The Void, Emptiness, and Infinite or Eternal

[Fool]

this thread was inspired by @dybmh who mentioned the void in another thread and driving to work this morning i began ruminating on it.

in some religious, spiritual teachings there is an idea of a void, emptiness, or the abyss

basically a place containing no matter.

but this is reminiscent of the idea in science regarding quantum field theory at the most basic level its called the wave/particle duality. even in the idea of electro-magnetic spectrum everything is in motion, even seemingly appearing solids are vibrating within themselves, or are in motion.

so then, is the infinite a place where there is no matter but seemingly empty of form because forms are temporary but the action, motion, vibration is eternal?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I think the error here is the assignment of "place"...that this void/emptiness/abyss has a location in pragmatic reality.

When you are dreaming, where, in the dream, is the glass of water that rests upon your nightstand in this reality?

 

[Fool]

I think the error here is the assignment of "place"...that this void/emptiness/abyss has a location in pragmatic reality.

When you are dreaming, where, in the dream, is the glass of water that rests upon your nightstand in this reality?

i struggled with that word. actually replaced the original word of area with the word place. because as you indicated it evokes an idea as separate from some otherness; when in fact it is a whole that simply can't be known as a part. only the wholeness, absolute, infinite could know itself


reality isn't real given the observer seems to project some qualities on it that may not fully grasp the wholeness of it's being.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I’m with @SalixIncendium here. I’d say that all spiritual “places” are instead [spiritual] states of being.

Humbly,
Hermit

​

 

[dybmh]

so then, is the infinite a place where there is no matter but seemingly empty of form because forms are temporary but the action, motion, vibration is eternal?

"is the infinite a place where there is no matter?" - No. From the last of the 3 links: "Matter is fundamentally quantum."

Empty Space Isn't Empty, And Quantum Researchers Now Have Direct Evidence - Discovery.com - LINK​

Quantum Mechanics: Evidence Says Empty Space Is Not Empty After All - universityherald.com LINK​

"We are not empty" - Mario Barbattiis - Aix Marseille University in France - aeon.co - LINK​

"seemingly empty of form?" - No.

This gets complicated but, just saying "No" is not OK. You deserve more than that. This is going to be long read, but I think it will be well worth it. I am sharing a lot of useful information which is rarely shared in written form. Chag Sameach! Happy Sukkot, Bro.​

​

Part one: "seemingly empty of form?" - No.

There are 3 versions of infinite, in this context, but all 3 are easily conflated. Because they are all infinite, considering them can be dizzying and disorienting, especially because all 3 are happening ( present-progressive ) concurrently. Beyond the natural disorientation, confusing up-from-down and left-from-right, for some, considering these can be literally painful. The mind has to stretch to accomodate these ideas. The stretching is required, because, as you know, this is not numeric infinity, it's much much bigger than that. It's infinitely bigger than numeric infinity.​

​

The first version of infinite, is absolutely literally infinite in every conceivable manner and more. One of those conceivable manners is the the capability to infinitely create, to be an infinite source of everything conceivable and more. If it did not possess this property / attribute, then it would not be absolutely literally infinite. Because of this, I will call this first version of infinite, the "source". But there is a catch. There is another consequence of absolute literally infinite. It also possesses the capability to infinitely un-create, infinitely deny. It *also* posseses the capability of infinitely-negating . If it did not possess this property / attribute of infinite-negating, then it would *also* not be absolute literally infinite. And these are the 3 versions.​

​

The first is the "source". The other 2 are partners, inverses of each other. These two partners, as a partnership, "dance-partners", are infinite in their own way. One is infinite-creation, an infinite action. The other is infinite-negation, also an infinite action. They are "embracing" and "dancing", present-progressive. But they are simulateously opposing each other. That's the "dance". The "dance" is a form, in motion. But it is also a form, in stasis, as an object, a property, an attribute, which is being possessed by the "source". This matches the QM model in the links above.​

​

A similar simultaneous "dancing" is reflected in the source. And this explains the answer to the question. The source itself is formless, but it **possesses** these two nearly infinite forms (plural) which are simultaneously object-and-action, simultaneously noun-form-and-verb-form. Please note. The verb, the action, is a form. The "dancing" is a form. Everything has a form ( with one and only one exception). The source is the one and only exception.​

​

This is why the infinite place is not "empty of form". The "action" the "vibration" the "motion" is a form.​

"seemingly empty of form?" No.

​

This answer "No" is not supposed to be a door closing. But instead it's supposed to be an opportunity. That's why I wrote, I feel like you deserve a complete explanation. If I am answering "No." I don't feel it's fair to just leave it at that. The natural response to "No" is "Why?" or perhaps, more precisely, "Why Not?" Answering the question "Why" or "Why not", is an opportunity to go on a little journey, a walk-about. If I don't explain, it's almost like my "No" is encouraging traveling into unknown-territory, but I'm neglecting, perhaps, the nneed for help navigating, plotting a course, or guiding somehow to the destination. I don't think that's good.​

"seemingly empty of form?" No? So why does it seem that way?

OK. Here we go. First an introduction.​

​

If the source is absolutely literally infinite a paradox is produced for the concept "form". In this context, from a source which is absolutely literally infinite, the nearly-infinite forms which are possessed by the "source" are being "engraved" ( present progressive ). That's the secret. That's the paradox. That's the gate, portal, 門, in classical chinese from the DDJ. The form is a negation, which appears to be positive-forming, but is actually negative-forming because it's source is absolutely literally infinite. This is very important to keep in mind. The action of engraving is the opposite of what is naturally considered a "form". But, it is still a form, it's a negating form. The DDJ, imo, does the best job with these ideas in the very first chapter, but the translations into english are poor renderings.​

​

If these ideas are applied, as the ancient Jewish philosophers did, the resulting model ( and I cannot stress this enough, it's a model, a metaphor ) that is produced is an infinite chain of emanations producing a material world. The material world and everything in it is a form invested with an "ever-flowing-vitality". But the form is an "engraving", a "negation" which surrounds the vital essence. It looks like skin and bones, and it IS skin and bones. This is an engraving, a negation, of the source which is absolutely literally infinte and the only one which is form-less. This form is a negation, but the vitality that is invested in the form is "true". The vitality that fills the engraving is not-negating. The material world is both, simultaneously.​

​

The vitality is "ever-flowing", similarly, but also simultaneously in opposition, the form is also "ever-engraving". Both are infinite and eternal. The inner-essence and the outer-shell are both versions of infinite. This is why it is tempting to focus entirely on these exterior-shells, as "inspiration", to invoke them, to follow them, and to serve them. As you know, working graven forms are prohibitted in the Exodus 20. There's a reason for that, but, it cannot be denied in truth that there is a lot that can be done with these "husks". They're infinite in their own way. But they are infinitely-negating.​

​

If they are united with their partner, as a pair, they are nearly infinite. It's as close as one can get to the source without complete annihilation. A lot more can be accomplished this way, through unity, ( which is not non-duality ) rather than working with these "shells" the klipoth, exclusively, but it's very tempting to do so. I'll get to that.​

​

Basically everyone works with these "negations" on a very small scale. They're not "evil", not the "shells", not the "engraving" itself. It all depends on what a person does with them. When these "shells" are invoked, inspired, in the material world, they are always in partnership with the everflowing-vitality. It's a matter of degree whether the actions what are produced are net-helpful or net-harmful.​

​

OK, with that out of the way, I can start to answer the question "why does the infinite-place seem to be empty, but it's not?"​

​

From the inner perspective of the seeker "looking-out" towards the source, the first thing that is encountered is the infinite-negations, the "ever-engraving" which produces the "form" which is being invested with the "ever-flowing-vitality" from the source.​

​

This is why it seems that the "infinite-place" is empty of form, empty of every"thing".​

​

There is an infinite-negation happening ( present-progressive ) which is acting as a veil surrounding all of creation. ALL of it. Cloaking it from tip to tail. Left to right. Every link in the chain has a "form", a "shell" which is being ever-engraved, infinite-negating. This paradox is extremely disorienting for the "seeker", the "traveler-on-the-way". This is because, in order to "travel", one must navigate through a layer of infinite-negating, which will appear to the the source.​

​

The realm / zone of ever-engraving, infinite-negating, is literally cloaking the individual-form and everything it encounters in the material world. The source cannot be seen, because the form is cloaked. The source is not cloaked, that is impossible. It is absolutely literally infinite. It cannot be contained. It's the perspective of the individual which is being cloaked. ( It is in darkness, and, It cannot be contained: 1 Kings 8, it's a perfect chapter to read for this ).​

​

The individual is under a "veil". The "veil" is a form. When the form is examined accurately by the mind, it IS infinite in its own way. And that is why it is easily mistaken for the source. That's why it SEEMS to be empty. That's not the source, that's not THE infinite place. It is only nearly infinite when it is "embracing" and "dancing" with its partner. In isolation it is only AN infinite place. One of two. And it is only infinite in a specific manner, valence, vector-orientation, which is trending towards death. It is ever-engraving. En-Graving. Grave. Graving. Death.​

​

So, it may SEEM to be that THE infinite place is empty of forms, but, in truth, that place is a realm of ever-engraving, infinite-negating. The infinite negations are not the source, and the ever-flow is much much greater than the ever-engraving. But in order to perceive it, to know it, one must escape from the infinite outer-shell of negating. Very few accomplish this. And the negations not only seem to be the infinite place, if it is "asked" are you the "one"? It will answer "I AM".​

​

Hopefully you're good so far. We're about half way though. This is a good place to pause and take a "breather" before moving on.​

​

 

[dybmh]

Part 2: Continuing: "why is it seemingly empty of form, and it's "not"? "... and it's "not" ​

​

In truth it is a paradox. Literally. "It", the realm of ever-engraving, infinite-negations, is a paradox. The answer given "I AM" when asked "are you the one?" is true, but incomplete. The complete answer, in absolute truth, is a paradox. Similar to "I am the alpha-and-omega". The complete answer if asked "Are you the one?" would be " I AM "NOT" ". Where "NOT" is a name or a title. But if it answers that way, it would cease to be. This is a fun mental derivation / exercise for those who enjoy that sort of thing. An infinite-negating-entity cannot assert "I AM NOT" even though it is absolutely true. It's the "liar's" paradox.​

​

Here's a diagram to help illustrate all of these concepts, and to give a map, of sorts, of our current "position". In a spoiler to save scrolling for those who are not interested.​

​

Spoiler

​

The white "trees" are an infinite chain. This is the ever-flowing-vitality from the source. The single black tree at the bottom is the ever-engraving. The ever-flowing is infinte, in its own way, coming from some unseen "source" above it. It's easy to see that this ever-flowing is infinite, in its own way. The ever-engraving, at the bottom, is not easy to see that this is infinite, in its own way. But, it is. The bottom-of-the-bottom, the lowest-of-the-low, is like the far end of a pendulum.​

​

The vitality for producing the ever-engraving, is the ever-flowing-vitality. Let me say that again. The ever-flowing-vitality is, indeed, producing the ever-engraving, like the hands of a potter pressing down, down, down, with even-consistent-pressure, forming the cavity, but, ( and this is important ) not-hollowing-it-out. The formless clay which is spinning on the wheel, is becoming the vessel, but no material is being removed. There is no waste.​

​

Once the potter's hands reach the pre-determined, bottom-of-the-bottom, THEN, the vessel is drawn up. The potter's fingers, simultaneously, firm-and-gentle, press into the walls of the clay and raise it up to form the vessel. The fingers simultaneously press in and simultaneously rise up. Imaging this simultaneaity is the "key".​

​

Like I wrote, the ever-flowing from above is clearly seen in the diagram as infinite. The ever-engraving is also infinte, but in its own way. It's more like a pendulum. The potter's hands go down and up, back and forth, back and forth. Very important, it's pressing down first. Then it's drawing up. So, the ever-engraving at the bottom of the black "tree" is always rising-and-falling. That's its cycle, and... it's trapped in that cycle. From this, one can have "sympathy for the devil". It is trapped in an infinite cycle going nowhere.​

​

The pottery is not complete until it is fully formed, fired, cooled, and filled per the potter's intention. Otherwise it is a waste of time and material. If it were just a vessel for "nothing", the raw materials would never have been raised from the earth in the first place.​

​

So, that's our current position. That's what is happpening in the "here-and-now", IF it is broken out into a sequence, and if it is just "now", just one time-line. Obviously it gets much more complex once all the other infinite time-lines are considered. But, I don't want to get distracted with that. The important details have been described above. The "here-and-now" is surrounded by the darkness of the realm of ever-engraving, infinite-negating. This is designated on the diagram as the central circle which is simultaneously cloaked-in-darkness-and-filled-with-ever-flowing-vitality. The ever-engraving, infinite-negating, happens "first" ( in quotes because it is actually all hapening concurrently ) then the vessel is filled from the source with pure, true, essence of itself.​

​

The sequence is important, because: The "devil" ( which is just a metaphor for this ever-engraving, infinite-negating "force" and "realm" ) will claim it is the first, and, it is not a lie.​

​

Also the proximity is important because the "devil" is tempting, and close. It stands inbetween the seeker, traveler-on-the-way, and their desired destination, which is usually, approaching the source. It is actually infinite, in its own way, but this is not apparent. When this is discovered, the seeker, traveler-on-the-way, will be naturally curious, and inquisitive to learn about its mysterious properties. This is distracting, and can lead the seeker, traveler-on-the-way of course in the wrong direction. This is why all the mystical traditions that I am aware of, engage with this ever-engraving, infinite-negating, "devil" on their various paths. They all do it. Because it is mysterious and powerful and required to travel anywhere beyond "the-here-and-now". And this explains why the seeker, specifically, who is considering multiple paths, multiple traditions will quickly observe a synergy between all the mystical traditions pointiing towards this "devil" which is "emptiness".​

​

But, again, it's not pure evil until a person probes outside of the the here-and-now. While it is in the here-and-now, it is united, embracing-and-dancing with its partner. That is not true once one ventures from the "shire" so to speak.​

​

This is another important reason why "it seems that the infinite-place is empty of form". There is a clear premium placed on this "emptiness" by all the other mystical traditions I know of, except ... for one. The outlier. Always has been, probably always will be.​

​

 

[dybmh]

Part 3: OK, Great. I think we're ready to complete the journey. I'll conclude with some important information for those who are inspired towards further investigation into this on their own. Or perhaps they are already journeying and would like some helpful hints in case of problems.​

​

This experience, of embarking into the realm of ever-engraving, infinite-negating, engaging with it, is naturally disorienting, confusing, dizzying, etc... ( meditation sickness / psychosis ). It can literally break the iindividual's mind. This is because the ever-negating, infinite-negating, will flip up-and-down, left-and-right, inner-and-outer, but will not do so consistently. On the micro scale this is "cognitive dissonance". On the macro scale, dealing with infinite-negations, trying to "make-sense" of it all, can literally break a person's mind. It is virtually impossible to orient oneself. One way to remedy this, is turn one's back on the ever-flowing-vitality, and isolate the experience, so, that one is only following the rhythm of one of the infinite "dancing" partners. In this way, up has become down, left has become right, outer has become inner. But this is ONLY in the realm of infinite negations, it is traveling away from the source. But, at least it is consistent. It cuts off the noise, discordance, dissonance.​

​

Some people enjoy this flipped reality, and enjoy tricking people, and confusing people into thinking up-is-down, left-is-right, bitter-is-sweet, good-is-evil, true-is-false. This is the root of evil. The "devil", the ever-engraving, the infinitely-negating form is not evil. It's what people do with it, when it is isolated, that is the root of evil. It flips true-to-false, false-to-true, good-to-evil, and evil-to-good. Isaiah 5:20.​

​

The motivation to remain in this false reality is: it naturally leads to a denial of all rules and restrictions. Like I said, this is the root of evil. It will deny that there is anything, anything at all, ever-flowing above and beyond itself. This ever-flowing, above itself, is the orderly presssing down, and rising up, which is forming each and every vessel. Those are "rules", those are "restrictions", that is "order". This is abhorrent to some. They will fight, fight, fight, against any admission or acknowledgement that anything has inherent existence, or that anyone has a free-choice in how to behave. They will fight against anything that establishes ...inherent consequences. If they can convince themself of this, if they are ever judged, they can plea ignorance. This is very important. The root of evil is "there are no rules" "there are no consequences" "there is nothing after this".​

​

The "devil" does not claim this. Human's claim this. The ever-engraving, infinite-negating, always returns on its cycle. It is intimately "embracing" and "dancing" with its partner. What ever is claiming, there are no rules, there are no consequences, it is surely human and not coming from the infinite "place", which is the closest to the "source". It is coming from something else.​

​

Besides these others who are denying consequences and responsibility, there are many-many "seekers", "travelers-on-the-way", who get disoriented and travel down, down, down into this realm of ever-engraving negations, simply because they get lost. It's actually becoming rather common, or, maybe it has always been common.​

​

While lost in this realm, they encounter the "others" who love this flipped reality because they love imagining a world without consequences. Many of these seekers are suffering ( present-progressive ) which is why they embarked on the journey in the first place. So, this idea of "no-inherent-reality" is very tempting. It is a relief for them. So, they are encouraged to keep probing, deeper and deeper where they will perceive and know "emptiness" as the "only-truth". But that's a false-truth. A half-truth.​

​

The good news is, that the potter's fingers are always and forever, simultaneously, pressing in-and-up, raising the walls of the vessel. Even if the seeker, traveler-on-the-way, gets lost, eventually if they keep probing deeper and deeper until they will hit "rock bottom", where there's an opportunity to find their way, because, there's nowhere to go but up. From here, they can always follow the fingers of the maker, up and out to safety, if that's what they desire. But, along the way, there will be rules and restrictions established and developed. That's a fact of life. Denial of this leads in the other direction. If the seeker literally hates rules and restrictions, then, they are free to stay in the realm of infinite-negating, where the source and the ever-flowing-vitality is absolutely, yet falsely, denied.​

​

Here's the important part.​

​

If while "on-the-way" a seeker, traveler gets lost or distracted, like I wrote earlier, there is good news. There is always good news. There is always another way. There is always an opportunity to effect self-rescue when "disoriented" in the "woods", IF, big if, the seeker, traveler, desires it.​

​

When completely lost in the-unknown-terrritory, in the "woods", getting one's bearings can happen in two ways. The obvious answer is seek-higher-ground. This sometimes works. It depends on the terrain and the proximity to that-which-is-known and identifiiable. Also seeking higher ground is a lot of work. A lot of energy is required hiking up the mountain, and doing so is not going to produce gauranteed success.​

​

Climbing a tree is easier, but dangerous. And, if one is focusing on "home", trying to find their way, then, up-is-down, and left-is-right, maybe-sometimes, but-not-always, in this realm of ever-engraving, infinite-negations. Because of this seeking-higher-ground, is not as straight forward as it seems. Whatever it is, right-or-wrong, it will feel like a lot of work. And itt's easy to get discouraged and give up. The "other-way" is better in this situation, and it's gauranteed to work.​

​

The other way to get one's bearings in the-unknown-territory is to go down-hill. It's much easier and reliable. One can easliy sense "downward" and "easy". The others will be encouraging and pointing, "down is this way". Yes, it is communing with what feeels like "death" and "dying" but, it's not all bad. Some / many (?) like it.​

​

Down leads to streams, streams lead to rivers, rivers lead to the ocean, and ... the ocean is love ( aloha ). The ocean is life. The ocean is completely absolutley out of the woods and is connected to the "source". Heading down-hill always leads out of the "woods" eventually and to the "ocean" eventually.​

​

The rivers in the above analogy are the the potter's fingers pressing down. The downward pressure produces the feeling of ease of travel. It's simply "going-with-the-flow" or perhaps "floating". If one is relaxed and keeps going, eventually they will end up at the ocean, ( aloha, aloha ), which symolizes the ever-flowing, infinite-creating, the Ein-Soph. Sounds easy, but, it's easier said than done. And it's much much better if one knows ... how to build a raft. ​

​

Whew. If you made it through all of that, congratulations. And Welcome-Home!

​

"forms are temporary but the action, motion, vibration is eternal?" No.

As I wrote earlier, the forms are eternal as well. All of it is eternal. The forms which are always and forever being engraved, along with the ever-flowing which is itself a form of action, motion, and vibrations. Everything possesses both qualities, always and forever. "Nothing" is being destroyed, literally. Present-progressive. It's absolutely true, in general, and in particular, below and above, in any and all contexts.​

 

[dybmh]

i struggled with that word. actually replaced the original word of area with the word place. because as you indicated it evokes an idea as separate from some otherness; when in fact it is a whole that simply can't be known as a part. only the wholeness, absolute, infinite could know itself


reality isn't real given the observer seems to project some qualities on it that may not fully grasp the wholeness of it's being.

"Place-and-State-of-Being" are united, embracing, and dancing together, in this context. I think you asked the question perfectly. The only minor issue, is, there seemed to be an assumption that motion, vibration, etc is not a form. It is.

It is the form of "dancing-together-in-a-tight-embrace" which is simulataneously a "Place-and-State-of-Being"

^^ grasping the wholeness of its being ^^
^^ IN the MOMENT - a place and a state of being ^^
​

 

[Fool]

"is the infinite a place where there is no matter?" - No. From the last of the 3 links: "Matter is fundamentally quantum."

Empty Space Isn't Empty, And Quantum Researchers Now Have Direct Evidence - Discovery.com - LINK​

Quantum Mechanics: Evidence Says Empty Space Is Not Empty After All - universityherald.com LINK​

"We are not empty" - Mario Barbattiis - Aix Marseille University in France - aeon.co - LINK​

"seemingly empty of form?" - No.

This gets complicated but, just saying "No" is not OK. You deserve more than that. This is going to be long read, but I think it will be well worth it. I am sharing a lot of useful information which is rarely shared in written form. Chag Sameach! Happy Sukkot, Bro.​

​

Part one: "seemingly empty of form?" - No.

There are 3 versions of infinite, in this context, but all 3 are easily conflated. Because they are all infinite, considering them can be dizzying and disorienting, especially because all 3 are happening ( present-progressive ) concurrently. Beyond the natural disorientation, confusing up-from-down and left-from-right, for some, considering these can be literally painful. The mind has to stretch to accomodate these ideas. The stretching is required, because, as you know, this is not numeric infinity, it's much much bigger than that. It's infinitely bigger than numeric infinity.​

​

The first version of infinite, is absolutely literally infinite in every conceivable manner and more. One of those conceivable manners is the the capability to infinitely create, to be an infinite source of everything conceivable and more. If it did not possess this property / attribute, then it would not be absolutely literally infinite. Because of this, I will call this first version of infinite, the "source". But there is a catch. There is another consequence of absolute literally infinite. It also possesses the capability to infinitely un-create, infinitely deny. It *also* posseses the capability of infinitely-negating . If it did not possess this property / attribute of infinite-negating, then it would *also* not be absolute literally infinite. And these are the 3 versions.​

​

The first is the "source". The other 2 are partners, inverses of each other. These two partners, as a partnership, "dance-partners", are infinite in their own way. One is infinite-creation, an infinite action. The other is infinite-negation, also an infinite action. They are "embracing" and "dancing", present-progressive. But they are simulateously opposing each other. That's the "dance". The "dance" is a form, in motion. But it is also a form, in stasis, as an object, a property, an attribute, which is being possessed by the "source". This matches the QM model in the links above.​

​

A similar simultaneous "dancing" is reflected in the source. And this explains the answer to the question. The source itself is formless, but it **possesses** these two nearly infinite forms (plural) which are simultaneously object-and-action, simultaneously noun-form-and-verb-form. Please note. The verb, the action, is a form. The "dancing" is a form. Everything has a form ( with one and only one exception). The source is the one and only exception.​

​

This is why the infinite place is not "empty of form". The "action" the "vibration" the "motion" is a form.​

"seemingly empty of form?" No.

​

This answer "No" is not supposed to be a door closing. But instead it's supposed to be an opportunity. That's why I wrote, I feel like you deserve a complete explanation. If I am answering "No." I don't feel it's fair to just leave it at that. The natural response to "No" is "Why?" or perhaps, more precisely, "Why Not?" Answering the question "Why" or "Why not", is an opportunity to go on a little journey, a walk-about. If I don't explain, it's almost like my "No" is encouraging traveling into unknown-territory, but I'm neglecting, perhaps, the nneed for help navigating, plotting a course, or guiding somehow to the destination. I don't think that's good.​

"seemingly empty of form?" No? So why does it seem that way?

OK. Here we go. First an introduction.​

​

If the source is absolutely literally infinite a paradox is produced for the concept "form". In this context, from a source which is absolutely literally infinite, the nearly-infinite forms which are possessed by the "source" are being "engraved" ( present progressive ). That's the secret. That's the paradox. That's the gate, portal, 門, in classical chinese from the DDJ. The form is a negation, which appears to be positive-forming, but is actually negative-forming because it's source is absolutely literally infinite. This is very important to keep in mind. The action of engraving is the opposite of what is naturally considered a "form". But, it is still a form, it's a negating form. The DDJ, imo, does the best job with these ideas in the very first chapter, but the translations into english are poor renderings.​

​

If these ideas are applied, as the ancient Jewish philosophers did, the resulting model ( and I cannot stress this enough, it's a model, a metaphor ) that is produced is an infinite chain of emanations producing a material world. The material world and everything in it is a form invested with an "ever-flowing-vitality". But the form is an "engraving", a "negation" which surrounds the vital essence. It looks like skin and bones, and it IS skin and bones. This is an engraving, a negation, of the source which is absolutely literally infinte and the only one which is form-less. This form is a negation, but the vitality that is invested in the form is "true". The vitality that fills the engraving is not-negating. The material world is both, simultaneously.​

​

The vitality is "ever-flowing", similarly, but also simultaneously in opposition, the form is also "ever-engraving". Both are infinite and eternal. The inner-essence and the outer-shell are both versions of infinite. This is why it is tempting to focus entirely on these exterior-shells, as "inspiration", to invoke them, to follow them, and to serve them. As you know, working graven forms are prohibitted in the Exodus 20. There's a reason for that, but, it cannot be denied in truth that there is a lot that can be done with these "husks". They're infinite in their own way. But they are infinitely-negating.​

​

If they are united with their partner, as a pair, they are nearly infinite. It's as close as one can get to the source without complete annihilation. A lot more can be accomplished this way, through unity, ( which is not non-duality ) rather than working with these "shells" the klipoth, exclusively, but it's very tempting to do so. I'll get to that.​

​

Basically everyone works with these "negations" on a very small scale. They're not "evil", not the "shells", not the "engraving" itself. It all depends on what a person does with them. When these "shells" are invoked, inspired, in the material world, they are always in partnership with the everflowing-vitality. It's a matter of degree whether the actions what are produced are net-helpful or net-harmful.​

​

OK, with that out of the way, I can start to answer the question "why does the infinite-place seem to be empty, but it's not?"​

​

From the inner perspective of the seeker "looking-out" towards the source, the first thing that is encountered is the infinite-negations, the "ever-engraving" which produces the "form" which is being invested with the "ever-flowing-vitality" from the source.​

​

This is why it seems that the "infinite-place" is empty of form, empty of every"thing".​

​

There is an infinite-negation happening ( present-progressive ) which is acting as a veil surrounding all of creation. ALL of it. Cloaking it from tip to tail. Left to right. Every link in the chain has a "form", a "shell" which is being ever-engraved, infinite-negating. This paradox is extremely disorienting for the "seeker", the "traveler-on-the-way". This is because, in order to "travel", one must navigate through a layer of infinite-negating, which will appear to the the source.​

​

The realm / zone of ever-engraving, infinite-negating, is literally cloaking the individual-form and everything it encounters in the material world. The source cannot be seen, because the form is cloaked. The source is not cloaked, that is impossible. It is absolutely literally infinite. It cannot be contained. It's the perspective of the individual which is being cloaked. ( It is in darkness, and, It cannot be contained: 1 Kings 8, it's a perfect chapter to read for this ).​

​

The individual is under a "veil". The "veil" is a form. When the form is examined accurately by the mind, it IS infinite in its own way. And that is why it is easily mistaken for the source. That's why it SEEMS to be empty. That's not the source, that's not THE infinite place. It is only nearly infinite when it is "embracing" and "dancing" with its partner. In isolation it is only AN infinite place. One of two. And it is only infinite in a specific manner, valence, vector-orientation, which is trending towards death. It is ever-engraving. En-Graving. Grave. Graving. Death.​

​

So, it may SEEM to be that THE infinite place is empty of forms, but, in truth, that place is a realm of ever-engraving, infinite-negating. The infinite negations are not the source, and the ever-flow is much much greater than the ever-engraving. But in order to perceive it, to know it, one must escape from the infinite outer-shell of negating. Very few accomplish this. And the negations not only seem to be the infinite place, if it is "asked" are you the "one"? It will answer "I AM".​

​

Hopefully you're good so far. We're about half way though. This is a good place to pause and take a "breather" before moving on.​

​

so matter doesn't really exist in the sense of a solid because it's dualistic and based on the observer. it's called wave/particle duality in quantum physics. depending on the observer it can appear as one or the other. so it's really not a solid in the sense of matter.

so a churning stew of nothingness is still physical but not a solid/matter

 

[dybmh]

so matter doesn't really exist in the sense of a solid because it's dualistic and based on the observer. it's called wave/particle duality in quantum physics. depending on the observer it can appear as one or the other. so it's really not a solid in the sense of matter.

so a churning stew of nothingness is still physical but not a solid/matter

It doesn't seem that you read the articles I brought. Are you denying science?

You also don't seem to have read what I wrote. It doesn't bother me, in fact, it's a vote of confidence. Not reading it or responding to it indicates to me that you already know that its contents defeat your philosophy.

"doesn't really exist because it's dualistic" is a proclaimation of faith. It's not a proper logical intellectual argument in any way.

But it doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means your perspective is incomplete. Had you read what I wrote, all of this would be abundantly clear. I accept you, I understand your position, I even understand why you are denying the duality that exists literally everywhere. It's OK. We don't have to agree. In fact when you disagree with me, you prove my case. This debate we're having has been going on for a long time. You probably don't remember, but, you agreed with me, years ago, in a moment of truth, innocence, and surrender.

But that was a long time ago. Now, is what matters. If you would like to continue the discussion, please read the articles I provided. After that, we can discuss the science of void and emptiness, how it is supremely dual, on multiple levels, and in many ways.

 

[Fool]

It doesn't seem that you read the articles I brought. Are you denying science?

You also don't seem to have read what I wrote. It doesn't bother me, in fact, it's a vote of confidence. Not reading it or responding to it indicates to me that you already know that its contents defeat your philosophy.

"doesn't really exist because it's dualistic" is a proclaimation of faith. It's not a proper logical intellectual argument in any way.

But it doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means your perspective is incomplete. Had you read what I wrote, all of this would be abundantly clear. I accept you, I understand your position, I even understand why you are denying the duality that exists literally everywhere. It's OK. We don't have to agree. In fact when you disagree with me, you prove my case. This debate we're having has been going on for a long time. You probably don't remember, but, you agreed with me, years ago, in a moment of truth, innocence, and surrender.

But that was a long time ago. Now, is what matters. If you would like to continue the discussion, please read the articles I provided. After that, we can discuss the science of void and emptiness, how it is supremely dual, on multiple levels, and in many ways.

some people fear what they can't regulate, control

none of your scientific articles use the term matter in the sense of a solid. most laymen think of matter as something solidified, an exact picture taken, an exact form of appearance and not action, or even the recognition of mutability. knowing what something looks likes is kind of of like watching or viewing an image of something, its not exactly the same as having 1st person experience of that something.

one of your articles iterates the fact that "however, there is a limitation of how much we can know about quantum particles". so for the typical laymen matter is associated with something that has a fixed form. among scientific professionals it generally means something physical. being physical it can be a process, an action, a force. like the idea of deverbal nouns. it's an action before a thing. the thing is identified by its action and not by it's outward appearance.

at least one of the articles also quoted what I reiterated. particles are waves. they are particles when they are measured or viewed as fixed in space time but they are waves otherwise. basically when a person measures them they look like a solid something but in fact that is an illusion too. we know they aren't fixed even if we kind of know what they look like from an observed measurement. that is the heisenberg principle. if they are always in motion, they aren't always fixed/positioned but they are always a wave that are observed as particles when positioned, fixed.


a measurement of something requires the ability to control it. so a particle is more like frame in an infinite loop of film. it isn't even going to have the same form, appearance even if it has some form in that instance. so the idea of empty of form is not that it won't have some form when observed but it will never have the same form when observed. so the physical action as form is more important than it's physical appearances as forms.


so it is this attachment to an object or a form that is what causes suffering because change is inevitable.. or infinite. and an infinite isn't fixed or accurately measurable.

i didn't read the other because i'm not that deeply invested in the kabbalah, the idea was to involved and the system is rife with cultural overtones.

 

[dybmh]

none of your scientific articles use the term matter in the sense of a solid.

The mechanism that produces the phenomena "solid" are the inter-atomic forces seeking stability among each other. At minimum, it's a pairing of opposing forces. Dual. The forces are best described as a "cloud", the cloud is not "empty".

The fact that the cloud is not empty is the content of all three articles.

particles are waves. they are particles when they are measured or viewed as fixed in space time but they are waves otherwise.

Technically, their behavior can be modeled as a a wave under certain conditions, and their behavior can be modeled as a particle under certain conditions. This means, they are both, simultaneously, kind of like having a split-personality. Or two dancers embracing. One takes the "lead" when it's up-tempo, the other takes the "lead" when it's chill. Dual.

something that has a fixed form

the nucleus has a fixed form, the electron cloud does not. together they are partners locked in a passionate embrace. in this case, the electrons are dancing and their partner is transfixed. Dual.

attachment to an object or a form that is what causes suffering

I disagree. There's a list of things which cause suffering, not just one thing. However, there is one remedy that cures them all, death. This can be simulated by digging a hole and living in it, or burying the head in the sand. While in the pit, nothing exists outside of the mind.

And yes, it's true there are other-worlds inside the mind that can be explored while the rest is being ignored. But the inner-exploration is a direct consequence of turning inward. This is proof that the outer-inner dynamic is TRUE. The inner-dimension is only a part of it. Calling the inner-dimension a half-truth is optimistic. At most it is half. At most. It could be the many-worlds which include inner-outer exceed the inner-dimension on many scales of magnitude. And logically it is likely this is the case. Look at the letters on the screen. How much is devoted to the "letter"? How much is devoted to the what is surrounding it?

In general, most suffering is the result of a desire to seize control when the control has been granted to another. It is an attachment. The attachment is to a rigid-self-identity. That part is where we agree. But it's not all rigid-self-identities. The suffering is produced by the attachement to a specific rigid-self-identity: self-as-god. This identity can exist completely free from any and all suffering on 1 and only 1 condition: if it is in complete isolation.

Every human being has this self-as-god identity in their psyche. Everyone. That is why the methods of detachment from the outside world are a relief to so many. The self-as-god is no longer suffering for being out of control and relentless reminders "you-are-not-god". That's the mechanism that produces the phenomena you are describing as the attachment to form causing suffering. It's a specific form.

What you're saying is true, but it's simplistic, incomplete, and not true in all cases. Attachment does not ALWAYS cause suffering. Detachment certainly does not always cause relief. It's a form of torture.

i didn't read the other because i'm not that deeply invested in the kabbalah,

It wasn't kabalah in the way you are imagining it. You asked about void, emptiness, infinite, and eternal. What I wrote was 98% discussing that. I did not use kabalah to make my point or to explain anything. I included a diagram which brings it all together. I used the word ein-soph, because I know you are familiar with it. There were a few scriptural references in the mix, because, I know you like scripture. And I wrote all of it ... for you. To you. To you, alone. It's an homage, in a way, to brotherly love. It just so happens that the Jewish philosophers are ideal resources for this. If you never read it, it's ok. It has been written. As I wrote, I feel very strongly that you deserve a complete answer to your question. And that complete answer has been given to you.

The key detail is defining void and emptiness properly. Without that, there is no discussion. No debate. No intellectual progress.

Defining void and emptiness is in the first post, but it takes, I don't know, 9-10 paragraphs to get there. These are deep concepts (pun intended). It takes a lot of words to describe them to completion, and to understand them beyond the letters v-o-i-d and the n-o-t-h-i-n-g and beyond the sounds produced when they are spoken. At the end of those paragraphs, this is the proper complete defintion which closely matches the phenomena described in the articles I brought.

"void" and "nothing" are "ever-engraving" and "infinite-negating"

From here, I explain, not using kabalah, just logic and language, that these are simultaneously both actions and objects. They are both noun-forms and verb-forms in THE infinite place which you would describe using the english word "Mind". Capital M. The big one. Or perhaps "Self" Capital S. The big one. And this explains what you are observing when you say:

"the infinite a place where there is no matter but seemingly empty of form"

"seemingly"

The simple truth is, it seems empty, but it's "not". Literally. Full-stop. The answer to your question hinges entirely on the last word. "not"

It's "not" =/= It's "empty"
It's "not" =/= It's "void"

"Not" is something-else, literally.

"Not" = "ever-engraving" or "infinite-negating"

Once this is fully conceptualized, which I think takes many paragraphs to describe, it makes sense and is easily understood that there is a converse concept, "ever-flowing" which is also simultaneously noun-form and verb-form. These two are both possessed by THE infinite place, "Mind" or "Self" ( or whatever other word is chosen for it ). I am describing these two as embracing and dancing, simultaneously even though they are opposed to one another.

This simulataneous embracing and dancing of opposing forces is reflected everywhere, with only one exception. I know you like dancing, I know you like embracing. I chose this imagery for you, because, I love you like a brother. And that means, I know what you like.

And this knowledge is what lead me to explain fully. You deserve to know "why?"
Why inspite of your love for the dancers-locked-in-passionate-embrace can you only percieve emptiness and void when you probe into the mind? Why does it SEEM that way? Even though you know that is not the case?

Answering that question involves taking a jourrney into the mind. And it took 3 posts to go on that journey from "tip-to-tail", as they say.

 

[Fool]

The mechanism that produces the phenomena "solid" are the inter-atomic forces seeking stability among each other. At minimum, it's a pairing of opposing forces. Dual. The forces are best described as a "cloud", the cloud is not "empty".

The fact that the cloud is not empty is the content of all three articles.



Technically, their behavior can be modeled as a a wave under certain conditions, and their behavior can be modeled as a particle under certain conditions. This means, they are both, simultaneously, kind of like having a split-personality. Or two dancers embracing. One takes the "lead" when it's up-tempo, the other takes the "lead" when it's chill. Dual.



the nucleus has a fixed form, the electron cloud does not. together they are partners locked in a passionate embrace. in this case, the electrons are dancing and their partner is transfixed. Dual.



I disagree. There's a list of things which cause suffering, not just one thing. However, there is one remedy that cures them all, death. This can be simulated by digging a hole and living in it, or burying the head in the sand. While in the pit, nothing exists outside of the mind.

And yes, it's true there are other-worlds inside the mind that can be explored while the rest is being ignored. But the inner-exploration is a direct consequence of turning inward. This is proof that the outer-inner dynamic is TRUE. The inner-dimension is only a part of it. Calling the inner-dimension a half-truth is optimistic. At most it is half. At most. It could be the many-worlds which include inner-outer exceed the inner-dimension on many scales of magnitude. And logically it is likely this is the case. Look at the letters on the screen. How much is devoted to the "letter"? How much is devoted to the what is surrounding it?

In general, most suffering is the result of a desire to seize control when the control has been granted to another. It is an attachment. The attachment is to a rigid-self-identity. That part is where we agree. But it's not all rigid-self-identities. The suffering is produced by the attachement to a specific rigid-self-identity: self-as-god. This identity can exist completely free from any and all suffering on 1 and only 1 condition: if it is in complete isolation.

Every human being has this self-as-god identity in their psyche. Everyone. That is why the methods of detachment from the outside world are a relief to so many. The self-as-god is no longer suffering for being out of control and relentless reminders "you-are-not-god". That's the mechanism that produces the phenomena you are describing as the attachment to form causing suffering. It's a specific form.

What you're saying is true, but it's simplistic, incomplete, and not true in all cases. Attachment does not ALWAYS cause suffering. Detachment certainly does not always cause relief. It's a form of torture.

View attachment 83179



It wasn't kabalah in the way you are imagining it. You asked about void, emptiness, infinite, and eternal. What I wrote was 98% discussing that. I did not use kabalah to make my point or to explain anything. I included a diagram which brings it all together. I used the word ein-soph, because I know you are familiar with it. There were a few scriptural references in the mix, because, I know you like scripture. And I wrote all of it ... for you. To you. To you, alone. It's an homage, in a way, to brotherly love. It just so happens that the Jewish philosophers are ideal resources for this. If you never read it, it's ok. It has been written. As I wrote, I feel very strongly that you deserve a complete answer to your question. And that complete answer has been given to you.

The key detail is defining void and emptiness properly. Without that, there is no discussion. No debate. No intellectual progress.

Defining void and emptiness is in the first post, but it takes, I don't know, 9-10 paragraphs to get there. These are deep concepts (pun intended). It takes a lot of words to describe them to completion, and to understand them beyond the letters v-o-i-d and the n-o-t-h-i-n-g and beyond the sounds produced when they are spoken. At the end of those paragraphs, this is the proper complete defintion which closely matches the phenomena described in the articles I brought.

"void" and "nothing" are "ever-engraving" and "infinite-negating"

From here, I explain, not using kabalah, just logic and language, that these are simultaneously both actions and objects. They are both noun-forms and verb-forms in THE infinite place which you would describe using the english word "Mind". Capital M. The big one. Or perhaps "Self" Capital S. The big one. And this explains what you are observing when you say:

"the infinite a place where there is no matter but seemingly empty of form"

"seemingly"

The simple truth is, it seems empty, but it's "not". Literally. Full-stop. The answer to your question hinges entirely on the last word. "not"

It's "not" =/= It's "empty"
It's "not" =/= It's "void"

"Not" is something-else, literally.

"Not" = "ever-engraving" or "infinite-negating"

Once this is fully conceptualized, which I think takes many paragraphs to describe, it makes sense and is easily understood that there is a converse concept, "ever-flowing" which is also simultaneously noun-form and verb-form. These two are both possessed by THE infinite place, "Mind" or "Self" ( or whatever other word is chosen for it ). I am describing these two as embracing and dancing, simultaneously even though they are opposed to one another.

This simulataneous embracing and dancing of opposing forces is reflected everywhere, with only one exception. I know you like dancing, I know you like embracing. I chose this imagery for you, because, I love you like a brother. And that means, I know what you like.

And this knowledge is what lead me to explain fully. You deserve to know "why?"
Why inspite of your love for the dancers-locked-in-passionate-embrace can you only percieve emptiness and void when you probe into the mind? Why does it SEEM that way? Even though you know that is not the case?

Answering that question involves taking a jourrney into the mind. And it took 3 posts to go on that journey from "tip-to-tail", as they say.

View attachment 83183

no thing is not the same as nothing again everything moves. this is known about the electro-magnetic spectrum. everything vibrates nothing is static, everything is dynamic. even empty and void are abviously something that is sensible. its like the buddhist koan of what is the sound of one hand clapping. silence is obviously the unformed from which forms of sound arise. silence is simply sensed when the seven other's sounds aren't being created.

so all things formed/created arise from the electro-magnetic spectrum, but the spectrum itself is not formed but creates all forms. the only absolute is that their are not absolutes. the only form, in this case, spectrum, is that there are no forms. its a paradox

 

[dybmh]

no thing is not the same as nothing again everything moves.

motion is a phenomena which considers location compared to a fixed reference point. Motion is dual.

in QM, that would be the fixed reference of the nucleus. It cannot be denied logically or rationally.

this is known about the electro-magnetic spectrum. everything vibrates nothing is static, everything is dynamic.

Everything is dynamic in comparisson to a point of reference. Dual. Again, what you're saying is true, but incomplete. It's just one-side. It's always just one side.

even empty and void are abviously something that is sensible.

Agreed. This whole notion of propping up void, emptiness, nothing as supreme is fallacious. It's a form just like all the others.

This constant motion, like a rapid pendulum, is included in what I wrote. If you looked at the diagram I posted, it is happening at the bottom of the tree in black. And this blackness surrounds the material world. What you're observing is the "shell".
But outer-inner are flip-flopped as a consequence of what is happening above it, and the perspective you have chosen for yourself.
So, what is appearing to you as inner-essence is actually an outer-shell. A form.

its like the buddhist koan of what is the sound of one hand clapping.

I disagree, it's not like that at all. The best descriptor comes from the DDJ. (I wrote that in the treatise you didn't read, BTW) But the english translations are not rendered well at all.

silence is obviously the unformed from which forms of sound arise.

"Is obviously... " is a statement of faith, not a rationally intellectual argument. Silence is a form. Evidence: noice canceling headphones.

silence is simply sensed when the seven other's sounds aren't being created.

Hmm... I thought you weren't invested in kabalah? Perhaps it's the borrowed, warped, and incomplete Qabalah you are referring to here?

The issue is, an english speaker actually is very limited in what traditions they can approach. Qabalah, the warped incomplete version is accessible. Buddhism is accessible. Daoism and authentic Jewish mysticism, ( which is a collection of kabalah, there is no such thing a THE kabalah ) are not accessible.

The fallacy is in the assumption that these traditions which are accessible in english are complete and acccurate, when in my judgement, they are woefully incomplete. And I think there is strong evidence supporting that conclusion as true.

But the english reader has no other options, so, they become involved in these tradtions and become converted to their point of view and they reject all others without having access to both sides to make an informed choice. Non-dual philosophy is also highly accessible, regardless of spoken language.

Both Buddhism and Qabalah assert that anyone who does not "see it their way" is deluded. Any tradition or practice which asserts this, in my judgement, is itself deluded. Non-dual philosophy seems to assert itself in this way as well, but, perhaps it is only by those who adhere to it in a shallow immature manner.

There's a story in the buddhist canon that ironically demonstrates this beautifully and comically as the buddhist master unintentionally calls himself and buddhism in its entirety a donkey, but seems to be ignorant of the implications of his own words. Would you like me to locate that for you?

so all things formed/created arise from the electro-magnetic spectrum,

all "things"? "formed/created"? from a spectrum? which is "ever-flowing"? Sure. If you read my treatise you would see I agree, but what you have written here is incomplete.

The articles I brought also show this incomplete. There's no rreason to argue about it, though. Why? Because I know AND understand your position.

but the spectrum itself is not formed but creates all forms. the only absolute is that their are not absolutes. the only form, in this case, spectrum, is that there are no forms. its a paradox

Nope. It is formed. There's other types of particles which are not included in the electro-magnetic spectrum. As I wrote, what you are describing is just another form. There is 1 and only 1 possible exception if a person is willing to go all tthe way to the top of the chain, as opposed to sinking into the abyss where there are no rules and restrictions.

The one-sided, devotion, is a choice. I respect that choice. I honor it. But it cannot honestly proclaim itself as absolutley true. The evidence in opposition is beyond the shadow of any doubt. The evidence is literally beyond the shadow. If one is commited to living cloaked in a shadow, that is their choice.

 

[Yokefellow]

in some religious, spiritual teachings there is an idea of a void, emptiness, or the abyss

Indeed. Here is a good example in the Book of Genesis...

Genesis 1:2
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Without Form = Two Dimensional
Void = Complete Vacuum
Face of the Deep = Two-Dimensional Plane
Face of the Waters = Dimensional Boundary

The above is describing that which exists below the Third Dimension. The 'Face' is the boundary between 2D and 3D.

It is a similar concept to Flatland...

Another way to look at Genesis 1:2 is what is called a 'Brane' and 'Worldsheet'...

Brane - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The 'Face of the Deep' is the two-dimensional Worldsheet. The Worldsheet is then swept to create a Volume. That process is described here...

Genesis 1:7
"And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

God made 3D Space by sweeping the Worldsheet.

The Worldsheet is called 'The Deep' because it is 'bottomless' in the sense that it has infinite potential.

Note that God is outside of all of that. God exists outside of our Universe as the Creator.

The Sea of Glass is the boundary between 3D and 4D...

Revelation 15:2
"And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God."

The Sea of Glass is the 'Waters' *above* the Heavens where our universe ends, and the next higher Dimension begins...

Psalms 148:4
"Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens."

New Jerusalem describes a Golden Tesseract.

 

[Fool]

motion is a phenomena which considers location compared to a fixed reference point. Motion is dual.

in QM, that would be the fixed reference of the nucleus. It cannot be denied logically or rationally.



Everything is dynamic in comparisson to a point of reference. Dual. Again, what you're saying is true, but incomplete. It's just one-side. It's always just one side.



Agreed. This whole notion of propping up void, emptiness, nothing as supreme is fallacious. It's a form just like all the others.

This constant motion, like a rapid pendulum, is included in what I wrote. If you looked at the diagram I posted, it is happening at the bottom of the tree in black. And this blackness surrounds the material world. What you're observing is the "shell".
But outer-inner are flip-flopped as a consequence of what is happening above it, and the perspective you have chosen for yourself.
So, what is appearing to you as inner-essence is actually an outer-shell. A form.



I disagree, it's not like that at all. The best descriptor comes from the DDJ. (I wrote that in the treatise you didn't read, BTW) But the english translations are not rendered well at all.



"Is obviously... " is a statement of faith, not a rationally intellectual argument. Silence is a form. Evidence: noice canceling headphones.



Hmm... I thought you weren't invested in kabalah? Perhaps it's the borrowed, warped, and incomplete Qabalah you are referring to here?

The issue is, an english speaker actually is very limited in what traditions they can approach. Qabalah, the warped incomplete version is accessible. Buddhism is accessible. Daoism and authentic Jewish mysticism, ( which is a collection of kabalah, there is no such thing a THE kabalah ) are not accessible.

The fallacy is in the assumption that these traditions which are accessible in english are complete and acccurate, when in my judgement, they are woefully incomplete. And I think there is strong evidence supporting that conclusion as true.

But the english reader has no other options, so, they become involved in these tradtions and become converted to their point of view and they reject all others without having access to both sides to make an informed choice. Non-dual philosophy is also highly accessible, regardless of spoken language.

Both Buddhism and Qabalah assert that anyone who does not "see it their way" is deluded. Any tradition or practice which asserts this, in my judgement, is itself deluded. Non-dual philosophy seems to assert itself in this way as well, but, perhaps it is only by those who adhere to it in a shallow immature manner.

There's a story in the buddhist canon that ironically demonstrates this beautifully and comically as the buddhist master unintentionally calls himself and buddhism in its entirety a donkey, but seems to be ignorant of the implications of his own words. Would you like me to locate that for you?



all "things"? "formed/created"? from a spectrum? which is "ever-flowing"? Sure. If you read my treatise you would see I agree, but what you have written here is incomplete.

The articles I brought also show this incomplete. There's no rreason to argue about it, though. Why? Because I know AND understand your position.



Nope. It is formed. There's other types of particles which are not included in the electro-magnetic spectrum. As I wrote, what you are describing is just another form. There is 1 and only 1 possible exception if a person is willing to go all tthe way to the top of the chain, as opposed to sinking into the abyss where there are no rules and restrictions.

The one-sided, devotion, is a choice. I respect that choice. I honor it. But it cannot honestly proclaim itself as absolutley true. The evidence in opposition is beyond the shadow of any doubt. The evidence is literally beyond the shadow. If one is commited to living cloaked in a shadow, that is their choice.

View attachment 83192

the word that finally came to me is amorphous. there is no exact or definite form; which makes it formless because it is in constant change.

the electromagnetic spectrum is irreducible.

so light and darkness only exist because we has humans can't see the full spectrum with our eyes

 

[dybmh]

the word that finally came to me is amorphous. there is no exact or definite form; which makes it formless because it is in constant change.

"contant change" is a form. "no exact form" is a form. "no definite form" is a form. "Amorphous" is a form. There is only 1 that has no form. All others are defined by their converse. All others have at least one partner that is included in their definition. Up is a form, even though it is in constant change. Void is a form even though is always and forever empty. It's no different than a funnel, or a pyramid that continues growing, or a fractal. All of those have forms.

the electromagnetic spectrum is irreducible.

a prisim reduces it.

so light and darkness only exist because we has humans can't see the full spectrum with our eyes

Darkness exists as a consequence of photon absorption. Light is a consequence of photon emission. It has nothing to do with the retina or the mind.

Sign in - Google Accounts

It's electrons "dancing" from level to level and back again in partnership with the nucleus which is transfixed in "awe".

 

[Fool]

"contant change" is a form. "no exact form" is a form. "no definite form" is a form. "Amorphous" is a form. There is only 1 that has no form. All others are defined by their converse. All others have at least one partner that is included in their definition. Up is a form, even though it is in constant change. Void is a form even though is always and forever empty. It's no different than a funnel, or a pyramid that continues growing, or a fractal. All of those have forms.


View attachment 83281



a prisim reduces it.

View attachment 83280




Darkness exists as a consequence of photon absorption. Light is a consequence of photon emission. It has nothing to do with the retina or the mind.

Sign in - Google Accounts

It's electrons "dancing" from level to level and back again in partnership with the nucleus which is transfixed in "awe".

the definition for amorphous is no definite form, or indefinite form. same as the idea of un uncreated creator. all forms arise from it but it has no form because it is singular and forms are plural. the underlying cause is the force that moves it and not the static form that is seen in a snapshot of space/time

so light is reducible using a prism.

a prism doesn't reduce the electromagnetic spectrum

 

[dybmh]

the definition for amorphous is no definite form, or indefinite form.

I disagree. I think you are being too literal. Amorphous is still an form per aristotle, who is one of the original authorities. If you choose a dictionary over a philosopher who wrote ( i think ) an entire book about it, that is a choice you are making. Also the DDJ supports my point of view.

But, please know that I can see it from your point of view that amorphous is without a form.

Can you see it from my point of view? If not, why not?

same as the idea of un uncreated creator.

No that's different. Amorphous describes something, "thing", which is nearly infinte. It's not infinite in all manner and in all dimensions in any realm / domain / world / universe /mutil-verse, etc...

The uncreated-creator is absolutely literally infinite in all manner, in all dimensions, in any realm / domain / world / universe / multi-verse, etc...

I described this in the treatise you didn't read, but I didn't use the words "uncreated-creator".

all forms arise from it but it has no form because it is singular and forms are plural.

It is a conglomerate. An ever growing and increasing blob. It is a form, singular. Yes forms are plural, but that is irrelevant.

Essentially the amorphous ever-growing blob appears to be singular when it is considered from a zoomed out "bird's eye view". All the details are washed out. But on closer inspection there are forms included in it which are producing the form which is labeled "amorphous" in english.

This is what I brought from aristotle, and if you read it carefully ( with an open mind ) I think you'll realize the concordence. I am very very confident that this is not beyond your capability, if you are open to it.

the underlying cause is the force that moves it and not the static form that is seen in a snapshot of space/time

There is no "force" without the static "form" to "push" or "pull" against. Dual.

so light is reducible using a prism.

a prism doesn't reduce the electromagnetic spectrum

"light" = "the electro-magnetic-spectrum" and it is not all-inclusive. I already brought you evidence supporting this.

The prism is concentrating and simultaneously splitting the spectrum demonstrating that "light" is actually a collective of individual different types of "light". Similar in many ways, but also their differences are significant. What appears to be a non-dual, singular, absolute, is actually multiplicity.

Understanding it as singular is useful in certain contexts, for example, it's dangerous to look directly at a solar eclipse with the naked eye.

Understanding it as a collective is useful in many many contexts. The first example I thought of is lasers used in surgery, but also, grow lights which encourage the different phases of plant development, the grow cycle and the bloom cycle. Growing is different than blooming, and this is often ( always ? ) triggered by day-light hours compared to night-time hours and two corresponding different types of light. Dual and dual again. Partnerships. Seasons, cycles, a dance. The rhythm of life. Can you feel it?

Here's a link which describes this critical component of all life on earth. If you notice in the middle of the page, there's a picture of a prism.

Looking at red light - a time telling tale

Detecting the change of season is key to a plant's survival - seasonal changes control everything from germination to vegetative growth and flowering. While temperature and light intensity influence plant growth, they are not always a reliable indicator of seasons because they may change from...

growample.com

 

[ChristineM]

Are you thinking a void with dimensions or a void without dimensions?