The Fundamental Unity of Being

[Jehu]

I'm trying to envision it, but I am not sure living without a subjective world is compatible with human life.

Why would you think that? The subjective world is a world of our own imagining, and is not necessarily in accord with the actual world. It is because we each live in our own imaginary world that there is so much conflict, for each of us sees the world from our own personal perspective, filtered through our own personal set of experiences. Consequently, we tend to react to the world, and others, in a way which serves our own interest. This is not the function of a human being!

Perhaps you don't identify as a Buddhist simply because you know intellectually that it does not fit with your philosophy to do so.

Yes, this would be the case for one who had not yet realized the truth of the doctrine, and for whom it remained merely an hypothesis. This is why Wisdom requires, in addition to Tranquility, a secondary cause – Realization; for it is not enough to blindly accept the doctrine of emptiness (no inherent self), it must be “made real” (realized).

It is one thing to identify as a Catholic or a Shiite Muslim in the usual way, meaning exclusively, but I don't quite see calling myself a Sufi in the same light. Sufis are nominally muslim, but they know better. I see a Sufi as one who does not judge other people by outward titles and who feels a connection to the divine, and perhaps has a certain flair in expressing this. Those things fit me. But it is true that it is not "me" in some absolute, eternal sense.

Indeed, for such things as these are what constitutes the imaginary you (ego-persona); and with the cessation of your object embodiment, comes the cessation of all these things as well.

If all of us were completely devoid of ego personality then each person would be identical to the next. That is the truth of our true nature. All perfect, all pure, incorruptible. But what are we doing here?

We are simply Being! You see, we cannot “not be”, but we do not need to dwell in ignorance.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Why would you think that? The subjective world is a world of our own imagining, and is not necessarily in accord with the actual world. It is because we each live in our own imaginary world that there is so much conflict, for each of us sees the world from our own personal perspective, filtered through our own personal set of experiences. Consequently, we tend to react to the world, and others, in a way which serves our own interest. This is not the function of a human being!

Certainly there is a lot of imagining that comes of ego protectiveness and fears, especially in regards to the behaviors and expressions of other human beings, and some people engage in it FAR more than others. But you said awakening puts an end to the subjective world. That is hard to fathom.

This is why Wisdom requires, in addition to Tranquility, a secondary cause – Realization; for it is not enough to blindly accept the doctrine of emptiness (no inherent self), it must be “made real” (realized).

Parsing out the actual meaning of "self-realization" or" becoming realized" means that enlightenment makes one real. And I have often thought that as well, at least, I feel far more real than I once did (and I am not enlightened but more awake than before). How is it that one becomes real if there is no one to become real?

Indeed, for such things as these are what constitutes the imaginary you (ego-persona); and with the cessation of your object embodiment, comes the cessation of all these things as well.

If everything that a Sufi understands is imaginary, then most of the things I have come to understand and upon which we agree, are also imaginary.

We are simply Being! You see, we cannot “not be”, but we do not need to dwell in ignorance.

Is there any difference in flavor or essence between one being and another?

[Jehu]

Certainly there is a lot of imagining that comes of ego protectiveness and fears, especially in regards to the behaviours and expressions of other human beings, and some people engage in it FAR more than others. But you said awakening puts an end to the subjective world. That is hard to fathom.

Yes, and it is impossible to imagine.

Parsing out the actual meaning of "self-realization" or" becoming realized" means that enlightenment makes one real. And I have often thought that as well, at least, I feel far more real than I once did (and I am not enlightened but more awake than before). How is it that one becomes real if there is no one to become real?

When I say that one become an authentic (real) human being, I do not mean that the human being is real (absolute), but only that the human being is now functioning in full accordance with its intended purpose; as apposed to its usual dysfunctional state.

If everything that a Sufi understands is imaginary, then most of the things I have come to understand and upon which we agree, are also imaginary.

Yes, of course! You see, a conceptual understanding is simply a form of subjective knowledge, and although that knowledge may be in full accordance with the truth (what is real), it remains subjective, and so is eventually lost. Realizations, on the other hand, are not subjective, and so are never lost.

Is there any difference in flavor or essence between one being and another?

With respect to their existential nature, all sentient beings are completely indistinguishable, but in their essential nature, they are all unique. In other words, their individuality (uniqueness) arises as a result of their acquisition of and clinging to various sorts of things, with which they identify themselves – their ego-personalities that is. Take away all such things, and one is left only with “I am”. This is why it is said that the wisest of all sayings is “That, I am.”

[Blair]

with which they identify themselves – their ego-personalities that is. Take away all such things, and one is left only with “I am”. This is why it is said that the wisest of all sayings is “That, I am.”

So when are you going to take your own advice, and stop acting in this thread, Mr. I Am?

[paco]

I think the string theorists have it right - at bottom all things are made up of only one substance, therefore there is a sea of continuous being and all is equality. But what differentiates one thing from another is some way of either vibrating or otherwise taking shape so as to create elements and so forth, some thicker and some thinner, some with membranes to encase an ego consciousness. But all is interpenetrating.

There is no paradox.

What is a paradox? The soul is what's even worth anything. If by pardox you mean hypothesis you're talking about totally traditional stuff. That's what makes the difference. If the conscience can even respond id take about a million light years to figure that out. Imagination. Phew. It got to be erased like prince.

[Iolaus]

Paco,

I believe the poster before me had asked what differentiates one thing from another, and I was explaining how it is that all of reality is one thing, while at the same time there are the different things and beings. It is traditional advaita I guess, but pretty marvelous to actually see it.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Saying that it is impossible to imagine the lack of a subjective world - Ok - but how are we to talk about it?

Yes, of course! You see, a conceptual understanding is simply a form of subjective knowledge, and although that knowledge may be in full accordance with the truth (what is real), it remains subjective, and so is eventually lost. Realizations, on the other hand, are not subjective, and so are never lost.

How are you saying that I only understand things conceptually? What makes you think that? Lost when - during the lifetime or at its cessation?

Take away all such things, and one is left only with “I am”.

This was my question. So if you and I get fully enlightened or whatever we decide to call it, then we are indistinquishable as two drops of water. And if all 6 billion of us get similarly enlightented, it will be 6 billion identical drops of water?

[Jehu]

Saying that it is impossible to imagine the lack of a subjective world - Ok - but how are we to talk about it?

Just as we have been doing it – by slowly sweeping away all that it is not. However, it is still just talk, and not the actual experience.

How are you saying that I only understand things conceptually? What makes you think that? Lost when - during the lifetime or at its cessation?

Both! First, it may be lost as a result of one slipping back in to old habitual patterns of thought; patterns which reinforce the wrong view. Then, if not realized, it will be lost with the dissolution of the sentient body, within who’s internal structure all subjective knowledge is embodied.

This was my question. So if you and I get fully enlightened or whatever we decide to call it, then we are indistinguishable as two drops of water. And if all 6 billion of us get similarly enlightened, it will be 6 billion identical drops of water?

An enlightened being is still distinguishable from another sentient being (enlightened or otherwise), for both have an essential aspect to their being as well as an existential aspect. If we could return to the Tai Chi Tu once again, an enlightened being can be likened to the white spot which, although it dwell in the centre of the black hemisphere (relative world), has its roots in the white hemisphere (the Absolute). The black spot, on the other hand, may be likened to the unenlightened being, for although they dwell in the very midst of the Absolute, they are rooted in ignorance.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Now, what do you mean about understanding truth conceptually as opposed to 'realizing' it?

An enlightened being is still distinguishable from another sentient being (enlightened or otherwise), for both have an essential aspect to their being as well as an existential aspect.

Wherein lies this essence if not in the personality?

If we could return to the Tai Chi Tu once again, an enlightened being can be likened to the white spot which, although it dwell in the centre of the black hemisphere (relative world), has its roots in the white hemisphere (the Absolute). The black spot, on the other hand, may be likened to the unenlightened being, for although they dwell in the very midst of the Absolute, they are rooted in ignorance.

Yes, very good.

[Jehu]

Now, what do you mean about understanding truth conceptually as opposed to 'realizing' it?

It is like when you tell a child not to touch the stove because it is hot. Until the child actually touches the stove, heat is merely a concept; however, once they have touched the stove, heat becomes something more than just an idea.

Wherein lies this essence if not in the personality?

In their physical embodiment.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

It is like when you tell a child not to touch the stove because it is hot. Until the child actually touches the stove, heat is merely a concept; however, once they have touched the stove, heat becomes something more than just an idea.

But what about the insights that one has come to on one's own?

Wherein lies this essence if not in the personality?

In their physical embodiment.

But the physical embodiment is not even important. It's temporary. I'm talking about what can distinguish one entity from another, you from me, let us say we both die together in a head on collision, what then?

[Jehu]

But what about the insights that one has come to on one's own?

While insight is the essence of Wisdom, it is not realization; realization is not an intellectual endeavour, but an experiential one.

But the physical embodiment is not even important. It's temporary. I'm talking about what can distinguish one entity from another, you from me, let us say we both die together in a head on collision, what then?

There is nothing apart from its embodiment which can distinguish one sentient being from another, be that embodiment actual or imagined.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

While insight is the essence of Wisdom, it is not realization; realization is not an intellectual endeavor, but an experiential one.

Suppose I have the insight that the core of all people is pure and incorruptible. If that is a subjective insight, then what would its corollary experience consist of? I mean, how exactly could one experience such a truth?

There is nothing apart from its embodiment which can distinguish one sentient being from another, be that embodiment actual or imagined.

Hmm...this is rather strange, especially in light of the fact that you never agreed with me that all things at root are identical and consist of just one substance. Well, that was matter. Now, on this 'spiritual' level of being, you are stating that every being is identical. The embodiment, according to you, is not the absolute and is not real.


Would you say that a sentient being, after the death of its body and before incarnating again, is without embodiment?

[Jehu]

Suppose I have the insight that the core of all people is pure and incorruptible. If that is a subjective insight, then what would its corollary experience consist of? I mean, how exactly could one experience such a truth?

If it is true, then should not one be able to encounter it in all people ?

Hmm...this is rather strange, especially in light of the fact that you never agreed with me that all things at root are identical and consist of just one substance.

Well, that was matter. Now, on this 'spiritual' level of being, you are stating that every being is identical. The embodiment, according to you, is not the absolute and is not real.

Why do you find this strange? Have I not said all along that all things are one in their existential nature, and that all essential natures (essences/substances) are merely apparent?

Would you say that a sentient being, after the death of its body and before incarnating again, is without embodiment?

A sentient being cannot exist without an embodiment, for embodiment is a fundamental element of all things; and so a sentient being may either seek out a new objective embodiment upon the death of its old body, or create a subjective embodiment by force of its own faculty of imagination.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

If it is true, then should not one be able to encounter it in all people?

Well, it is very difficult for me to say in what way I have encountered it. How does one get insight and in what way does it remain subjective? I ponder things. I would say that I "see" with another faculty of vision. This faculty has taught me things with which you mostly agree, and which is the reason I am able to have this conversation with you, and was able to agree to your original premises.

In this time of pondering, and perhaps it may have been influenced by something I read in a great book, and is generally along a line of inquiry that I keep up over a long time, I realize certain things. They replace my previous understanding. Who makes this decision, that my new understanding is better and truer?

This insight is not directed more at myself than at others. In other words, I am not experiencing that I am pure and therefore extrapolating that all people are. I would have to work very hard to organize some way to explain this opinion I have in words.

Do I encounter it in all people? I believe I do, but then, is it more an idea, a belief? It is a belief that I have only had for a year or two, and yet I completely accept it as true, I don't even question it. To some extent, I do actually encounter this in people. What I "see" and encounter in people, is different than it was years ago. But to what extent do I actually experience another?

Why do you find this strange? Have I not said all along that all things are one in their existential nature, and that all essential natures (essences/substances) are merely apparent?

Perhaps it is strange because this quality of purity does not seem the same to me as one's existential nature. It seems like a quality.

A sentient being cannot exist without an embodiment, for embodiment is a fundamental element of all things; and so a sentient being may either seek out a new objective embodiment upon the death of its old body, or create a subjective embodiment by force of its own faculty of imagination.

A further possibility and which I think is almost certainly true, is that when the body is shed it is not the only body in which the fragment of awareness is contained. So that is why and how an entity can continue along a path of incarnations. There are more subtle bodies than only the heavy flesh one we see with our senses. An energy body, a mental body, that sort of thing. I suppose that by saying an entity maintains its idea of itself through imagination, that is an agreement that there is indeed such a mental body.

At any rate, the question is, are you going to be in some sort of embodiment forever?

[Jehu]

Well, it is very difficult for me to say in what way I have encountered it. How does one get insight and in what way does it remain subjective? I ponder things. I would say that I "see" with another faculty of vision. This faculty has taught me things with which you mostly agree, and which is the reason I am able to have this conversation with you, and was able to agree to your original premises.

Yes, insight may well be described as a another way of seeing, and it is an integral element of wisdom (i.e., its essence), but realization is also an integral element; though it is causal rather than constitutive.

A further possibility and which I think is almost certainly true, is that when the body is shed it is not the only body in which the fragment of awareness is contained. So that is why and how an entity can continue along a path of incarnations. There are more subtle bodies than only the heavy flesh one we see with our senses. An energy body, a mental body, that sort of thing. I suppose that by saying an entity maintains its idea of itself through imagination, that is an agreement that there is indeed such a mental body.

At any rate, the question is, are you going to be in some sort of embodiment forever?

First, I must reiterate that the fragment of awareness (soul) is not contained by any body, for it partakes of an absolute existence, and so is unbounded. Just as the cognizant awareness which underlies the sense perceptions of the dream-persona is not contained by the dream-body – though it appears so in the dream, neither is the awareness that underlies the perceptions of the sentient being contained within the objective body.

The reason that the soul continues within the cycle of becoming (birth, aging, sickness and death) is simply because it is not aware of its true nature. Ignorance is all that separates us from our true nature, and even this separation is not real; for our true nature is indivisible.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

First, I must reiterate that the fragment of awareness (soul) is not contained by any body, for it partakes of an absolute existence, and so is unbounded. Just as the cognizant awareness which underlies the sense perceptions of the dream-persona is not contained by the dream-body – though it appears so in the dream, neither is the awareness that underlies the perceptions of the sentient being contained within the objective body.The reason that the soul continues within the cycle of becoming (birth, aging, sickness and death) is simply because it is not aware of its true nature. Ignorance is all that separates us from our true nature, and even this separation is not real; for our true nature is indivisible.

People who leave their bodies, usually during threat of death or the actual beginnings of death, often report a leaving process or a quick jump out of the body, so yes the awareness leaves at the appropriate time, yet most people are quite unable to leave. Yes, that may be due to ignorance, but it does not change that the awareness is perceiving itself as an ego, and that is a bounded thing. Furthermore, if what you say is true, then it would be wrong to say that there is any life after death, because there is no life in the first place. That may be so, but why have you said in the past that we are beings?

It seems to me you are missing something, and for this reason you appear to speak inconsistently. Either we are beings or we are not. If we are not then there is no possibility of a particular one getting caught up in the cycle of becoming.

That there is both the one and the many is what I believe.

[Jehu]

People who leave their bodies, usually during threat of death or the actual beginnings of death, often report a leaving process or a quick jump out of the body, so yes the awareness leaves at the appropriate time, yet most people are quite unable to leave. Yes, that may be due to ignorance, but it does not change that the awareness is perceiving itself as an ego, and that is a bounded thing. Furthermore, if what you say is true, then it would be wrong to say that there is any life after death, because there is no life in the first place. That may be so, but why have you said in the past that we are beings?

From an absolute perspective there is neither birth nor death, nor it there anything which cycles between the two; nevertheless, from a relative perspective there are beings who are caught between the two.

It seems to me you are missing something, and for this reason you appear to speak inconsistently. Either we are beings or we are not. If we are not then there is no possibility of a particular one getting caught up in the cycle of becoming.

That there is both the one and the many is what I believe.

I understand your frustration, for I have been there myself, but I cannot stress to strongly that what is real will not be caught in any sort of conceptual net. The laws of thought will not permit us to say that Being is one, many, both or neither. First, we cannot say that it is one, for nothing new can arise solely out of a single cause. Second, we cannot say that it is many, for as many as we say that it is there must always be one more which acts to separate the many- and so we are left with an infinite regression. Third, we cannot say that it is both, for the law of contradiction tells us that it cannot be both at the same time. And finally, the law of excluded middle tells us that it must be one or the other-there being no intermediate alternative.

You seem intent upon extracting the essential nature of the sentient being, while still retaining the sentient being, and this is not logically tenable. Whatever might remain after the disillusion of the sentient being cannot be any sort of being (relative entity), less it possess all the fundamental elements of the relative entity-not the least of which is an embodiment.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Second, we cannot say that it is many, for as many as we say that it is there must always be one more which acts to separate the many- and so we are left with an infinite regression.

This I did not understand. The possible number is infinite, but the actual number must be finite.

Third, we cannot say that it is both, for the law of contradiction tells us that it cannot be both at the same time.

I do not see why not, and I do not see why the law of contradiction applies here.

And finally, the law of excluded middle tells us that it must be one or the other-there being no intermediate alternative.

Ha, ha, well it looks like the laws of thought have failed us!

You seem intent upon extracting the essential nature of the sentient being, while still retaining the sentient being, and this is not logically tenable. Whatever might remain after the disillusion of the sentient being cannot be any sort of being (relative entity), less it possess all the fundamental elements of the relative entity-not the least of which is an embodiment.

This I did not understand either.
You are calling all beings relative entities. Yet isn't it in my being that I partake of the absolute?
I'm trying to find out if I'm going to live.

[Jehu]

This I did not understand. The possible number is infinite, but the actual number must be finite.

There is a fundamental problem with the notion of separateness, and it goes like this: if two things are truly separate then they cannot be related, for to be related is to be connected. For this reason, if we assert that there are two separate things, then there must be a third thing which acts to separate the two, for a thing cannot partition itself. Then, if we accept that there is a third thing, and that the two original things are in fact unrelated, then it follows that this third thing cannot itself be related to either of the original things, and so there must be a fourth thing which separates the third from the first two, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

I do not see why not, and I do not see why the law of contradiction applies here.

The Law of Contradiction prohibits any proposition which simultaneously asserts both a predicate and its complement. For example, that a thing is simultaneously both one (not many) and many (not one). The only reason that the Principle of Interdependent Complementarity is able to assert both monism (existentially) and pluralism (essentially) simultaneously is because only the former partakes of a real existence, while the latter merely appears to exist.

Ha, ha, well it looks like the laws of thought have failed us!

I sincerely hope not, for then we would be lost indeed!

This I did not understand either.
You are calling all beings relative entities. Yet isn't it in my being that I partake of the absolute?
I'm trying to find out if I'm going to live.

Let us think of the Absolute as a vast disembodied dreamer, and the objective world as its dream. Now imagine that Iolaus, a lucid agent within the dream, were to be approached by Jehu, a non-lucid agent, and Jehu were to ask Iolaus, “What is the true nature of this experiential world in which we find ourselves?” Iolaus, being a lucid agent, might say “It is all a dream Jehu, and there is nothing to fear, for birth and death are mere illusion”. Jehu, being sceptical of such an explanation, might respond, “But what of me, what will become of Jehu when the dream is over?” Iolaus, having an immeadiate knowledge of the Dreamer, might respond, “The cognizant awareness that underlies all the objects of our collective dream is one and the same, and this awareness which is our true self, is beyond birth or death”. Still, Jehu persists, “What will become of Jehu when the dream persona dies?” Iolaus might then respond, “Become lucid Jehu, and know your true nature directly, and then all your questions will be answered.”

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

There is a fundamental problem with the notion of separateness, and it goes like this: if two things are truly separate then they cannot be related, for to be related is to be connected. For this reason, if we assert that there are two separate things, then there must be a third thing which acts to separate the two, for a thing cannot partition itself. Then, if we accept that there is a third thing, and that the two original things are in fact unrelated, then it follows that this third thing cannot itself be related to either of the original things, and so there must be a fourth thing which separates the third from the first two, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

But this is the part I didn't get, why can a thing not partition itself. I could imagine a cell dividing, and the membrane circling around each.
Also, it is still possible, in your above scenario, for there to be a finite number of things, because it could come full circle, where thing #1 is the partitioner of thing # one million. Things could serve as partitioners of more than one other thing.

The Law of Contradiction prohibits any proposition which simultaneously asserts both a predicate and its complement. For example, that a thing is simultaneously both one (not many) and many (not one).

By complement, you seem to mean opposite. But that's not exactly right either. A thing cannot be both green and red, or green and yellow, or green and black. A thing cannot be both square and round, yet those are two among several shapes and not opposites.

Ha, ha, well it looks like the laws of thought have failed us!

I sincerely hope not, for then we would be lost indeed!

(The laws of thought will not permit us to say that Being is one, many, both or neither. First, we cannot say that it is one, for nothing new can arise solely out of a single cause. Second, we cannot say that it is many, for as many as we say that it is there must always be one more which acts to separate the many- and so we are left with an infinite regression. Third, we cannot say that it is both, for the law of contradiction tells us that it cannot be both at the same time. And finally, the law of excluded middle tells us that it must be one or the other-there being no intermediate alternative.)

The laws of thought have not helped us.

[Jehu]

part I didn't get, why can a thing not partition itself. I could imagine a cell dividing, and the membrane circling around each.

What I am saying is that no thing may act to partition itself from itself. For example, if we were out to sea, and everywhere there was nothing but water, we cannot rightfully say that there are a multitude of separate bodies of water, for in order to have separate bodies of water, there must be something that is not water (e.g., land) to separates them. Likewise, if there is everywhere only being, and no non-being that might partition one being from another, then we must admit that there is but a single and continuous Being.

Also, it is still possible, in your above scenario, for there to be a finite number of things, because it could come full circle, where thing #1 is the partitioner of thing # one million. Things could serve as partitioners of more than one other thing.

Indeed, things may act to partition other things one from another, but it is not the relative being (thing) that we are discussing here, but the Absolute Being. Further, even relative entities are never truly separate, for everything is dependent for its being upon the coming together of other subsidiary things, and so it follows that it is related to those subsidiary things, as its constituents.

By complement, you seem to mean opposite. But that's not exactly right either. A thing cannot be both green and red, or green and yellow, or green and black. A thing cannot be both square and round, yet those are two among several shapes and not opposites.

By the term “complement” I mean that which is not a given thing; for example, a circle is not a square, or a triangle is not a square, or any other shape which is not a square – these are the complement of square. Why do I say this? Given the fundamental unity of all being, whenever we define a given thing (e.g., a square), we effectively partition the realm of Being into two interdependent and complementary spheres: the given thing itself (what it is), and everything else (what it is not).

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

The laws of thought will not permit us to say that Being is one, many, both or neither.

And are not the laws of thought helpless here?

When you speak of Being like this, I think of existence, and I have agreed that there is no nonexistence. But the Being I am interested in is awareness or consciousness. And when you say that there is only one continuous being, how do you fit the inanimate in? I do understand and you have previously explained that even the inanimate in some obscure way participates in awareness, but still.

What I am saying is that no thing may act to partition itself from itself. For example, if we were out to sea, and everywhere there was nothing but water, we cannot rightfully say that there are a multitude of separate bodies of water, for in order to have separate bodies of water, there must be something that is not water (e.g., land) to separates them. Likewise, if there is everywhere only being, and no non-being that might partition one being from another, then we must admit that there is but a single and continuous Being.

We could have just land and water, and they would both act as the divider of the other, without need for infinite regress.

Indeed, things may act to partition other things one from another, but it is not the relative being (thing) that we are discussing here, but the Absolute Being.

Oh, well then, no Trinity, huh?
Alright, so you are saying that Absolute Being is of one, well, substance or attribute, and cannot divide itself. This makes sense, and yet how has it come up with the material world?
But your real point is that all awareness is one? Cannot divide itself?

Now, it seems to me that there is a need for a division in the godhead, we need a chaos-source, and we need a mind.

[Jehu]

And are not the laws of thought helpless here?

Not at all, for they have brought us to the very limit of knowledge, and it is now for us to make the experiential leap to that which lies beyond knowledge. Remember, knowledge is the inferior (bounded) aspect of reality, and so is not capable of encompassing the superior (unbounded) aspect – awareness.

When you speak of Being like this, I think of existence, and I have agreed that there is no non-existence. But the Being I am interested in is awareness or consciousness. And when you say that there is only one continuous being, how do you fit the inanimate in? I do understand and you have previously explained that even the inanimate in some obscure way participates in awareness, but still.

Yes, I have tried repeatedly to tell you that awareness is all that is real, and that all things partake of this awareness, though all things are not conscious; and consciousness itself is an illusion, as are all the objects of the senses. Just as in our dreams there are animate an inanimate things, but these things do not differ in their nature, cause or origin: the cognizant awareness of the dreamer, and so too is it with the objective world. You see, I have been trying to tell you that things are not real, and that the only reason that we sentient beings are able to interact with these things is because we are of the same nature; that is to say, a dream-bat can only strike a dream-ball because the ball and bat are both the stuff of dreams.

We could have just land and water, and they would both act as the divider of the other, without need for infinite regress.

Yes, but relative entities are not truly separate beings, they merely appear that way; for if we look closely enough at their relationships, we find that all relative entities are connected (Indra’s Web). If water and land were truly separate things, then they would be completely unrelated, and the one would not be able to exert any influence over the other – neither to contain or partition it – without reverting to an infinite regression of intermediate things.

Oh, well then, no Trinity, huh?
Alright, so you are saying that Absolute Being is of one, well, substance or attribute, and cannot divide itself. This makes sense, and yet how has it come up with the material world?
But your real point is that all awareness is one? Cannot divide itself?

It cannot really divide itself, however, it can imagine itself to be a multitude of separate beings, such as is the case with the ignorant souls who wander in the realm of becoming.

Now, as to the matter of the “material world”, this is simply the play of its cognizant nature; the uninterrupted logical unfolding of that virtual experiential continuum that is Being’s intrinsic and necessarily dynamic essence, or constitutive causes. However, fragments of the absolute become fixated on this continuum, taking what is merely the play of form and essence to be independent entities, with which it then identifies and attaches itself. However, in reality, these fragments have never strayed so much as a hair’s breadth from the Absolute, nor do they differ in any way from the whole.

Now, it seems to me that there is a need for a division in the godhead, we need a chaos-source, and we need a mind.

Being, as we have already determined, is possessed of its own intrinsic causes, and so in lacking nothing – for if it lacked anything, then it would lack everything (i.e., it could not be). However, we are permitted, for the sake of intellectual understanding, to mentally divide Being into the three bodies, or the ten suchnesses, but these are not the ultimate nature of Being; for the ultimate nature of Being cannot be imagined, but must be experienced immediately.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Not at all, for they have brought us to the very limit of knowledge, and it is now for us to make the experiential leap to that which lies beyond knowledge. Remember, knowledge is the inferior (bounded) aspect of reality, and so is not capable of encompassing the superior (unbounded) aspect – awareness.

Ah, I see.

Yes, I have tried repeatedly to tell you that awareness is all that is real, and that all things partake of this awareness, though all things are not conscious; and consciousness itself is an illusion,

I recall that at the beginning there were some problems with this terminology. I don't differentiate between consciousness and awareness, but I think you considered consciousness as part of brain function or something.

Just as in our dreams there are animate an inanimate things, but these things do not differ in their nature, cause or origin:

You are saying there is no difference between me and a stone?

the only reason that we sentient beings are able to interact with these things is because we are of the same nature; that is to say, a dream-bat can only strike a dream-ball because the ball and bat are both the stuff of dreams.

And yet the dream bat does not strike of its own accord, nor even the dream baseball player, but only the mind of the dreamer causes it, and so it takes the real to move the unreal. Unreal things cannot move themselves or others.

Yes, but relative entities are not truly separate beings, they merely appear that way; for if we look closely enough at their relationships, we find that all relative entities are connected (Indra’s Web). If water and land were truly separate things, then they would be completely unrelated, and the one would not be able to exert any influence over the other – neither to contain or partition it – without reverting to an infinite regression of intermediate things.

OK, but that is a slightly different question. The question was as to the one and the many, and how the laws of thought cannot tread here.

I do agree that nothing is separate, including the absolute and the relative.

How are we to have fragments of an indivisible awareness? I mean, I know what you have said about it thus far, but where is this partition in which you have your island and I have mine? I have said the awareness is caught but you say no.

However, in reality, these fragments have never strayed so much as a hair’s breadth from the Absolute, nor do they differ in any way from the whole.

Does anything differ from the whole?

However, we are permitted, for the sake of intellectual understanding, to mentally divide Being into the three bodies, or the ten suchnesses,

What are those?