It’s an inch short of Shūnyam. But in this business you miss by an inch, you miss by a mile.
From the sober language of the earliest Sūtric texts to the mystical poetry of the Aṣṭāvakra, a repeated affix to ‘True Nothing’ is as: ‘It neither ‘Is’ nor ‘Is Not’.
‘Is’ and ‘Is Not’ are the foundational pillars of Model, of a recreated reality using signs and symbols. Shūnyam is not a model, is not an idea, is not a reconstruction [see the earlier Posts].
The most common slip is to make ‘True Nothing’ an ‘Is’ and tag it on a time-axis. This is the venerated terminus of ‘Being’ in its innumerable variations through history. The highest abstraction possible of a named ‘Object’.
More sweepingly, it is the single most frequent confounding across the world’s religious literature, the conceptualization and reification of ‘True Nothing’ as ‘Being’.
And this is where the most intellectually sophisticated investigators, as shown in the following list of Posts say: ‘Stop! No further!’
‘Being’, like ‘Thought’ and ‘Voice’ [Language] is very, very close to our skin. A claim to ‘Being’ in any of its variants is ultimately a claim to a ‘Self’. But precisely because of its nearness to our skin it is that much more difficult to give workable examples [like say ‘Consciousness’].
The best that can be done is to give a list of excerpts from famous fellow-travelers that may convince you of what I am talking about. And get you back on the Meditation Mat.