The numbers one and zero.

[Little Joe Gould]

This is extremely difficult for me to explain, but after studying Zen Buddhism for some time and experiencing various little kenshos I've come to the conclusion that one and zero are the same number. The entirety of the presence of value and the entirety of the absence of value are theoretically the same thing. It's kind of like having a sheet of white paper. If that sheet of plain white paper was the only thing in existence (as in the presence of value being the only thing in existence, for we take value to be isolated in their existence) than there would be no black to define its "whiteness". The same thing applies to the void.

For me, this makes sense, but it is very hard for me to explain. So I'm interested as to whether or not any of you have a similar understanding of this.

 

[Engyo]

Hi, Joe -

While I won't argue regarding presence of value vs. absence of value, I'd be careful of stating this in terms of numbers directly. From a mathematical standpoint, 0 and 1 are definitely NOT the same thing or the same value. It's like the truth of the middle way - a great deal depends on perspective and from what vantage point you examine anything.

 

[koan]

Before we think, there is nothing. Once we begin to think, there is 0 and 1. When we find that 0 and 1 are only causes and effects of the mind, then 0 and 1 are the same. They are both just conceptions.

 

[Little Joe Gould]

Thank you koan, that basically sums up what I was trying to say.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, agree with all posters, and Koan has summed it up quite well.

Perhaps the Taoists were wise to avoid the conceptual ambiguity that arises in the void/fullness terminology by naming it the Tao about which nothing can be said, and then going on to to discuss the intricacies of the eternal harmonizing dance of dualism.

Expressed in Taoist terms,...without thought, there is the Tao that is beyond concepts. Once thinking starts, there is the concept of ying and yang.
Ying is defined by yang and yang is defined by ying, but it is understood that the non-conceptual Tao is 'beyond' this conceptual duality.

 

[spiritualseva]

very nice, all

 

[wmjbyatt]

One of the ways that mathematicians have constructed the whole numbers defines 0 as the empty set--which is to say, nothing--and 1 as the set which contains the empty set. To a non-mathematician, these sound like the same thing, but they are not quite.

The empty set is nothing, it does not even exist. The set which contains the empty set is an existing set which CONTAINS nothing. But at the same time, mathematics is predicated on the assumption that there exists separation, which is not necessarily an accurate assumption.

A more interesting discussion is, perhaps, more about the similarity between 0 and infinity. This is rendered slightly more difficult by the fact that mathematics recognizes multiple (actually, infinite) values of infinity, but even a naive infinity is still in many ways a more accurate representation of "the entirety of the presence of value" and 0 and infinity have many mathematically similar properties. They both present issues during multiplication and division, for example. They are also both abstract concepts that are rather difficult to really pin down in a concrete sense.

If, however, you wish to explore further the depths of this issue of 0 and 1 being identical, I recommend you check out the Banach-Tarski Paradox. THAT'S one for the books.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Little Joe Gould,

The numbers one and zero.
I've come to the conclusion that one and zero are the same number.

So, who has come to the conclusion?
the MIND.
Till the mind remains one can never get it.
Once again; understand this:

If you use your mind to study reality, you won't understand either your mind or reality. If you study reality without using your mind, you'll understand both.
Bodhidharma

Love & rgds