Not even nothing

a reply to: gosseyn

The latter. The only thing that exists is what is directly in front of you, your direct experience. The universe only exists as a thought in direct experience. In god's case, if there is one, maybe he experiences the whole universe. Who knows, one can only speculate

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Nothing is appearing on anything.

Nothing is appearing!!

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So, "this" isn't it all. It seems all you can ever speak of is the metaphor, while refusing to speak about anything else.

Is this that is actually happening (aliveness) a metaphor?

originally posted by: HarryTZ
a reply to: gosseyn

The latter. The only thing that exists is what is directly in front of you, your direct experience. The universe only exists as a thought in direct experience. In god's case, if there is one, maybe he experiences the whole universe. Who knows, one can only speculate

Do you believe there is no objective reality outside of thought, there is only the observer ? Or do you believe there is no way to know if there is something outside of thought ? Or you know there is something outside of thought and you're just explaining the nature of consciousness ?

a reply to: gosseyn

originally posted by: gosseyn

Do you believe there is no objective reality outside of thought, there is only the observer ? Or do you believe there is no way to know if there is something outside of thought ? Or you know there is something outside of thought and you're just explaining the nature of consciousness ?

'Thought' is made of words that make a story. Stories happen - they can tell stories about there being a universe or another time or place.
Seeing is happening and the computer is happening (appearing).

Prior to thought (stories) what is there?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: gosseyn

originally posted by: gosseyn

Do you believe there is no objective reality outside of thought, there is only the observer ? Or do you believe there is no way to know if there is something outside of thought ? Or you know there is something outside of thought and you're just explaining the nature of consciousness ?

'Thought' is made of words that make a story. Stories happen - they can tell stories about there being a universe or another time or place.
Seeing is happening and the computer is happening (appearing).

Prior to thought (stories) what is there?

Well, if you are saying that a piece of rock can't tell itself stories because it has no thoughts, yes, obviously, but the piece of rock exists nonetheless. If there was no thought, there wouldn't be any stories.

But you quoted me and you didn't answer the questions you quoted.

originally posted by: gosseyn

Well, if you are saying that a piece of rock can't tell itself stories because it has no thoughts, yes, obviously, but the piece of rock exists nonetheless. If there was no thought, there wouldn't be any stories.

A rock has no stories. Even if it had thought it still would not be able to tell itself stories. It seems that you are assuming that you tell yourself stories - do you believe that you are doing thinking?
Thinking, or thought is just appearing, just happening. There is no one seeing - yet seeing happens. There is no separate observer. It might seem as though there is 'something' to be observed and 'something' separate observing - but they are one.

do you believe there is no way to know if there is something outside of thought ?

Seeing is happening - what is appearing as this computer is not made of thought.

Maybe the question you ask is not about thought - maybe you meant to say "do you believe there is no way to know if there is something outside of awareness?" - not sure?? But colour is appearing and sound is appearing and they are not thought. Seeing and hearing, tasting and touching are non conceptual (not story/thought) - but thought is conceptual.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: gosseyn

Well, if you are saying that a piece of rock can't tell itself stories because it has no thoughts, yes, obviously, but the piece of rock exists nonetheless. If there was no thought, there wouldn't be any stories.

A rock has no stories. Even if it had thought it still would not be able to tell itself stories. It seems that you are assuming that you tell yourself stories - do you believe that you are doing thinking?
Thinking, or thought is just appearing, just happening. There is no one seeing - yet seeing happens. There is no separate observer. It might seem as though there is 'something' to be observed and 'something' separate observing - but they are one.

do you believe there is no way to know if there is something outside of thought ?

Seeing is happening - what is appearing as this computer is not made of thought.

Maybe the question you ask is not about thought - maybe you meant to say "do you believe there is no way to know if there is something outside of awareness?" - not sure?? But colour is appearing and sound is appearing and they are not thought. Seeing and hearing, tasting and touching are non conceptual (not story/thought) - but thought is conceptual.

Whether it is me doing the thinking or if thinking is just happening without me doing anything, at this point it is not relevant : thought is nonetheless happening. So, let's focus on that.

I am asking you if you believe thought, or awareness(non-verbal thought if you prefer), is all there is. Do you think the universe would disappear if there was no conscious observer to tell stories about it ?

originally posted by: gosseyn

Whether it is me doing the thinking or if thinking is just happening without me doing anything, at this point it is not relevant : thought is nonetheless happening. So, let's focus on that.


I am asking you if you believe thought, or awareness(non-verbal thought if you prefer), is all there is. Do you think the universe would disappear if there was no conscious observer to tell stories about it ?

Thought is an appearance - colour is an appearance - sound is an appearance - stories are an appearance.
What is a conscious observer?
Everything is simply appearing but there is no one seeing it.
Everything appears and disappears in nothing and out of nothing.

There is no conscious observer!! That is a concept. There is only what is happening. Life is happening and it is not made of two separate parts - 'observer' and 'observed' - life is one without a second.

originally posted by: gosseyn

Whether it is me doing the thinking or if thinking is just happening without me doing anything, at this point it is not relevant : thought is nonetheless happening.

The 'me' is not - the 'me' is an assumption. Thinking happens full stop. And then thought says 'I am thinking'. Thinking happens - there is no one who thinks and no one who has thoughts happening to them.

a reply to: gosseyn

In one sense, there is nothing outside 'consciousness' because that is the very mechanism that holds 'things'. On the other hand, I don't know at all. I can't know because there is never a thing called a knower that actually exists. So the question of 'inside' or 'outside' doesn't apply whatsoever.

That's the thing. Because consciousness has no opposite and no other, and because things can only be known in relation to other things, consciousness can't be known or experienced at all. As the great anti-guru UG Krishnamurti put it, "This is outside the realm of experience". So really, any thought you have about the 'nature of consciousness' or other such nonsense is not and can not be it. You could say that it is the space in which all experience is held but that's just another abstraction of thought, it has nothing to do with what is actually the case.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

Thought is an appearance - colour is an appearance - sound is an appearance - stories are an appearance.

What do you mean an "appearance" ?

What is a conscious observer?

That which is able to tell stories.

Everything is simply appearing but there is no one seeing it.
Everything appears and disappears in nothing and out of nothing.

How can something "appear" if there is nothing to see it appearing ?

There is no conscious observer!! That is a concept. There is only what is happening. Life is happening and it is not made of two separate parts - 'observer' and 'observed' - life is one without a second.

What do you mean "life" ? Does a piece of rock that I observe constitute "life" ?

originally posted by: gosseyn
What do you mean an "appearance" ?

What appears to be happening.

The 'conscious observer' does not tell stories - if there appears to be an observer then it would be seeing/observing thought/stories.

How can something "appear" if there is nothing to see it appearing ?

Nothing is seeing - seeing is happening. There is only what is happening, seeing is happening, reading is happening, thought is happening but there is no one doing any of it. There are no things - there is just this that is simply happening.

What do you mean "life" ? Does a piece of rock that I observe constitute "life" ?

Whatever is happening is life. This, this - there is no where and nothing else........... but concepts amazingly hide the obvious.
The truth is hidden in plain sight.
Is it possible to just see and hear without any story happening? Stories appear now speaking about other than what there is. So what there is gets overlooked - life is here and now always but the mind (stories) makes believe there is a you that is separate from life. That separate you does not exist - there is only life happening. The illusory separate you only exists in time and time does not exist - only this that is actually happening IS. This is life and there is absolutely nothing separate to it and it is doing itself.

originally posted by: HarryTZ
a reply to: gosseyn

In one sense, there is nothing outside 'consciousness' because that is the very mechanism that holds 'things'. On the other hand, I don't know at all. I can't know because there is never a thing called a knower that actually exists. So the question of 'inside' or 'outside' doesn't apply whatsoever.

That's the thing. Because consciousness has no opposite and no other, and because things can only be known in relation to other things, consciousness can't be known or experienced at all. As the great anti-guru UG Krishnamurti put it, "This is outside the realm of experience". So really, any thought you have about the 'nature of consciousness' or other such nonsense is not and can not be it. You could say that it is the space in which all experience is held but that's just another abstraction of thought, it has nothing to do with what is actually the case.

So you're not really saying there is nothing, you're saying we are in the impossibility to know. You're not saying there is nothing to know, you're saying we don't have the capacity to know. What you call nothing is in reality something that we can't grasp. What you're doing is assessing the limitations of consciousness.

To give an example that correlates what you say : a living organism cannot be defined outside of its environment, there is no such thing as a living organism separated from its environment. This living organism is in constant exchange with its environment and is shaped by it. There is the whole, or there is nothing. A bit like how Einstein brought together space and time and showed us that there is only space-time and they are not separate. Only language permits us to talk about things that don't really exist.

But do you find in incorrect to nonetheless try to explain the relations between the living organism and its environment ? I mean there is one thing we can do : using our consciousness while being aware of its limitations.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

There is just this one image of light that is eternally appearing.

Next time try eating an image of a car as opposed to an image of an apple. Let me know how your indigestion turns out.