All in One, One in All

Relinquish June 28, 2022 at 19:30 1875 views 10 comments
Evidently, there is an apparent "inside" (e.g. me), and an apparent "outside" (e.g. not me).

Logically, the "inside" cannot possibly be "not outside" (as it is) in the absence of an "outside", just as the "outside" cannot possibly be "not inside" (as it is) in the absence of an "inside".

To hypothetically elaborate, if the "inside" were to somehow completely annihilate the "outside", the "inside" would no longer be able to BE "not outside", and so would no longer be able to BE the "inside".

Conversely, if the "outside" were to somehow completely annihilate the "inside", the "outside" would no longer be able to BE "not inside", and so would no longer be able to BE the "outside".

In this way, the very IDENTITY of the "inside" fundamentally includes the "outside" WITHIN itself, just as the very IDENTITY of the "outside" fundamentally includes the "inside" WITHIN itself.

This being the case, neither the "inside" nor the "outside" can ACTUALLY be the solely self-inclusive entities that they conceptually SEEM to be, but rather, are both justifiably regardable as "presently apparent features of Existence Itself".

Logically, there can be no reason why Existence Itself has ANY apparent features at all, let alone THESE apparent features.

Evidently, this is simply It's nature.

Just as an ocean is one water that IS many waves, Existence Itself is one permanent substance that IS many impermanent forms.

In this way, many EQUALS one.....

Comments (10)

T Clark June 29, 2022 at 17:25 #713844
Ok. Now what? Why is it significant?
jgill June 29, 2022 at 20:15 #713869
Quoting Relinquish
Just as an ocean is one water that IS many waves, Existence Itself is one permanent substance that IS many impermanent forms


Pleasant observation. :chin:
Banno June 29, 2022 at 21:51 #713880
Quoting Relinquish
Evidently, there is an apparent "inside" (e.g. me), and an apparent "outside" (e.g. not me).


Why?
Mikie June 29, 2022 at 21:57 #713882
Quoting Relinquish
Evidently, there is an apparent "inside" (e.g. me), and an apparent "outside" (e.g. not me).


Nope. Already way too much baggage here.



Gregory June 30, 2022 at 01:56 #713951
Reply to Relinquish

Is this related to Kant?
jgill June 30, 2022 at 04:19 #713980
Quoting Gregory
Is this related to Kant?


It Kant be.
Nils Loc June 30, 2022 at 06:26 #713996
Is there really (apparently) just one substance?
Agent Smith June 30, 2022 at 07:36 #714003
Apophatic vicious circle (loop):

What is inside?

Not outside!

What is outside?

Not inside!

1 is Not 0 and 0 is Not 1 where the only possibilities are 1 and 0.

1 = ~0 and 0 = ~1. Aye!

---

Not that 1 isn't 0 and 0 isn't 1.

~1 = 0 and ~0 = 1. Nay!

:snicker:

[quote=Capt. James T. Kirk of the Starship Enterprise]I don't wanna know what it isn't. I wanna know what it is![/quote]

Math to the rescue! How exactly? :snicker:
Tate July 05, 2022 at 02:33 #715640
Quoting Relinquish
In this way, many EQUALS one.....


Yes.
Agent Smith July 07, 2022 at 07:18 #716390
Well, it feels right to say that opposites make sense i.e. are imbued with meaning only with respect to each other (one can't exist without the other). Thus, from a dualistic perspective, we must take both (all) or neither (nothing) - it's impossible to decouple a thing from its opposite herein meant as a thing and its negation. Mutual dependence ensures that both live or both die. In this sense, OP, the [s]many[/s] two are one. :snicker: