GENIUS FORUMS

the sage's dream of oneness The sage does not have dreams of oneness. He is like a man lying with his head towards the sky, and duality and non-duality are clouds in the sky for him. He would not "dream" of oneness any more than that man would dream about the shape of the clouds in the sky.

But then you made the Totality into a "something", namely "the totality" that has abilities like containing everything else. Now you have two somethings: a totality and its content: "everything else"! In other words, still in the finite world. As I say, it is you who a...

Hi Leyla, You wrote: Sue: Or is that just the "abstraction", and her real nature lies separate and distanced from that abstraction? I do not hold absolutely that every individual female shares a mutually exclusive “real nature” to that of every individual male; Woman knows no bounds :). T...

yana wrote:Actually, what is the duty of every yogi? To be reborn once again to spread his teachings.

The true yogis would have a good laugh at these kinds of statements.

The same reason that when you grasp, take or hold, there's something to take it, hold it or grasp it with. A hand, a mind, whatever. Like the hand or mind is part of the grasping, boundaries are essential part of the act of containment. What does this prove? If the "something" is the Tota...

So the statement "Electrons revolve around a nucleus consisting of neutrons and protons" is completely meaningless, in your view? Because obviously it is not an ultimate truth. It's not true in all cases, but in some cases, and this is perfectly OK, because it is an empirical observation(...

They are finite because they contain. They contain because there are boundaries or limits. You still have to provide a reason why they should have boundaries to contain. That's the way things are contained, you know. Remove the boundaries and there's no thing left! My Father has no boundaries, yet ...

Not to disrupt the magnificent conversation here, but the vagueness of thought on this forum - with regard to both purely philosophical and other matters - seems to grow with every visit I make here. The stronger the woman the more she is like a force of nature: beautiful, destructive, replenishing,...

And I have never claimed that there is. But there are relative moral expressions existing within worldspaces. It follows by your logic that - since the moral expression mentioned earlier is not ultimately true - that it must be utterly meaningless. This is completely wrong and demonstrates inferior...

First of all, "You shall not kill any humans regardless of sex, race, beliefs or creed", is a moral matter, not an empirical one. Morality is an empirical matter; besides it is wholly related to empirical phenomena. There is no absolute morality that applies to all cases, or for that matt...

If you believe that this is so, then your understanding is evidently inferior. The statements "You shall not kill any humans regardless of sex, race, beliefs or creed", and "Electrons revolve around a nucleus consisting of neutrons and protons" for example are not inherently tru...

A definition defines something but there's nothing "there" outside or inside that definition, nothing "in itself". A definition is an example of a container, like any thing is an example of containment. The definition itself, being finite, has no inherent existence. It is simply...

It replaces all the usual definitions and uses of the concept of "containment" with something that is actually the opposite. A container is that which contains something. There is no specification about whether it must itself be bounded or not. Without limitation how could something be he...

No. When the conceptual worldspace you've opened up collapses, so do I. Hence, I make no ultimate assertions or negations; all I say arises dependently with what you're saying. And whatever arises dependently is empty. Then your statement about there being no ultimate assertions is meaningless, bec...

Without having some bounds, any notion of containment seems pretty useless. Why so? All things are contained by definitions. If there were no definitions at all, things would still be contained ultimately in the Totality. As you say, it's always contained "somewhere else" which as such fo...

No, it is perfectly valid as a response to you, because you (as the "asserter") have initated and locked into a perticular conceptual worldspace or perspective. Because of this, I flow within this worldspace you've opened up, and within this framework your logic and rules are valid, and t...

As I've already said, I don't claim that to be an ultimate assertion. If you don't claim that that is an ultimate assertion, then it is not an ultimate assertion, and hence can be falsified under certain circumstances. Therefore, your assertion that ultimate assertions cannot be made at all, is non...

Consciousness and thought are not really separate. Consciousness necessitates thought - you can never be conscious and thoughtless.

We can't make ultimate assertions. However, we can talk sensibly about the ultimate by way of non-affirming negations. You can't say, ultimately, that we can't make ultimate assertions. That is a logical contradiction. A=A breaks down in the Infinite. Where is your water, exactly? I've already answ...

Of course it's not nonsensical. It is perfectly valid on a relative, conventional level. Just like on the conventional level, it is more true that the planet earth is round rather than flat. However, that does not mean that ultimately the earth is round. But yet, it is still valid and effective and...

Nope. I am operating within a conceptual worldspace. Which is ultimate, or not? If it is not ultimate, your statement is nonsensical. Right. That's why I thought it was redundant to claim that the water was contained within the Infinite; implying that water and the Infinite are two separate, discre...

You can't make any ultimate assertions. Because any positive assertion always fall prey to logical consequences. Are you making this assertion ultimately? I'd say rather that conventionally water is just a mental construct an nothing else. This is the way of the non-affirming negation; nowhere in o...

To be able to hold anything it will have bounds. Why else call it a container if it's not able to contain any content? The infinite can have no bounds yet it contains everything, by definition. A "container" must be able to contain - that's all. Where is the rule that says a room has wall...

The moment one creates an inside to hold, to contain anything, one defines limiters, walls, ends or bounds. So putting "all finite" things inside something, one ends up with yet another container, no matter how big you stretch it. One could imagine a boundless container, but that would in...

Again: the finite is only the boundary itself. So now your "finite" has become a boundary? It must be a magnificent thing, whatever it is! This means the infinite should not be looked for "beyond" anything as it might easily introduce yet another big delusion, big enough to hide...