I certainly can, 300%.

you can say it all you want - it doesn't make it true

Of course not, you just have to experience it yourself, and no doubt, you will, one day. I always say, "Never take my word for it."

Simple. I cant show what nothing is because it is impossible to do so. No one else can either because as soon as they type or describe what it is IT IS
and therefore they contradict themselves. How can you show what nothing is? To show what nothing is is to show something. To explain what nothing is is to explain SOMETHING. Nothing in order to be nothing must be beyond imagination and therefore impossible to prove unless experienced directly and therefore no proof required.

Also how can nothing happen??????????? Because there can be no 'happen' if there is nothing to happen.




That the only thing we can really say about universe is that IT IS. But even this because I have written it is a contradiction because the universe is one and the nature of words is dualistic. Quantum Physicist Werner Heisenberg puts it well when he said:

No perceptual judgement can ever be made wih complete certainty.

Im glad you think what I wrote is nonsense. If you ponder long enough you will realize that ALL that is written is nonsense. Writting is only good insofar as it helps you understand that writing is nonsense. Then you must define nonsense...it only stands out in contrast insofar as sense equally does and vice versa. Really they are different ends of the same rope THE SAME ROPE. Therefore they arnt actually different.

Once there was a well known philosopher who devoted himself to the study of Zen for many years. On the day he finally attained enlightenment, he took all of his books out into the yard, and burned them all.

---Zen story I read from somewhere

Abandon book learning. ---Lao Tzu

Wisdom s but Self-awareness,
Beyond all words and talk.

---- Hundred Thousand Songs f Milarepa

Each of us individually is the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. The entire universe is infinite and therefore our true nature is infinite.

I have to go by faith because I havnt experienced what I actually am yet. Man the paradoxes!

Your premise that a word that describes a thing or concept brings an existence to that thing or concept is flawed in that you can never show this to be so. We use a word to describe the concept of nothing because this is a concept that can never be experienced, because it is not a 'thing' to be experienced. It simply has no existence. In this regard it is identical to 'infinity'.



You have a belief in dualism, but uncertainty does not imply a dualistic nature of things or words. You have assumed something that Heisenberg possibly never intended for his words to mean. He is talking of the uncertain nature of perception, not subtly philosophising about dualism.



More nonsense. Communication is how we formalise thoughts, ideas and concepts. Your allegory about the Zen philosopher burning his books is not a good one. Why did the philosopher burn his books? What books were they that were burned? The implication is that knowledge is useless once enlightenment is attained, but the actual story is simply that the philosopher burned his books. No implication because no reason is given.

Also, how is 'enlightenment attained'? Is enlightenment a 'thing' that can be gained or attained? I doubt this.

Yes and both infinite and nothing cant be described using words or concepts and to do so contradicts the very thing we are describing. What we cannot think we cannot think therefore we cannot say what we cannot think. And therefore we cannot type it either.

Also it isnt flawed to say that something exist because we have used words and concepts. Words have their origin in imaginaton. BOTH WHAT WE THINK AND SEE HAVE THEIR ORIGIN IN THE BRAIN AND THE BRAIN IS A TRANSLATION OF ITSELF IN CONSCIOUSNESS. THEREFORE THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT SEE AND WHAT WE THINK AS FAR AS THE BRAIN GOES.

What we see and what we think are both as valid as each other when it comes to existing.



Uncertainty is the opposite of..............CERTAINTY!@!@! Tell me one word or notion that doesnt have an opposite.



And dualism doesnt play a part in peception? Good luck with that one.



How can you say that the implication is that knowledge is useless once enlightenment is attained when you say shortly afterwards that there is no implication??? Why not get enlightened yourself and that way you can have a hands on experience about it.




I am not a qualified Zen master or Guru to give you a sufficient answer.

There is no contradiction in a concept, there is only the concept. You suppose a contradiction there because to do so fits your belief system. You are trapped in the perimeter of your belief. The rest of this part of your post is meaningless in respect to the word concept under discussion.

I suppose no contradiction in the concept of nothing or infinity. Neither exist yet both have a word that encompasses the concept. In your world this cannot be yet I have just stated it. Explain how that can be if your world exists solely within your consciousness?



A meaningless statement with no relevance (yet again) to what we were discussing. You assumed a meaning to Heisenberg's quote when it cannot be said that meaning was what Heisenberg implied. You manipulated his words to fit your belief system. I give no meaning to the quote you posted beyond those of the words themselves. I do not know Heisenberg's thoughts as he wrote that and neither should you assume to.



My short statement of no implication was in reference to Heisenberg's quote you used. Read what I have said just above to understand why I said that.



You believe that perception is illusion, that belief is illusion, yet you have a fixed belief in Dualism? Good luck with that one...



Why do you assume I am not enlightened? Just because I do not believe as you do you assume I must not be following a path of enlightenment? What arrogance!

How do you know enlightenment exists, that it is a thing that can be attained and, most laughably, that there are qualifications for such a thing???

The thing about your belief system, brave, is that it leads you to believe nothing, yet you assume much. Have you really looked into the heart of your belief?

You say that both nothing and infinity dont exist. Can you prove that???? Both what we physicaly see and think are both concept because they are both thoughts or "stuff of perception".

What makes up things are not more things, but what makes up things are ideas, concepts, information. ---Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D.

Science has proven that when you perceive a tree you dont actually percieve a solid physical objective tree. You actually only perceive the translation of it created by your brain and interpreted by your consciousness. Because of this we cant prove that either a real objective world exists outside of our consciousness and we cant also prove that there isnt one. SO TO BELIEVE EITHER WAY IS IN FACT AN ACT OF FAITH.

Indeed, we must never forget that for us outer reality exists only in so far as we perceive it consciously, and that we cannot prove that it exists in and by itself. ---M.L.von Franz

My point is that what we see in concept and what we see physically is in fact both concept. Where do words have their origin???? In concepts. So when you shape "nothing" into a concept you are actually making it into something. The same is with infinite, when we package it into a concept we make it finite.

Since no idea or sensation exists outside the mind, no physical thing exists outside the mind. ---George Berkeley

Hence when you use concepts and words to describe either infinity or nothing YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF.



My point by using that quote is the fact that EVERYTHING comes down to perceptipn. What is perception but consciousness? And consciousness by it's subtle nature cannot be defined by the five senses and transcends duality which cannot be used to describe it or if so to only partially describe it vicariously. Sorry if I used to the quote in the wrong context, I'll know better next time.



Reality is only perception and so yes I do believe that reality/perception is an illusion.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ---Albert Einstein

I believe everything is one actually...if you read the majority of my posts I say that I have faith in that which dwells beyond duality which is God/Infinite consciousness/nothing.

I fully recognize that my belief is an illusion and that because I am so deep rooted in my beliefs that I am trapped in an illusion. All thought creates dualism and therefore dualism is the illusion.



I myself constantly repeat over and over that I am not enlightened. Therefore I can be pardoned for my arrogance.



I know it exists because intuition tells me so.

"The only real valuable thing is intuition." ---Albert Einstein


I have faith in my intuition. I cant prove that it exists but I have faith it exists. Part of my faith in that it exists is because of all the sages, gurus and mystics who have claimed to have experienced it and say that anyone can do it.

So really it comes down to faith but not an unreasonable faith, it is a faith I have come to cultivate after questioning and doubting and my faith isnt perfect because I am still questioning it. Once my faith becomes perfect I too will have my mystical experience in which it will no longer be faith but direct conscious knowledge.

To have faith we rely on practice. To have wisdom we must know the truth. Faith is the prerequisite of wisdom.

--- Nagarjuna, Second-century Indian scholar and writer founder of the Madhyamaka school of Indian Mahayana



Have you? I recognize that no belief is right because of the fact that it is a belief, whether it be backed up by philosophy, science or religion. Also you say my belief system leads me to believe in nothing.

define nothing?! I bet you cant without contradicting yourself. And to me nothing is something which my belief system obviously reflects. Tell me what nothing is then I'll know what you are talking about when you use the word. Hahahaha

No-one can tell you what nothing is because it is not anything. Nothing is nothing. There is no duality to that, it [the concept] is not any thing, it is not the opposite of any thing (or everything), it is nothing.

There is a concept that allows us to talk about nothing, this does not give this concept a 'thingness', despite your abundant use of other people's quotes.

But the opposite to nothing is something. Name me one concept that is beyond duality. The concept is not any thing? You have just staed that it is a concept. How can nothing be an "it is"???????



Whatever we talk about always has a "thingness" otherwise we wouldnt be able to talk about it.

I equate God with nothingness because they both go beyond comprehension of the rational mind. Both go beyond concept and word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyuQbIb0Xs

This bte sized clip shows symbolically what I believe the nothing/something is.

You have just fallen into a logic trap.

How can nothing be the opposite of anything? To be an opposite to something nothing would have to be a thing, which, by its very definition, it is not.

Nothing is a concept. It has no reality, no existence, no 'thingness'. It is a word without any imagining of a thing behind it. I understand if you are confused, but if you don't understand nothing, why are you trying to convince people what it is, or is not?

Exactly so, like describing infinity, describing nothing always leads into logic traps or "paradoxes". Hence why I say we contradict ourselves whenever we describe it. If nothing was no thing then it wouldnt exist to have a definition. Also nothing is a thing because if it wasnt then we wouldnt be able to conceptualize it. But like I said earlier I equate God with nothing and have faith in its existence. Both God and nothing are nothing in particular including nothing in particular but such a thing goes beyond all word and concept. This too is a contradiction because of the limitation of the duality of thought and word.



If it has no reality then you wouldnt be able to name it for the very reason that it has no reality.



Such a thing does not exist (which by the way is a form of existence). Words have their source in thought/imagination.



Whether it is or is not it still is. My point is this "how can people say that nothing exists after death when they cant define nothing without contradicting themselves."

Havent you?

Just had a weird thought . We always use the word paradox to define inconsistencies, but as with all the things described as paradoxical, catagorizing them contradicts their very status in the first place. LMAO The word paradox is a contradiction in itself in it!

As with all the words that dont make sense we need to order them so that we can describe what we understand, they aint the actual understanding itself but a description.

Spose its when we internalise the communications of what we understand that we become bound to them in it!

Dont let the paradoxes bind you Brave, you are bliss personified

WOW cheers for the inspiration *internalises everything i just said *....SH**!!




Everytime a person uses the word nothing with reference to something that aint there *thinks of example of full hand with apple and empty hand with no apple you used in another thread or PM* they fall into a "logic" trap or whatever you wanna call it.

The hand maybe empty, but the hand still exists, the awareness of the apples absence is also somit that exists. Surely if there were nothing we would not be here to even define it, but as a race we still apply such a word and forget that it is just a tool for communication.

I conclude then that nothing is a useful word for the communication of understanding form or absence of it in perceptive contrast and for calculating aspects of what we percieve in the way that we live.

As with all words though, they are the description to indicate what we percieve and understand but they aint the actual "object" that we describe, their just the description. The point that we view the world in terms of US experiencing THEM/IT is the illusionary duality. Duality exists within communication and thought. Thoughts aint reality....

Brave, obviously such a thing as a word without any imagining of a thing behind it does exist! That you don't believe it because it doesn't fit your belief system does not make it so, or if you fail to understand how this could be so doesn't invalidate the concept. Also, the word 'nothing' is not describing any attributes of the concept, because the concept has no attributes. The word is not a description, it is a label for the concept of nothing.

I agree that words have their source in thought/imagination. This doesn't mean that someone successfully thought of/imagined what nothing is, because that isn't possible. It is a word for an impossible concept.

No one can say nothing exists after death because we do not know if anything exists after death. We can speculate that death is the ultimate termination of our existence, in which case nothing, in the sense of experience of anything, would exist after death. This does not mean that a thing known as nothing has an actual physical existence after death, and if you took that as the meaning then you were probably mistaken.

Death is bliss unpersonified.

Ya but I have to humbly admit that Im not conscious of what I am already conscious of. I have faith that I am bliss but dont feel it when I know that there is nothing new to feel because we are always eternally bliss. But I know where you are coming from.



Well written

Cheers man

Indeed, the awareness of the apple's nonexistence is a thing. However, the example I was using wasn't meant to properly show what nothing is, because that can't be done. I can't show you the non-existence of everything, but I can show you the non-existence of something and let you extrapolate from that the concept of non-existence of everything. If you failed to understand the example then I'm sorry, it probably was ineffective as an example anyway, but if you refuse to understand the example then you are simply being incalcitrant (Not suggesting you are, of course!!! )

I think you have grasped the concept of nothing though, and the reason for the concept's impossibility of existence - despite the word label existing.

If it has no concept or attributes then you wouldnt be able to attribute it as a concept or word in the first place would you? A word is a description because a label is a way of describing what something is duh.



How can anyone imagine nothing? That is my point. How can we use a word which has its source in imagination to label something which is above or below imaginaton? To say that there is something which isnt anything at all contradicts the very definition of nothing.


But this too is something.



Whether physical or not is irrelevant because for something to be something it doesnt have to be physical.

Hence why it is an act of faith to believe it does exist. Hahahaha nothing does exist, again we reach the paradoxes.

No, it's not. You must try to understand how language is used. A label does not have to be a description.

Explain so.

Brave, what are you talking about? Nowhere have I stated that nothing exists, in fact I have been quite adamant that it can't because it is an impossible concept.

Then if it doesnt exist then why are you so adamant that it can be labelled and described by words? For something to not exist it cant be labelled for thereis nothing to label or describe.

Describe 'Black'.

A dark color.

No, it's not. Black is not a colour, it is the absence of colour. I was a bit naughty when I asked you to describe black, because how can you describe the absence of something? Black is a label. It's a statement of something's (colour) absence. It is not a description.

This is where it ends with you Brave. Why is this discussion continuing? Are you trying to find something out of nothing? I think that's what's happening here. Ok, your right Brave. What you said above is correct. End of story?!

...shrugs...

The absence of something is still something and therefore cant be nothing. Black is the label to describe the something which is the absence of colour.And when I say something is "black" people usually know I am describing something that is of a dark quality. So it is still a description. So I dont know what you point is. Because even if black is without colour it isnt without form.


Could you please settle our argument over whether black is a colour or not. Please reply soon before we fall out and hurt each other - Two bored Observers

Answer: You're both right: depending on which side of the perception/physics fence you're on!
In terms of Perception, Black like Greys and White, is an achromatic colour: a colour without hue and saturation (or "strength").
If the term is intended to be Physical (physical and psychophysical concepts are often confused) and Black refers to a total absence of visible radiation (light) then, if there is no physical stimulus, there can be no physiological response: no response-> no perception-> no colour.

http://www.city.ac.uk/colourgroup/faq.html

If you dont mind me coming in and putting in my opinion...

after death, I think, there is absence. Not Nothing. Absence. and without Something to be taken away to provide this absence, that is where you get Nothing, because Nothing was there to provide absence. The absence takes place of human conciousness, so, therefore, there has to be some kind of human concious taken away, and what is left, is what you get after death.

Ok then no response. My last post was meant to pry some secret knowledge out of you that you might have that others don't. I was trying to be sneaky. Sorry if i came off as being mean or something. This is a good discussion and i don't see any reason why it should end.

On a philosophical note the absence of consciousness is the consciousness of no consciousness and therefore a form of consciousness.

Dont stress. I assure you that I have no secret knowledge.

Please reference anywhere in philosophical thought that this is given as being a statement of affirmation (other than previous posts by yourself where you have made similar claims about non-things). I'd really like to see why philosophers think this is true.

Ramana Maharshi:

The whole universe is full of life. You say the stone is unconscious. It your self-consciousness, which now speaks of unconsciousness. When a person wants to see if there is an article in a dark room, he takes a lamp to look for it. The light is useful for detecting the presence and the absence of the thing. Consciousness is necessary for discovering if a thing is conscious or not. If a man remains in a dark room, one need not take a lamp to announce his presence. Consciousness is thus self-shining.

Now you say you were unconscious in sleep and self-conscious in the wakeful state. Which is the Reality? Reaity must be continuous of the present is the Reality. But you admit your existence all through. The pure Being cannot be other than consciousness. Otherwise, you cannot say that you exist. Therefore consciousness is the reality. When that consciousness is assciated with upadhis( limting adjunct or attribute; everything that is superimposed on Brahman, the Reality), you speak of self-consciousness, unconsciousness, subconsciousness, superconsciousness, human consciousness, dog consciousness, tree consciousness, and so on. The common factor in all of them is consciousness.

Therefore the stone is as much unconscious as you are in sleep. Is that totally devoid of consciousness?



Therefore unconsciousness (absence of consciousness) is a form of consciousness. You cant get a much better Perennial Philosopher than Ramana Maharshi

..which, is kind of exactly what i said. just worded differently

Okay I'm getting pretty confused now lol

Brave, you say that nothing is something because we use it to describe something that is not there. But since we can describe everything that we see, doesn't that mean nothing cannot exist because we cannot see nothing, we always see something?

Ya, nothing doesnt exist. There is no such thing logically as nothing because to name it means that it is an it to name and therefore something which contradicts the very definition of nothing.

Okay I think we're on the same page because if you actually think about it, when someone uses the word nothing it doesn't really make sense such as:

What are you doing? Oh, nothing. (You would be doing something because you're talking to the person)

Good topic

Thanks mate!

Excellent, brave!

When you are debating with someone who does not believe as you do and they reference an external object( say a stone) to make a point you often reply with a statement regarding the dubiousness of existence (or proving of existence) of the external object, yet when someone who believes the same as you makes their point in this way you hold it up as a glittering example of the truth of your belief?

I hope you see what I am driving at here.

Why should a stone be unconscious? Show me the stone exists? Prove your own belief...

This is just stupid. If a person believes their is nothing after death and you ask what nothing is then you're just being a jackass. The best thing that person can do is just smack you in the face. "What is nothing?" Ask yourself that and think. Nothing is the absence of everything. As simple as that. Nothing is a WORD. It is a WORD used to describe a place.



I don't believe their is nothing persay..I just believe you are dead. You cant think, you cant do anything. So you're basically "done" with life. I don't know why people think that is unpleasant. Life is harsh...Death is bliss in its most perfect form.

I made my point. You wanted to see an example where a philosopher used the same system of logic as I did in reference to one of my earlier posts.

Also Ramana Maharshi agrees that everything is one and this one is all consciousness.

A place is something.



Cant do anything? What do you mean by that?

You are wrong here. I have only ever said that external objects dont exist independently of consciousness. I agree the external world exists but only because of consciousness, that the external world is in fact consciousness. Show me where I have said otherwise???



I really dont know what you are driving at to be honest.

Are you even reading what I said? The word "place" is simply a word that describes a portion of definite or indefinite space.


Stop trying to over-complicate an easily understandable thing.


And when I say you cant do anything I mean your brain shuts down. Your heart doesn't beat, you dont breath, you dont think, you dont feel, you dont speak, you dont hear, you dont smell, you dont taste, you dont <insert any humanely possible verb here>.



That simple enough for you?

What about awareness? Science hasnt proven that the brain creates awareness. So we could very well still be aware whether the brain is present or not.

Are you trying to test my patience with you or something?


I believe that everything, even the "human soul", is controlled invariably by the brain. Nothing you do can happen if you don't have a brain...like it or not. A human soul isn't going to move your body around and let you feel.


I really can't believe that their are people this day and age that don't get that.

Just because science hasn't proven the brain creates awareness doesn't mean it wont. Rigorous human anatomical studies with current technologies are just that...current. They haven't been here for 2000 years like your supposed philosophy. And I'm just throwing out 2000...could be longer. Give it at least 500 years and then start throwing this crap out.

Well it is debatable until there is proof. Also unless we have awareness we wouldnt know we had a brain. So the awareness is more fundamental than the brain.

The body is in the soul and not vice versa in my opinion.

The flesh man not be excused from the laws of matter, but the mind is not so fettered. Thoughts transcend the physics of the brain.

Cogitor Vidad,
Thoughts from Isolated Objectivity