WokeBloke

Question about nonexistence

55 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I was listening to Sadhguru and he said nothingness or nonexistence is the basis of existence. He calls this Shiva or "that which is not". I don't understand how this could be possible. It seems to be the basis/source of creation must exist otherwise there would be no creation. If nonexistence is the basis of creation then that is essentially like saying there is no source of creation. But then how could there be creation (such as this post) without a creator? 

Edited by WokeBloke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're confusing nonexistence with nothing. Nothing exists, nonexistence doesn't. And of course, there's a creator, it's you(which is the same as nothing/everything).


Potestas Infinitas, Libertas Infinitas, Auctoritas Infinitas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

I was listening to Sadhguru and he said nothingness or nonexistence is the basis of existence. He calls this Shiva or "that which is not". I don't understand how this could be possible. It seems to be the basis/source of creation must exist otherwise there would be no creation. If nonexistence is the basis of creation then that is essentially like saying there is no source of creation. But then how could there be creation (such as this post) without a creator? 

He usually puts a hyphen between No-thing. Because it isn’t any-thing. What would limit No-thing? Shiva is conscious.

If you interact with Shiva lingam you can get a taste.


Why do I love you?  I don't need a reason.

https://lingabhairavi.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-existence is a concept. There is only existence. Existence as a form or existence as formlessness. But both are existence.

Humans commonly mistake formlessness for non-existence. This is the error.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

"that which is not"

That's the formless, it's the background of / precondition for form (and ultimately they're the same). That's what Sadhguru meant.

Both are existence. The foundation upon which being and non-being stand is existence, which is neither form nor formless (nondual).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

I was listening to Sadhguru and he said nothingness or nonexistence is the basis of existence. He calls this Shiva or "that which is not". I don't understand how this could be possible. It seems to be the basis/source of creation must exist otherwise there would be no creation. If nonexistence is the basis of creation then that is essentially like saying there is no source of creation. But then how could there be creation (such as this post) without a creator? 

Logically you could make the argument that the source of existence can't exist because then it would be part of existence and hence not the creator of it.

 

21 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

If nonexistence is the basis of creation then that is essentially like saying there is no source of creation.

No that's not what it means. It means that it's prior to creation. Non-existence is the source of existence but ultimately existence and non-existence is two sides of the same coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

17 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

Quoting from the article

 

"The existence is made of “that which is” and “that which is not”. “That which is” has form, shape, qualities, beauty. “That which is not” has none of these things, but it is free."

 

So it seems clear that Sadhguru understands that nothing exists, and is different from nonexistence. As he understands that nothing is existence without any attributes or qualities.

Edited by JuliusCaesar
Missed a sentence

Potestas Infinitas, Libertas Infinitas, Auctoritas Infinitas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JuliusCaesar said:

Quoting from the article

 

"The existence is made of “that which is” and “that which is not”. “That which is” has form, shape, qualities, beauty. “That which is not” has none of these things, but it is free."

 

So it seems clear that Sadhguru understands that nothing exists, and is different from nonexistence. As he understands that nothing is existence without any attributes or qualities.

What about this quote 

"When I say “one with God”, it does not mean going and joining someone somewhere. It is just that your individual bubble is over. To use an analogy, right now your existence is like a bubble. A bubble that is floating around is very real but if you burst it, where does the air inside the bubble go? It just becomes one with the atmosphere. It is completely dissolved. When we say “one with everything”, this is what it means. Nothing will be there. “You” will not be there. When we say mukti, it means you are free from existence. I am not talking about existence as a quantity which you are free from. You are free from your own existence – your existence is finished."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Benton said:

He usually puts a hyphen between No-thing. Because it isn’t any-thing. What would limit No-thing? Shiva is conscious.

If you interact with Shiva lingam you can get a taste.

But why does he call this "that which is not" which literally means that which does not exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Non-existence is a concept. There is only existence. Existence as a form or existence as formlessness. But both are existence.

Humans commonly mistake formlessness for non-existence. This is the error.

So why do you think he says "that which is not" or that which does not exist is the basis of existence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me existance as an objective permanent world makes less sense. Every thing is impermanent. It comes and goes back into non-existance, the source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

To me existance as an objective permanent world makes less sense. Every thing is impermanent. It comes and goes back into non-existance, the source.

how could a non-existent source give rise to existence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

“You” will not be there. When we say mukti, it means you are free from existence. I am not talking about existence as a quantity which you are free from. You are free from your own existence – your existence is finished."

In this context he means by "existence" your existence as a finite human form. You stop existing in the sense that this form disappears. But then you exist as pure Infinity.

You are not parsing his words properly.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

In this context he means by "existence" your existence as a finite human form. You stop existing in the sense that this form disappears. But then you exist as pure Infinity.

You are not parsing his words properly.

So then I will still exist. My existence won't be finished. To me it sounds like misuse of language I truly want to understand this if you can help. What he seems to be talking about is absolute death. The end of me forever.

Edited by WokeBloke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better term is unmanifest reality, inert reality, undistinguished reality, pure potential. When expressed you get manifest reality, dynamic reality, distinguished reality, the loss of potential. When people say they experienced nothingness it wasn't nothing cuz they were there to experience it.

Nothingness and emptiness are just concepts for convenience, so you can just say "theres nothing in this cup" instead of saying this cup lacks everything you can list than can fit in the cup.

"This room is empty" instead of saying this room is missing a cat, a dog, a horse, a girl, a rat, a bat, a hat, a fat babe, an alien, a cup of water, on and on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

So then I will still exist. My existence won't be finished.

Existence is Absolute. It cannot ever be finished.

Quote

What he seems to be talking about is absolute death. The end of me forever.

Yes, the end of you as a finite, distinct thing.

But you will exist as pure Infinity forever.

If you got a glimpse of pure Infinity, you would be so horrified you'd call it death. It's a lot like death, except you are conscious forever of endless nothingness. I've seen it. It's the most terrifying thing you could imagine. But also, it's LOVE.

It's the last thing you could possibly want.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leo Gura said:

Existence is Absolute. It cannot ever be finished.

Yes, the end of you as a finite, distinct thing.

But you will exist as pure Infinity forever.

So I can't ever be free of my own existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WokeBloke said:

So I can't ever be free of my own existence.

No. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now