The Fundamental Unity of Being

[Jehu]

Oh, dear! Things went so much more smoothly at the beginning.

The path of truth is straight and narrow, and we are all to often led astray by the future implications of what is being said; especially as regards our own view of the world. It is like one who is tracking an particular animal; one must keep one’s mind single pointedly on the track in question, and not be diverted by the tracks of other animals that crosses one’s path.

OK, I had said that all things are real because you described them as inextricably bound up with the absolute. Now, it certainly appears to me that all contingent things are arising out of prior contingent things, and that these unreal entities do indeed cause the next set, like a kaleidoscope. In what way is the real the cause of a bicycle? or, for that matter, a rainstorm?

Yes, it most certainly does appears that way, but we must not be deceived by appearances; for this is the nature of the relative world. When in a dream, your dream persona performs some action that affects some other dream object, is this affection truly caused by the dream persona; or is the dream persona merely its apparent cause? Clearly, the dream persona is not the true cause of anything, for it exists only in the mind of the dreamer, and has no inherent capacity to affect anything. In truth, it is the cognizant awareness of the dreamer, operating upon its cognizant knowledge, that is the true cause of all that appears in a dream.

Your analogies are excellent but I am having some trouble relating it to the absolute and the relative.

The absolute stands in the same relationship to the relative as does the awareness of the dreamer and its knowledge. The absolute (awareness) is the operative cause of the dream world, and relative (knowledge) is its constitutive cause.

Are you saying that I am real?

That would depend on what is meant by the term “I”. If by “I” we mean Iolaus or Jehu, then the answer is no; but if by “I” we mean that one real, independent and immutable Being, then the answer is yes.

[Dave Toast]

Like I said, we all know you are not up to the task of a real rebuttal here.

What do you mean ‘we’?

You should speak for yourself. Why don’t you ask some other forum members whether they think my knowledge of QM is up to it? Ask some of the veterans who’ve seen me write on the subject here for more than 8 years. If you engendered compassion from others, they’d have already made this clear to you, but you don’t.

Just stop for a moment and consider that you know nothing about me, my occupation, my scientific credentials nor my knowledge of QM, yet in your arrogance you think that you do. You arrogantly overestimate your arrogant assessment of the individuals here and conclude that there can’t be anyone here that surpasses your perfunctory knowledge of the subject. Newsflash! There are a few here that know the subject very well and there are plenty who, judging by your epic phail on what this particular aspect of QM implies, understand the subject better than you.

You raised bullshit objections to the details I posted. I challenged you to back them up. You cited a couple of Wiki snowjobs with no attempt to explain in your own words.

If that were the case, you’d be able to show me where I cited or linked to Wiki. Can you do that?

The answer is no, you can’t because I didn’t. What I actually did was point you towards the topics you need to brush up on to correct your woefully outdated layman’s misunderstanding. I’ve seen elsewhere that you’re not a complete QM noob, so I figured telling you what to look into would be enough for you to realise how wrong you are. Evidently not.

Much easier to just sling shit. Fits the MO here to a tee, tho. Good boy.

You think I’m going to do what you tell me to for that reason alone? I’m either willing to relieve you of your ignorance, pro bono, or there has to be something in it for me. Being as you’re not the type to engender compassion from others, we’ll get to what’s in it for me later.

And I have no need to save face. Firstly because I couldn’t give a flying fuck about saving face. Secondly because anyone on this board who knows anything about QM or science in general already knows that I have no face to save.

And your criticism of my lack of technical expertise is as lame as it gets. It's not high on my proirity list, and I prefer to target the exact quotes of my focus without the baggage of nicely boxed quotes containing context beyond my intended focus. Such petty bullshit. Get over it!

Comical though it is that a claimed 170 odd IQ sage can’t work out the simplest, self-explanatory formatting tools, I was actually telling you that you can simply search the forum for my username in connection with the word ‘quantum’, have a read and see that you’d be better off looking into the subjects I suggested instead of arguing. But you don’t listen and attach onto the personal stuff instead (surprisingly enough). So be it.

Betcha don't like my writing style or maverick grammer and punctuation either.

Nor your ‘maverick’ spelling.


Here’s the wager rudeboi: If I can show, to the satisfaction of a sufficiently competent 3rd party (i.e. brokenhead or Dave Hodges), that you are completely wrong about the current scientific consensus with regard to the transfer of quantum or classical information at superluminal speed (via the decoherence of entangled states, specifically the violation of Bell inequalities and local realism apparent in the instantaneous collapse of the state vector of a singlet state), and in fact, contrary to your arrogant claims about your knowledge of this subject in comparison to others’ here, you are the one who is ignorant and would be better of addressing your own shortcomings instead of pronouncing as to those of other board members; you will agree to leave this forum and never come back, on pain of IP ban. If, on the other hand, I am shown to be wrong, I will leave and never come back.

This will be done in another (very short) thread as jehu is trying to do something important here. You can either decline, remain in ignorance and tacitly concede what an arrogant, conceited, self-aggrandizing cunt you are (exposing yet further the rudeboy sage for the comical charlatan he really is), or you can accept and then you’ll be gone from here forever. Everybody wins either way, woot!

Do we have a deal, or are you going to shit out and recant?

[Jamesh]

Jehu
That awareness is a function of the sentient brain is merely an empirical inference, it has never been logically demonstrated to be the case.

If I was to pump you full of various drugs, you'd have a different opinion, god lover.

I have not been paying much attention to the forum of late. Now that I've actually looked at what you have been saying, I must admit to my total foolishness. From what i read tonight, then what you are saying is the way I see things as well. Sometimes I am just far too inattentive, and post on the fly while in a combatitive mood. Should have known better, as I have noticed the quality of your responses previously.

[brokenhead]

Why don’t you ask some other forum members whether they think my knowledge of QM is up to it? Ask some of the veterans who’ve seen me write on the subject here for more than 8 years. If you engendered compassion from others, they’d have already made this clear to you, but you don’t.

Mr. T. does seem up to date on things, mikiel...

[Jehu]

I have not been paying much attention to the forum of late. Now that I've actually looked at what you have been saying, I must admit to my total foolishness. From what i read tonight, then what you are saying is the way I see things as well. Sometimes I am just far too inattentive, and post on the fly while in a combatitive mood.

I understand completely, and it is for this reason that I do not generally participate in more than one thread at a time. It is exceedingly difficult to follow a line of reasoning when there are more than two participants, and even more so, when there are those who are utilizing the thread to carry on some seeming unrelated discussion. Also, I do not understand the fondness of so many participants for the contentious argument, as apposed to the logical one. Are we not all here to look for the truth? Or are there other motives at work?

[Dave Toast]

There are always other motives at work.

Apologies jehu.

I don't know about anyone else but I could certainly do with a concise step-by-step recap, including the basis for all reasonings.

[Jehu]

I don't know about anyone else but I could certainly do with a concise step-by-step recap, including the basis for all reasonings.

The is only ‘being’ (that which is), and there is no ‘non-being’ (that which is not) [law of identity], and we cannot reasonably say that there is (exists) anything that is not (does not exist) [law of contradiction].

Given that there is only ‘being’, and no ‘non-being’, it follows that being must constitute a singular and continuous realm, for there is nothing that may act to divide it which is not itself a being, and a thing cannot separate itself from itself.

Everything must either ‘be’ (exist) or ‘not be’ (not exist) [law of excluded middle], and given that there is naught that does not exist, it follows that whatever can be either perceived or imagined (these being the only two possible ways that a thing can become an object of mind ) must necessarily exist.

There are only two ways in which an ‘entity’ (a distinct existent (thing), as apposed to a quality or relation) may be constituted; either it must be possessed of its own intrinsic causes (absolute entity), or it must be dependent upon other causes for it existence (relative entity).

Given that the realm of being is an indivisible one, it follows that any differentiation between beings is a purely intellectual one, and that by mentally dividing the realm of entities into the absolute and the relative, the two modes stand in an ‘interdependent’ and ‘complementary’ relationship. [not different (two), not the same (one)]

Further, given that the absolute entity can relate only to its intrinsic causes, and the relative entity only to its extrinsic causes; and given that they are not two separate (independent) modes of being, but complementary ones, it follows that the relative entities must be contained within the one absolute entity – as its intrinsic causes; and that the one absolute entity must be the extrinsic causes of all relative entities.

Then, given that the absolute and the relative are complementary modes of being, and so they are mutually exclusive, it follows that if the absolute (necessary) mode is ‘real’, then the relative (contingent) mode is ‘not real’; that is to say, they possess merely the appearance of an entity.

Thus it follows that the absolute mode of being must be essentially cognizant, else there would be nothing wherein the relative entities might manifest themselves (as appearances)– the absolute being the one and only true reality.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Clearly, the dream persona is not the true cause of anything, for it exists only in the mind of the dreamer, and has no inherent capacity to affect anything. In truth, it is the cognizant awareness of the dreamer, operating upon its cognizant knowledge, that is the true cause of all that appears in a dream.

I don't disagree with this, but neither do I perceive my dream persona as being any other than my awake persona. It may even be closer to my true essential awareness, because it is less encumbered and more in the present moment.

The absolute (awareness) is the operative cause of the dream world, and relative (knowledge) is its constitutive cause.

This sounds like you have lapsed into some philosophic jargon that I am not familiar with. I suppose I should Wiki it, but since I am fried from lack of sleep and reduced to using dial-up for a few days, I amn't going to do it just now.

That would depend on what is meant by the term “I”. If by “I” we mean Iolaus or Jehu, then the answer is no; but if by “I” we mean that one real, independent and immutable Being, then the answer is yes.

Well, according to you, if I build a bicycle, the true cause is the one real being. This means I am that one real being. I don't really have a problem with that, but if I, Iolaus, am not real yet I decide to build a bicycle and then attribute its true cause to the one real being that I am, well, how then do we distinguish these overlapping beings?

This philosophy many people espouse, as it has become quite popular. But how many truly, deeply perceive it to be the case and how many have simply learned it and flocked to the prevailing wisdom?

I find it simplistic, even if a partial truth, that we are not real and there is no "I". I think there is something more useful and profound going on. I thought of it after studying old fashioned alchemy for a while. By old fashioned, I mean the real deal, turning base metals into gold and growing the philosophers stone. It is fashionable, oddly enough, these days, to speak of alchemy, but few mean it in the physical way. However, it is also true in more subtle realms of reality, such as the spiritual. In my humble opinion of course. In fact, I consider the alchemical process to be a basic truth of how reality works. So, just as in the alchemist's flask the flight of the doves or eagles is a metaphor for the lighter elements merging and then fleeing the heat until ultimately they form a new substance born of their many cycles of attraction and repelling with the heavier elements at the bottom, so also are we in a similar process of becoming something real and well nigh indestructible (the philosophers stone is supposed to be virtually indestructible). It is true that what most people consider to be the real them is just artifact and accumulations of temporary and unimportant details, but we may be through all this forging a real character of individual essence.

At least, there is something important going on with this continual dance between the one and the many. In this sense I agree that the one and the many may be interdependent. The one is universal and the many is individual. The delusion is thinking the individual is other than a permeable and overlapping condensation of the one.

A person is more real the more she realizes her source in the one. Yet somehow, every individual has a slight savor of its own.

And that's the beauty of it.

**********************
Now, as to the recap, I'd like to hear from Dave Toast as to how he finds it, but-

Further, given that the absolute entity can relate only to its intrinsic causes, and the relative entity only to its extrinsic causes; and given that they are not two separate (independent) modes of being, but complementary ones, it follows that the relative entities must be contained within the one absolute entity – as its intrinsic causes; and that the one absolute entity must be the extrinsic causes of all relative entities.

You are saying that the unreal, "merely-appearance," relative entities are the actual cause of the Absolute? Why does this seem so anticlimactic?

Then, given that the absolute and the relative are complementary modes of being, and so they are mutually exclusive, it follows that if the absolute (necessary) mode is ‘real’, then the relative (contingent) mode is ‘not real’; that is to say, they possess merely the appearance of an entity.

That which is not real is the cause of the real. Therefore the unreal causes the real.

Thus it follows that the absolute mode of being must be essentially cognizant, else there would be nothing wherein the relative entities might manifest themselves (as appearances)– the absolute being the one and only true reality.

But it isn't clear to me that to manifest must mean the same thing as 'to appear' in the sense of appearing to a conscious entity.

[Jehu]

The absolute (awareness) is the operative cause of the dream world, and relative (knowledge) is its constitutive cause.

This sounds like you have lapsed into some philosophic jargon that I am not familiar with. I suppose I should Wiki it, but since I am fried from lack of sleep and reduced to using dial-up for a few days, I amn't going to do it just now.

That which has a distinct existence (an entity) comprises two aspects: an essence and a relation; the former being that which renders the thing perceptible to the mind, and the latter, that which the mind is able to recognize as being a particular class or instance of thing. For example, a pot comprises clay and a form (shape), where the clay is the pot’s ‘constitutive cause’ – for it is this which renders the pot perceptible to the senses; and the form is the pot’s ‘operative cause’, for it is its unique shape which makes the thing a “pot”. Now, the constitutive cause is the ‘passive element’ and the operative cause is the ‘active element’, and the active element is superior to the passive, for it is that element which determines what the thing will be. For example, wet clay may be wrought into a succession of different things such as: a cup, a plate, a saucer, a vase, a statue, etc.; and in each of these cases the essence of the thing remains the same “clay”; therefore, we may say that the clay is the passive element, and the forms: cup, plate, saucer, vase and statue, the operative causes.

Now, in the case of that one true entity which we have called “Being”: its constitutive causes are that which we have called the “relative mode” (knowledge), and its operative cause, that which we have called the “absolute mode” (awareness). However, it must be understood that neither of these modes constitutes a true entity on its own, but only in unison can either one be said to exist; for as we said, they are not truly separate (distinct) beings. Just as there cannot be a dreamer without that there is a dream, neither can there be anything at all without that there is a cognizant subject that perceives it.

That this is true is evidenced by the fact that there is no way to rationalized the interdependent and complementary relationship between the concepts of the absolute and the relative, without that we accept that the relative is not real, for the nature of an absolute entity is independent and immutable. Consequently, any changes as may appear to take place within the essence of such an absolute entity, must be exactly that – mere appearance; and if this is merely how they appear, then there must be another to which they ‘appear’.

[divine focus]

Now, in the case of that one true entity which we have called “Being”: its constitutive causes are that which we have called the “relative mode” (knowledge), and its operative cause, that which we have called the “absolute mode” (awareness). However, it must be understood that neither of these modes constitutes a true entity on its own, but only in unison can either one be said to exist; for as we said, they are not truly separate (distinct) beings.

True, but if they are not truly separate, they must be mutually inclusive. In that case, there is no "not real." The constituitive cause of "Being" is the absolute (the Self), while the operative cause is the "relative" self-focus, which is absolute. The Self is aware, while the self-focus is aware of the Self. Without the self-focus, creation could not be. (By creation, I mean perceivable reality, which is infinite--due to the Self. By creation, I do not mean only this universe/cosmos.)

Just as there cannot be a dreamer without that there is a dream, neither can there be anything at all without that there is a cognizant subject that perceives it.

Right, but the perceiver is the self-focus, not only the Self. The self-focus may create its own reality through belief, even if the clay it uses is the Self. The self-focus may even choose to be unaware of the Self within belief (i.e., "unconscious"), creating a reality "separate" from the direct perception-ing of the Self.

That this is true is evidenced by the fact that there is no way to rationalized the interdependent and complementary relationship between the concepts of the absolute and the relative, without that we accept that the relative is not real, for the nature of an absolute entity is independent and immutable. Consequently, any changes as may appear to take place within the essence of such an absolute entity, must be exactly that – mere appearance; and if this is merely how they appear, then there must be another to which they ‘appear’.

The absolute Self is not necessarily independent, since it is inclusive. It is also not necessarily unchanging, although its quality of absoluteness is. The changes appear to the self-focus, which cannot be unreal. Therefore, change itself cannot be unreal. If change is real, then change is aware.

[Jehu]

True, but if they are not truly separate, they must be mutually inclusive. In that case, there is no "not real."

The absolute and the relative are not two separate entities, but neither are they one and the same; for although they are identical with respect to their ‘existential being’, they are different with respect to their ‘essential being’; that is to say, with respect to their differentiating characteristics. In truth, they are not entities at all, but two interdependent and complementary modes of the one true entity, ‘Being’; and as such, they are necessarily mutually exclusive; for whatever may be predicated of one, may not be predicated of its complement.

It is like a ‘substance’ and its ‘form’, the two are not separate things, for then they could each exist independently; but neither are the one and the same thing, for then there would be no basis upon which to differentiate between them. Form, being the complementary aspect of substance, it is not itself a substance, but an insubstantial ‘mode of distribution’(relation) embodied within a substance (quality). And every ‘entity’ must comprise both a quality and a relation.

So you see, when I speak of the absolute mode, I do not mean that one true entity, ‘Being’, but merely one aspect of that entity (its relation), the other being the relative (its quality). Therefore, the one true entity, “Being” may be said to comprise the characteristics of both the absolute and the relative modes.

[divine focus]

So you see, when I speak of the absolute mode, I do not mean that one true entity, ‘Being’, but merely one aspect of that entity (its relation), the other being the relative (its quality). Therefore, the one true entity, “Being” may be said to comprise the characteristics of both the absolute and the relative modes.

If the absolute is form, then it is form in motion. It has no set form so that only it's "relative" quality of absoluteness is absolute. Notice that there is no absolute continuous-form called "Being." The absolute in set form is a reflection of the absolute quality sensed by the self-focus, and it is not the whole of what is absolute.

[Jehu]

If the absolute is form, then it is form in motion. It has no set form so that only it's "relative" quality of absoluteness is absolute. Notice that there is no absolute continuous-form called "Being." The absolute in set form is a reflection of the absolute quality sensed by the self-focus, and it is not the whole of what is absolute.

The absolute is like space, it is omnipresent, and so we cannot say that it is in motion. Like space, the absolute encompasses all things (relative beings), but is not itself encompassed, rather, it is unbounded (infinite). Therefore, it makes no sense to say that it is in motion. Rather, it is more akin to a motive force: that which is the source of motion.

Space is a set form of the absolute, for space is independent and immutable; that is to say, although relative beings may occupy space, they cannot alter or influence that space in any way.

‘Being’ is itself an absolute and continuous form. For although its constitutive causes (essential being) abide in a state of indefinite and continuous change, it operative cause (existential being) remains forever immutable. Further, if there were no continuous existential being, then there would be intervals in which nothing existed, and so there would be no way that anything might possibly arise (come to exist); given that everything must have causes, and these causes must exist antecedent to the thing itself.

[divine focus]

Further, if there were no continuous existential being, then there would be intervals in which nothing existed, and so there would be no way that anything might possibly arise (come to exist); given that everything must have causes, and these causes must exist antecedent to the thing itself.

So how do the causes of the absolute exist prior to the absolute?

To try a different route, I'd say the absolute is choice, and it is complete. It is the most feminine choice and the most masculine choice. It is the most feminine because the "chooser" needs no other choice, and the most masculine because the choice is the most excellent possible for the "chooser." It is complete in that the "chooser" has complete choice, therefore itself being absolute, and it is somehow one continuous choice. It is the choicest choice.

[Beingof1]

Dave Toast:

Why don’t you ask some other forum members whether they think my knowledge of QM is up to it?

You blew me away one time. I can remember reading what you wrote and gained more than a small insight of QM and in turn, opened a door of expansion into deeper communion with spirtuality.

DHodges has made me go to Google more than once. I enjoyed an exchange between you two several years ago.



The Fundamental Unity

I smiled as I read this thread and an experience of - hmm - emotion? I really do not know what to call it as other than clear illumination. Light from Light, Luminary to Luminary, Understanding to Understanding. Truth always makes clear what is hidden.

It is amazing to behold consciousness in expansion. The absolute playing off of Itself. Teaching Itself. I admire and grow from reading what I have read here. No need to be right ? Right? LOL

The beauty of the unfolding transcendance - what a rush. Do not ever limit what you can accomplish once you know who and what you are. The only limits we experience, is what we believe. The impossible is simply what has not been recently revealed. Once illumination transpires, understanding follows that adds dimensions in the doing out from being.

Those writing here will certainly help many - and I give thanks.

[Jehu]

So how do the causes of the absolute exist prior to the absolute?

When I said that nothing can arise without a cause, I meant no ‘thing’ (relative entity), and the absolute is not a ‘thing’. Let me explain, a ‘thing’ is a relative entity in that it is comprised of other things. This is evidenced by that fact that the term ‘thing’ has its origin in the Anglo Saxon notion of a ‘deliberative assembly’ or gathering together. Things, are put together by time, sustained by time, and dissolved by time; but the absolute (like space) does not abide within the field of time, but is the field wherein time abides. However, although the absolute is not a thing (nothing), it is not ‘non-existent’; on the contrary, it the true reality.

It is ‘Being” that is complete. The absolute is merely one of its two interdependent and complementary aspects.

[divine focus]

I gotcha. You're saying "Being" or existence is fundamental, and the absolute is that which is aware of existence. The relative is that which is aware of itself as an object, and so therefore can be a "thing" aware of other "things." The absolute is not aware of itself as an object, only as subject, and so cannot be a "thing."

It's kinda funny how you have something outside "the absolute" that the absolute is aware of. Can there be existence where you are not aware of existing? Wouldn't that be non-existence? It seems existence is the absolute, aware that it is. If only existence is, and the absolute is aware of it, "it" cannot be other than the absolute, which is no "thing."

[Jehu]

I gotcha. You're saying "Being" or existence is fundamental, and the absolute is that which is aware of existence. The relative is that which is aware of itself as an object, and so therefore can be a "thing" aware of other "things." The absolute is not aware of itself as an object, only as subject, and so cannot be a "thing."

I am saying that the nature of ‘Being’ is cognizant (intelligent), and that it comprises two interdependent and complementary elements: awareness and knowledge; the former being real (absolute), and the latter, merely apparent (relative). Awareness, is the superior (active) element, for it is within the field of cognizant awareness that all relative beings arise, persist for a time, and then eventually cease. Further, although awareness is omnipresent, it is completely devoid of any differentiating characteristics whatsoever, and so is totally imperceptible. For this reason, awareness (the container) is generally unaware of itself, and so takes as its object that which it can perceive – knowledge (its contents).

[Ataraxia]

Always enjoy your work, Jehu.

I'm still a little fuzzy on where your final destination is with this thread of thought.Is your conclusion that 'pure awareness',or 'knowledge' is some type of neutral monism that underlies everything,or have i completely got the wrong end of the stick here?

[Jehu]

I'm still a little fuzzy on where your final destination is with this thread of thought.Is your conclusion that 'pure awareness',or 'knowledge' is some type of neutral monism that underlies everything,or have i completely got the wrong end of the stick here?

Knowledge does indeed underlie everything, but I would not call knowledge a ‘monism’. ‘Being’ is existentially a monistic, but essentially, it is pluralistic; and while its nature is two-fold, it is not ‘dualistic’, for its underlying principles are not ‘independent’.

As to the final destination of this thread: Have you never noticed that things are put together in just the same way as are concepts? Or that reasons and causes have the same quality? This is more than mere coincidence. Now, there are those who will claim that this is simply because we cannot know the objective world except that we do so conceptually, but this is a self defeating argument, for if it is true (and I do not deny it), it follows that the notion of an objective world is itself merely a concept. Why then should we accept the notion of an objective world, except that this is how it appears? But things are not always as they appear, and so what then are we to do, except take a rational approach, and see where it leads us.

[Ataraxia]

...it follows that the notion of an objective world is itself merely a concept. Why then should we accept the notion of an objective world, except that this is how it appears?

Yes,I do believe you are right about this.And this postition is 'monistic'--it is some form of idealism,no?

[Jehu]

Yes,I do believe you are right about this.And this postition is 'monistic'--it is some form of idealism,no?

Yes, this doctrine is what might be called ‘absolute idealism’, or even ‘objective idealism’, for it does not deny the existence of an objective universe which is accessible to all sentient beings, it merely denies that this objective universe exists in the manner or mode which it appears; that is to say, that it is not real (absolute), but merely apparent (relative).

Now, I do not wish to belabour the point, but it is important to understand that terms such as ‘monistic’ or ‘pluralistic’ are not appropriate within this doctrine, for such terms are interdependent and complementary, and so the one cannot have meaning without the other. Just as it would make no sense to say that something was ‘small’, if there were not something that was ‘large’, likewise it would convey no meaning to say that Being were ‘monistic’, if there were not that which was ‘pluralistic’; and we have already shown that there is only Being, and naught else. Therefore, because the absolute (existential) aspect of Being is monistic, while its relative (essential) aspect is pluralistic, we cannot claim that Being is either one or the other; nor can we claim that it is both or neither - for these would violate the law of contradiction.

[divine focus]

I am saying that the nature of ‘Being’ is cognizant (intelligent), and that it comprises two interdependent and complementary elements: awareness and knowledge; the former being real (absolute), and the latter, merely apparent (relative). Awareness, is the superior (active) element, for it is within the field of cognizant awareness that all relative beings arise, persist for a time, and then eventually cease. Further, although awareness is omnipresent, it is completely devoid of any differentiating characteristics whatsoever, and so is totally imperceptible. For this reason, awareness (the container) is generally unaware of itself, and so takes as its object that which it can perceive – knowledge (its contents).

I'm not seeing the need for "Being." If the absolute contains the relative and is aware of it, why is the absolute not "Being?" I could see "Being" being the awareness of the relative through the absolute, but that would create a trinity instead of a two-in-one. Where does the individual person fit in this schema, "Being" or relative? Or both?

I have a different take that is somewhat simpler but a little harder to swallow, so to speak, because there are no logical steps leading to it. I may give a logical set-up for it, but I need a show of interest before I go on.

[Iolaus]

being of 1:

Do not ever limit what you can accomplish once you know who and what you are.

Are you serious? Are you implying that you know this? I do not know, nor have I any idea if there is any way to find out.

Divine focus:

I for one find most of your posts insightful and interesting.

Jehu,

I've been gone a few days, but I don't know where to go from here. I am not convinced (logically) of the need for awareness.

[Sapius]

Jehu: Just as when there is everywhere nothing but water, we cannot say that there is a multitude of separate bodies of water, but a singular and continuous body of water; just so when there is everywhere only being, we cannot say that there is a multiplicity of separate beings, but a singular and continuous being.

Sounds reasonable, but I would like to know how “everywhere nothing but water” is possible to begin with, and what sort of awareness would be required to know “there is everywhere nothing but water”, if there were “nothing BUT water” that is?

This was a purely hypothetical example, and was meant only to illustrate the fact that a thing cannot partition itself from itself. That is to say, if we wish to assert that two things of the same class are separate things, there must be something of another class which separates them.

Jehu, I am quite clear with your stand, even before what you have eloquently explained in this thread, but I would still like to know; If all is but ‘water’, then how, when and why did the first partition between any two definitive things arise? What caused it?

Or are you saying that only the class of ‘non-being’ could separate a THING like Being? Surely you are assuming ‘Being’ to be a thing, aren’t you? If you are, then ‘non-being’ is also a thing according to your opening paragraph of your opening post, for that too stands before the mind, and its meaning as well.