[ Post a Response | Tao Speaks ]
Posted by Butcho
on 4/11/2009, 9:40 pm, in reply to "Re: The Mystery of mysteries cannot be known, but it can be experienced."
71.30.137.X
--Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
: josef,
:
: You may very well be right. But I may not be
: wrong as well. Let me explain.
:
: In my opinion there is one fundamental
: mistake where the nature of reality is
: concerned. That is all other mistakes take
: root here. That being that all is a
: numerical one. Not a synergetic one, not a
: unitive one, but a numerical one.
:
: In my opinion, monism, is a fatal error
: where the nature of existence is concerned.
: For me purist advaita, monisms of every ilk,
: are a house of mirrors. A myth that distorts
: reality as it is.
:
: Monism leads to all sorts of solipsistic
: perspectives. If all is numerically one then
: I am God. If all is n one then nothing
: matters. If all is n one then my god is the
: God. If all is n one then nothing is real.
: It is all just a play on words.
:
: Such thinking, such solipsistic thinking, is
: the cause of just about every example of
: man's inhumanity to man that I can think of.
: Hooray for me, to bad for you. Thinking all
: is n one is the ultimate ego trip.
:
: So I draw a distinction between all is
: numerically one and all is a unitive one.
: One is an illusion and the other is more in
: line with the nature of existence. I do not
: believe we cannot know anything. It is just
: that I know enough to know that the concepts
: that we live by, and that is what humans do,
: matter.
:
: No man is an island, he is a peninsula. What
: you think matters to me, and what I think
: matters to you. Whether either of us realize
: it or not. We are interconnected at every
: level and at every point. A unitive one.
:
: I hope this brief explanation helps you to
: understand where I am coming from regarding
: what I feel is the Number One Myth. If you
: don't agree or agree at least you now have a
: better idea of where I am coming from on
: this point.
:
: Butcho
:
: Butcho, thanks for taking the time to
: explain what you meant. It deserves more
: than a quicky response, no time for that
: now, so Monday I'll have time to give a more
: considered one. Also would like to read
: yours over a few times, before responding. I
: got lost somewhere.
:
: josef
:
:
josef,
In a nutshell.
Existence is a nonlinear function. Its nature is more a quality than a quantity. So if we must number it then we should use a number that is representative of it nature, of its quality.
Unity cannot properly be numbered as One unless it is described as a "Unitive" One. An integrated whole. Thus the number of existence is an irrational number. Think Pi. 3.14159+++++++++++++++++++++ and on and on without ever getting to 3.14160. Totality is an irrational number if number it we must. Not irrational in the loco sense. Irrational in the nonrational sense. Transrational.
So we might number existence 1.999999999999999999999999 and on and on without ever reaching 2. The Whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Synergy. More than one, but less than two. Undivided. Nondual. Whole.
The tao that can be numbered is not the eternal Tao.
We tend to make gods of taos all the while the Tao goes everywhere unnoticed.
I hope these words are of some help.
Butcho
137
"The Tao is basically utterly open. Utter openeness has no substance. It ends in endlessness, begins in beginninglessnes".
-Li Daoqun
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Webmaster: zentao00@yahoo.com Donations help to support, upgrade and expand the Tao Speaks! community..