To BE no-thing

To be no-thing in this world is probably the most difficult thing …no? We all want to be some-thing. We all want to emulate some-one.

1 Like

Isn’t it psychological thought (a ‘thing’), by having created a ‘me-entity’ (another thing) and by it’s almost constant movement that results in keeping the possible insight and negation of this illusory reality from taking place? Thought no matter what clever twists and turns it takes can never disappear itself, can never become ‘no-thing’. Any ‘approach to this ‘blossoming’ of the revelation of one’s ‘no-thingness’ can’t come about with thought/time. As I see it.

The desire to be something or nothing is the outcome of loneliness. The pain of isolation makes one to do all sorts of things to escape.
Nothingness becomes an idea as long as the pain and confusion of isolation which is the essence of loneliness continues.

Yes but isn’t it the pain, fear that creates the search for ‘freedom’? Where the ‘search’ leads is another thing but if we are in fact ‘nothing’ as has been suggested, how can we NOT become miserable constantly trying to BE some happy ‘thing’?
Isn’t that why the ‘right’ approach is to stay with the misery, fear, etc? It is in a way inevitable if we are indeed ‘nothings’ attempting to be ‘somethings’, no?

If you had written all this with the intent to show what you retain from your study of K’s teaching, there would be nothing to reply to. But since you make no mention of your study of K’s teaching, the implication is that you have discovered all this on your own. Why not just admit that you are now (like all the rest of us) K-conditioned?

I spent years with Zen also a study of the history of religions , tried a few gurus along the way. Years with the Gurdjieff Work and now Krishnamurti, many years. Other things…All worthwhile.
But why not address the question yourself?

Yes, I went through the usual gurus and teachings. etc., like most of us did, but I haven’t moved on from K’s teaching, so at this point I’m K-conditioned - aren’t you?

That is totally a false statement. You can’t identify yourself with K.

Actually I meant addressing the question of being no-thing.

I know as much about “being no-thing” as I know about love, compassion, intelligence, observation, etc., i.e., nothing.

I hope that answers your question.

To be no-thing is, it seems to me, to be in a kind of free-fall, which is of course terrifying, but maybe if you realize there is no ground to crash into, the terror lifts and you enjoy the ride.

I sometimes think of being no-thing as living gridless, flowing.

Being energy, awareness, attention?

Something like, yeah, as long as the energy/awareness/attention is free flowing, analog not digital.

Does awareness flow or is it that everything flows in awareness, thoughts, feelings, memories … provided that it doesn´t hold onto any of these “things” in order to give them continuity?

I´ve always found this idea of awareness flowing, going everywhere and so on very funny, where does it come from? Just curious.

I think the idea of awareness flowing is a reification of awareness. Likewise for things flowing in awareness. Things, flow, awareness … these are all mind constructs, part of the grid.

Talking about something, looking for it, exploring it, pointing to it … all part of the grid.

Is there awareness of the grid? If there is, why isn’t there awareness of how it fragments the whole into separate parts? Could it be that wholistic awareness is impossible until there’s a power failure and the grid disappears, revealing the whole? Could it be that what powers the grid is fear of losing the illusion of control maintained by relentless determination to defy and deny the whole truth?

Is it the grid that’s asking?

What you call ‘wholistic awareness’ has no motive. No ‘centre’. No ‘becoming’. That is why its nature is wholistic. It is the very stillness at the centre of a hurricane. It listens and that listening is not of time for its nature lies in the timeless …no separate entity can ever ‘experience’ this wholistic awareness for no such ‘entity’ can be separate from THAT which IS. This ISness is devoid of fragments for no fragment can stick to this Isness. It is so absolutely pure that no-thing can stick, no identity can form, no becoming can arise. It is like a perfect diamond in which all light has its being. These words are not it …these words don’t even come close to THAT which IS. Is this ISness communicating anything? This IS the difficulty …laughter :slight_smile:


I too think so.

Are things reified or are they simply seen as things?
Maybe this is the point of divergence, depending on what is taken to be the subject and what the object/thing. For some, awareness is the subject, the actuality, and thought the object/thing, including the I-thought, for some others, the I-thought is the subject, the actuality, and they consider awareness as an object, perhaps not intellectually but at the practical level, the way they live which gets reflected in what they say because that´s how they think and act even though while talking or writing at a philosophical level it gets masked, so to speak . Two different perspectives.

Not sure about this, maybe it depends on the perspective?