Why is there not nothing?

[tsuki]

9 hours ago, WindInTheLeaf said:

To him who seeks something, nothing must surely be the lack of that something. If he were to realize the true nature of that something he seeks, he would perhaps no longer see any intrinsic difference between nothing and something, but until he does the difference must surely exist to him. To help alleviate him of such nonsense(if you believe it to be nonsense), it is crucial to take him by the hand from where he stands and lead him from the inside out. You cannot stand outside and tear at his beliefs, for he will merely turn away. You cannot speak the voice of silence, for he cannot hear it.

@WindInTheLeaf So, it seems like there is something rather than nothing because of expectation.
What is the experience of expectation? How does it feel like? Can you point your finger towards it?

[purerogue]

27 minutes ago, ground said:

'Middle way' is also the meaning of 'madhyamaka' and 'madhyamaka' teaches the middle as I have expressed it.

It is exact same Nothing we are talking about, you are just to stubborn to understand it , it is not some kind of middle , it is simple NOTHING.

If you would understand Nothing, you would not even make such silly arguments and name it some kind of middle between something,  there is no middle as there is no everything, Nothing is that is not and is and is not explainable Nothing is above Everything as Everything is delusion. 

Edited December 20, 2018 by purerogue

[ground]

17 minutes ago, purerogue said:

It is exact same Nothing we are talking about, you are just to stubborn to understand it , it is not some kind of middle , it is simple NOTHING.

If you would understand Nothing, you would not even make such silly arguments and name it some kind of middle between something,  there is no middle as there is no everything, Nothing is that is not and is and is not explainable Nothing is above Everything as Everything is delusion. 

you are free to express your philosophy. However above I was referring to the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' that is beyond language because language does not have a word for it. Then you wanted me to answer your question where such a middle is mentioned. I have answered your question. What's your intention now?

It is obvious that we are not talking about the same.

Edited December 20, 2018 by ground

[WindInTheLeaf]

@tsuki I would rather say perception. Expectation is the child of perception (if it is bound by the idea of causality and duality - time and space). 

[purerogue]

Just now, ground said:

you are free to express your philosophy. However above I was referring to the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' that is beyond language because language does not have a word for it. Then you wanted me to answer your question where such a middle is mentioned. I have answered your question. What's your intention now?

There is word for it , word is Nothing , as it is not emptiness it is simply Nothing, it is not my philosophy, but it is something you can actually come in contact with , in a way that you can understand it , but you can not explain it fully, if you would have come in contact with it you would not label it as some kind of middle.

[ground]

5 minutes ago, purerogue said:

There is word for it , word is Nothing , as it is not emptiness it is simply Nothing, it is not my philosophy, but it is something you can actually come in contact with , in a way that you can understand it , but you can not explain it fully, if you would have come in contact with it you would not label it as some kind of middle.

The middle way does neither teach 'Nothing' nor nihilism but teaches the middle way in terms of extremes. you are free to reject the middle way teachings, no problem.

Edited December 20, 2018 by ground

[purerogue]

6 minutes ago, ground said:

The middle way does neither teach 'Nothing' nor nihilism but teaches the middle way.

middle way has nothing to do with Nothing, it is simply teaching not to go to either of extremes of life, of running away from everything and being attached to everything. 

K that is it , seems like waste of time, idk why you can't understand what that teaching is for and why you mix it together with bases of existence. 

Edited December 20, 2018 by purerogue

[ground]

20 minutes ago, purerogue said:

middle way has nothing to do with Nothing, it is simply teaching not to go to either of extremes of life, of running away from everything and being attached to everything. 

The middle way does not teach 'Nothing', that's right because 'Nothing' is considered one extreme and 'Something' is considered the other extreme from the perspective of the middle way teachings.

Edited December 20, 2018 by ground

[WindInTheLeaf]

@purerogue @ground I believe the fault is mine. I thought you, @ground, merely used the expression 'middle' for that emptyness that is beyond something versus nothing. 

I believe the middle way is a way to the middle that is the 'mu'-state. And if something and nothing are like yes and no, then the middle is sort of the same place as that place beyond. But to get beyond the edge to 'true middle' (let's say that this middle is what I referred to as true nothing in the original post), the idea of middle must be let go, as that holds the two sides of middle. It's like the extremes are still present in the middle until you stop perceiving them and thus stop perceiving yourself to be in the middle of anything as that anything is no longer there. Can you know the middle non-conceptually? hmm... how can you know that place that is no place where you are not you? Don't know if I understand what you mean by non-conceptual knowing though, perhaps you care to elaborate?

[WindInTheLeaf]

I see what I see, you see what you see. One does not have to be wrong for the other to be right. Sure we can come to free ourselves from any position and see nothing in everything and everything in nothing, but does this mean that every other way of seeing is wrong? Or right? Does such categorization even exist to such a non-being? Well surely if he is able to see things from the point of view of someone believing in right and wrong - although he won't be bound by such concepts. Does the 'mu'-state exclude yes and no or does it contain yes and no? Is maybe a neither yes or no kind of thing or is it a yes and no kind of thing?

 

[Naturalist]

Both some-thing and no-thing can be illustrated mathematically as below: -

Some-thing = 1, 2, 3, 1+2, 2+3, 3x2, 3/4, 5/7, 2/2, 0-1, 1-0, 5-5, 0-0, etc.

No-thing = -1+1, 2-2, +3-3, etc...the ultimate result is always 0 (zero).

The principle in effect: -

1.  In no-thing, there is some-thing; in some-thing, there is no-thing.

2.  Yin and yang are merely two sides of the same coin, just like crest and trough in a wavelength.

3.  Energy and matter are merely two aspects of the same thing.

4.  As such, no-thing and some-thing are merely two aspects of the same thing.  

5.  Zero is absence and absence is no-thing.  Absence means a perfect state of balance in something a.k.a. the no-thing in the some-thing.

 

 

 

[ground]

50 minutes ago, WindInTheLeaf said:

@ground,

I believe the middle way is a way to the middle that is the 'mu'-state. And if something and nothing are like yes and no, then the middle is sort of the same place as that place beyond.

As the expression 'mu'-state is likely to complicate things I will not comment on that.

'something' and 'nothing' may be likened to 'yes' and 'no' because the former implies affirmation and the latter negation.

50 minutes ago, WindInTheLeaf said:

But to get beyond the edge to 'true middle' (let's say that this middle is what I referred to as true nothing in the original post), the idea of middle must be let go, as that holds the two sides of middle.

Since I have said above that language doesn't have a word for the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' this means that the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' is beyond words and thus beyond concepts. From that follows there actually can't be an idea of the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' because an idea would require a concept. If one would argue: but to use the expression 'the middle' is an idea then I would say; yes but this idea/concept is not meant to be an idea/concept of the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' but to be only a pointer to the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' for which there are no words and which is thus beyond concepts.

There is also no 'true middle' of 'something' and 'nothing' because where would one want to find truth? Since both 'something' and 'nothing' are not true how could the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' be true?

 

50 minutes ago, WindInTheLeaf said:

It's like the extremes are still present in the middle until you stop perceiving them and thus stop perceiving yourself to be in the middle of anything as that anything is no longer there.

Regardless what object you choose it is always a question of yes/affirmation or no/negation and thus the middle applies. When the middle applies, truth cannot apply and perception is no problem.

 

50 minutes ago, WindInTheLeaf said:

Can you know the middle non-conceptually? hmm... how can you know that place that is no place where you are not you? Don't know if I understand what you mean by non-conceptual knowing though, perhaps you care to elaborate?

If one cannot understand 'knowing' other than 'it is this' or 'it is not that' then one is bound to the extremes of 'is' and 'isn't' and trapped in conceptuality.

 

Edited December 20, 2018 by ground

[Shadowraix]

@purerogue Are you even trying to look past the words themselves?

[WindInTheLeaf]

36 minutes ago, ground said:

As the expression 'mu'-state is likely to complicate things I will not comment on that.

'something' and 'nothing' may be likened to 'yes' and 'no' because the former implies affirmation and the latter negation.

Since I have said above that language doesn't have a word for the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' this means that the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' is beyond words and thus beyond concepts. From that follows there actually can't be an idea of the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' because an idea would require a concept. If one would argue: but to use the expression 'the middle' is an idea then I would say; yes but this idea/concept is not meant to be an idea/concept of the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' but to be only a pointer to the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' for which there are no words and which is thus beyond concepts.

There is also no 'true middle' of 'something' and 'nothing' because where would one want to find truth? Since both 'something' and 'nothing' are not true how could the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' be true?

 

Regardless what object you choose it is always a question of yes/affirmation or no/negation and thus the middle applies. When the middle applies, truth cannot apply and perception is no problem.

 

If one cannot understand 'knowing' other than 'it is this' or 'it is not that' then one is bound to the extremes of 'is' and 'isn't' and trapped in conceptuality.

 

Haha yeah, I just thought 'mu'-state sounded rather fitting. My merging 'yes' vs 'no' and 'something' vs 'nothing' had more to do with both being dualities dividing the world into black and white. Yes, 'middle' does bring some confusion, but I believe we are on the same page in this regard. I agree with you on the part about there is no 'true middle' - if middle implies a position and not that place beyond positions. But it sort of hints at the 'neither yes or no' kind of nature of it so perhaps it is fitting despite the confusion it may create.  

So if 'middle' is not found anywhere it is safe to assume it is nowhere. Nowhere as in a position that is beyond positions as it stands relative to nothing else. If it were relative to somewhere else it would naturally be somewhere; relative to something else it would naturally be something. It is then not in duality, but is duality in it? If anywhere is actually nowhere, then nowhere must be everywhere. Would it then not be natural to assume 'middle' to be everywhere? And if you came to this 'middle' and thus became this middle that knows itself in and of itself (without the need of 'something' to mirror; stand relative to; conceptualize itself by.), would you not then see the truth in every kind of position that you, as 'middle', may be?  

[ground]

3 hours ago, WindInTheLeaf said:

.. would you not then see the truth in every kind of position that you, as 'middle', may be?  

'seeing the truth' is affirmation and a thus deviation from the 'vision' or 'contemplation' of the middle way. Where the vision of the middle way is applied truth is impossible as is its opposite.

Edited December 20, 2018 by ground

[purerogue]

But your middle does not have space, can you even imagine something that has no space, it is neither dark or light,  it exists beyond existing, it is even wrong to say that it exists, it has no time, I think hardest thing to grasp is space, how can something exists , but have no space.

[ground]

2 hours ago, purerogue said:

But your middle does not have space, can you even imagine something that has no space, it is neither dark or light,  it exists beyond existing, it is even wrong to say that it exists, it has no time, I think hardest thing to grasp is space, how can something exists , but have no space.

'does exist' does not apply

'does not exist' does not apply

'both, does exist AND does not exist' does not apply

'neither does exist nor does not exist' does not apply.

That's the exhaustive expression of the middle in terms of existence.

The middle way is difficult to fathom due to habitual imputations of truth and habitual affirmation and negation, habitual acceptance and rejection. But once the vision or contemplation of the middle way is established through rational analysis the decisive step towards liberation has been made and there is no way back.

[WindInTheLeaf]

@ground could there be something so empty it is full; so void that it is void of nothing?

[ground]

8 minutes ago, WindInTheLeaf said:

@ground could there be something so empty it is full; so void that it is void of nothing?

Something is empty of self which means something is empty of something or what appears is empty of that as which it appears. If something is conceived as full then one should investigate what could be the substratum of fullness. One can impute whatever one likes to emptiness. The question simply is whether one's imputations can bear rational analysis.

Same applies to 'void'. Every object (or subject) is void of self, i.e.it is void of that as which it appears. That as which it appears is not nothing, but something. Being void of something however does not qualify it as nothing according to the middle way.

[purerogue]

Please stop calling it Middle way , middle way is path , not name of Nothing.