Something vs Nothing

[Nahm]

@WokeBloke

7 hours ago, Nahm said:

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

 

[BipolarGrowth]

57 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

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?

From the perspective of this reality, you would be there. If we’re speaking in the context of others who have experiences, it’s not just me who has had this occur obviously. 
 

It’s basically like an atheist’s view of what happens after death. Cessation is less of the point of my post. The point is to use conceptual/linguistic tools which are pointing less to one side of a duality as in the case of neither ______ nor ______. 

[WokeBloke]

@RMQualtrough 

Okay I could be totally wrong but it seems that you are saying the subject is the object which I disagree with. If you are saying that there is no subject that seems to be in contradiction to the claim that "knowing knows knowing" which would make knowing both the subject and object right?

When you say that knowing knows knowing that is sort of like saying talking talks or walking walks. Knowing is an ability that the knower/consciousness/awareness has. Or I could say knowing is what the subject is doing. 

Knowing is the coming together of two elements: 1. Knower (subject) and 2. Known (object/experience)

In order for there to be knowing both elements must be present.

However, the knower is the not the known and the known is not the knower.

 

[RMQualtrough]

1 hour ago, WokeBloke said:

@RMQualtrough 

Okay I could be totally wrong but it seems that you are saying the subject is the object which I disagree with. If you are saying that there is no subject that seems to be in contradiction to the claim that "knowing knows knowing" which would make knowing both the subject and object right?

When you say that knowing knows knowing that is sort of like saying talking talks or walking walks. Knowing is an ability that the knower/consciousness/awareness has. Or I could say knowing is what the subject is doing. 

Knowing is the coming together of two elements: 1. Knower (subject) and 2. Known (object/experience)

In order for there to be knowing both elements must be present.

However, the knower is the not the known and the known is not the knower.

That was a quote, both elements subject and object are fundamentally the same, there appears to be a duality but both components have the same substance, which is nothingness, which is exactly what "pure" awareness is. This can be found, but I also think it is logically obvious that if there is no "thing" for consciousness to be conscious OF, what is left is nothing. But you know consciousness exists which is why I said it (the subject) is an existent nothingness.

Awareness is exactly what knows awareness. What could be aware of the existence of awareness, other than awareness?

If you take away all things from awareness of course you are aware of nothing, because all that's left is nothing, since sheer awareness is nothingness...

The only thing ever experienced is awareness as per the prior quote I posted, and awareness can be found to be literally nothing. All there is to the experience of something is the awareness/knowing of it as per the quote. Both the subject and the object are, in substance, made of the same nothing.

If somethingness is not MADE out of nothingness, what substance do you think it is made of? If you imagine a unicorn in your mind, what substance do you think that unicorn is made from?

Edited January 31, 2022 by RMQualtrough

[Breakingthewall]

reality really is limitless. It seems limited, but it's a kind of special effect. there are no limits. you are unlimited. if you think about it, something unlimited is not something. if you expand into a space of a billion universes, you become very tenuous. but if you expand into infinity, there is nothing left of you. nothing at all, because infinity has no limits, it is unfathomable, and that is what we are. the person who is now reading believes that it is limited and definite, but that is an illusion. the reality is that it has no definition, no substance. so it can be said that it is nothing, although it exists, it is

[Guest Bazooka Jesus]

Lmao, I commend all of you guys for your patience. This is like pouring gallons and gallons of water into a bucket with a hole in the bottom... a truly Buddhist practice, come to think of it. 

@WokeBloke

Seriously dude, what are you hoping to achieve here that you (literally) haven't achieved with your previous 500 threads about the exact same topic? You think that thread number five hundred and one is somehow going to hand you the magic answer on a silver platter?

20 hours ago, WokeBloke said:

Please show me where I am wrong.

It's not so much that you are 'wrong' about anything. It's just that what you are doing here is hopelessly futile.

You are like a guy in a forest who is zeroing in on some tree, scrutinizing every square inch of its surface in the hope of eventuall being able to see the entirety of the forest if he just looks hard enough at the damn tree standing right in front of him. - Well guess what, it aint going to work. The thing to do is to step back from the tree, look around and notice that you are standing in the middle of a fucking forrest!

Or keep playing that game you're playing till kingdom come. Your choice.

[The0Self]

40 minutes ago, Bazooka Jesus said:

Lmao, I commend all of you guys for your patience. This is like pouring gallons and gallons of water into a bucket with a hole in the bottom... a truly Buddhist practice, come to think of it. 

@WokeBloke

Seriously dude, what are you hoping to achieve here that you (literally) haven't achieved with your previous 500 threads about the exact same topic? You think that thread number five hundred and one is somehow going to hand you the magic answer on a silver platter?

It's not so much that you are 'wrong' about anything. It's just that what you are doing here is hopelessly futile.

You are like a guy in a forest who is zeroing in on some tree, scrutinizing every square inch of its surface in the hope of eventuall being able to see the entirety of the forest if he just looks hard enough at the damn tree standing right in front of him. - Well guess what, it aint going to work. The thing to do is to step back from the tree, look around and notice that you are standing in the middle of a fucking forrest!

Or keep playing that game you're playing till kingdom come. Your choice.

? 

[The0Self]

@WokeBloke  It’s simply that nothing is actually happening. Did Romeo and Juliet actually suicide? Sure they did, but only in a play. Is typing actually happening? Sure, but only in the story of space and time. There’s just what appears, but that doesn’t even mean that anything is actually appearing — in the end, because there’s no one separate from the infinite to know that.

[Mosess]

13 hours ago, WokeBloke said:

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

so what would happen, in your direct experience, when the subject does not interpret any perceptions occuring within time and space. That is, when the subject does not give any meaning to anything, who is left to describe the beingness of things?

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by Mosess