T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[Drifter]

Yes Brother Michael, It is the "Is"-ness all points point-to.
Point out the moon to a cat, and it sniffs the finger???
Like carrying the boat on ones back after reaching the "other shore".

Namaste` Brother

Absolutely Drifter,beyond "IS" is rather futile and pointless,it just "IS" period?

btw,nice to see you back in the fold!



regards michael.

[Drifter]

Every human being contains within himself vast potentialities,
and it is the duty of the adepts to surround the would-be chela
with circumstances which shall enable him to take the "right-
hand path," -- if he have the ability in him. We are no more
at liberty to withhold the chance from a postulant than we are
to guide and direct him into the proper course . . . We allow
our candidates TO BE TEMPTED in a thousand various ways, so as
to draw out the whole of their inner nature and allow it the
chance of remaining conqueror either one way of the other.

-- K.H., Letter 54, THE MAHATMA LETTERS TO A.P. SINNETT

[N0B0DY]

"Point out the moon to a cat, and it sniffs the finger???"

If the ISNESS is all there is, is there a difference between the moon, the cat and the finger? If so, what is the difference if they all consist of the same substanceless stuff that just IS?

[Drifter]

The difference, Depends on perspective.

The 'cat' represents ones lower nature [personal self-knowledge].
The 'Moon' represents the Essential Nature common within each individual.
The 'finger' points to the Gnosis/Awakening, using the lexicon of words, to bridge the 'worlds'.
The 'sniffing' represents not seeing [as still/curiously questioning] what should be obvious.
Those who know, read in two ways at once.
One is superficial, and for the masses.
The other is hidden, and for initiates.
We all know where we stand, or where we don't, I believe.

Intending here to be read 'allegorically' rather than literally.
Is-ness uses the vehicle closest to it, for expression.

"Point out the moon to a cat, and it sniffs the finger???"

If the ISNESS is all there is, is there a difference between the moon, the cat and the finger? If so, what is the difference if they all consist of the same substanceless stuff that just IS?

[Rufus]

Further, it doesn't literally breed them, so I would disagree with your last statement implying a beginning. Some propose no beginning and no end to existence, but I extend this to include no middle either - proposing that now here is really nowhere.

Nobody

The 'no beginning' thing is something I always say too but what I am speaking about is the individual beginnings that we all go through. We (either individually or as an entity) have a very distinct beginning and although it may re-occur continuously it is still very real and quite absolute.

Your proposition of no middle is quite accurate although it may sound strange. Existence must have a balance with non-existence. In other words I don't exist, nor do you, we only think we do. (there is no middle to something that isn't there)

Your reference to mathematics means nothing to me. I am an artist and unable to think in those terms. I don't trust mathematics. there is absolutely nothing that can ever equal anything. Only theoretical (and unproven) things can equal other theoretical things. Math is just like html, a humans' toy and will never reveal any truth about what thought really is and after all that is the only real question left. (I also fear that memory is an illusion)

[N0B0DY]

Perhaps the cat sniffs the finger to find out what kind of gnosis "just IS" is, Drifter. If it is just allegory, then I agree.

Rufe,

I agree that theoretical science is only representative of empirical science, but both can be used philosophically to discern possibilities for the cause of our sense of reality.

It is easy enough to realize that existence cannot exist within, or expand into, non existence, and for this reason many folks posit an infinite space whereby motions and counter motions are the cause of a field where there can exist variable densities. Yet, the problem with this is that motion would be impossible because there can be only one density - an infinite number of omni-directional motive reactions would negate each other - the sum of all motions would net to zero.

If we consider that one absolutely solid, static "substance" is impenetrable, then we can equate this "substance" with an absolute void because an absolute void is equally as impenetrable. The problem with defining this "substance" over the millennia, to me, is that because it is everywhere, everywhere loses its meaning and everywhere is then synonymous to nowhere.

Why would you fear that memory is an illusion, if you would remember all the same if it is?

[Rufus]

Nobody

you said- the sum of all motions would net to zero.

and that is the case. We as an entity have no location, motion, vector, velocity nor size although these seem apparent or are apparent. We have none of the above because we are relative to nothing similiar and apparently not in a container.

you said-If we consider that one absolutely solid, static "substance" is impenetrable, then we can equate this "substance" with an absolute void because an absolute void is equally as impenetrable. The problem with defining this "substance" over the millennia, to me, is that because it is everywhere, everywhere loses its meaning and everywhere is then synonymous to nowhere.

I don't undertand what you are saying. I think there is a confusion in you of materialist values with pure idealism. I have no materialist values whatever (anymore)

you said-Why would you fear that memory is an illusion, if you would remember all the same if it is? Good point! I'm just having difficulty adapting to this.

[Fluent Piffle]

In other words, you have no feasible argument. Otherwise post the whole theory or link (spaceandmotion?).

No Nob. It is YOU who invents 'other words', as explained. I have no argument within because I do not invent 'other' meanings which are unnecessary.

Infinity is meant to be arbitrary. Anytime you think you have reached infinity it only grows a bit more.

Nob is correct with the definitive being the word 'grows'. Infinite Space is everywhere, at all 'times', as it is what exists. Therefore, it is only a strange and abstract concept that 'believes' it can be 'reached', when all things are already 'it', and 'it' already 'reaches' itself, be default. So, it does not 'grow', but rather constantly changes within itself.

Nob's real problem is that he has yet to realise that his 'absolute' is already covered with Infinite Space. We could say that Infinite Space IS 'absolute', but not infer that they are two 'separate' things. This just causes unnecessary contradiction. He then goes on to state that he 'does not need to evolve', or that 'the point is not to know', which are both public denials of his own contradictory state. The other 'option' is to say that there 'must be' contradiction, which is also personal justification for its continuation. When you have a 'theory' that separates naturally inseparable states, you leave yourself with little Real choice.

From there, it inevitably drifts off into gobbledygook...layers of further contradiction, piled upon each other. In rare cases, the victim of self-deception even thinks that cats have 'fingers'! ..Or they actually believe their own delusions, such as "Those who know, read in two ways at once." ..For ones so 'adept', it is quite laughable to see them limit themselves to only 'two' ways of reading. One simply has to ask, 'Is it the 'black' and/or the 'white' way?'



pif.

[dipayankar]

Infinity to us might be an absolute to someother being in another planet. As you infer, infinity is only a relative definition.

The operative word here is "grows" and can only grow from a point of reference of someone declaring the growth; whereas the absolute is fully grown, like a mature adult, with nobody being required to declare it is absolute from any reference point.

I prefer absolute deference, over an infinite inference based on a finite reference.

[N0B0DY]

Infinity to us might be an absolute to someother being in another planet. As you infer, infinity is only a relative definition.

From its definition I infer that it is relative to all observers, and can never be absolute as a single entity. A few folks may poke fun at my definition of absolute, by posting statements like, "Absolutely, I agree!" to claim that absolutes exist, but that is taken so far out of context that I can't even bother to respond.

The following from pif is how I define absolute, not infinity, as I have repeatedly proclaimed to deaf ears that the absolute doesn't have to reach infinity because it renders infinite motion motionless. "Therefore, it is only a strange and abstract concept that 'believes' it can be 'reached', when all things are already 'it', and 'it' already 'reaches' itself, be default." Yet, this statement explains both why I infer what I do and how infinity differs from the absolute, because infinity can change "within itself" and marks an infinite number of changeable reference points that would require an eternity at infinite to cross "itself"; whereas the absolute is changeless, and need not change to cover an infinity in no time. "So, it does not 'grow', but rather constantly changes within itself." If pif wishes to classify infinity as broken by illusory change, I'll concede that the two can be correlated, but not until such time as to agree that there is "really" no such colors as relative difference between black and white to the absolute - not even an infinite number of shades of gray.