

He uses a lot of metaphors.