|
Thanks for the detailed reply Ewwerrin :) I understand your frustration trying to explain this in words when what's needed is a flash of intuitive insight.
I was looking into Russell's paradox today, thinking this might be an example. Non-existent things individually, and the set of all non-existence; but I don't yet grasp the concepts well enough.
Another contemplation is about the universe, which is after all a name for the whole of reality, of existence. Yet the universe is currently thought by scientists to be of finite size. But anything finite has a boundary doesn't it, by which to measure it. And if there's a boundary we can't help but wonder what's on the other side. Normally boundaries are between existent spaces, so there's no problem. But at the boundary of existence itself, when there's nothing on the other side, not space nor time, effectively there isn't another side to the boundary, is there a boundary at all?
So I wrestle with the distinction between finite and infinite. So it is with non-duality; defining a negative is bound to be harder. What is non-duality indeed. Wholeness, non-separateness, oneness, nothingness, infinity? And yet even on a physical level, the world appears both fragmented and whole.
|