I am Nothingness

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by krishna

Timeless,
Well done.
Now well on the way.
In pure light and truth.
krishna.

Well on way to where Krishna?

Originally Posted by Timeless

I often heard the term "nothingness" from different philosophers and spiritual teachers, primarily Alan Watts... but I never really experienced what it felt like to be nothingness itself. Yesterday night as I was laying down meditating, I entered a vast realm of pure being. Nothingness. You could say it's a state of "no mind."

I have practiced and practiced meditation in my daily routines. Basically, knowing consciously not to identify with the mind.

The state of nothingness is the most spiritual state there could be in my opinion. How much deeper could you go then being clean and at peace with yourself? We truly are connected with everything. And if I am nothingness, so is everything else. Everything you see or hear or touch, ultimately has the same meaning. It just is. Nothing is trying to deliver a message for you to hear. You are the message.

Once you have broken through the constraints of identifying with the mind, you are free. You are the non-dual self.

As a mediation experience it is a beautiful place to go. It is profound and personal.

But something I've come to accept over the years is that, experience can never be shared or conveyed and perhaps, it never needs to be.

And reading through, I realise why I feel that way - I don't enjoy when a pure and beautiful experience is theorised.

Of course we all understand it and accept similar experiences in different ways, there seems no need to question those differences in view, because nobody elses projection or understanding can take anything from that moment of genuine experience.

To me, it is what it is, in the moment

[lemex]

Originally Posted by Ivy

As a mediation experience it is a beautiful place to go. It is profound and personal.

But something I've come to accept over the years is that, experience can never be shared or conveyed and perhaps, it never needs to be.

And reading through, I realise why I feel that way - I don't enjoy when a pure and beautiful experience is theorised.

Of course we all understand it and accept similar experiences in different ways, there seems no need to question those differences in view, because nobody elses projection or understanding can take anything from that moment of genuine experience.

To me, it is what it is, in the moment

The experience is beautiful indeed. I think when we talk about such experiences we in fact do share it (future tense) The OP talked about hearing the term from different philosophers who shared. Of course the individual sharing had the experience and this makes others aware. I think it is nice to hear because at first the person needs to.

What I have observed spiritually is at some moment in time a person gets to confirm what they heard and realize it isn't unique. The experience is a potential. The best we can do is confirm what others shared. It becomes shared in this on going moment.

The OP started out saying I often heard the term. I've heard the term to. Nothingness is obviously not literal and correct and that was pointed out. No one answered my question so I still think it was a description and old words and old language which did not fit. Say something now that isn't correct and its pointed out. It is very hard to find new language to talk about old experiences.

The reason I asked what I did, is because I once had an experience. I once had the experience of being somewhere. I had no attachment to my senses and the only experience was awareness without input, only output existed. I was all there was. Now that is ego....lol. There was no 3D way to describe the moment. I won't go into this experience but there was nothing in it, nothing, only me. When I say nothing it's merely an general word based on 3D. Now this was my experience and because of it I would think that how all are. I noticed the OP had to defend what they said when they didn't have to. So what, the physical word distracted us.

So as we are becoming more detailed. I see not much wrong with see the meaning. From my experience, I find nothing wrong with the initial description. Change the word and change how it's understood. I'm not sure formless is right either.

I see nothing wrong with the sharing or the questioning, that wasn't my point.

But whenever an experience is related to a commonly known philosophy or the terminology from the written sources, the discussion almost always turns to the different interpretations of the term used and the purity of the experience becomes sidelined.

We are all different and I was just sharing my own experience from reading the thread.