Worry doesn't occur to nothing. Existence creates it.
Peace does not occur either....so considering you have existing thoughts, you worry? Or if you do not worry does that mean you have no thoughts?
You are confusing two states. One in which I exist, and one in which I don't. The second state misses nothing.
Anyway, I'm having brunch.
The second is not a state at all if there is nothing, unless you observe "nothing" as relativistic in the respect it is a statement of relation. For example I have a tea cup that has "nothing" in it. It's "nothingness" observes a statement of relation in the respect no "fluid" is in it, however "air" exists in it, electromagnetic waves, etc.
Nothingness is a statement of relation, hence observes an absence of actualized state and in these respects shows an inversion of actual form through "potential form as no form" in which the empty cup observes potential relations. This potential form, is actualized eventually from the perspective of "1 moment in which everything exists", hence "nothingness" or "emptyness" is a point of inversion where actuality (such as the cup being full of water) changes into another actuality (such as the cup being full with different water or coffee).
Peace does not occur either....so considering you have existing thoughts, you worry? Or if you do not worry does that mean you have no thoughts?
You are confusing two states. One in which I exist, and one in which I don't. The second state misses nothing.
Anyway, I'm having brunch.
The second is not a state at all if there is nothing, unless you observe "nothing" as relativistic in the respect it is a statement of relation. For example I have a tea cup that has "nothing" in it. It's "nothingness" observes a statement of relation in the respect no "fluid" is in it, however "air" exists in it, electromagnetic waves, etc.
Nothingness is a statement of relation, hence observes an absence of actualized state and in these respects shows an inversion of actual form through "potential form as no form" in which the empty cup observes potential relations. This potential form, is actualized eventually from the perspective of "1 moment in which everything exists", hence "nothingness" or "emptyness" is a point of inversion where actuality (such as the cup being full of water) changes into another actuality (such as the cup being full with different water or coffee).
Relative to the world, there was a state in which you did not exist. Then there is your extant state. That you can't or won't grasp that is not my problem.
You are confusing two states. One in which I exist, and one in which I don't. The second state misses nothing.
Anyway, I'm having brunch.
The second is not a state at all if there is nothing, unless you observe "nothing" as relativistic in the respect it is a statement of relation. For example I have a tea cup that has "nothing" in it. It's "nothingness" observes a statement of relation in the respect no "fluid" is in it, however "air" exists in it, electromagnetic waves, etc.
Nothingness is a statement of relation, hence observes an absence of actualized state and in these respects shows an inversion of actual form through "potential form as no form" in which the empty cup observes potential relations. This potential form, is actualized eventually from the perspective of "1 moment in which everything exists", hence "nothingness" or "emptyness" is a point of inversion where actuality (such as the cup being full of water) changes into another actuality (such as the cup being full with different water or coffee).
Relative to the world, there was a state in which you did not exist. Then there is your extant state. That you can't or won't grasp that is not my problem.
The second is not a state at all if there is nothing, unless you observe "nothing" as relativistic in the respect it is a statement of relation. For example I have a tea cup that has "nothing" in it. It's "nothingness" observes a statement of relation in the respect no "fluid" is in it, however "air" exists in it, electromagnetic waves, etc.
Nothingness is a statement of relation, hence observes an absence of actualized state and in these respects shows an inversion of actual form through "potential form as no form" in which the empty cup observes potential relations. This potential form, is actualized eventually from the perspective of "1 moment in which everything exists", hence "nothingness" or "emptyness" is a point of inversion where actuality (such as the cup being full of water) changes into another actuality (such as the cup being full with different water or coffee).
Relative to the world, there was a state in which you did not exist. Then there is your extant state. That you can't or won't grasp that is not my problem.
You can't grasp nothingness....
Yes I can. I didn't exist for billions of years, ya lummox. And it's going to happen again.
What I can't do is experience it, simultaneously. There's a difference.
Relative to the world, there was a state in which you did not exist. Then there is your extant state. That you can't or won't grasp that is not my problem.
You can't grasp nothingness....
Yes I can. I didn't exist for billions of years, ya lummox. And it's going to happen again.
What I can't do is experience it, simultaneously. There's a difference.
Actually all the parts which composed you for those billions of years existed, hence your existence was always there but deficient compared to what it is today.
Yes I can. I didn't exist for billions of years, ya lummox. And it's going to happen again.
What I can't do is experience it, simultaneously. There's a difference.
Actually all the parts which composed you for those billions of years existed, hence your existence was always there but deficient compared to what it is today.
I don't care about the matter. We replace all cells every eight years. What I'm talking about is the 55 year awareness. That is something. The lack of was nothing.
Yes I can. I didn't exist for billions of years, ya lummox. And it's going to happen again.
What I can't do is experience it, simultaneously. There's a difference.
Actually all the parts which composed you for those billions of years existed, hence your existence was always there but deficient compared to what it is today.
I don't care about the matter. We replace all cells every eight years. What I'm talking about is the 55 year awareness. That is something. The lack of was nothing.
And the "lack of" is merely a statement of relation where one "actuality" inverts to another actuality" and effectively observes that "nothingness" is an observation of relation.
Actually all the parts which composed you for those billions of years existed, hence your existence was always there but deficient compared to what it is today.
I don't care about the matter. We replace all cells every eight years. What I'm talking about is the 55 year awareness. That is something. The lack of was nothing.
And the "lack of" is merely a statement of relation where one "actuality" inverts to another actuality" and effectively observes that "nothingness" is an observation of relation.
Only because I exist. There was still nothing before, consciousness-wise. And again, after. Don't forget, I'm only talking about consciousness, not the matter that existed before. Perhaps that is where we are disagreeing.
I don't care about the matter. We replace all cells every eight years. What I'm talking about is the 55 year awareness. That is something. The lack of was nothing.
And the "lack of" is merely a statement of relation where one "actuality" inverts to another actuality" and effectively observes that "nothingness" is an observation of relation.
Only because I exist. There was still nothing before, consciousness-wise. And again, after. Don't forget, I'm only talking about consciousness, not the matter that existed before. Perhaps that is where we are disagreeing.
And what is consciousness but the relation of parts?
And the "lack of" is merely a statement of relation where one "actuality" inverts to another actuality" and effectively observes that "nothingness" is an observation of relation.
Only because I exist. There was still nothing before, consciousness-wise. And again, after. Don't forget, I'm only talking about consciousness, not the matter that existed before. Perhaps that is where we are disagreeing.
And what is consciousness but the relation of parts?
Yeah. I'll go throw some LEGO together, and call it conscious.
Only because I exist. There was still nothing before, consciousness-wise. And again, after. Don't forget, I'm only talking about consciousness, not the matter that existed before. Perhaps that is where we are disagreeing.
And what is consciousness but the relation of parts?
Yeah. I'll go throw some LEGO together, and call it conscious.
It is an extension of your consciousness, hence contains a degree of it.
I don't care about the matter. We replace all cells every eight years. What I'm talking about is the 55 year awareness. That is something. The lack of was nothing.
And the "lack of" is merely a statement of relation where one "actuality" inverts to another actuality" and effectively observes that "nothingness" is an observation of relation.
Only because I exist. There was still nothing before, consciousness-wise. And again, after. Don't forget, I'm only talking about consciousness, not the matter that existed before. Perhaps that is where we are disagreeing.
That nothing is known as pure awareness without an object. An object is an experience of pure awareness when awareness is aware of itself as an object, the two are inseparably one. NOW.
Pure awareness cannot experience itself as an object, it can only be aware of an object, the experience of existing is the awareness of the object....but awareness itself is not dependant on an object for it’s existence. Awareness neither exists nor does it not exist...it just IS
An I doesn’t come in to this universe...it comes out of it...out of what’s always here, the I is never not here.
