[davidsun]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Yes, there does seem to be a bit of a language difference here. I did not mean to imply a state of nothingness as a state of no existence. Just because the container is empty of things, does not mean it does not exist, even if the container itself is without form. In fact the fewer things the container holds the greater it’s potential to hold them, with an empty container being filled with potential.

I do like your conceptualization of god as love with the other emotions as colors of the spectrum. I suppose it works better or worse depending on the meaning one holds for the word love (that language thing again). I suspect that ultimately all dualities are illusions.

Again, all of the above, is 'in my view'.

Of course, as it is with all of us.

We are on 'the same page' (in more ways than one! ).

The reason for my being a 'stickler' language-wise is that (I think) many interpret 'nothing' not just to mean no 'thing' (i.e. form) but also as having no essence-ial quality/ies or 'nature'. As in the Gita (from the translation I have): "Beyond the senses, It yet shines through every sense perception. Bound to nothing, It yet sustains everything. Unaffected by the Qualities, It still enjoys them all." and "He who understands God and Nature along with her qualities, whatever be his condition in life, he comes not again to earth."

Many therefore attempt to (I say this because I believe such attempt is ultimately, albeit sometimes only after several lifetimes, doomed to fail) 'detach' from the Love and Joy of incarnational Living. They attempt to unite with what they 'see' as a transcendent God, ignoring the Presence and Activity of the God that is always already everywhere and in everyone, both potentially and actually, impellingly imminently-present.

That kind of 'separation' (of what they think of as 'God' and what they think of as 'Nature') is a kind of unwitting boondoggle which many otherwise well-intentioned people get 'eddy' caught up in, resulting in the Flow of Life (theirs as well as of others) being 'poorer' than it otherwise could/would be IMO.

My sense (based on what you say) is that you know this. As I said, I am just being a stickler for purposes of (possible) clarification in relation to readers in general.

One is always 'affected' by the Flow of Love and Experience of Joy (however convoluted these may get and at any point in time be) 'in' oneself. In terms of Flow and Experience, though one may render oneself unconscious (imagining on has 'extinguished' oneself) in relation to these for periods of time, there is always the Presence of Love and Joy, never complete 'emptiness', i.e. never 'nothing'.