Daniel

what would you like to discuss? maybe start a thread, list the ground rules at the beginning to prevent tedium?

26 is the gematria of YHVH.

Axiom #26: never argue against feminine logic.

The discussion of "when the end of consciousness comes, there’s nothing to be afraid of. Nothing at all." is a discussion about productive-emptiness, is everything just "deleted"?

Lolz.... but, but... we're discussing productive-emptiness in a thread titled 'deleted'.... ~intended in the most friendly manner~

I would not consider that 'nothingness'. I like your words "productive emptiness" or maybe "inversion"?

Nice! I was studying this chapter yesterday.

Lacking something, anything, infinite-nothing is no longer disjointed and dissappears in a puff of self-contradiction. Infinite-nothing NEEDS something, anything. And that is why I love it.

I only have the most trivial quibbles with this. I would use a different symbol. Either NULL or {} or ∅. infinite-nothing is disjointed from everything. Always and forever, in any possible world. Only when everything is included. Individually or in groups, each thing or group is itself and is not infinite.

.

0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0 ... will never = infinity which is unlke any other number.

I would argue that the infinitely large is 1 not 0. As infinity is approached the distinctions that border each individual 'thing' become less and less significant. Eventually the distinctions which border seperate each individual "thing" become infinitesimal. when infinity is achieved the distinctions become 0, there are no borders, everything becomes 1. 0 is not included in infinity. infinity is 1. this is why mathematically infinity +1 = infinity infinity +10 = infinity infinity + 100 = infinity infinity + infinity = infinity it's the ultimate tautology / identity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Sof This is a pretty good description. First paragraph of the article: Ein Sof, or Eyn Sof (/eɪn sɒf/, Hebrew: אֵין סוֹף‎ ʾēn sōf; meaning "infinite", lit. '(There is) no end'), in Kabbalah, is understood as God prior to any self-manifestation in the production of any spiritual realm, probably derived from Solomon ibn Gabirol's (c. 1021 – c. 1070) term, "the Endless One" (she-en lo tiklah). Ein Sof may be translated as "unending", "(there is) no end", or infinity.[1] It was first used by Azriel (c. 1160 – c. 1238), who, sharing the Neoplatonic belief that God can have no desire, thought, word, or action, emphasized by it the negation of any attribute. Of the Ein Sof, nothing ("Ein") can be grasped ("Sof"-limitation). It is the origin of the Ohr Ein Sof, the "Infinite Light" of paradoxical divine self-knowledge, nullified within the Ein Sof prior to creation. In Lurianic Kabbalah, the first act of creation, the Tzimtzum self "withdrawal" of God to create an "empty space", takes place from there. In Hasidic Judaism, the Tzimtzum is only the illusionary concealment of the Ohr Ein Sof, giving rise to monistic panentheism. The important point is the "withdrawl" the "empty-space" is an illusion. It's not literally withdrawl, it's not literally empty-space. empty-space does not exist.

Ain-Soph literally means "without-end" or "never-ending". It's a term meaning infinite. The field that underlies the manifested world is, if I recall. ohr-ain-soph, never-ending-light. The qabalistic zero is 'Ain' unqualified.

Neitche knows: Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you. https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_and_Evil I think the qualifier "lange" / "long" is very important here.

All my posts are in public, this is a public forum. Here in America, there is no expectation of privacy in public spaces, which, in general, within reason, means a person waives their right to privacy while in public spaces. However, I detected sarcasm in your post. Perhaps I'm wrong, or it's not clear to others, so maybe a simple confirmation of your intent would be good? Perfectly understandable. The forum permits it, anyone participating here should be OK with unlimited edits or deletes of posts. This sort of feature allows a lot of freedom to the poster to experiment with ideas, and then change their mind about posting it in part or in total. For what it's worth, no judgements from me.

Sorry. I saw the ~confused~ reaction to my post. What I meant to say is: "My question is: what is the connection between the chain cave and the shadows? There are none, right? The shadows are still shadows. The person is still a person." In context of the conversation, the OP was claiming that almost all humans are in some sort of 'chains' or 'bondage' in plato's-cave. My hope was that the OP and I would discuss the accuracy of the perception of these shadows. Accuracy is the key-point which is being ignored. So, in your question, you are asking about leaving the cave and returning. In this thought-experiment, what do you think happens when the person returns to the cave? Are the shadows still shadows? Is the person's arm still an arm? Is there any change in the individual's perceptions? I vote: no. There is no change in perception. Instead, there is a recognition that there is MORE than shadows. It's not that the shadows are false. It's that the perception has been proven to be incomplete. Then we can go back to the very first question typed in this thread... It's not a lie. it's incomplete. There's many many good reasons to trust our perceptions as accurate even though it can be fooled and impaired. But this does not discredit perception nor render all attributes and qualia void. That seems to be religious doctrine, aka dogma.

There's a converse argument made for the supremacy of 1. There's also an interesting discussion that can be had about 3s. The argument for the supremacy of 1 is very strong in my opinion. Naturally I'm biased though. It's very simple. All other numbers are constructed from the number 1. That makes it supreme. Simple, and lacking any counter-examples.

The concept exists. The content doesn't. The idea that was being introduced is the supremacy of 'zero', but zero requires at least 1 other number to define itself. That means that 0 is not and never can be supreme. If it is ever supreme, then it ceases to exist. Qabalistic zero defeats itself. Zero can only be lesser or equivilent. Perhaps it desires supremacy, but, it can't have it. So, mathematically, yes, 0 = 0 * infinity. But this does not render infinity into a subservient position. And this ignores all the counter-examples: 1+0 = 1 2+0 = 2 3+0 = 3 1-0 = 1 2-0 = 2 3-0 = 3 1/0 = infinity 2/0 = infinity 3/0 = infinity etc. "As per Crowley: "How then is the magician supposed to destroy himself"? This is how the magician destroys themself. It's a problem, or is it?

The problem is, qabalistic zero doesn't exist.

Crowley's Answer: "I ASSERT THE ABSOLUTENESS OF THE QABALISTIC ZERO."

https://genius.com/Rheas-obsession-hymn-to-pan-lyrics

Agreed. Then there's no need to talk about credentials, and how long someone's been doing this or that. No need to remind repeatedly of a title bestowed. Content defines credibility.

I simply see it differently. I do not deny the divinity of dust. I doubt you do either, but, I mean, the outer shell of the dust, the husk, so to speak. I consider it divine, but as a negation. So there is a core, like you are saying which is divine. And there's the outer shell which a negated form of divinity. Maybe in daoism it's yin, or wu? Still divine. Just not the same. If so, then divinity is literally omni-present, even present where it is "absent" and "not". Literally. It's like what I was saying to Mark. Infinity = was, is, will-be, wasn't, isn't, won't, and could-be. Omni-present = is, and isn't. Isn't has two forms. Isn't = Not and Null ( the serpent and it's partner in crime ) All of it is divine, in different ways. And that's why the serpent and it's partner are so tempting. Because when they whisper, "join me, I have the power you are seeking, I'm right here, right next to you, all you need to do is snatch it", they're not lying. It's true. And they are close, they are the wrapping, the husk, the shell that veils the divinity that "is", literally. Drawing from what "is" is much more difficult than drawing from what "isn't". The shells, the husks, are close, and the core is buried underneath, and takes work to reveal it. But, if a person can take a shortcut and draw from the divinity of "Not" and "Null" ... as they say "why not?" And that is the #1 reason people make bad choices, right? a little voice whispers, "why not?"

I hear you. I'm just wondering how far back this disconnect in the dharma transmission goes. If it was broken when buddhism was brought to the west, that would explain a lot of what I am observing, and the OP is observing. The dharma is not actually being transferred, but priests are being ordained anyway, and it's been happening for a long time? If so, pretty much none of the priests and teachers are going to practicing dharma, teaching dharma, or living dharma. Edit: ... in the west. pretty much none in the west.