Something vs Nothing

[WokeBloke]

The inspiration for this post is the bold claim that "nothing is happening" that I have seen some people post.

2 claims (potentially disputable):

1. Nothing is the absence of all things and phenomenon. Ex. "Nothing is in the box." This of course isn't a true statement since there is air and space in the box but you get the point.

2. Something is not nothing. Ex. The word "something" is something as opposed to nothing. It can't be nothing precisely because it is present in your experience. Nothing can never be present because it doesn't exist. 

 

So, if nothing was happening then you wouldn't be able to read this sentence which you are currently doing even though you may deny it (and yes you just read this part too).

Thus, reading (or something) is currently happening which means nothing is not happening. It's inaccurate speech.

 

I now prepare for my locked post. But if it stays open please know your posts mean the world to me. Please show me where I am wrong. Thank you for your time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2022 by WokeBloke

[Mosess]

where did this something come from?

To whom, is this something appearing to and, to whom is it disappearing?

what happens to things when you are not, witnessing, rather, when you ARE the thing you point to?

is it still a thing then?

to whom?

Edited January 31, 2022 by Mosess

[Tim R]

"Happening - not happening" is a duality. When people say "nothing is happening" they refer to what is, when this duality has collapsed. This is such a case where one must be cautious not to get hung up on the words.

[BipolarGrowth]

The bold claim of nothing is happening is never as good as the “bold claim” of __________ __ _______________ which is nowhere near as good as                                     . 
 

By the way, no one likely has a decent idea of what nothing is without “experiencing” fruition/cessation. 
 

“Fruition (phala in Pali) is the fruit of all the meditator’s hard work, the first attainment of ultimate reality, emptiness, nirvana, nibbana, ultimate potential, or whatever extrapolative and relatively inaccurate name you wish to call something utterly non-sensate. In this non-state, there is absolutely no time, no space, no reference point, no experience, no mind, no consciousness, no awareness, no background, no foreground, no nothingness, no somethingness, no body, no this, no that, no unity, no duality, and no anything else. “Reality” stops cold and then reappears.

Thus, this is impossible to comprehend, as it goes completely and utterly beyond the rational mind and the universe. In “external time” (if we were observing the meditator) this stage typically lasts only an instant (though the question of “duration” will be addressed below). It is like an utter discontinuity of the space-time continuum with nothing in the unfindable gap, exactly like what happens when someone edits out a frame or sequence of frames of a movie. It is not that you see a blank screen for a while where they edited the frames out, instead that part of the movie is just not there.”

-From Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha written by Daniel Ingram 

https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-iv-insight/30-the-progress-of-insight/15-fruition/
 

“This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. But for one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world.” -The Buddha 

 

In the Diamond Sutta, the Buddha discusses neither existence nor nonexistence. Following this will get you far closer to “the prize” than using plain dualities such as something vs. nothing or existence vs. nonexistence. The truth is something none of those words do any justice to what “really is” and trap those who cling to one duality vs. the other. 
 

I encourage you to listen to this Diamond Sutta audiobook: 

It has been incredibly helpful for me. This Sutta was spoken by the Buddha while teaching his disciple about how to become a Buddha. 

Edited January 31, 2022 by BipolarGrowth

[Nahm]

An idea of nothing isn’t nothing, it’s a contextualization. Otherwise, nothing is nothing.  But if so to speak, you look more closely, you’ll notice there isn’t ever ‘an idea of nothing’ present, just a mental pattern playing out, a repetitious belief, fueled by the belief being right, ‘grasping’, or ‘getting it right’ or ‘knowing’ or ‘thinking the right thing’ leads to feeling better. 

[WelcometoReality]

22 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

1. Nothing is the absence of all things and phenomenon. Ex. "Nothing is in the box." This of course isn't a true statement since there is air and space in the box but you get the point.

Yeah, that's the meaning of the word so logically you're correct. Experientially it means being aware of the nothing in which every "thing" is arising. 

Personally I wouldn't say that "nothing is happening" but everything is happening within stillness/nothing.

34 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

2. Something is not nothing. Ex. The word "something" is something as opposed to nothing. It can't be nothing precisely because it is present in your experience. Nothing can never be present because it doesn't exist. 

Something is opposed to nothing until it's realized that something isn't opposed to nothing but the same thing. 

Nothing is always present but yes it does not exist. Rather it is that which make it possible for existence to exist.

 

[The0Self]

Something implies finitude, which is not actually something that exists beyond an appearance of the infinite. "Nothing" is just an idea. "Absolutely Nothing" (but not merely the idea of such) might as well be infinity (by definition and by necessity, all there is) since it has no qualities and therefore has no limits.

Edited January 31, 2022 by The0Self

[Roy]

5 hours ago, Nahm said:

An idea of nothing isn’t nothing, it’s a contextualization. Otherwise, nothing is nothing.  But if so to speak, you look more closely, you’ll notice there isn’t ever ‘an idea of nothing’ present, just a mental pattern playing out, a repetitious belief, fueled by the belief being right, ‘grasping’, or ‘getting it right’ or ‘knowing’ or ‘thinking the right thing’ leads to feeling better. 

How are you so damn eloquent, it's inspiring.

[Nahm]

@Roy

Eye of the beholder. And Thanks. ?? 

[WokeBloke]

8 hours ago, Mosess said:

where did this something come from?

To whom, is this something appearing to and, to whom is it disappearing?

what happens to things when you are not, witnessing, rather, when you ARE the thing you point to?

is it still a thing then?

to whom?

 The word thing is typically used to refer to distinct objects that one is aware of.

So I would say things are known by the being or the subject.

I do not think being can be classified as either something or nothing. 

Edited January 31, 2022 by WokeBloke

[WokeBloke]

7 hours ago, Tim R said:

"Happening - not happening" is a duality. When people say "nothing is happening" they refer to what is, when this duality has collapsed. This is such a case where one must be cautious not to get hung up on the words.

I don't understand what you mean by "when the duality collapses". How can something be happening and not happening simultaneously? Aren't those two phrases referring to two mutually exclusive events? In other words one can't sit and stand at the same time.

[WokeBloke]

6 hours ago, BipolarGrowth said:

The bold claim of nothing is happening is never as good as the “bold claim” of __________ __ _______________ which is nowhere near as good as                                     . 
 

By the way, no one likely has a decent idea of what nothing is without “experiencing” fruition/cessation. 
 

“Fruition (phala in Pali) is the fruit of all the meditator’s hard work, the first attainment of ultimate reality, emptiness, nirvana, nibbana, ultimate potential, or whatever extrapolative and relatively inaccurate name you wish to call something utterly non-sensate. In this non-state, there is absolutely no time, no space, no reference point, no experience, no mind, no consciousness, no awareness, no background, no foreground, no nothingness, no somethingness, no body, no this, no that, no unity, no duality, and no anything else. “Reality” stops cold and then reappears.

Thus, this is impossible to comprehend, as it goes completely and utterly beyond the rational mind and the universe. In “external time” (if we were observing the meditator) this stage typically lasts only an instant (though the question of “duration” will be addressed below). It is like an utter discontinuity of the space-time continuum with nothing in the unfindable gap, exactly like what happens when someone edits out a frame or sequence of frames of a movie. It is not that you see a blank screen for a while where they edited the frames out, instead that part of the movie is just not there.”

-From Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha written by Daniel Ingram 

https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-iv-insight/30-the-progress-of-insight/15-fruition/
 

“This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. But for one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world.” -The Buddha 

 

In the Diamond Sutta, the Buddha discusses neither existence nor nonexistence. Following this will get you far closer to “the prize” than using plain dualities such as something vs. nothing or existence vs. nonexistence. The truth is something none of those words do any justice to what “really is” and trap those who cling to one duality vs. the other. 
 

I encourage you to listen to this Diamond Sutta audiobook: 

It has been incredibly helpful for me. This Sutta was spoken by the Buddha while teaching his disciple about how to become a Buddha. 

It's hard to reply to this because this is your interpretation of an experience you had. During your cessation experience would you equate it to being dead? You claim experience completely ends and then restarts as if you have been born. But perhaps it is just experience that temporarily ended and restarted as opposed to you/reality. Perhaps you were still there during the absence of experience just like in deep sleep?

[WokeBloke]

6 hours ago, Nahm said:

An idea of nothing isn’t nothing, it’s a contextualization. Otherwise, nothing is nothing.  But if so to speak, you look more closely, you’ll notice there isn’t ever ‘an idea of nothing’ present, just a mental pattern playing out, a repetitious belief, fueled by the belief being right, ‘grasping’, or ‘getting it right’ or ‘knowing’ or ‘thinking the right thing’ leads to feeling better. 

Doesn't the very word "nothing" prove that there is not nothing since the word refers to something that that does not exist?

[Nahm]

6 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

Doesn't the very word "nothing" prove that there is not nothing since the word refers to something that that does not exist?

You’re saying the word nothing refers to something… which doesn’t exist. Nothing doesn’t refer to something. Nothing really is nothing. The word nonexistence references something, like a unicorn, which isn’t actual. Nothing’s actual. And not even, as in not two, or, this is already saying too much. 

[WokeBloke]

8 minutes ago, Nahm said:

You’re saying the word nothing refers to something… which doesn’t exist. Nothing doesn’t refer to something. Nothing really is nothing. The word nonexistence references something, like a unicorn, which isn’t actual. Nothing’s actual. And not even, as in not two, or, this is already saying too much. 

Okay so the word nothing refers to nothing? So in a sense it is a meaningless word without the contrast of the word something? Just like the word above is useless without the word below. 

Edited January 31, 2022 by WokeBloke

[RMQualtrough]

"Sartre notes that human consciousness is always conscious of something else. However human consciousness itself is really nothingness. So without something to be conscious of, our consciousness cannot exist as it defines itself with respect to the things which it is conscious of."

When you say "I" you are referring to human consciousness, and thus to what is inherently nothing. But you would probably say consciousness does exist, and there you find an existent nothingness.

[WokeBloke]

9 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

"Sartre notes that human consciousness is always conscious of something else. However human consciousness itself is really nothingness. So without something to be conscious of, our consciousness cannot exist as it defines itself with respect to the things which it is conscious of."

When you say "I" you are referring to human consciousness, and thus to what is inherently nothing. But you would probably say consciousness does exist, and there you find an existent nothingness.

I think so-called consciousness and things (and thus nothing or the absence of things) are incomparable. As you say we are always aware of things or phenomenon (maybe not in deep sleep). Yet the destruction of the phenomenon does not result in the end of consciousness. So, it seems consciousness still exists without things but things can't exist without consciousness (unless objective reality exists independently of consciousness). "I" refers to an existing non-thing as opposed to a nonexistent nothing in my view.

Edited January 31, 2022 by WokeBloke

[Nahm]

22 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

Okay so the word nothing refers to nothing? So in a sense it is a meaningless word without the contrast of the word something? Just like the word above is useless without the word below. 

 

6 hours ago, Nahm said:

An idea of nothing isn’t nothing, it’s a contextualization.

 

[RMQualtrough]

2 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

I think so-called consciousness and things (and thus nothing or the absence of things) are incomparable. As you say we are always aware of things or phenomenon (maybe not in deep sleep). Yet the destruction of the phenomenon does not result in the end of consciousness. So, it seems consciousness exists without things but things can't exist without consciousness (unless objective reality exists independently of consciousness). "I" refers to an existing non-thing as opposed to a nonexistent nothing in my view.

Before narcissists come in to confuse you on purpose, first here is what is meant when people explain only consciousness exists (no subject and object):

"Not only is pure knowing or awareness itself the primary element of mind; it is the only substance present in mind. It is easy to check this in experience. All that is or could ever be known is experience, and all there is to experience is the knowing of it – in fact, not the knowing ‘of it’, because we never encounter an ‘it’ independent of knowing. All there is to ‘it’ is the experience of knowing.

In other words, we never know anything other than knowing. All there is to experience is knowing. There is no object that is known and no subject that knows it. There is just knowing. And what is it that knows that there is knowing? Only that which knows can know knowing. Therefore, only knowing knows knowing. That is, awareness or consciousness is all that is ever known or experienced, and it is awareness or consciousness that is knowing or experiencing itself. Thus, the only substance present in experience is awareness. Awareness is not simply the ultimate reality of experience; it is the only reality of experience."

It isn't that existence is not happening in a subject and object manner, but that both are fundamentally the same exactly as per that quote.

In certain transcendental states of mind, the nothing that is pure consciousness becomes dissociated from the thingness which is any appearance. You can then know nothingness, and know that nothingness is, bizarrely, something which exists.

Without those things, there is nothingness, but nothingness is what you are right now, because you identify yourself most strongly (I assume) with pure consciousness alone, that is what most people are afraid will be destroyed in death. But of course, how could you ever destroy nothingness? It's invincible, untouchable, doesn't need a creator, yadda yadda.

In other transcendental states experience and self merge like that realization that subject and object are one. I barely remember clearly enough to convey it, because I have not used drugs in a long time.

[WokeBloke]

@Nahm What are you trying to convey? What do you mean by a contextualization?