# Hyper-In-Active

Sum Ergo Sum

## Buddha vs Me 1-0

If all is One, how can you tell?
To know One, you must have a reference that is Not One.
To find such a reference or comparison you can go in one of two directions.
A) Up one step and say “All is not two”.
B) Down one step and say “All is not zero”.
Since going up means there must be duality, that’s not an option, right. With duality we usually don’t mean that All consist of exactly two things, but more than one, and science will in time tell us how many.
So we go to the big Zero, Void or Emptienss instead and say;
All is One since it is not Zero, look, here it is!
Why not leave the Zero out? It is really awkward to say that “All is One but also zero”. We cannot, because One is not possible without the Other, the only other possible being Zero. We must have this “zero/emptieness”- reference point to be able to define One. In fact, a reference point a must have for existence in itself. Defined or not.
So with dry logic, speaking of Oneness requires Emptienss if you also say that everything is interdependent. And as we all know, Buddha says that all things are indeed interdependent.
Now, knowing this is one thing, understanding it another.

Well, that’s my take on the Empty/Form-gig. If I’m just having a bad-brain day, please let me know.