Daniel

Assumption ^^ Judaism rejected the canaanite "milieu". Rejection is the opposite of syncretic. A common misconception. ^^ Nope. Jewish kabalah is found in Tanach. So it's not borrowing nor influenced by it. If they were worshipping egyptian gods, they were not practicing judaism. It really is simple. Leviticus: 18:3 כמעשה ארץ־מצרים אשר ישבתם־בה לא תעשו וכמעשה ארץ־כנען אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה לא תעשו ובחקתיהם לא תלכו׃ After the doings of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, shall you not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, where I bring you, shall you not do; nor shall you walk in their ordinances. The fact that some people, or even many people did it, is irrelevant. That confirms the story in the hebrew bible. None the less, it's an assumption that there were no monotheistic jews in the area. The wiki article below indicates otherwise. In the course of this appeal, the Jewish inhabitants of Elephantine speak of the antiquity of the damaged temple: Now our forefathers built this temple in the fortress of Elephantine back in the days of the kingdom of Egypt, and when Cambyses came to Egypt he found it built. They (the Persians) knocked down all the temples of the gods of Egypt, but no one did any damage to this temple. Notice the distinction? Their forefatthers built the temple to YHVH, the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob. And persians didn't knock it down. That specific temple was not egyptian. IOW, not syncretic. It's different. the papyri show that the Jews at Elephantine sent letters to the high priest in Jerusalem asking for his support in re-building their temple, which seems to suggest that the priests of the Jerusalem Temple were not enforcing Deuteronomic law at that time. Cowley notes that their petition expressed their pride at having a temple to Ya'u Yahweh (no other god is mentioned in the petition) and gave no suggestion that their temple could be heretical. What most don't know is, the common jews did not learn the law nor study it until around 200 bce. They were known as am-ha-aretz. The people of the earth. It's written about in the mishnah. There's halachic concerns about working with the am-ha-aretz regarding whether or not to asssume that produce rec'd from them had been tithed properly. First of all. Some things are simple. Some things are complex. When it comes to syncretism and polythesim, it's really simple. That you don't like it really doesn't change anything. Regarding judaism as a religion, it is a "revealed" religion. That means it has scripture which is deemed to be revealed, known, extant. That really is all there is to it. I am not bothered in the slightest with labeling it fundementalist, nor wahabi, nor bible-thumper, nor any of that. It's just a simple fact. These arguments about whether it is editted, or revised, or altered, or corrupted, are all valid discussions to have. But. When it comes to polytheism and syncretism the entire story would have to be rewritten, top to bottom, in order to reverse it into polytheistic syncretism. Which is why I said, they didn't need to be there. You can call it fact... that doesn't make it fact. Hebrews 8... 1 Corithians 15... If you recall I asked if Jesus could be connected to learning platonism. I didn't ask about the author referred to as "Paul". None the less I'll re-read those and get back to you. "... they're right there in Paul." <---- not Jesus. Judaism is not a moving target when it comes to polytheism and syncretism.

It's called creativity. It's a cognitive function. Here's a study I was referring to in the other thread on non-duality. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050914004992

Inference or deduction confirmed by experimentation.

I don't want to go too deep into this. This isn't the proper venue. The best I can say, I think, is, there's a method to the madness. If you want to discuss it in more depth, maybe send me a private message.

You're making quite a lot of assumptions. For example: Monotheism predates judaism? In the other thread I referred you to archeological evidence of jewish monotheism. You have a date for that 900BCE. I suppose I can search for the archeology report from the excavation. Hopefully I still have it saved somewhere. Which monotheistic religion predates it? It's not the Persians. Contrary to popular belief Zoroastarianism is not monotheistic. It looks like it until you read the gathas where there are multiple devas. Do people say it's monotheistic? Sure. Have they read the gathas? Nope. Ignoring the label monotheism, if the gathas and avestas are read there is virtually zero similarities between zoroastarianism and judaism. Zero. So where is the influence? What's shared between them? ( I'm asking rhetorically. I know what people claim is shared between them. The foremost authority on it is ... Boyce, Boyles.... ummm.. I have her book. I've researched the arguments they're all lacking. ) I just checked. Mary Boyce. The problemm here is the inherent bias. Mary Boyce is in-love with zoroastarianism. So she's natually going to see their influence everywhere even if it doesn't exist. And if she isn't an expert on judaism, then, she's going to make some rather massive blunders. The same thing happens with sumerian genesis myths. Have you actually read them? Do you know what they are? Have you read the Enuma Elish? Did you know that the earlier version has zero correspondence with the genesis myths? None! The Enuma Elish has adapted over time. The oldest version is 2000BCEish. Nothing matches. In 1000BCEish after there was contact with judiasm, there are minor matches. A sentence or two has similarity. Then, the version that is most common that people read is, I think, from 700BCEish. That one has 2 or 3 decent matches with genesis. 2 or 3 similarites out of 1000+ lines of text. The entire story is different! But a few things are the same. Then, the Enuma Elish shows up again in another adpated version around 300CE. That one, yes, more similarities. But it's still nothing at all like the genesis creation myth. What this shows is a consistent trend of the Enuma Elish changing over time, becomiing closer and closer to the genesis myth. The Akkaidans, if you research it have a track record for doing this. They were adopting other people's religions as they conquered them. This is what they did. Compare that to the jewish scripture which discourages it. Why would jewish "prophets" take someone else's story if they are preaching don't mix with the others? It makes no sense. Borrowing frommt he others encourages mixing. It validates tthe other's beliefs. That's why the Akkadians did it. They wanted the other peoples to join them. "We believe what you believe, now, join our empire." Jews said the opposite: "We don't believe what you believe, please don't join us." If you read the epic of gilgamesh, the same thing happens there. There's multiple versions. The first version has zero similarity at all. There isn't even a flood in it! Then, I think it's arround the same time 1000BCE, poof! A flood shows up in the story. What happened around 1000BCE? The ( 2nd? ) iron age collapse. It was a catalytst for a great deal of mixing of peoples, a massive poswer struggle. Adopting other people's myths was a way to solidfy the masses. "Why are you so opposed to judaism being influenced by other traditions?" It needs to be true, my-dude. If it's not true, and it's just rumors, I'm going to push back against it. Don't you care about whether or not it's true? Mayybe ask yourself this: "Why aren't any of the sources your watching on youtube ( or maybe reading in books ) telling you there are multtiple versions of the Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh? Why aren't they telling you that the early versions have NO matches with Genesis at all?"

Chosen people? Not really. It can't be a chosen people because it's not a bloodline, it's not genetic. We accept converts, but strongly discourage it. God did choose to have a nation set apart. The question is, set apart for what? We have a rather difficult set of rules to follow. None of us are exempt ( although the women have much more freedom ). Once a Jew, always a Jew. There is no escaping it. There are benefits, of course, but, it doesn't make us greater just different. Judaism is special because it permits approaching the divine on a very high level without losing our sense of self nor losing the capability for accurately assessing right from wrong. It's also a huge religion inspite of our minimal number of adherents. There is a cornucopia of opportunity to encounter the divine in Judaism. That's the benefit of having so many laws. Each one is an opportunity.

It's not a problem for me. Strangely, it's a benefit. But that's a long story. Maybe think of it this way? There is no evidence for almost ANYTHING in the Torah the way it is described. By the time you've gotten to the exodus: 7 days of creation talking serpent Adam lives to be nearly 1000 an impossibly large ark an impossible weather event an impossible flood all the earth sharing a language a tower being constructed to heaven abimelech's entire household is cursed in an impossible manner abram's small houehold ( soon to be abraham ) conquers 5 other nations the man circumcises himself has a child at 99 jacob does some weird stuff mating the sheep each of the 10 plagues is impossible the splitting of the red sea is impossible There's no evidence for any of it. It's fine.

Everything? LOL. No. My belief is this is what God revealed to me and the jewish people at sinai. How that happened is a expression of extremely imaginative thinking. Although, that sort of imaginative thinking has produced very good results for those of us who practice it, so, I don't discourage it in myself or others.

It's never been polytheism. It's never been greek. Once it includes other religions, it has violated the Torah and it stops being Judaism. Judaism cannot call itself Judaism if it is denying the Torah. Different interpretations can happen. Differences of opinion *always* happen. But that cannot ever be syncretic. That is not Judaism. A great example is homosexuality. Perfect example. The conventional view is... harsh. There's another view which is extremely permissive. The method for making it permissive is going to the verses and very carefully reading the words, hyperliterally, which does not actually prohibit homosexuality. In this way, the permissive point of view is certainly jewish. The one who is carefully reading the text IS practicing Judaism. There's another way to be permissive. It too involves going to the Torah and reading it carefully. That is also Judaism. But simply saying I'm influenced by my surroundings, and my neighbors ,therefore homosexuality is kosher.... That's not practicing Judaism. It cannot ever be that way. That makes the Torah a historical suggestion not divine. Aren't those debates post-Jesus, post-epistles, and post-gospels? If you'd like to discuss each of those concepts, maybe link to some defintions and their corresponding verses in the Christian bible? I'm not asking for those words specifically to be in the verses, just the word, defintion, and a link to the scriptures which include them. Honestly any example of platonism attributed to Jesus would work well. Then it'll be interesting to see if I can source it the hebrew bible. ( I'm guessing it'll be in psalms or isaiah, Jesus loves psalms and isaiah. ) Before replying I went to refresh myself on platonism, to make sure I wasn't forgetting anything. Yes, during the 2nd temple period there is linguistic borrowing. Words were borrowed. I don't see any theological or mystical concepts being borrowed. In fact I see some sharp contrasts. And since most acaddemics are not well versed in the hebrew bible nor our mystical tradtion, they have no clue what connections are happening in the christian bible. No clue. I am shocked that Luke 10 is not on anyone's radar. That is like a bright blinking neon sign: "Jewish mystic was here." Is there anything, anywhere, in platonism that explains that reference to 72 ( or 70 depending on the manuscript ) along with the directions given. And the reference to the kingdom of god? What's the platonic view of that chapter? The thread is asking about the Christian bible, not, the debates which occured later.

You keep asserting that there is a thought producing the letter "g" when the word thought is recalled from vocabulary, but, you have not articulated it other than "g is g in the word thought". This is a tautology. Is there anything more that can be expressed about the letter "g" in the word "thought" other than its identity: "g is g in the word thought"? Similarly, is there anything that can be expressed about the letter "u" in the word "thought" other than "u is the letter u in the word thought"? What is the thought for "identity". Being-ness. Can you articulate it? If you cannot articulate it, how do you know it is a thought other than assuming it is, because, you do not have any other word to describe it? It's not just any memory. It's a forgotten-memory. That's a specific type of memory. How does a forgotten-memory surface in the mind? It's a mystery. The science of forgetting-and-remembering is in the majority at this time not understood. Please notice. When I do not know the source of a phenomenon, or the mechanism which is producing it, I do not place it in any category other than "unknown". This is true absolute ambivilance. It is literally having no like nor dislike for the phenomenon. If I placed the forgotten-memory in the category of "thought", then, that shows a preference for the category "thought". However, there is an interesting correlation between the remembering the forgotten-memory and having an epiphany. The liklihood of both remembering the forgotten-memory and having an epiphany greatly increases in the absence of thought. Un-thinking encourages the phenomena. This is good reason to exclude both the forgotten-memory and the epiphany from the realm of thought. The forgotten-memory which is remembered exists beyond thought. The forgotten-memory which is remembered exists prior to appearing in the mind. When it is remembered it is a thought appearing in the mind. Before it is remembered, it is not thought. A great example of this is when a word is temporaily forgotten. In english the expression used is "it's on the tip of my tongue". The individual knows the word exists, but cannot think if it. The word exists but is not a thought which has appeared in the mind. They can feel it. It's the same thing that happens when I know I have a great idea, but, I don't know what the idea is yet. I can feel the idea "percolating" for lack of a better word, but I don't have any thoughts of it yet. This aspect of creativity is outside of the scope of thought. I can understand the desire to force everything into the category of thought, but, this would violate the previously stated principle "I have no like nor dislike". Forcing everything to be "thought" is liking "thought" and disliking every other category. "What else could it be?" is an argument from ignorance which is the root cause of dillusion. If it is not known, then labeling it "unknown" is the only way to satisfy all three conditions: "I have no like, nor dislike, nor dillusion." Edit: there is another category which includes both the known and the unknown, both thought and not-thought. That category is "truth". "Truth" is the best fit so far for any english word describing non-dual.

Hellenized? That is against judaism. What makes you think 2nd Temple Judaism is hellenized? The original source for this goes back to joshua: לא־ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך והגית בו יומם ולילה למען תשמר לעשות ככל־הכתוב בו כי־אז תצליח את־דרכך ואז תשכיל׃ This Book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth; but you shall meditate on it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written on it; for then you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall have good success. It shall not depart means no greek philosophy is permitted. This can be linked to moses, to whom it would have originally come from the lord at sinai. So, no. hellenization is not judaism. Are you able to connect Jesus to learning plato?

There is no thought of the letter 'g' described in what you wrote above. Let's try again. Here is what you wrote: "You got I am Daniel-Joseph without a single thought?" What was your thought about the letter "g" in "thought"? When you typed your reply, where is the thought of 'g' in 't-h-o-u-g-h-t'? Why include it? What is the signifcance of it. What is the thought of 'g' in your mind while you were typing it? ... which is in large part thoughtless. Not in a bad way. In a good way. it's natural. What was your thought about the letter 'h' in the word 'r-i-g-h-t'? What is the significance of it? What was your thought about that letter? I think the honest answer is, you weren't thinking of the letter 'h' at all. It's just a letter which is automatically included in the word 'right' when the word 'right' is recalled from your vocabulary. Everytime you type a reply or form a word. The components which make up the words produced have no corresponding thought. If they did, you would be able to tell me the significance of the letters chosen and why.

Some were. Some weren't. There's good archeological evidence, Temple-Tel-Arad, showing strict monotheism matching the biblical narrative going back to 900BCE. Monotheism would have predated this. In order to have a massive temple and the infrastructure supporting it, monotheism was popular at that time. It's origin would be much much earlier. You're wrong. People simply don't have the complete picture. Having a PHD does not convey perfection nor lack of bias. For you, you seem to be polytheistic, and you seem to be looking for ways to somehow escape the simple truth that the abrahamic religions of your heritage are not in anyway polytheistic. It's not true. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all monotheistic religions. If you don't like it, if you think it's wrong, if you prefer the others... great. But that doesn't permit rewriting the other religions so that you can be both abrahamic and polytheistic. Hasn't this been asked and answered before? The influence is polemic. In other words, paganism is rejected. That's the influence.

Just denial.

Jesus is jewish. Which is why Judaism is needed.

Oh! I have a good one! In Luke... ~googling~ Right. Luke 10. 1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two a others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. 2 He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. 3Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. 4 Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road. 5 “When you enter a house, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’ 6 If someone who promotes peace is there, your peace will rest on them; if not, it will return to you. 7 Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house. 8 “When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is offered to you. 9 Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ There's so much going on here... But there is no doubt: Jesus knows what to do.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem_HaMephorash https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/1388270/jewish/72-Names-of-G-d.htm It's the theory and practice of "making miracles". "Making miracles" is more-or-less "Magic", but, there's debate on the difference between "magic" and "miracle". Naturally folks aren't going to appreciate the idea of Jesus working magic. But there shouldn't be any objections to Jesus bringing down a miracle, especially if there's written precedent where another "prophet" ( another term with debatable meaning and implications ) does the same thing in perfect harmony with the will of the most high, YHVH. That's why the example I brought from Luke is so good. It's connected to what Moses did. In short: occult ideologies are loopholes in the fabric of reality. Exploiting them is a grey area where the one working the magic might do great harm to themself or others either intentionally or unintentionally.

I think it has evolutionary advantage. It's well known what happens to a child developing in isolation from language. They do not develop in a healthy manner. So, turn back the sands of time and imagine what it would be like for a very primitive version of what would eventually evolve into a human mind. The one which talked to itself would thrive because the mind is further developing itself. There's also the notion that all language is symbolism and pattern recognition. This also has survival benefit if the symbols and patterns are recognized accurately. Conversely, this inner dialogue can cause all sort of neurotic behavior. This is what has produced the trend to silence the inner dialogue. You can probably predict what I prefer ( do both ).

Agreed. Let's use that. Chaitanya. I was hoping we could abandon the english. I was going to propose "X". Lol. The observation is in chaitanya. You asked: "without a single thought, can you tell me who/what you are?” Answer: Yes, I can. Not always. Anytime something is forgotten, when it is remembered it was as if it was never forgotten at all. This means that the memory is not always a thought. It exists without thought. If it was dependent on thought then it could not be forgotten and then later remembered. The remembering would not have an anchor which produces recognition. What are the thoughts about "g" and "m" when you typed them? What is their significance in the words you chose to type? Why did you type "g" and why did you type "m"? Who or what are they in relation to the intended meaning? The point is that communication does not require thoughts. Sometimes they simply flow. Artists report this sort of behavior. But it actually happens anyttime words are formed. Most people don't realize it.

I know. This is debatable, but, it doesn't matter as long as we are using the same words with the same meanings. So far, what you're describing as awareness isn't literally awareness. What's being described as emptiness isn't literally emptiness. Yes, space is not empty. So, if you would like to describe a cup which is empty, more clarification is needed. If it is not literally empty, what is in it? I was clear originally that if the cup is literally empty then ... I would have very much appreciated clarification after that reply that the cup is not literally empty. Other than thoughts commanding the fingers to type, I have to work to produce any thoughts about it. It is a tautology. I am Daniel-Joseph. Daniel-Joseph is me. Even the typing is mostly automatic lacking any conscious thought. What are your thougths about the letters used to construct the sentence: "You got I am Daniel-Joseph without a single thought?" What were your thoughts when typing the letter "m"? What were your thoughts when typing the letter "g"?

It is complicated. It is not simple. If it is literally empty, then "space" is non-existence. It is non-being. It is acosmic. Discussion of any phenomenon of non-existence is complicated. Starting at the beginning. If space is literally empty then it is non-existence. If the cup exists then the cup is not space and the space is not the cup. This immediately disqualifies literal empty space from what you are describing as non-dual. If it suffuses through and through, then it is not literal emptiness. Literal emptiness does not suffuse through and tthrough the cup. Implications: 1) If space is literally empty, then there is no difference between the outside of the cup and the inside of the cup. The same thought experiment can be executed using any object of any form of any substance. It could be a vessel or a solid object. 2) If space is literally empty, then, space does not move. Space is non-existence. Non-existence does not move. 3) If space is literally empty, then, it is not contained in anything. Space is non-existence. Non-existence is not contained. 4) If space is literaly empty, then, objects do not move in it. Space is non-existence. There is nothing for an object to move in. 5) If space is literally empty, then objects do not move through it. Space is non-existence. There is nothing for an object to move through. Agreed so far? Non-existence is acosmic. It's existence is non-existence. If it is created, it is created via destruction. If it is asserted, it is a negation. everything is flip-flopped when discussing it. It's an acosmic concept. In dialetics in hebrew non-existence is מכרח. Literally, it is "from necessity" which is forced as a consequence. Non-existence literally does not exist. In isolation non-existence literally does... not ... exist. The only way to create non-existence is to start with existence and remove it. That's exactly what happens when the cup is moving. The cup is moving forward. The front of the cup is displacing the non-existence which is front of it. ( using acosmic language, where everything is flip-flopped: the front of the cup is displacing the existence which isn't in front of it ). The existence of the back of the cup is replacing the existence in front of it which is the front of the cup. Non-existence is replacing the back of the cup. ( using acosmic language where everything is flip-flopped: existence isn't replacing the back of the cup. ) Let's look at it mapped out. If the cup exists, and the space is literally empty, then, the cup is not the space and the space is not the cup. Non-existence is symbolized by dots. The cup is symbolized by "cup". The "p" is the front of the cup. The "c" is the back of the cup. The cup is moving forward in a straight line. .cup......................................... .......cup................................... .............cup............................. ...................cup....................... .........................cup................. ...............................cup........... .....................................cup..... As the "cup" is moving forward the "p" forcibly, מכרח, displaces the "dot" in front of it. What is happening to the "dot"? The non-existence in front of the cup is annihilated. However, because it is acosmic, it is annihilated via creation not destruction. Everything is flip-flopped when considering an acosmic concept like non-existence. When the "p" displaces non-existence, non-existence is gone. Poof. Non-existence doesn't move. And. Strangely. It's gone-ness is being-ness, because, it is acosmic. As the cup is moving forward the "u" forcibly, מכרח, replaces the "p". The "c" forcibly, necessarily, מכרח, replaces the "u". When the "c" replaces the "u", non-existence is acosmically, forcibly, necessarily, מכרח, is being "created" via the absence of the "c". The non-existence followng the "c", following the cup as it moves is all new. It's not the non-existence from in-front moving to the rear. Non-existence doesn't move. Instead the non-existence following the "c". The non-existence replaces the "c", acosmically, nothing from something. The same exact mapping and thought experiment can be accomplished when considering the literally-empty-vessel. The sides of the vessel move in the same way. Each side has a front and back. As it moves when considering the non-existence which acosmically is in ( but actually isn't in ) the vessel, it operates exactly the same as a solid object. The non-existence is displaced bby the existence. Poof, it's banished from the realm. Then as the sides of the vessel move, non-existence poofs into acosmic existence ( which is non-existence ) replacing the existence with vacuity. So. Literal emptiness does not move. It is displaced and replaced. If so, it's not like space. What your describing is clarity, it's not emptiness. It's empty of anything other than itself and the object which is being observed. Naturally this will cause a conflict if both the object itself and the awareness of it are considered identical in error. If they were identical, then there is no frame of reference. In english this is described by the expression "blinded by the light". There is so much light the individual cannot distinguish any thing one from the other. This is how I would describe it. I like the clear light analogy, because it superimposes over the object which is being observed. But it is not empty, it's full, but, translucent. If this is the model for explaining clarity, pure-concsiousness, truth, then the cup moving example makes sense. Now it fits beautifully. This is done in math, and physics all the time. It's actually done in all of science. The pure-concsiousness is the 3-d ,x,y,z, coordinate system. it is an infinite cube of space. It appears empty, but, it's not. It's full of invisible dots which can be described as a series of 3 numbers designated x,y,z consecutively. If I want to clearly observe any object I can overlay this 3 dimesional construct on the object. Then all of the dots which are not the object are flagged as non-existence. Now the object is isolated from all the others, and, ( most important ) there is a fixed reference point at the center from which all other aspects of the object can be compared. If I use the same exact fixed reference point for all objects and the same 3-d construct, then I have a clear awareness of each object. If I have a cup which is empty. There is a point in the center of the cup ( 1,1,1 ). When the cup is moved ( 1,1,1 ) does not move no matter what I do to the cup. It doesn't matter if the cup is full or if the cup is empty. ( 1,1,1 ) = ( 1,1,1 ) always and forever. ( 1,1,1 ) is always and forever true. It the same for any of the coordinates in the 3-d construct: ( 1,2,3 ), ( 1,3,4 ), ( 5,5,5 )... It doesn't matter. In order for this to work consistently, the 3-d construct needs to be fixed and reproducible in the same way each time. Because of this it makes sense to have a method to "zero" it. To nullify it. To flag the entire construct as non-existence. But cannot be literally zero'd out because then there is no frame of reference. There would also need to be a way to isolate the phenomena being observed from other observations. Futher, it doesn't need to be 3 dimenstions, it could be 2 or 4 or 5 or 100 or 1000. These additional dimensions permits observing qualities in addition to the 3 dimensional form simultaneously with its form. It wouldn't be something that can be drawn onto paper, but, it can still occur in the mind. That's it. Pure-consciousness. Aka "truth". It's not literally empty. It starts with everything, then that everything is flagged as non-existence. This non-existence is overlayed onto a filtered isolated phenomenon via mindfulness. From this pure-consciousness produces two simultaneous types of awareness. It is simultaneously aware of what it is and simultaneously aware of what it is not. It is lacking all judgements and attachments to the phenomonon itself which would compromise clarity. It must remain almost completely translucent, but not literally empty. It must remain detached so that the next observable phenomenon is not compromised by the previous one. The observation of time and space appear in pure-consciousness. If it were beyond it, then physical time and space would not appear in it. if it is beyond it then they are isolated from each other. Pure-concsiousness is beyond not limited to observations of time and space. OK. Yes. I am Daniel-Joseph. Those letters are attached to my identity so strongly that they are produced without thought. It is a tautology. I have to do work in order to produce thoughts about it. Naturally there are no thoughts at all when giving out my name. You can do the same expereiment and produce the same results as you are typing your reply. Are any thoughts produced as the letters are chosen to express your thoughts in writing? The letters are part of the words so intimately there is no thought at all when placing them in the correct sequence to produce the word you are choosing to express your thought. What are your thoughts about each letter you are typing in the words you are choosing for your next reply?

Apologies for the late reply. I did not see your post. We are one entity. We are one entity with multiple dimensions. The others are required to define myself. The flip-side of the coin is flipped. It is not identical although it appears that way. If the flip-side is purely oppositional, then purely opposing it is a defeat for me. If I am purely opposing pure oppostion, then both sides of the coin are now identical, I am no longer distinguished from it. Is there a side of you which would enjoy rape? Or. Are you defined as one who could never enjoy rape? Does this have anything to do with society? I could never enjoy rape. If someone held a gun to my head and threatened my life if I did not rape someone, I would look them in the eye with cold resolve and say "go ahead and pull the trigger." If they treatened to torture me, my family, my dog, I would look them in the eye and say, "go ahead and torture us." Even if it were eternal torture. So be it. We discuss these things in Judaism. My family knows and understands there are certain lines none of us will ever cross. They would never want me to be a rapist. Threats of death and torture are not and never will be currency for us. Those sort of threats can never be used to manipulate us. All of us are in agreement about this. These are not repressions from society. They are always and forever wrong. They're not wrong because they're written in books. The books teach how to know that it is wrong. Exactly. And if there was repression, then there will naturally be a strong rebound effect. The rebound is not likely to be accurate either. Most people find purpose in making a family and parenting children. I would easily sacrifice myself for them. Having a family brings a tremendous amount of perspective. Even if there are barriers to having offspring that does not prohibit making a family and parenting. If you are struggling and you are in contact with your parents, maybe let them know what's going on? Connecting with one's parents is a great way to reaffirm one's true identity.

If it is literally empty, the void does not move. Emptiness is displaced and replaced as the cup moves. How does this relate to comparing awareness to space? suffuses all phenomena through and through.... OK, ok. I think I have a good english word in mind for this. Better than "awareness", better than "God". If satisfies all conditions excluding "neither verb nor noun." This word is a noun. You suffuse the mind but are not the mind? You suffuse the intellect, the ego, reflections of inner self, but are none of these? You suffuse the five senses, but you are not the five senses? If you suffuse them through and through, then, "beyond" is not a good word choice. You are not limited by any of them? If so, this is why "awareness" is not a good word choice for "you". Awareness is limited. It cannot probe below the surface of anything other than itself. You are none of them, you suffuse them through and through? I like the word choice "pure-consciousness". It's much better than "awareness". Although it is important to note that "pure-conciousness" is a noun. I would never deny your eternity. Although there is a problem including known if the unknown is excluded. There is a great deal that you and I do not know. 1) Lacking all like and all dislike is a absolute ambivalence. Absolute ambivalence is ambivalent about ambivalence which means that it might include liking and/or disliking. 2) There are at least one which you dislike: self-deception. There is at least one which you like: self-purity. Agreed. Agreed if and only if you dislike self-deception. Agreed. You have a duty to yourself? I strongly disagree. Your purpose is to be yourself? If this were true, you would never reveal yourself. You will never be free of yourself. You are indeed, eternal knowing, unknowing and bliss. You do not possess any of these, but you suffuse them all through and through? Agreed. You do not need anything other than yourself. You are none of them, but without you they are meaningless. This is your purpose, where you are being yourself. This is your home. You are indeed pure-consciousness known in english as "truth". I am true and so are you. I am a body and a soul. This is true. The body is born, grows old, gets sick, and dies. This is true. The soul is a collection of talents, flaws, affinties, aversions, and lineage or lack of lineage. This is true. Lacking awareness is true when it is true. Denying significance is true when it is true. False statements which are known to be false are true. Delusion which is revealed is true. Ignorance which is known as ignorance is true. Self-deception is not true. Impure truth is not true. Truth does not like self-deception. Truth likes purity in itself.

Not an emergent property, ok. Would you consider it noun or verb? Neither, both? Something else? I'm struggling with the comparisson with space.

"the awareness that illuminates my mind is the same as that which illumines all minds" <----- agreed. In a similar way, the circulation through my heart is the same as the circulation through all hearts?