25 thoughts on “THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-SIX

    1. Hi Jonson,

      Other than that infinite create-your-own-ending mystery novel series called The Unknown, I feel like a good answer to your question is nothingness or emptiness. That’s my rational answer – not saying I understand it. But, I’m more curious why your question is important? If the absolute comes from anything or nothing – as a freshly painted canvas – the product (the relative) still exists.

      Like

      1. Or is the Absolute the Nothingness itself? Is it the creative ground from which the relative emerges? If so, then, yes, the product/relative does exist. And yet it’s non-different from the Absolute.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Why two different words then, “absolute” and “relative”? Why talk about it in two different ways?

        I think I want to understand this from the relative level where I clearly see, have, know, and respect boundaries. I want to understand, “boundaries don’t exist in wholeness” from that place, instead of entering the conversation from the Absolute. Is it a matter of language – “absolute wholeness” vs. “relative wholeness”? That doesn’t make sense to me though. Wholeness is wholeness.

        Like

      3. Perhaps boundaries do exist in the relative. Or is it that it’s useful to perform boundaries in the relative world, even if all categories are empty and boundaries illusory?

        Liked by 2 people

      4. Do you know I like your questions JonsonMiller? I have a feeling we could Socratic Method for hours, couldn’t we? Maybe that’s the question I was looking for….do boundaries exist in the relative, and how if the relative is part of the boundless? Of course they do on some level, right? Is this a never ending circular conversation? Darn, why did anyone ever have to invent paradox?

        Re: empty categories and illusory boundaries in the relative. Such as an emergency exit on a plane? If I open it and jump mid-flight would I still make it home for dinner and be seen at the table? Only an illusion that I wouldn’t?

        Like

      5. The “I” that could be home for dinner and be seen at the table. The physical, here and now “I” that is part of the whole and all that is.

        Like

      6. It doesn’t seem like the same “I” could both jump out of the plane and be home for dinner. So it sure seems useful to distinguish between planes, dinner, and Is (what is the plural I?). Especially if Is is hungry. If Is isn’t hungry, that hopefully Is will distinguish between parachutes and gravity.

        Liked by 1 person

      7. Distinguish between planes? One with parachutes and one without?

        Still not getting it. Maybe we could meet for lunch and discuss it further? “I” IS hungry. And don’t worry, I only use extreme examples in an attempt to understand. I’ll definitely grab a parachute before I open the door.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s