Why there is "stuff"?

[Mason Riggle]

17 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Got it. So basically no body fucking knows? 

Yep

[Someone here]

It's comforting to see how clueless everyone is. 

[Mason Riggle]

@Someone here but why are we clueless.. and not some other way?? 

[Someone here]

@Mason Riggle?

 

[Nahm]

3 hours ago, Someone here said:

Well look.. It's both two and not two. That's the mindfuck of it.  For example you can say there is no experiencer experiencing experience. Experience is one undevided whole. But on the other hand you can locate apparent twoness and boundaries. If you go look at the mirror.. "you" will see two separate eyes. They are united by the same filed of experience yet they are devided and separate nonetheless. 

What the water is an analogy for can not be thought, as in no one will be able to think it, in the same way perception can not be thought. I recommend not trying to. I think it has the possibility to create tension, and create a wrongful impression of a value of thinking. No one has or will ever ‘think their way to awakening’, as ‘it’ is the utter opposite direction, hence all the meditation, yoga, retreats, etc, etc. Inspection and contemplation of reality is most helpful, but won’t take one across the realization line so to speak. It expands the mental frame of reference. 

What I believe you could do, is look in that mirror at the two eyes, and notice ‘two’ isn’t in perception, ‘two’ is a thought that arises, which seems to label perception. Maybe imagine being a toddler, or someone that doesn’t know any words. Same perception, just wouldn’t be labeled. 

Also, and I don’t mean it critically, or harping, but that I feel it would be most helpful to you in your inquiries... to notice there is a difference between “I think, I see, I know”... and “we.. or you... think, see, know”... “everyone is clueless”...”nobody knows”. Existential inquiry seems very complex, but ‘down the path’, or ‘ultimately’ literally could not be more simple. Like, literally, there is no remaining possibility of simplifying. So that distinction stands to reduce like 90% of thinking, making the inspection or inquiry far more simple. Not to mention the reduction in thinking contributing to a more peaceful mind and better night’s sleep, etc. 

If you are ‘stuck’ on not seeing ‘two’ is a thought, and seeing is just seeing (perception), definitely don’t ‘beat up on yourself’, but regard that as thought attachment. That is not a ‘negative’ phrase. For anyone genuinely seeking, that is an extremely helpful phrase. 

[Zeroguy]

@mandyjw

Infinite Intelligence. 

This nothing right here. There is no stuff because it's all made from same formless. There can't be objects separated from one another. Including your body vs everything else. 

[Zeroguy]

There can't be experience, people, stuff etc etc. If you are about to be 100% accurate. 

Love you non dualists. ❤️

 

[Zeroguy]

That also renders "this"(started to annoy me af) Absolutelly eternal. You are it. 

Hoorey , now go create your life. 

Be happy mofos. 

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Zeroguy

[Zeroguy]

@mandyjw For that no self or actual self transcendence. 

Your human Intelligence is miniscule and pathetic for God's Intelligence. 

Your mind is to be used differently. 

That's why @Nahmis asking you to drop all beleifs because you are lost in your own self created web of BS. 

That includes theorizing about non duality too. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Zeroguy

[Zeroguy]

So want actually to be God or Connor Murphy. Up to you. 

Will finish with this. Sounds so cool. 

End of my involvment with enlightenment. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Zeroguy

[Someone here]

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

What I believe you could do, is look in that mirror at the two eyes, and notice ‘two’ isn’t in perception, ‘two’ is a thought that arises, which seems to label perception. Maybe imagine being a toddler, or someone that doesn’t know any words. Same perception, just wouldn’t be labeled. 

Alright got it. 'two' is a thought and not found in perception. Will grant ya that. Does that apply to 'not two' as well ? And everything else that can be said about perception is therefore false and you wanna be left with naked perception? 

Yes.. two is a thought that's arising. It's not a perception. but it corresponds to perception. If you look at the mirror.. The thought " 3 or 4 eyes" won't arise because it doesn't correspond to perception. 

And once again.. how do you relate that to my original question here about the existence of stuff?

[Nahm]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

Alright got it. 'two' is a thought and not found in perception. Will grant ya that. Does that apply to 'not two' as well ?

Yes, not two is a thought, and there are not two perception’s, or two in perception. It’s better to check for yourself. Try to find separation, inspect, investigate.  

Quote

And everything else that can be said about perception is therefore false and you wanna be left with naked perception? 

Yes, even the word / thought ‘perception’ as a pointer can go. 

Quote

Yes.. two is a thought that's arising. It's not a perception. but it corresponds to perception. If you look at the mirror.. The thought " 3 or 4 eyes" won't arise because it doesn't correspond to perception. 

Yes, this is conditioning. Learned language, numbers, etc... believed to define separate objects, rather than serve as communication in regard to what is in actuality has never been separate. Fingers could be said to correspond to toes, yet aren’t really separate... learning the words, and believing thoughts, makes it seem so. Also, ‘correspond’ is another thought, a label learned, based on the belief in two, in perception.  

Quote

And once again.. how do you relate that to my original question here about the existence of stuff?

If there are not two, and there is ‘stuff’....

[Mason Riggle]

I like the word 'stuff', because it has a rather loose definition.  It can mean anything and everything.  Stuff could be trees and rocks.  Stuff could be sounds and sensations.  Stuff could be thoughts. Stuff could be 'whatever there is'. 

@Someone here might have asked, 'why is experience how it is'? Why is there experience? Why is there perception? Why awareness? Why consciousness?  When asking, 'why is there stuff?', I think he is really asking, 'why does existence exist'? 

I don't really find the 'stuff is really nothing' or 'there is no stuff' language to be a very useful, because it's not logical, unless you mean to say 'reality is not logical', which is to say, it can't be understood.  These are 'non explanations'.   Saying '[insert word] is nothing', is like saying, 'Whatever there is, isn't', or 'up is down'. Well, what the fuck does that mean?  It doesn't mean anything. Maybe that's the point. 

 The very 'isness' of 'what there is' is 'self evident'.  But why? Is it meaningful to give tautologies like, 'non-being can never be'?  This would be like saying "trees are trees precisely because they're not 'not trees'.. isn't that obvious?" Is it any more meaningful to say, 'Trees are not trees'? I don't think so. 

Perhaps, however, both kinds of responses are pointing to the same thing.  "why?" is a question with no end, for which 'why?' can be asked again of any answer, ad infinitum.  Children are great at making this point.  


 

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, Mason Riggle said:

.  "why?" is a question with no end, for which 'why?' can be asked again of any answer, ad infinitum.  Children are great at making this point.  
 

Reality simply is itself.  It is prior to how, when, why.  An ego searches for a why for its own selfish reasons.. no one thing is favored over another.  When this is realized actually, then that is Absolute Love.  The Why with a capital W.  .  A pointer of course.

[Endangered-EGO]

On 07/05/2021 at 10:08 PM, Someone here said:

Even scientifically speaking.. If you break down the atoms that make up the universe.. You will get waves of energy. Break down the energry and you get nothingness .  We know now through quantum physics that the universe is literally made out of nothing. 

I disagree. The answer is turtles all the way down. You can split it indefinately. Then you reach the plank length. Then you go into energy. What is energy. Well energy is fueled by 5th dimension waves of patterns. which is fueled by 6th dimension stuff and it goes on forever. It doesn't end with nothingness. Ken wilber said it. It's holons. If you go a trillion orders of magnitide deeper or smaller, you don't get closer to nothing, you just go deeper into the smallness or in causality.

At least that's what I believe. 

[Dodo]

On 07/05/2021 at 9:08 PM, Someone here said:

There is an old Buddhist saying " form is empty. Emptiness is form". 

It's basically pointing to the collapse of the duality between somethingness and nothingness. 

I've realized it many times.. That something and nothing are identical. 

The mistake is thinking that "nothing" is some blank black void somewhere. 

No.. Everything we are experiencing all the time is precisely nothing.  It's completely hollow and unstable. No different than appearance of a Dream. 

Even scientifically speaking.. If you break down the atoms that make up the universe.. You will get waves of energy. Break down the energry and you get nothingness .  We know now through quantum physics that the universe is literally made out of nothing. 

But I stil can't wrap my head around... Why there is "stuff"? Why colors and sounds and objects?  It's utterly miraculous  that these things exist at all.. Like if you examine any object or just your own body.. "Wow what the fuck is this? ?." . But we take it for granted because we've been alive for lots and lots. 

My question : I get that there is no difference between something and nothing. But I can't wrap my mind around why there is "stuff". If the universe was just pure empty blankness that would still be nothing but rather in its most "pure" and original form possible. So why did God bother to say "let there be light"? 

 

In mathematics also, every number = that number + 0. 

0 is everywhere,  the different numbers are practical but illusory concepts that do not actually have a solid reality to them apart from mind. 

 

[Dodo]

@Someone here on "Let there be light" I have been focusing on this for a while now. It appears the bible suggests sound is before light itself. 

Could mind be faster than the speed of light? I think Einstein was working on that one

[Someone here]

@Nahm 

19 hours ago, Nahm said:

Yes, this is conditioning. Learned language, numbers, etc... believed to define separate objects, rather than serve as communication in regard to what is in actuality has never been separate. Fingers could be said to correspond to toes, yet aren’t really separate... learning the words, and believing thoughts, makes it seem so. Also, ‘correspond’ is another thought, a label learned, based on the belief in two, in perception.  

 

NOTICE that you are saying there is not two..meanwhile you are creating two by insisting on the distinction between thought and perception. Isn't that itself a duality (twoness) ? 

19 hours ago, Nahm said:

If there are not two, and there is ‘stuff’....

That would be two? 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Someone here

[Javfly33]

On 10/5/2021 at 6:18 PM, Someone here said:

 

@Inliytened1 . If you go look at the mirror.. "you" will see two separate eyes. They are united by the same filed of experience yet they are devided and separate nonetheless. 

@Someone here  And inside each eye, I'm sure there's more room for division and separation. Yet you call it an "eye" as a whole. 

What if you are doing the same with reality?