The Fundamental Unity of Being

[Jehu]

Very grateful of you, you make me think and feel good these ideas, just hard to find proof, must have faith I guess:is true?

I am most profoundly pleased, and I hope that you will continue with our enquiry, for there is much ground still to be covered.

Jehu, to follow you better and form good response back I find necessary to ask you to keep the text you wrote first that I comment on and that I carry along on my post. This way there is at least 3 exchanges, sometimes two of yours and one mine, sometime one yours two mine. Or even 4 or 5 would be better when complicated idea discussed. Your answer not simple to understand, because your language and way you use words new to me with many words you use,. until Im more used to your style and word definition, please keep, no..."retain" (thank you Mr Webster!) more text, I need sometime to re-read your older text to understand the newest one much better. Ok, Understand?
Maybe after 2, 3 weeks I catch on you can trim your text again.
(but dont hold breath!)
haha

So do me great favor will you,-- re-send last post you write, this time retain as I describe above?
Hope not to busy you. May be easy job I think.

Then I go back and give complete response best I can to all parts as you like.
You good guy for an American!
haha

I’m afraid that I will not be able to do as you asked with the last post, for it is far to unwieldy; however, if you are willing to limit your posts to two or three points at a time, I shall be happy to comply with your wishes in future.

[mansman]

Jehu, well ok, but you think you know what I ask but Im not sure you do!
B/c just asking to do LESS work by leaving more of your previous words. Maybe Im wrong.
I need experiece to understand myself, maybe.
Whatever!
I can do it MYSELF maybe. Good exercise.
Still appreciate!

[Steven]

The work of Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg etc. show that "relative" and "absolute" are one and the same thing when it comes to reconciling theoretical models of reality with observational data. These are not philosophies on the primacy of existence, but mathematical representations of the laws governing physical phenomena. The central philosophical premise of both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is that no physical phenomena is an interpretation of a single absolute, but that all physical phenomena are absolute in their context and functionally relative to all other contexts.

Both Quantum Mechanics and Relativity show through experimentation that variations of frames of reference have a physical relationship with other frames of reference that has implications for all frames of reference and that absolutes are composed of relationships to variations in perspective. Under certain conditions the single constant in Einsteins theory, light, displays itself in terms of every possible path it could take from A to B.

In other words what is not relative to an observer, what does not change relative to an observers position, composition and motion, is the very entity that displays itself in its every possible form and path. The physical, observable results produced by light is the exact same mathematical process done in reverse to calculate the position and motion of all entities dealt with in quantum mechanics. It is necessary to understand that the calculation of probability in quantum mechanics is not a failure of accuracy, but a fundamental, observable physical process. Physical entities are absolute relative to an observer not because of a failure to comprehend a "true" absolute or because they are misinterperated, but because they are absolute relative an observer.

Fundamental variations in the relationship between physical phenomena and different frames of reference is a fact of reality. Each observer views a different set of outcomes and relationships and they can ALL be shown through experiment. Each fundamental absolute is not a single thing but consists of every possible variation of itself, and the variations observed as absolute are relative only to that frame of reference.

Contemporary philosophy is devoid of any consideration of these truly revolutionary breakthroughs in our understanding of reality; mathematics aside the fundamental principles of both these descriptions of reality are hard to comprehend individually, but together they are two sides of the same coin. Idealism as it has be known is a dead man walking, and the annihilation of the concept of a distinction between relative and absolute is poetic. It does not surprise me to see a discussion so premised upon the concepts of "relative" and "absolute" to say nothing and think nothing and have no content relating to either Relativity nor Quantum Mechanics.

The assumption that what is communicated to the functions of the mind has no relevance to any external or objective reality is an assumption that is utterly devoid of reason, for although the mind interperates and conceptualises the questions must be asked as to how and why, and these questions most obviously have not been asked, indeed such questions if answered through the capabilities of reason would destroy the premise for the context within which data is communicated by any means and for any purpose would be revealed to have primacy of importance.

The distinction of the various "modes of Being" is also subject to questions that are unaddressed, such as do these modes of Being exist, and what is meant by the question of existence. Essentially the distinction between "quality" and "substance" is an irrelevance for the substance remains to be questioned as to its existence and the quality has no object, ergo no relevance. The fundamental point missed is that existence, and questions of existence, remain at each level of differentiation, and that the question of existence is a question of coherence of self, not dissection or differentiation of self. At its heart even the most fundamental principle must posit its own existence, and can only do this by coherence with and possibility of itself. The primacy of this coherent and possible self is the very foundation of the final, fundamental, honest philosophical inquiry, and its dissection into that which is "absolute" and congizant and that which is relative is a circle, misdirection and fallacy of the greatest proportions.

[divine focus]

If there is a manifest realm, there must be a realm unmanifest that is also God.

If the manifest realm is the realm of Being, then an unmanifest God is not God.

Within my set-up, there is no "realm of Being." They are all realms of Being, meaning they all exist. One is manifest physically or objectively while the other is not. I can't say one is the cause of the other, but the unmanifest seems to underpin the manifest.

This is interesting, because we have been talking about two different modes of Being, or existence. It seems that asking if God exists is different from asking if God is part of the manifest. If there is a manifest realm, there must be a realm unmanifest that is also God. I propose a set-up similar to Jehu's where there are two modes or realms that make up one existence.

It adds on to Jehu's in that each realm consists of two other modes. On the absolute side, which I would consider the unmanifest, lies Thought (with a capital-T) and the 'water' element of Being. These are both modes dealing with a quality of universality and unquestionable truth. The questioning comes from the relative side, the manifest, along with the qualities of individuality and infiniteness. "Thinking" is the relative mode aware of Thought, while energetic emotion is aware of the 'water' of Being.

While the ‘relative mode’ of being may be further partitioned into (1) those things which partake of an ‘objective’ (actual) existence, and (2) those which partake of only a ‘subjective’ (imaginary) existence; the same is not true of the ‘absolute mode’,

I wasn't actually dividing the relative into objective/subjective. I'm saying that the relative is the objective and the absolute is subjective, meaning that the relative looks outside of itself while the absolute has no outside. In this, I don't mean that the subjective is imaginary as opposed to actual. I only mean that the subjective is the basis of what we consider concrete reality within our beliefs and thought structures.

for if the relative mode is ‘pluralistic’ (many), then the absolute mode, being its complement, must necessarily be ‘monistic’ (one). This is in full accord with what we have already demonstrated to be the case: that all existential beings are fundamentally unified; for existential being does not vary from one thing to another, neither in it quality nor in its quantity; but is the ‘universal predicate’.

I agree. Both realms of the absolute as I describe it are One in that there is no other and they are both timeless and complete. Each relative thing partakes of the same absolute, meaning that the absolute is the same within each thing.

[Steven]

Within my set-up, there is no "realm of Being." They are all realms of Being, meaning they all exist. One is manifest physically or objectively while the other is not.

If they all exist then you are simply shifting the goalposts, much like Jehu. You state that existence is "divided" or differentiated into two modes that themselves exist, so obviously what you state is not accurate. Supposing for a minute that what you state has some relevance to reality then you are questioning the relationship between entities and mind in the construction of a perspective, but none the less you are still forced to assume fundamentally the existence of what you compare. It is not existence you are questioning at all, but merely the relationship between what already exists.

This is an ontological error that pervades this thread, that is attempted to be covered up by the ambiguity in the terms Being and Existence, or by means of simply substituting the word existence for another, Absolute. The truth is that despite the oft repeated premise, that existence can be differentiated, all that is being done is the comparison of theoretical characteristics of what already exists. These theoretical characteristics are wonderfully spurious in themselves, but they merely detract from the main point.

all existential beings are fundamentally unified; for existential being does not vary from one thing to another, neither in it quality nor in its quantity; but is the ‘universal predicate’.

This is as clear a case of dishonesty as one will see. Having seperated "existential Being" from "essential Being" the fact of existence from the form, we are left with no BeingS at all, but the implication is clearly present that we do not lose the multiplicity of things but find their unity. However that which constitutes a "thing" has already been removed prior and thus we are no longer questioning things at all, but existence itself. Existential BeingS are not unified, for in the absence of characteristics we have no BeingS at all. Existential Being here is merely existence with the added implication of relating to a thing, but we have removed all that constitutes a thing, and though we find that "existential Being" is the 'Universal Predicate' it is not a Unity of thingS but the unity of that which applies to things.

In dividing the existence of Things into "existential Being" and "essential Being" all that has been done is to divide things into their characteristics and their fact of existence. So long as we change the words we wont have to admit this circular reasoning.

[Jehu]

Steven,

A couple of points on your last post. First, this is, and has been from the very being, a ‘rational enquiry’, and as such, we are not concerned with comparing theoretical models of reality, but with determining what can or cannot reasonably be said with respect to the subject of ‘being’.

Next, I should like to inform you that we are using the terms ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’ in their traditionally establish 'philosophical' sense, and this may or may not accord with its use in theoretical physics; nevertheless, we are entitled to use these term in this way, irrespective of how they may or may not be used in other fields of enquiry.

Further, your statement that “The assumption that what is communicated to the functions of the mind has no relevance to any external or objective reality is an assumption that is utterly devoid of reason, …” is simply not true, for we have demonstrated each step of our enquiry through deduction, and so have avoided any assumptions; while you, to the contrary, have only the appearance of things (empirical observation) to go by, and such knowledge as inductive inference offers to support your position.

With respect to your last paragraph, we have fully addressed the issue of “existence’, and have seen that it means nothing more than to “stand as an object of mind”; and to go beyond this meaning, is to infer (inductively) that there is something beyond the phenomenal experience – which is an assumption.

Then, given that there are only two possible ways in a being may be constituted, it follows that Being must be constituted in one or both of these two ways; therefore, and given that the two modes are interdependent and complementary, then if one modes exists, so too must the other mode.

[Steven]

First, this is, and has been from the very being, a ‘rational enquiry’, and as such, we are not concerned with comparing theoretical models of reality, but with determining what can or cannot reasonably be said with respect to the subject of ‘being’.

Any statement as to what can and cannot be said of the subject of Being is a theoretical model of reality. You purposely ignore what can and cannot be said with regards to the subject of Being when it conflicts or contradicts with your pressumptions.

Next, I should like to inform you that we are using the terms ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’ in their traditionally establish 'philosophical' sense

There is no "traditionally established" philosophical sense of these terms. The context within which you are using them in this thread is a usage that is thoroughly refuted by physical science. As I said, idealism as we know it is dead. Hopefully you will live long enough to read someones work on the philosophy of relativity and quantum mechanics. It defies belief to think that a century later still no one has the balls to go near it.

and this may or may not accord with its use in theoretical physics; nevertheless, we are entitled to use these term in this way, irrespective of how they may or may not be used in other fields of enquiry.

You are entitled to use them certainly, but when you begin with an assumption that appearances are to be rejected without further recourse to reasonable inquiry into their presence or necessity, and end with a conclusion contradicting both established existential philosophy and theoretical scientific models based upon experimentation upon appearances then it is safe to say that the process by which you obtain your conclusion has within it a fundamental flaw.

Further, your statement that “The assumption that what is communicated to the functions of the mind has no relevance to any external or objective reality is an assumption that is utterly devoid of reason, …” is simply not true, for we have demonstrated each step of our enquiry through deduction, and so have avoided any assumptions; while you, to the contrary, have only the appearance of things (empirical observation) to go by, and such knowledge as inductive inference offers to support your position.

Your deductive reasoning is scant at best and as stated before it is completely devoid of any inquiry as to why such appearances should be presented to the faculty of cognition, how such appearances should be presented, and the fundamental implications of the fact that anything can be and is presented.

The very fact that appearances are presented to the faculties of the mind requires an external means of communicating data for if the mind was already in possession of all possible presented data a priori it would be unable to conceive further for all would already be known. That little thing known as "change" is somewhat important. Provide a reason for it.

That aside the very presence of the mind begs the question as to how and why it exists, which at no point have you attempted to answer nor shown you are capable of answering; any alternative you posit to an objective reality containing information that is able to be communicated to the mind has no rational foundation for its own existence. Empirical data on the other hand contains within itself the explanation of not only its own presence, but also of the presence of that which comprehends.

This is a degree of rational justification that you and your position shall never attain, ergo it is the reasonable conclusion to assume that what is communicated to us by means of apparent senses is in the context of the senses accurate, for there are no other reasonable conclusions.

With respect to your last paragraph, we have fully addressed the issue of “existence’, and have seen that it means nothing more than to “stand as an object of mind”; and to go beyond this meaning, is to infer (inductively) that there is something beyond the phenomenal experience – which is an assumption.

What is the assumption is that the etymological root of the word contains the entire factual relevance of the concept. Further the definition itself as you posit here is logically false, for it implies either the mind does not exist, or that there infinate recursive minds, neither of which can be rationaly justified. The fundamental question is to what extent are appearances illusions, and to what extent do they communicate a degree of factual relevance and coherence. A question you avoid by simply assuming some bastardised form of archaic idealism that is about as rational in its premises as faith in God. The second point I have dealt with, the assumption belongs to you for your arguement is devoid of reasoning as to why such appearances should be assumed to have no object.

Then, given that there are only two possible ways in a being may be constituted

There is only one possible way a Being may be constituted, and that is the way the Being is constituted, which by the way turns out to be every possible variation of itself. The fact of its constitution is its existence. The subjective interpretation is irrelevent, for when subjective interpretation is brought up, one simply asks the question of the subject. To which you have no answer. To which no idealism has an answer except for the most spurious and irrational of premises.

it follows that Being must be constituted in one or both of these two ways; therefore, and given that the two modes are interdependent and complementary, then if one modes exists, so too must the other mode.

Being is the fact of an entities existence as it applies to reality, from the perspective of that entity. It has nothing to do with complementary modes of Being for no such modes exist. There is no differentiated "absolute" and "relative" nor is there a differentiated "quality" of existence and "substance" of an entity. You are able to differentiate because you lack the capability of understanding that existence means, philosophically and scientifically, the manifestation of coherent and relative possibility. You further fail to understand that Being is not distinct from existence, but is existence from the perspective of an entity involving all of its historical involvement and future possibility. This is the etymological meaning of the verb "Be" which despite your rigorous appraisal of etymology you manage to ignore. The fact that you come to "Genius Forums" to peddle a 7 page "interpretation" of Being without a single reference to time means you are so far out of your depth it is unlikely you can be rescued.

Your distinction is premised upon a profound misunderstanding of precisely what existence is within the context of a purposefully biased pressumption of the primacy of mind without any kind of rational discourse as to how that can be justified. Your division of Being results in Being and the irrelevant. You ignore this because you have already ascribed some egotistical and personally profound meaning to your conclusion. You are a fraud.

[mansman]

Then question for you is- how you measure and charactrize this particular "existent quality"?

That which we call ‘existential being’ (the absolute) entails no differentiable characteristic that might be measured; for all differentiable characteristics belong to that mode we call ‘essential being’ (the relative).

Thinking more about it I should have ask "would you describe this quality?" because as far as i know each different quality whatever it is, is unique and can be describe differently, actually MUST have different description is even better way to say. So go ahead and describe please.

Also you say no basis to assert more than one, but my example is two fig trees which share one at least quality exactly the two of them, probably many qualities they share, but cannot deny share at least 1 quality that say a prune tree not have, still the two fig trees are two fig trees and not one being even though some quality identical, see what I mean? So maybe identical quality not force Unity of Being (me Im not sure to be honest only thinking out loud)

The ‘Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles’(part of Leibniz’s Law) states: “if what appears to be two or more things have all there properties in common they are identical and so only one thing.” In the case of your two Fig trees, even if the two trees were identical in every possible way, they would still be discernible by the variation in their spatio-temporal co-ordinates – which is an essential characteristic of any particular. However, as there is no way to discern between the existential being of one thing or another, then there is no basis to say that they are two different existents.

Still, if universe never end (again feel right to me, I believe) maybe it possible or even "logically tenable" or even necessary for as you say to have infinite number of existents, never ending possibilities. Your thoughts?

The notion of an ‘infinite number’ is itself logically inconsistent. The term ‘infinite’ means ‘unfinished’, and so pertains only to processes that are indefinite. If a thing is, then it is must be complete; that is to say, all that is necessary and sufficient to its being what it is (its causes), must be present. Therefore,

-although Being is boundless, it is not infinite - though it may continue infinitely.

Really?
Would you explain why so. Since you say "MAY continue" not following completely.
You mean, maybe not to. Shall we ask genius owner of forum? haha

Just help me so not mistake this moving idea, my dream persona is like an actor in the dream I having, is that correct? Just you mean one of the character in my dream. Im thinking now of my dreams but honest cannot say for sure if my "persona" (I use the quotes to show I not necessarily understand idea completely since not my idea) is one of the actors or charactors in my dreams at night, usually other people appear in my dream, not remember myself appearing. Still I understand you, your idea says the (all) figure(s) in all dreams are nothing realy. Just imagine if dream figure suddenly know, realize he just dream figure! amazing. nothing but temporary dream figure- Is this what you mean Persona?

By ‘dream persona’, I mean that in your dreams your cognizant nature embodies itself in a imaginary body, with all the attributes of a actual body, including sensual faculties; and it is this imaginary body that your cognizant nature takes to be your true self, when in fact, it is your cognizant nature that is your true self. In truth, the true nature of your dream persona, along with everything else in your dream, is of the nature of an illusion – mere appearance.

Wow! Your blowing my mind, Jehu. Let me see if I got you right--the dream persona equals the imaginary body plus the cognizant nature (dp=ib+cn) and all are illusionary.
OK then?

So you feel this way, that you are just like a dream person and the only real thing is the dreamer. Then question is who is this dreamer, why it is dreaming, why dreaming of you and me, is someone (Greater) dreaming of IT, does IT feel IT not real too?

Your question is quite appropriate from the viewpoint of a relative entity, and is no different than if the dream persona were to wonder who it was that was dreaming it; but this is to miss the point entirely. In every relative entity, and this includes the dream persona, there is an element which is merely apparent (knowledge), and an element that is real (awareness), and it is the interplay of these two interdependent and complementary elements that is the origin and cause of all beings.

The interplay? Hows that go? You know this would be a good time to ask the forum owner-genius to say TRUE or BULLSHIT because if bullshit then someone mislead his flock, so come on and weigh in Mr Rowden, please. Mr Jehu pretend he dont know if you a genius, are you also pretend you blind to Mr Jehu? Dont be afraid.

What about reading his post and opinions so far, you find nothing so far to disagree with your philosophy?
Maybe you ignore his ideas but why I cant guess.
Anyone else here you agree with? Here or in your life where you live? Do you teach classes have students where you are? Can people come learn from you?
sorry so many questions, just ignore if too many!

With all due respect, I have little interest in merely comparing opinions, for nothing I have said will have any impact upon those who do not make the effort to realize the truth for themselves. To simply accept someone’s opinion as to the nature of reality, does little more than give one a false sense of security; but it will not free them from fear or distress.

Well, sure no arguement I know what you mean, i notice to he act distress often, treating some like misbehaving children yelling threats. Have no idea who is his guru, maybe he tell us now.

Very grateful of you, you make me think and feel good these ideas, just hard to find proof, must have faith I guess:is true?

I am most profoundly pleased, and I hope that you will continue with our enquiry, for there is much ground still to be covered.

Very funny, I know you saying me an air head with thick scull! right.

[Jehu]

Steven,

Sadly, it is clear that you do know the difference between a logical argument and an exchange of opinions, and I have grown tired of trying to break through your impenetrable wall of preconceptions and misconceptions. Consequently, I shall leave you to the comfort of your opinions, and proceed with those who are more capable of understanding the concepts. If you truly believe the things that you have been expounding here, then perhaps a science forum would be a more suitable venue, for there you not likely to encounter any ideas that might offend your materialistic sensibilities. In any event, our discourse on the matter is now at an end; for I will not continue to beat my head upon a brick wall.

[Jehu]

Then question for you is- how you measure and charactrize this particular "existent quality"?

That which we call ‘existential being’ (the absolute) entails no differentiable characteristic that might be measured; for all differentiable characteristics belong to that mode we call ‘essential being’ (the relative).

Thinking more about it I should have ask "would you describe this quality?" because as far as i know each different quality whatever it is, is unique and can be describe differently, actually MUST have different description is even better way to say. So go ahead and describe please.

Being is space-like in its quality, for like space it is inperceptible, all pervasive and everywhere the same. What is this quality called ‘existence’ (existential being)? When a thing can neither be perceived nor imagined, then it exists not; but if it is either perceived or imagined, then it exists.

Still, if universe never end (again feel right to me, I believe) maybe it possible or even "logically tenable" or even necessary for as you say to have infinite number of existents, never ending possibilities. Your thoughts?

The notion of an ‘infinite number’ is itself logically inconsistent. The term ‘infinite’ means ‘unfinished’, and so pertains only to processes that are indefinite. If a thing is, then it is must be complete; that is to say, all that is necessary and sufficient to its being what it is (its causes), must be present. Therefore, although Being is boundless, it is not infinite - though it may continue infinitely.

Really? Would you explain why so. Since you say "MAY continue" not following completely.
You mean, maybe not to. Shall we ask genius owner of forum? haha

At this stage in the enquiry, I am saying neither that it does nor that it does not continue indefinitely; I am merely saying that it is ‘logically permissible’ for it continue indefinitely. For this reason, I have said that it ‘may’ rather than it ‘can’, for I do not yet know that it ‘can’.

Very grateful of you, you make me think and feel good these ideas, just hard to find proof, must have faith I guess:is true?

I am most profoundly pleased, and I hope that you will continue with our enquiry, for there is much ground still to be covered.

Very funny, I know you saying me an air head with thick scull! right.

I assure you, my comment was sincere, for I would never have fun at another’s expense.

[Jehu]

I agree. Both realms of the absolute as I describe it are One in that there is no other and they are both timeless and complete. Each relative thing partakes of the same absolute, meaning that the absolute is the same within each thing.

Yes, this is it exactly: everything partakes of the one absolute; and so it may be said that everything has a two-fold nature, the one aspect (existential) being absolute (real), and the other (essential) being merely relative (apparent). But this absolute is not ‘within’ the thing, but extrinsic to it; for a relative entity has no inside – given that it is only an illusion.

[mansman]

Jehu:

At this stage in the enquiry, I am saying neither that it does nor that it does not continue indefinitely; I am merely saying that it is ‘logically permissible’ for it continue indefinitely. For this reason, I have said that it ‘may’ rather than it ‘can’, for I do not yet know that it ‘can’.

Ok, but why you leave room to be possible some time later you will know?
You mean when you become more smart than now, than maybe you figure out truth?
Or when you time travel?
Or what.

Now you say "indefinitely" but before you write " if continue infinitely" in first mention.
Thats why I ask, because seem strange if Being "not infinite but continue infinitely", must be typo.

Besides, I not sure what this continuing is all about anyway, I try to explain and then maybe you help me imagine.

Let us say- Being DOES continue indefinitely. Fact.
In this case, well, what would Being be doing exactly (that not doing if not continue ind.......)

I Would desire try to visualize both options, can you?
what you see?

(if you dont know yet maybe genius owner will tell us,haha)

[mansman]

Also Im still confuse, you skiped it.

A conflict- how can the cognizant self be true self, in fact more true than imaginary body, if cognizant self is no more or less a mere appearance than anything else?

[Sapius]

Steven: You quite clearly don't have a clue about the meaning of the Unity of Being. And you can refuse to answer me all you like, your rhetoric is meaningless.

Jehu: I think I should prefer to let the other participant decide this question for themselves….

No, I wouldn’t say it is meaningless, however, it is but a matter of two different perspectives, in and off the relative however.

Again, I do not wish to beat the point to death, but it is of the utmost importance that we understand that such terms as “non-being” and “non-existent” are logically inconsistent; and that as Being is unbounded, there is no place for “non-being” either within Being – which would violate the law of contradiction; or outside of Being, which would then delimit Being. Therefore, let my try once again, from a linguistic angle, and see if we cannot overcome this erroneous notion.

No need to, I agree and understand that for over twenty years.

That which may be rightfully named must have both and existential aspect (must exist), and an essential aspect (a set of defining characteristics). The reason for this is that it is the linguistic function of a name to give rise in the mind of a listener or reader, to a unique set of characteristics which are essential to the recognition of that which is named; and it is in this way that a term conveys a meaning. Now, the term “non-being” has neither an existential referent (for it does not exist) nor any defining characteristic (for what characteristics could it possibly have).

Yes, it would not have any existential referent, but it does have a defining characteristic, that “it’ has ‘no characteristics whatsoever’, that is, IF, one wishes to convey or comprehend the meaning of Being.

Therefore, when we hear the term “non-being”, it gives rise to no recognition, and thus it conveys no meaning whatsoever.

Right... then how are we able to talk, think or imagine “non-being”? Ok, how about you describe (or think/imagine) what Being is, without referring to “that which gives rise to neither an existential reference nor has any defining characteristic”? If that itself is not the meaning or definition, then what exactly are you talking or thinking about?

If you have noticed, I have taken great pains not to refer to Being as “thing”, for indeed it is not; nevertheless, it is an entity, for it comprises the requisite elements of an entity (quality and relation), and so partakes of a distinct existence.

I know you are very particular about language, but introducing “nevertheless” does not really help, because if it is a matter of (quality and relationship) then “non-being” also has a (quality and relationship) to the mind and the inquiry we are interested in, otherwise Being holds no meaning.

Unfortunately, as it is only things that may be perceived or imagined, it follows that most natural languages evolve to handle only the five classes of thing: mentation, sensations, object, properties and activities; and that which can be neither perceived not imagined is thought to be “non-existent”. This however, is not the case.

In my opinion, Being itself has nothing to do with language OR mind as such, nor even a symbol, all that needs be done is drop the attachment to ‘non-being’, or say ‘emptiness’, which erroneously comes to mind if we go looking for what Being, God, Tao, or Existence “ultimately” or “absolutely” is.

The fundamental unity of being is symbolized in the Tai Chi Tu by the infinite circle, the all encompassing sphere of Being, past, present and future.

I know you will insist that I don’t understand, but without the “infinite circle”, (the all “encompassing” sphere of “Being”), either by drawing on a contrasting background, or by thinking or imagining “non-bieng” (in contrast), neither the drawing nor the idea of “ENCOMPASMENT” that “UNITES IT” could be, and hence neither the idea of “intrinsic”, which I don’t think applies to Being, considering it would be absolutely everywhere and every-when, hence “encompasses” actually nothing at all, for there could be no-thing that is not it.

On the one hand we recognize the unbounded-ness of Being, and yet we are hell bound to ENCOMPASS IT with language and symbols. Without the separated-ness, One-ness, cannot be or even thought of, and Being can only be IN and OFF separated-ness, One-ness would require some sort of “encompassment” which would require some sort of some-thing beyond that “encompassment”, by definition, making it a Thing, and not an Entity as you consider. Hence I say, although you claim to logically understand Being, I say Being ITSELF, Ultimately, has nothing to do with relative reasoning or absolutely anything in particular. Reasoning is but a tool, that helps understand that it itself is but the map, and not the territory. Even in this one should be able to see, that the separated-ness of the map and territory, is itself Being too, and any kind of ‘encompassment’ renders Being meaningless, where Being has actually nothing to do with meanings.

I am not saying you are on the wrong path, only that it needs the most simple of acts, and yet it seems the most difficult thing to do; that is, drop the ‘attachment’ to Being as one “UNDERSTANDS” “IT”, and suddenly you, and ALL IS. I know you agree, nobody can ever give this (understanding or realization) to another, for each and every jot or title imaginable is absolutely unique as is, but necessarily as against all that it is not. Separated-ness rules eternally, and realizing that, makes one let go of the attachment to either mind (cognizance) or matter (the cognized) as ultimate or absolute, and that itself IS BEING, and not some “entity” apart from that system of dependency. Unison is but a matter of a changed perspective, which is in and off an eternal separated-ness however, which I am of course not against, for that has its own rewards.

Being is space-like in its quality, for like space it is inperceptible, all pervasive and everywhere the same.

If Being is ‘imperceptible” (I think you mean IM- unless you have a different definition), then what exactly are you talking about? And yes, “it” is everywhere and may be the "same", but without differentiations being at the heart of it, in fact, being exactly just that, Being cannot be. Can “it”?

What is this quality called ‘existence’ (existential being)? When a thing can neither be perceived nor imagined, then it exists not; but if it is either perceived or imagined, then it exists.

I can perceive (unless you limit perception to the organs of perception and not the mind.), as well as imagine non-being, and you say you cannot although you have been typing that word (which is but a pointer to its meaning) all over this inquiry.

By what mechanism then does a patch of shade shadow become an entity (distinct existent), if not by the interpretive power of the cognizant mind?

What exactly is the “power” of the cognizant “mind’? Interpretations? But aren't they relative? What exactly does the cow “interpret” the “grass” as to eat it? Food? Can the cow interpret it otherwise? Unless you say that ‘cognizance’ has nothing to do with a cow, or a quark, which althought being fundamental, fundamentally is a thing related activity too.

Now, once the nature of the relative entity is fully understood, one realizes that there must be a cognizant agent present in order that a relative entity can arise, or persist, and given that there is only the two possible kinds of entities (absolute and relative), it follows that it must be the absolute entity that is cognizant. Consequently, it may be asserted that the essential nature of reality (the absolute) is cognizant.

The point is, relative entity does not “arise”, but has to necessarily be ever present, as would cognizance. ‘Cognizance’, cannot be without the agent, and necessarily vice versa, hence neither has an upper hand than the other. If the word ‘rise’ is what you like, then they give rise to each other, so one cannot be any more “absolute” than the other, only the UNDERSTANDING of the nature of existence can be believed to be absolute, irrelevant of how logically apt and final it may seem, one way or another. Fundamentally speaking, you are no more wrong/right than the one who might not agree/disagree with you, for that exercise or inquiry in and off differentiation is Being itself.

However, I do understand you, and you do not really need others approval in and off your “I”, which is absolutely unique against all that it is not. And please note, all “I's” are not equal, in the sense that each one is totally unique.

[Jehu]

Jehu:

At this stage in the enquiry, I am saying neither that it does nor that it does not continue indefinitely; I am merely saying that it is ‘logically permissible’ for it continue indefinitely. For this reason, I have said that it ‘may’ rather than it ‘can’, for I do not yet know that it ‘can’.

Ok, but why you leave room to be possible some time later you will know?
You mean when you become more smart than now, than maybe you figure out truth?
Or when you time travel?
Or what.

I mean when we have deduced this to be the necessary case, and so are not merely speculating.

Now you say "indefinitely" but before you write " if continue infinitely" in first mention.
Thats why I ask, because seem strange if Being "not infinite but continue infinitely", must be typo.

The terms ‘infinitely’ and ‘indefinitely’ are synonymous; and I did not say that that Being was either, but merely that it was possible.

Besides, I not sure what this continuing is all about anyway, I try to explain and then maybe you help me imagine.

Let us say- Being DOES continue indefinitely. Fact.
In this case, well, what would Being be doing exactly (that not doing if not continue ind.......)

I Would desire try to visualize both options, can you?
what you see?

It would continue to ‘be’ (exist); and if it did not continue indefinitely, then it would eventually ‘cease to be’. Now, I think you can well imagine the first option, but the second may not be so easy.

[Jehu]

Also Im still confuse, you skiped it.

A conflict- how can the cognizant self be true self, in fact more true than imaginary body, if cognizant self is no more or less a mere appearance than anything else?

The cognizant self (subject) is the true (real) self because it partakes of an absolute existence, and so is immutable (unchanging); while the apparent self (one's body, sensations, perceptions, etc.) has only a relative existence, and is subject to continuous change.

[Jehu]

Yes, it would not have any existential referent, but it does have a defining characteristic, that “it’ has ‘no characteristics whatsoever’, that is, IF, one wishes to convey or comprehend the meaning of Being.

Either a thing has defining characteristics or it does not (law of contradiction), and so we cannot reasonably say that it is definable by its being indefinable; rather, we can say only that it is indefinable.

Right... then how are we able to talk, think or imagine “non-being”? Ok, how about you describe (or think/imagine) what Being is, without referring to “that which gives rise to neither an existential reference nor has any defining characteristic”? If that itself is not the meaning or definition, then what exactly are you talking or thinking about?

Clearly, we can neither perceive nor imagine that which is without either existential being or essential being. You see, it is quite easy: to ‘be’ is to be either perceived or imagined, and to ‘not be’ is to be neither perceived nor imagined. That which is ‘is’ and that which is not ‘is not’, and we cannot say that that which ‘is not’ ‘is’.

I know you are very particular about language, but introducing “nevertheless” does not really help, because if it is a matter of (quality and relationship) then “non-being” also has a (quality and relationship) to the mind and the inquiry we are interested in, otherwise Being holds no meaning.

Again, there is no higher universe of discourse than that which is called ‘being’, and it is through the intellectual partitioning of this universe that pairs of interdependent and complementary aspects arise. So you see, it is the force of linguistic habit that automatically pairs ‘being’ with ‘non-being’; but the force of reason tells us that it cannot be so.

In my opinion, Being itself has nothing to do with language OR mind as such, nor even a symbol, all that needs be done is drop the attachment to ‘non-being’, or say ‘emptiness’, which erroneously comes to mind if we go looking for what Being, God, Tao, or Existence “ultimately” or “absolutely” is.

On the contrary, language is the very embodiment of Being; that is to say, it is that whereby the true nature of reality is rendered perceptible. Just as another’s emotion cannot be perceived except through its embodiment is some overt physical expression (e.g., laughter), neither can the nature of reality be perceived, without that it is embodied in language.

I know you will insist that I don’t understand, but without the “infinite circle”, (the all “encompassing” sphere of “Being”), either by drawing on a contrasting background, or by thinking or imagining “non-bieng” (in contrast), neither the drawing nor the idea of “ENCOMPASMENT” that “UNITES IT” could be, and hence neither the idea of “intrinsic”, which I don’t think applies to Being, considering it would be absolutely everywhere and every-when, hence “encompasses” actually nothing at all, for there could be no-thing that is not it.

On the one hand we recognize the unbounded-ness of Being, and yet we are hell bound to ENCOMPASS IT with language and symbols. Without the separated-ness, One-ness, cannot be or even thought of, and Being can only be IN and OFF separated-ness, One-ness would require some sort of “encompassment” which would require some sort of some-thing beyond that “encompassment”, by definition, making it a Thing, and not an Entity as you consider. Hence I say, although you claim to logically understand Being, I say Being ITSELF, Ultimately, has nothing to do with relative reasoning or absolutely anything in particular. Reasoning is but a tool, that helps understand that it itself is but the map, and not the territory. Even in this one should be able to see, that the separated-ness of the map and territory, is itself Being too, and any kind of ‘encompassment’ renders Being meaningless, where Being has actually nothing to do with meanings.

I am not saying you are on the wrong path, only that it needs the most simple of acts, and yet it seems the most difficult thing to do; that is, drop the ‘attachment’ to Being as one “UNDERSTANDS” “IT”, and suddenly you, and ALL IS. I know you agree, nobody can ever give this (understanding or realization) to another, for each and every jot or title imaginable is absolutely unique as is, but necessarily as against all that it is not. Separated-ness rules eternally, and realizing that, makes one let go of the attachment to either mind (cognizance) or matter (the cognized) as ultimate or absolute, and that itself IS BEING, and not some “entity” apart from that system of dependency. Unison is but a matter of a changed perspective, which is in and off an eternal separated-ness however, which I am of course not against, for that has its own rewards.

Yes. but we do not need to go beyond Being in order to account for these dichotomies, as they arise from the very nature of Being: ‘awareness’ being the container (relation) and ‘knowledge’, the content (quality). Now, you are absolutely right in that ultimately all of our intellectual efforts will fall short of the Truth, but we are far from having exhausted its usefulness here.

If Being is ‘imperceptible” (I think you mean IM- unless you have a different definition), then what exactly are you talking about? And yes, “it” is everywhere and may be the "same", but without differentiations being at the heart of it, in fact, being exactly just that, Being cannot be. Can “it”?

Here, it is ‘existential being’ that we are describing, and although this absolute aspect is not a ‘thing’, it is not ‘non-existent’. Existential being, like space, has the appearance of ‘nothingness’ (emptiness), and yet we cannot say that space does not exists, for it exerts an influence upon the things that occupy it.

I can perceive (unless you limit perception to the organs of perception and not the mind.), as well as imagine non-being, and you say you cannot although you have been typing that word (which is but a pointer to its meaning) all over this inquiry.

To imagine a thing, one must know what its essential characteristics are, and the truth of this can be seen in the fact that we do not automatically understand what a thing is, until we have either seen it, or be told what it is. For example, if I ask you to imagine a ‘klernamite’, what exactly would you call to mind. The fact is, that the term ‘klernamite’ holds no meaning for you, and will remain meaningless until you have either experienced one first hand, or have been told what such a thing entails. Now, how then can you claim to be able to imagine that which is non-existent, and has no defining characteristics at all? Perhaps what you are imagining is only ‘emptiness’, and you are taking this to be identical to non-existence.

What exactly is the “power” of the cognizant “mind’? Interpretations? But aren't they relative? What exactly does the cow “interpret” the “grass” as to eat it? Food? Can the cow interpret it otherwise? Unless you say that ‘cognizance’ has nothing to do with a cow, or a quark, which althought being fundamental, fundamentally is a thing related activity too.

Cognizance is two-fold, for it comprises both ‘cognition’ (awareness) and ‘re-cognition’(knowledge); that is to say, havening encountered a unique combination of relation and quality, it assigns that combination a designation, and posit to that combination the notion of an entity: a distinct existent which is its origin and cause.

The point is, relative entity does not “arise”, but has to necessarily be ever present, as would cognizance. ‘Cognizance’, cannot be without the agent, and necessarily vice versa, hence neither has an upper hand than the other. If the word ‘rise’ is what you like, then they give rise to each other, so one cannot be any more “absolute” than the other, only the UNDERSTANDING of the nature of existence can be believed to be absolute, irrelevant of how logically apt and final it may seem, one way or another. Fundamentally speaking, you are no more wrong/right than the one who might not agree/disagree with you, for that exercise or inquiry in and off differentiation is Being itself.

However, I do understand you, and you do not really need others approval in and off your “I”, which is absolutely unique against all that it is not. And please note, all “I's” are not equal, in the sense that each one is totally unique.

By the terms ‘arise’ and ‘cease’, I meaning only that a relative entity, given that its extrinsic causes must exist antecedent to the entity itself, may or may not become an entity, depending upon conditions. Consequently, such entity appear to arise, persist for a time, and then cease, but this is all appearance, for such entities are not real; but only illusory.

[Sapius]

Either a thing has defining characteristics or it does not (law of contradiction), and so we cannot reasonably say that it is definable by its being indefinable; rather, we can say only that it is indefinable.

Sure, but what exactly is indefinable would be the question. “non-existent’ still stands before the mind and does evoke an intellectual contrast to “existent”. So to understand, or realize the very nature of Being, it requires that we understand (linguistically), (and as you say ‘language is the very embodiment of Being’), the meaning of ‘Non-being’ to uphold the meaning of ‘Being’, unless you say that language has nothing to do with the being (existence) of Existence or Being ITSELF.

On the contrary, language is the very embodiment of Being; that is to say, it is that whereby the true nature of reality is rendered perceptible. Just as another’s emotion cannot be perceived except through its embodiment is some overt physical expression (e.g., laughter), neither can the nature of reality be perceived, without that it is embodied in language.

Irrelevant of you or me realizing the nature of reality through language, tell me what difference would it make to reality (Being) if we didn’t? Would ‘intellectual” partitioning cease if I am not, or did it not exist before I learned to speak and think linguistically? BTW, why should I be interested in another’s laughter rather than my own state of being? Which is what I would be more interested in. Even “my” laughter is not me, and yet it is not apart or something other than ‘me’, against all that I am not. Otherwise, there is neither the laughter, nor I.

Yes. but we do not need to go beyond Being in order to account for these dichotomies, as they arise from the very nature of Being: ‘awareness’ being the container (relation) and ‘knowledge’, the content (quality). Now, you are absolutely right in that ultimately all of our intellectual efforts will fall short of the Truth, but we are far from having exhausted its usefulness here.

No, I did not say intellectual efforts will fall short of the Truth, but it seems each has his own way of looking at it. For example, what do you mean by ‘go beyond Being’? Is that possible to being with? What I see is purely the interaction of ‘awareness and knowledge’, beyond which, there is literally nothing at all, not even ‘emptiness’. On the contrary, I see ‘fullness’ to the hilt of reality, which is purely ‘relation and quality’, not really as container or content per say, for ‘relation and quality’ is itself boundlessly infinite, every-where and every-when; it makes no difference to reality, which is but purely that process, that we “encompass” such a process with logical conclusions and words like Being, Tao, God, The Absolute, etc., etc.

Here, it is ‘existential being’ that we are describing, and although this absolute aspect is not a ‘thing’, it is not ‘non-existent’. Existential being, like space, has the appearance of ‘nothingness’ (emptiness), and yet we cannot say that space does not exists, for it exerts an influence upon the things that occupy it.

Could I say something…. You see… just as you say that we habitually associate being with non-being, we also habitually refer to Being as an “IT”, which it isn’t, but to give it some special status, which it doesn’t really have since there isn’t anything in comparison, we try our level best to squeeze it into some logical formula. There can be no ‘emptiness’ in and off Being, unless you do that intellectual partitioning…. So what do you say?

To imagine a thing, one must know what its essential characteristics are, and the truth of this can be seen in the fact that we do not automatically understand what a thing is, until we have either seen it, or be told what it is. For example, if I ask you to imagine a ‘klernamite’, what exactly would you call to mind. The fact is, that the term ‘klernamite’ holds no meaning for you, and will remain meaningless until you have either experienced one first hand, or have been told what such a thing entails. Now, how then can you claim to be able to imagine that which is non-existent, and has no defining characteristics at all? Perhaps what you are imagining is only ‘emptiness’, and you are taking this to be identical to non-existence.

I’m told much about the theological God… what is your opinion about that? It doesn’t seem that meaningless, and many may even have first hand experience…. I wouldn’t know… but I can very well imagine what I’m told.

Cognizance is two-fold, for it comprises both ‘cognition’ (awareness) and ‘re-cognition’(knowledge); that is to say, havening encountered a unique combination of relation and quality, it assigns that combination a designation, and posit to that combination the notion of an entity: a distinct existent which is its origin and cause.

This you got explain in further details. Examples would help.

By the terms ‘arise’ and ‘cease’, I meaning only that a relative entity, given that its extrinsic causes must exist antecedent to the entity itself, may or may not become an entity, depending upon conditions. Consequently, such entity appear to arise, persist for a time, and then cease, but this is all appearance, for such entities are not real; but only illusory.

And I’m saying that the ‘arising and ceasing’, ITSELF, is all that there is, indefinitely, permanently, infinitely, perpetually, eternally…add infinitum… The arising and ceasing of entities does not render them illusory in my opinion, otherwise what exactly is our logical conclusions based on? The ‘arising and ceasing' is itself Being, and Being is nothing besides that, and that is how I look at it.

[divine focus]

I agree. Both realms of the absolute as I describe it are One in that there is no other and they are both timeless and complete. Each relative thing partakes of the same absolute, meaning that the absolute is the same within each thing.

Yes, this is it exactly: everything partakes of the one absolute; and so it may be said that everything has a two-fold nature, the one aspect (existential) being absolute (real), and the other (essential) being merely relative (apparent). But this absolute is not ‘within’ the thing, but extrinsic to it; for a relative entity has no inside – given that it is only an illusion.

Semantics ;). I would say the relative is not an illusion, but is real because within it is the absolute. If the absolute is not a thing, what does it matter if you say it is inside or outside? It is everywhere at once, and nowhere at the same time. It exists in an "imperceptible" realm, and yet it is somehow perceived (partially, at least). Language deals primarily with the manifest realm, and in using it grasp the unmanifest, some flexibility is necessary.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Why have you chosen that particular old testament character for your signon?

[mansman]

Jehu, Ok, do you mean SIZE, when you say "Being not infinite" but TIME, when say may or may not continue? I was confuse between space and time, I think.

Why not Being "imutable" since cognizant self you say is imutable? How can something imutable ever stop?

Seem to me Self is Being and Being is Self, so expect same rules.

Anyway, original question you not answer, not direct like I prefer.
Just say please, why this so important to you, how can help you if you in big trouble with bad pain or slowing dying cancer or threatened by war and crazy enemy? How can help you this undeerstanding?

If your life not have bad pain or big threat, then all else small problems people can handle without reeligion or certain philosophy. All people need in our world is help with severe problem, not small problem. People have plenty help with small problem, friends, family, government, doctor, dentist, medicine to feel better. We have all solution to minor problem of life.

If your belief any good for me need to help solve BIG major problems with my life.
But not true that your philosophy solve my, or your, major problems.

If worst that can happen to person is about to happen to YOU (worst pain possible, threat to life and limb, punishment from bad people, starvation, no more goverment or family to help, this all examples use your imagination) If worst about to happen to you please tell me HOW god or your ideas can spare you anything?

If not help when life most tough, then why we bother learn it? Like I say, for other minor problems we have doctor, medicine, goverment, friends, mothers,........

PLs stop avoiding important points.

And why not list owner advise here? Asleep? No I doubt.
Just afraid to admit watching because someone more smart is here!
Put him in his place.
Do it Jehu, go,go,go.

thank you for responses

[Jehu]

I would say the relative is not an illusion, but is real because within it is the absolute. If the absolute is not a thing, what does it matter if you say it is inside or outside? It is everywhere at once, and nowhere at the same time. It exists in an "imperceptible" realm, and yet it is somehow perceived (partially, at least). Language deals primarily with the manifest realm, and in using it grasp the unmanifest, some flexibility is necessary.

The relative abides within the absolute, and not the other way round, for given that an absolute entity is possessed of its own intrinsic causes, it can have no relation to anything extrinsic, while a relative entity, given that it is dependent entirely upon extrinsic causes, can relate to nothing intrinsic. The absolute (existential being) encompasses all relative things (i.e., mentation sensations, objects, properties and activities), just as space encompasses all physical objects; and like space, the absolute is present in all things.

[Jehu]

Sure, but what exactly is indefinable would be the question. “non-existent’ still stands before the mind and does evoke an intellectual contrast to “existent”. So to understand, or realize the very nature of Being, it requires that we understand (linguistically), (and as you say ‘language is the very embodiment of Being’), the meaning of ‘Non-being’ to uphold the meaning of ‘Being’, unless you say that language has nothing to do with the being (existence) of Existence or Being ITSELF.

The concept of ‘not being’, is not the problem here, the problem lies in the notion that there is something which does not exist. A relative entity, before its causes have come together, may be said to not yet exist, but this is not a state of being. Now one may ask where this not yet existent thing might reside, but this is an erroneous question, for it is no different than asking where an illusion resides before it becomes apparent. The truth is, that such entities have no being outside of their being objects of mind, and so they neither come from nor go anywhere.

Irrelevant of you or me realizing the nature of reality through language, tell me what difference would it make to reality (Being) if we didn’t? Would ‘intellectual” partitioning cease if I am not, or did it not exist before I learned to speak and think linguistically? BTW, why should I be interested in another’s laughter rather than my own state of being? Which is what I would be more interested in. Even “my” laughter is not me, and yet it is not apart or something other than ‘me’, against all that I am not. Otherwise, there is neither the laughter, nor I.

The question is not what difference it would make to reality if you or I do not realize its true nature, but what difference would it make to us to realize its true nature.

No, I did not say intellectual efforts will fall short of the Truth, but it seems each has his own way of looking at it. For example, what do you mean by ‘go beyond Being’? Is that possible to being with? What I see is purely the interaction of ‘awareness and knowledge’, beyond which, there is literally nothing at all, not even ‘emptiness’. On the contrary, I see ‘fullness’ to the hilt of reality, which is purely ‘relation and quality’, not really as container or content per say, for ‘relation and quality’ is itself boundlessly infinite, every-where and every-when; it makes no difference to reality, which is but purely that process, that we “encompass” such a process with logical conclusions and words like Being, Tao, God, The Absolute, etc., etc.

We are not trying to ‘encompass’ reality, we are merely trying to determine what can or cannot reasonably be said about it. Now, if you think that there is no value to be had in such an endeavour, then why are you participating in the enquiry?

Could I say something…. You see… just as you say that we habitually associate being with non-being, we also habitually refer to Being as an “IT”, which it isn’t, but to give it some special status, which it doesn’t really have since there isn’t anything in comparison, we try our level best to squeeze it into some logical formula. There can be no ‘emptiness’ in and off Being, unless you do that intellectual partitioning…. So what do you say?

I’m sorry, but I simply do not understand what you are asking me to comment on; could you clarify?.

I’m told much about the theological God… what is your opinion about that? It doesn’t seem that meaningless, and many may even have first hand experience…. I wouldn’t know… but I can very well imagine what I’m told.

I do not have an opinion on God, for I do not know precisely what the term entails. It has been my experience, that there are as many definitions of God as there are people to ask. However, if you were to ask me do I hold that there is an absolute, independent and immutable entity which is the origin and cause of the universe, I should have to say yes.

And I’m saying that the ‘arising and ceasing’, ITSELF, is all that there is, indefinitely, permanently, infinitely, perpetually, eternally…add infinitum… The arising and ceasing of entities does not render them illusory in my opinion, otherwise what exactly is our logical conclusions based on? The ‘arising and ceasing' is itself Being, and Being is nothing besides that, and that is how I look at it.

If that which partakes of arising and ceasing is mere illusion, how then can the arising and ceasing itself be real? However, it is true that the nature of reality is dynamic, but it must be understood that the changes that take place within the essence of this nature are only relative changes, and not real ones. If the essence of reality were to truly change, then reality itself would necessary change, but this is not permissible, for reality is absolute and immutable.

[Jehu]

Jehu, Ok, do you mean SIZE, when you say "Being not infinite" but TIME, when say may or may not continue? I was confuse between space and time, I think.

Good, then it is clear that the term ‘infinite’ may be applied only to processes.

Why not Being "imutable" since cognizant self you say is imutable? How can something imutable ever stop?

Being does have an immutable aspect (the absolute), but it also has an aspect that is in perpetual flux (the relative).

Seem to me Self is Being and Being is Self, so expect same rules.

Yes, the nature of Being is the true nature (self) of all things; it follows that there is an aspect of ones true self which is immutable; that is to say, which is never born and which can never die.

Anyway, original question you not answer, not direct like I prefer.
Just say please, why this so important to you, how can help you if you in big trouble with bad pain or slowing dying cancer or threatened by war and crazy enemy? How can help you this undeerstanding?

If your life not have bad pain or big threat, then all else small problems people can handle without reeligion or certain philosophy. All people need in our world is help with severe problem, not small problem. People have plenty help with small problem, friends, family, government, doctor, dentist, medicine to feel better. We have all solution to minor problem of life.

If your belief any good for me need to help solve BIG major problems with my life.
But not true that your philosophy solve my, or your, major problems.

If worst that can happen to person is about to happen to YOU (worst pain possible, threat to life and limb, punishment from bad people, starvation, no more goverment or family to help, this all examples use your imagination) If worst about to happen to you please tell me HOW god or your ideas can spare you anything?

If not help when life most tough, then why we bother learn it? Like I say, for other minor problems we have doctor, medicine, goverment, friends, mothers,........

To realize the true nature of reality is to understand that phenomenal being is naught but a dream, and that in the end, there is nothing whatsoever to fear. Such a person is then free to live and die in complete harmony with the world; taking only what they need to sustain themselves, and turning their attention to helping others achieve the same liberation.

[Jehu]

Jehu,

Why have you chosen that particular old testament character for your signon?

Jehu is my family name.