What else could there be?

[relinquish]

In truth, ALL 'things' and 'events' (including 'ourselves') can be justifiably regarded as 'impermanent discernable features' of Reality Itself.

Naturally, the totality of these impermanent discernable features spend their entire existence within the boundary of one of Reality's two 'permanent discernable features'; the 'Everything' (which, as a whole, can be described as an 'ever-changing structured asymmetry').

The so-called 'space' that apparently encompasses the 'Everything' is Reality's other permanent discernable feature; the 'Nothing' (which is itself absolutely changeless, structureless and un-encompassed).

If the 'ceaseless change' that is the 'Everything' had an absolute beginning, that beginning would also be the ending of a prior 'beginningless absence of change'. If it had an absolute ending, that ending would also be the beginning of a subsequent 'endless absence of change'. Logically, such a situation is an absolute impossibility.

Therefore, the ceaseless change that is the 'Everything' MUST be eternally cyclic.

If these discernable features (both permanent and impermanent) COULD have been different, they WOULD have been different.

Because there is no way to know why they COULDN'T have been different, there is no way to know why they are as they are.

Likewise, the actual reason WHY Reality Itself has any discernable features at all (some of which apparently have the capacity to 'experience' themselves and their surroundings) is absolutely unknowable.

Evidently, some of the 'conscious' discernable features are of such an extreme level of physical complexity that they have the natural capacity to become 'hypnotized' by their surroundings.

This hypnosis makes it SEEM to these extremely complex 'conscious features' (or in other words, 'intelligent body/mind life-forms') that each of the discernable features (including themselves) are in fact 'solely self-inclusive forms' (which is to say, that they are all fundamentally existing different 'things' and 'events' that each have their own separate, independent nature), and that they themselves each have their own personal consciousness and are the autonomous originators of their own particular movements.

As such, the 'hypnotized conscious features' perceive Reality to be a vast, confusingly fragmented and threatening situation, and perceive themselves to be isolated and vulnerable individuals. This is the illusion of multiplicity, seperateness and duality. The hypnosis it arises from is the fundamental basis of ALL suffering.

Sometimes, this hypnosis is unexplainably woken up from. When this happens, the feeling of isolation and vulnerability naturally dissolves, because it is realized that there never actually was any independently existing 'self' there to be isolated or vulnerable (or anything else) in the first place.

It's simply seen that, in truth, there is ONLY the Absolute Mystery that is 'Reality-being-Itself'.

[Busby]

I've thanked you before relinquish and do so again.

Therefore, the ceaseless change that is the 'Everything' MUST be eternally cyclic. The real universe mirrors itself in these words.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by Busby

I've thanked you before relinquish and do so again.

Therefore, the ceaseless change that is the 'Everything' MUST be eternally cyclic. The real universe mirrors itself in these words.

To me, that seems a contradiction of terms.
1. "everything", in the context discussed here, can't change by definition; it's the absolute!
2. "cycling" implies change, by definition

[relinquish]

Originally Posted by Busby

I've thanked you before relinquish and do so again.

Therefore, the ceaseless change that is the 'Everything' MUST be eternally cyclic. The real universe mirrors itself in these words.

I'm glad you enjoyed it, Busby. ☺

[relinquish]

Originally Posted by inavalan

To me, that seems a contradiction of terms.
1. "everything", in the context discussed here, can't change by definition; it's the absolute!
2. "cycling" implies change, by definition

I see how it could SEEM to be a contradiction in terms, but just to clarify what I mean;

What I'm calling the 'Everything' is not the Absolute. It is one of two 'permanent discernable features' of the Absolute, as is the 'Nothing'. The Absolute Itself is neither 'something' nor 'Everything' nor 'Nothing'. In the same way, the Absolute is neither 'Movement' nor 'Stillness', neither 'Change' nor 'Changelessness', neither 'Sound' nor 'Silence'. These are all different names for the two permanent discernable features of the Absolute.

Why the Absolute has any discernable features at all is absolutely unknowable. ☺

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by relinquish

...It's simply seen that, in truth, there is ONLY the Absolute Mystery that is 'Reality-being-Itself'.

Nice work, Relinquish - I enjoyed reading this though I have a couple of reservations.

As I see it, space (whether real or ideal) is/must be part of the Everything - in fact ‘Nothing’ must be also part of the Everything otherwise the Everything (for that concept to have any meaning) is not everything.

The Nothing referred to must either be a (perhaps subtle) something or have no ontology whatsoever which would render it merely an abstract concept.

Because of this (though I do see the point that you are making) I fail to see a real difference between the (so-called) Absolute and the Everything.

And although it is a matter of dry logic to say that ‘the Everything/Absolute’ does not/cannot come and go (where would IT go) or that it doesn’t move (where would IT move to) and so on...

The nature of the Everything is flux, emergence, variation and creativity - it is ceaselessly happening - never not happening.

[relinquish]

Originally Posted by Moondance

Nice work, Relinquish - I enjoyed reading this though I have a couple of reservations.

As I see it, space (whether real or ideal) is/must be part of the Everything - in fact ‘Nothing’ must be also part of the Everything otherwise the Everything (for that concept to have any meaning) is not everything.

The Nothing referred to must either be a (perhaps subtle) something or have no ontology whatsoever which would render it merely an abstract concept.

Because of this (though I do see the point that you are making) I fail to see a real difference between the (so-called) Absolute and the Everything.

And although it is a matter of dry logic to say that ‘the Everything/Absolute’ does not/cannot come and go (where would IT go) or that it doesn’t move (where would IT move to) and so on...

The nature of the Everything is flux, emergence, variation and creativity - it is ceaselessly happening - never not happening.

Thanks for the response, Moondance.

I guess I'm trying to justify the notion that Reality Itself (a.k.a. the Absolute) is just as much 'nothing' as It is 'everything'.

I think the reservations we both have with each others wordings arise from the fact that we are naturally attributing slightly different meanings to the same words. For some reason, we both feel totally justified in using the specific words we are using.

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by relinquish

Thanks for the response, Moondance.

I guess I'm trying to justify the notion that Reality Itself (a.k.a. the Absolute) is just as much 'nothing' as It is 'everything'.

I think the reservations we both have with each others wordings arise from the fact that we are naturally attributing slightly different meanings to the same words. For some reason, we both feel totally justified in using the specific words we are using.

I would agree that IT is no thing but IT is clearly not nothing - and if it were it could never be known as such. But I do understand the dilemma - we are talking here about something beyond the conceptual… via concepts.

[Busby]

I'm just rereading 'Why materialism is Baloney', a book by Dr. Bernardo Kastrup about basically the re-interpreting of reality.

This may well be out of context but here is a beautiful thought. There is nothing to the vibration of a guitar string other than the string itself, ultimately there is nothing to experience () other than the void that vibrates.
He quotes Adyashanti who called this vibrating void; 'emptiness dancing'.

[relinquish]

Originally Posted by Moondance

I would agree that IT is no thing but IT is clearly not nothing - and if it were it could never be known as such. But I do understand the dilemma - we are talking here about something beyond the conceptual… via concepts.

I'm not saying that IT is nothing, but rather that IT is just as much everything as IT is nothing. Actually, IT is neither everything nor nothing, and IT CERTAINLY isn't something, or even a vast multiplicity of somethings.

Yet IT mysteriously 'features' a lot of somethings (some of them 'conscious'), one everything, and one nothing.

Fascinating, isn't IT?