GENIUS FORUMS

Jehu wrote:

mansman wrote: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.

Good idea, but I dont think you see your harmony is completely conditional. You mind give you false sense of security because you have nice life in front of computer. But under pressure you become dust like anyone else.
Dont argue tho that better choice than massing power, fame and many peso.
thank you Jehu.

mansman wrote:Good idea, but I dont think you see your harmony is completely conditional. You mind give you false sense of security because you have nice life in front of computer. But under pressure you become dust like anyone else.
Dont argue tho that better choice than massing power, fame and many peso.
thank you Jehu.

It is not wise to prejudge others, for you have no idea what their lives are like, or what they may have had to endure.

Jehu wrote:

mansman wrote:Good idea, but I dont think you see your harmony is completely conditional. You mind give you false sense of security because you have nice life in front of computer. But under pressure you become dust like anyone else.
Dont argue tho that better choice than massing power, fame and many peso.
thank you Jehu.

It is not wise to prejudge others, for you have no idea what their lives are like, or what they may have had to endure.

Make exception in your case because gave you plenty oportunity to back up claims with personal examples.

mansman wrote:

Jehu wrote:

mansman wrote:Good idea, but I dont think you see your harmony is completely conditional. You mind give you false sense of security because you have nice life in front of computer. But under pressure you become dust like anyone else.
Dont argue tho that better choice than massing power, fame and many peso.
thank you Jehu.

It is not wise to prejudge others, for you have no idea what their lives are like, or what they may have had to endure.

Make exception in your case because gave you plenty oportunity to back up claims with personal examples.

What claims have I made that should require me to support them with personal example? Everything that I have asserted here has been backed up with rational arguments, and none of these arguments hinges on anything to do with my personal experiences. It would seem to me that you are more interested in gleaning information on my personal life, or in fostering some sort of conflict between myself and the forum’s owner, than you are in participating in the enquiry.

Jehu,

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.

This appears logical. I understand the first clause quite well, as it is obvious to me that the absolute/All has no outside to it. Yet I can't quite picture in my mind what it might mean to not have an inside. Is this perhaps because all things are actually a combination of the relative and the absolute? Am I myself not composed of an absolute core? If I am, then does it not mean that we are in a tricky position of relating within ourselves to both aspects of being?

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.

Did you not spend considerable effort to show that the absolute is dependent upon the relative?

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.

Yet the puzzle is that the achieving of this liberation or perhaps other, more mystical states of communion is notoriously hard to transmit. I have noted that some teachers who claim enlightenment have a story as to how it happened, but it cannot be repeated and they resort to techniques, which have little to no result. It's one thing to agree as to the structure of reality, but another thing to experience the transformation.

In Christianity, too, there are desirable states, but the Church cannot transmit them, and resorts to pretenses of prayers over chalices of wine, and men who claim authority over the keys of heaven.

Iolaus wrote:Jehu,

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.

This appears logical. I understand the first clause quite well, as it is obvious to me that the absolute/All has no outside to it. Yet I can't quite picture in my mind what it might mean to not have an inside. Is this perhaps because all things are actually a combination of the relative and the absolute? Am I myself not composed of an absolute core? If I am, then does it not mean that we are in a tricky position of relating within ourselves to both aspects of being?

As I said before, every entity comprises two types of causes: the constitutive (many) and the operative (one). Now, we normally tend to think in terms of these constituent causes abiding within the entity itself, but this is no so. Rather, it is the entity which abides within the constituent causes – as a relationship; and it is this relationship which the mind (operative cause) recognizes as being a particular sort of entity.

Does an atom, for example, have an inside, or is an atom merely a relationship between its constituent protons, neutrons and electrons? And when these constituents are no longer appropriately related, where then does the atom go? Such things as these do not come and go, they arise at the coming together of their constituent causes, and cease at the coming apart of those same causes, and while their causes remain together, such things persists.

Yes, we are all a combination of the relative and the absolute, for as the Upanishad says “ It is not that which the eye can see (the relative), but that whereby the eye is able to see (the absolute), that is Brahman (Reality), and not what the masses believe.” Unfortunately, we cannot perceive that aspect of ourselves which is real, but just as we can be certain that there is a mirror present by perceiving our reflection in it, so too can we be certain of the presence of awareness (absolute being), by the knowledge (relative beings) that is reflected in it.

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.

Did you not spend considerable effort to show that the absolute is dependent upon the relative?

Yes, I did, and I also spend considerable effort to show that the relative was not real, but merely apparent.

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.

Yet the puzzle is that the achieving of this liberation or perhaps other, more mystical states of communion is notoriously hard to transmit. I have noted that some teachers who claim enlightenment have a story as to how it happened, but it cannot be repeated and they resort to techniques, which have little to no result. It's one thing to agree as to the structure of reality, but another thing to experience the transformation.

In Christianity, too, there are desirable states, but the Church cannot transmit them, and resorts to pretenses of prayers over chalices of wine, and men who claim authority over the keys of heaven.

Such a transformation can never come about as a result of one’s having merely accepted that the nature of reality is essentially cognizant, for this is only a theory – a belief. No, one must realize this truth for oneself, and this can be a long an arduous journey, depending upon how immersed one is in the dream. The journey begin easily enough, with the understanding that there is only being, and no non-being, and the rest follows logically from that. Nevertheless, there are few who have the capacity to realize even this one truth, let alone to follow this truth to its logical end.

Jehu,

Now, we normally tend to think in terms of these constituent causes abiding within the entity itself, but this is no so.

Yes, this is what I do and it is difficult to change. But your descripton of the atom is very helpful.

so too can we be certain of the presence of awareness (absolute being), by the knowledge (relative beings) that is reflected in it.

That is the way to see myself? By reflection? What is this knowledge - the millions of experiences and impressions I have?

Such a transformation can never come about as a result of one’s having merely accepted that the nature of reality is essentially cognizant, for this is only a theory – a belief.

I have not yet accepted that the nature of reality must be cognizant! But anyway, I can see certain things as true without it being mere belief, and still not have the transformation.

Something else is required.

The journey begin easily enough, with the understanding that there is only being, and no non-being,

I realized this 3 or 4 years ago. It is certainly a profound insight, and I won't say it has not changed me. Nor did I arrive at it via logic, nor was it without logic, but it is for me kind of pictorial. Almost like an image.

let alone to follow this truth to its logical end.

Certainly, let's do that.

Jehu wrote:

divine focus wrote: 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.

That's what I said. You contradict yourself, but that's OK. Words are a bitch to work with. To make it clearer and more consistent, I'd say the absolute has no outside, but the relative has both an outside and inside. The fact of having an inside is the absolute, which the relative partakes of. Otherwise, there are two absolutes, with one in disguise.

Iolaus wrote:Certainly, let's do that.

I should like very much to continue, but first you must inform me of which points you are not yet convinced, for we cannot proceed until each step is fully realized.

divine focus wrote:

Jehu wrote:

divine focus wrote: 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.

That's what I said. You contradict yourself, but that's OK. Words are a bitch to work with. To make it clearer and more consistent, I'd say the absolute has no outside, but the relative has both an outside and inside. The fact of having an inside is the absolute, which the relative partakes of. Otherwise, there are two absolutes, with one in disguise.

Yes, words are sometimes very difficult to work with, especially with regard to the kinds of concepts we are dealing with here.

Now, let me stress that a relative entity does not have an inside, but consist as a relationship between its extrinsically abiding constituent causes. This relationship (form) is a unique modes of spatial or temporal distribution embodied within the appropriate set of constituent causes (essence); and it is with this ‘form’ that the mind associate a specific designation such as ‘elephant’, for example. Therefore, a relative entity is merely a form, and as such, it does not have an inside, although one might argue that it does have an outside – its extrinsic causes. Anyway, for the sake of consistency, I should like to withdraw my earlier statement that the absolute is present “in” all things, and say only that the absolute is everywhere present.

Jehu wrote:Now, let me stress that a relative entity does not have an inside, but consist as a relationship between its extrinsically abiding constituent causes. This relationship (form) is a unique modes of spatial or temporal distribution embodied within the appropriate set of constituent causes (essence);

OK, so you're saying the manifest is nothing but a configuration of the unmanifest. No argument there. The only problem I see is in calling the manifest an illusion. The way the unmanifest is configured can't be an illusion, or else the unmanifest itself is an illusion. It is definitely ethereal and unplaceable, but we're calling that "Reality," yes? If the manifest is a configuration of this Reality, it must also have reality. Otherwise, there is a separate absolute of "illusion" where we all live and where Reality has no place. There can be no absolute of illusion if we are to take Reality seriously (or humorously, for that matter :-).

"There Can Be Only One," as the NBA Playoff commercials say. Reality or Illusion. Pick one.

Jehu,

so too can we be certain of the presence of awareness (absolute being), by the knowledge (relative beings) that is reflected in it.

That is the way to see myself? By reflection? What is this knowledge - the millions of experiences and impressions I have?

first, you did not elaborate on the above.
second, I have never made much sense of your arguments that cognizance is primary.
third, I tend to think that divine focus is making good points, and yet the outlooks are very close. I am wondering that you imply liberation depends upon understanding these rather abstruse differences.

I understand that a relative entity may be nothing more than the relationship of its parts, but I cannot comprehend that something does not have an inside. If nothing has an inside, then all of existence is a chimera. It seems to me their must be something real at the core.

In what way is the absolute everywhere present?

Re the last post of divine focus, regarding what is real and illusion, perhaps we are calling that illusion which is ephemeral and changing, as opposed to immutable.

It seems to me that in some odd way things are both real and unreal simultaneously.

Iolaus wrote:Re the last post of divine focus, regarding what is real and illusion, perhaps we are calling that illusion which is ephemeral and changing, as opposed to immutable.

It seems to me that in some odd way things are both real and unreal simultaneously.

This is true, in a way. I'd say, though, that it's not equally real and unreal. Realness has primacy, so much so that the unreal is within Reality. If the ephemeral and the immutable don't coincide, all words are pointless. Thinking would serve no purpose, since there would be no access to what is True. This is certainly not the case. There is a Unity. Either the ephemeral is absolute or the immutable is (only one makes any sense), but they must both overlap, "in some odd way," as you say.

divine focus wrote:

Jehu wrote:Now, let me stress that a relative entity does not have an inside, but consist as a relationship between its extrinsically abiding constituent causes. This relationship (form) is a unique modes of spatial or temporal distribution embodied within the appropriate set of constituent causes (essence);

OK, so you're saying the manifest is nothing but a configuration of the unmanifest. No argument there. The only problem I see is in calling the manifest an illusion. The way the unmanifest is configured can't be an illusion, or else the unmanifest itself is an illusion. It is definitely ethereal and unplaceable, but we're calling that "Reality," yes? If the manifest is a configuration of this Reality, it must also have reality. Otherwise, there is a separate absolute of "illusion" where we all live and where Reality has no place. There can be no absolute of illusion if we are to take Reality seriously (or humorously, for that matter :-).

"There Can Be Only One," as the NBA Playoff commercials say. Reality or Illusion. Pick one.

In truth, the terms ‘real’ and ‘not real’ (illusory) are interdependent and complementary: interdependent in that neither term has any meaning except in relation to the other; and complementary in that the two concepts complete one another in that greater universe of discourse called “Being”. Because the two concepts are complementary, they are necessarily mutually exclusive, and so whatever can be predicated of the one, cannot be predicated of the other. For example, if the one is said to be incapable of change (immutable), then the other must be incapable of stability (mutable). Therefore, I have said that the relative (manifest) being is an ‘illusion’, because it is not real, for what other possible meaning can we attribute to the term “not real”, except to say that it is imaginary or illusory.

Iolaus wrote:Jehu,

so too can we be certain of the presence of awareness (absolute being), by the knowledge (relative beings) that is reflected in it.

That is the way to see myself? By reflection? What is this knowledge - the millions of experiences and impressions I have?

first, you did not elaborate on the above.

I did not respond to this question as we have not yet cleared the first step of our enquiry, and so I am not yet able to logically justify whatever I may say on the subject of the nature of knowledge.

second, I have never made much sense of your arguments that cognizance is primary.

Yes, this much is clear, but could you elaborate a little, so I do not repeat myself unnecessarily?

third, I tend to think that divine focus is making good points, and yet the outlooks are very close. I am wondering that you imply liberation depends upon understanding these rather abstruse differences.

Indeed, divine focus is raising some very important points, and in the end, I believe it will be difficult to see any significant differences in our doctrines. However, having said this, I cannot stress enough the importance of having arrived at the truth by force of reason; for we encounter theories everyday, and some we accept, and some we reject, but until we realize the truth of the matter, they remain theories, and do not alter us in any fundamental way.

I understand that a relative entity may be nothing more than the relationship of its parts, but I cannot comprehend that something does not have an inside. If nothing has an inside, then all of existence is a chimera. It seems to me their must be something real at the core.

Yes, there must be a reality, but this reality need not abide within the things themselves, but rather, it is the things that abide within that which is real: the sphere of cognizant awareness.

In what way is the absolute everywhere present?

The absolute is everywhere present in the universe in the same way that the cognizant awareness of the dreamer is everywhere present in their dream; indeed, this awareness, along with knowledge, is the very stuff of which the dream is made.

Re the last post of divine focus, regarding what is real and illusion, perhaps we are calling that illusion which is ephemeral and changing, as opposed to immutable.

It seems to me that in some odd way things are both real and unreal simultaneously.

Yes, this is exactly what we are calling illusory: that which is put together from other things, and which requires the mediation of a cognizant agent in order to achieve the status of an entity.

Jehu,

I did not respond to this question as we have not yet cleared the first step of our enquiry, and so I am not yet able to logically justify whatever I may say on the subject of the nature of knowledge.

Ahhh. OK then. So how far along are we?

second, I have never made much sense of your arguments that cognizance is primary.
Yes, this much is clear, but could you elaborate a little, so I do not repeat myself unnecessarily?

Well, there's the problem with 8 pages, to go back and see if I can figure out where we left off. I guess we were arguing over the semantics of the word 'appearance' which I think maybe we ought to drop. Because of the double meaning of the word appear.

I just don't see the need for cognizance. Of course, a book like Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton makes some pretty good points about the precise and intelligent layout of the universe, so that is a clue, but it does not tell me cognizance is primary. In fact, I tend to think that existence itself, which is the undefinable and ineffable mystery I grapple with, is primary.

From Hindu sat-chit-ananda, or Christian Source, Word and Divine Energy, we can conclude either that the three are contemporaneous, or that existence is primary, with awareness and energy as the step-downs.

But even if awareness is a step-down, it would still be a fundament, and that would be most interesting to prove.

Yes, there must be a reality, but this reality need not abide within the things themselves, but rather, it is the things that abide within that which is real: the sphere of cognizant awareness.

This vision of reality is dualistic. The way I see it, there is but one reality which operates on a continuum, from the most subtle to the most dense. Those aspects which are too subtle for our bodily senses to easily perceive, have been relegated to the magical or spiritual realm. Or denied altogether. But there is only one realm.

I am not sure if this conflicts with your view or not, actually.

Now, you say a thing, a chair, does not exist except as a relationship of parts, which is obviously true, yet it consists of bits of reality, whether that be matter or energy or what-have-you. In fact, this is why I like string theory. It is my intuitive conclusion that there is but one thing at the bottom of all this kaleidoscope, and that there can only be one substance upon which this whole cosmos is built. String theory, as I understand it, states that there is only one substance that creates the elements by vibrating differently. Whether it makes up a chair or a molecule of water, it is the same, and it is God. It is the apparent differences among things which is the illusion, not the things (existence) themselves.

and which requires the mediation of a cognizant agent in order to achieve the status of an entity.

Yet there is also actual physical reasons for an entity being what it is, such as being composed of this and that elements, which are what they are (perhaps) by dint of the vibrational note they are singing.

Also,

I cannot stress enough the importance of having arrived at the truth by force of reason;

Fair enough, but I do agree somewhat with Mikiel on this point. As I have assured Sue, I do not believe reality can really ever conflict with logic, but we can deluded as to whether our logic is true.

Just the other day I read a hideous bit of Thomas Aquinas (no saint, he) using lovely logic and reason to prove that the saved will observe the sufferings of the damned, will feel no pity, and will receive both direct and indirect pleasure thereby.

And the church wonders why atheism is rampant in the Christian lands!

Aquinas was no logician,thats for damn sure.

Iolaus wrote:saved will observe the sufferings of the damned, will feel no pity, and will receive both direct and indirect pleasure thereby.

Schadenfreude - haven't we all experienced it...?

Iolaus,

You will forgive me if I do not respond to your last post, for I feel that we are merely wandering about in ever widening circles, and in doing so, we have failed to resolve even one essential point. Therefore, if you are willing, let us start anew, and I will present each point upon which our enquiry hinges, and you will tell me if you concur or not. Then, I would ask that we focus our full attention on that one point alone, until there is a resolution (one way or the other); and that we do not introduce any extraneous theories or conjectures.

P1. There is only being (existence), and no non-being (non-existence).

Existence is existent.
Non-existence is non-existent.

Being is.
Non-being is not.

Jehu,

Well, I am a bit offended. I thought my last post had important points. This, for example:

Now, you say a thing, a chair, does not exist except as a relationship of parts, which is obviously true, yet it consists of bits of reality, whether that be matter or energy or what-have-you. In fact, this is why I like string theory. It is my intuitive conclusion that there is but one thing at the bottom of all this kaleidoscope, and that there can only be one substance upon which this whole cosmos is built. String theory, as I understand it, states that there is only one substance that creates the elements by vibrating differently. Whether it makes up a chair or a molecule of water, it is the same, and it is God. It is the apparent differences among things which is the illusion, not the things (existence) themselves.

I'm worried that you do not understand the above. Perhaps I should shorten it. And remove the word intuitive.

It is my logical conclusion that all 'material' reality must be reducible to one substance only, and therefore the so-called maya or illusion is in the apparent difference among things, but not in existence itself. (The word material is used a convenience. There really is no division.)

Also, we have covered a fair amount of ground and agreed upon several items, near the beginning. All of them actually, until you said the nature of the absolute is cognizant. Now, in my last post, I talked about cognizance, apparently you found it wandering.

As to your point number one, (which is not the number one), I already told you that I understand it. Did you not read that? You made quite a do over it, and I replied that yes, I had understood that some years ago.

So you didn't like my attempt to remember where we got lost on the cognizance thing. Fine, start over with it as you see fit.

Iolaus wrote:I just don't see the need for cognizance. Of course, a book like Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton makes some pretty good points about the precise and intelligent layout of the universe, so that is a clue, but it does not tell me cognizance is primary. In fact, I tend to think that existence itself, which is the undefinable and ineffable mystery I grapple with, is primary.

From Hindu sat-chit-ananda, or Christian Source, Word and Divine Energy, we can conclude either that the three are contemporaneous, or that existence is primary, with awareness and energy as the step-downs.

But even if awareness is a step-down, it would still be a fundament, and that would be most interesting to prove.

We have existence, awareness, and energy. Well, OK, what is existence? Is it simply being with no awareness? Is it inanimate thing-ness? There is nothing actually inanimate anywhere, not even (dun dun dun!) the immutable absolute! If everything is animate, "animation" (lol) being a property of the absolute, existence needs awareness. Otherwise, existence is no different from non-existence, as far as the existent thing is concerned.

So basically, energy is all that exists, so that existence and energy go hand in hand. (If it's not energy, what is it???) If energy is unaware, until at some point it becomes aware (as QRS would have it, and the majority of the scientific establishment), the aware energy still has vast, unaware energy as its surrounding "Reality." This means that Reality would be indistinguishable from non-existence, and that only the aware energy that was born could actually be said to exist. This is the double absolute, in essence. Obviously, it is highly problematic. How can existence exist within a nebulous realm of existence/non-existence? I say, pick one!! Either you exist, or you neither exist nor not exist (lol). There is no "both."

The correct answer is, "you exist." Not too complicated. If you exist absolutely (whatever "you" may be), your Reality must also exist absolutely. Hence, awareness is necessary all around. I would say, "you" are Reality, but that's neither here nor there. :-)

Jehu wrote:Because the two concepts are complementary, they are necessarily mutually exclusive, and so whatever can be predicated of the one, cannot be predicated of the other. For example, if the one is said to be incapable of change (immutable), then the other must be incapable of stability (mutable).

Not necessarily. I'd say the mutable can change only because of the immutable, which is immutable only from the perspective of the mutable. That's the best I can do :-), with these fun words.

Iolaus wrote:Jehu,

Well, I am a bit offended. I thought my last post had important points. This, for example:

Now, you say a thing, a chair, does not exist except as a relationship of parts, which is obviously true, yet it consists of bits of reality, whether that be matter or energy or what-have-you. In fact, this is why I like string theory. It is my intuitive conclusion that there is but one thing at the bottom of all this kaleidoscope, and that there can only be one substance upon which this whole cosmos is built. String theory, as I understand it, states that there is only one substance that creates the elements by vibrating differently. Whether it makes up a chair or a molecule of water, it is the same, and it is God. It is the apparent differences among things which is the illusion, not the things (existence) themselves.

I'm worried that you do not understand the above. Perhaps I should shorten it. And remove the word intuitive.

It is my logical conclusion that all 'material' reality must be reducible to one substance only, and therefore the so-called maya or illusion is in the apparent difference among things, but not in existence itself. (The word material is used a convenience. There really is no division.)

Also, we have covered a fair amount of ground and agreed upon several items, near the beginning. All of them actually, until you said the nature of the absolute is cognizant. Now, in my last post, I talked about cognizance, apparently you found it wandering.

As to your point number one, (which is not the number one), I already told you that I understand it. Did you not read that? You made quite a do over it, and I replied that yes, I had understood that some years ago.

So you didn't like my attempt to remember where we got lost on the cognizance thing. Fine, start over with it as you see fit.

I am truly sorry if I have offended, for it was not my intention, rather, I meant only to draw the enquiry back onto a rational track.

It is not that I did not understand what you were saying, but that I did not understand why you were making such a claim. Have we not agreed that there is only being (existence), and no non-being (non-existence), and have you not just reaffirmed that agreement in your last post? Why then are your asserting here that ‘illusions’ (maya) are “not in existence itself”? Does it not follow, that if there is ‘only being’ (that which exists), that we cannot reasonable say that there is anything that does not exist?

In fact, it is to avoid this very problem that I have raised the possibility that there may be more than one mode of being (existence). It is clear that there is at least the appearance of a multitude of separate beings, but this cannot be the case, for if there is only being, and naught else, then it follows that the realm of being must be a singular, continuous and unbounded realm. Further, it follows that if things do not differ in their ‘existential being’, then there must be an other mode of being wherein they do differ – their ‘essential being’.

Is this not reasonable?

divine focus wrote:

Jehu wrote:Because the two concepts are complementary, they are necessarily mutually exclusive, and so whatever can be predicated of the one, cannot be predicated of the other. For example, if the one is said to be incapable of change (immutable), then the other must be incapable of stability (mutable).

Not necessarily. I'd say the mutable can change only because of the immutable, which is immutable only from the perspective of the mutable. That's the best I can do :-), with these fun words.

Have I not said repeatedly that the two (absolute and relative) are interdependent and complementary? Nevertheless, we are analysing each aspect in terms of its own unique characteristics, and so whatever characteristic may be predicated of the one, cannot logically be predicated of its complement.

Is this not so?