Śūnyatā can be read as the negative signature of divine sovereignty. If a truly sovereign One exists, we would expect nothing to possess being or causal power from itself. Everything would be empty of svabhāva and radically dependent, and we would find no hard boundaries between objects, or invariant seams, because the entire universe would be singular divine unfolding. But that is what we do find.
The hypothetical Sovereign One you're describing would not have to follow any rules at all, even logic.
>>42843450> hypotheticalIf one seamlessly dependent causal order doesn’t say “One is sovereign” to you what would?> not have to follow any rules at all, even logicViolating logic would not make God more sovereign… just unintelligible.
>>42843500I'm saying that if we're already talking about infinity and boundariless existence, then the "logical" turn is to recognize that inductive reasoning is completely defeated. The dependent causal order is defeated by its own existence, you might say. The noumena cannot be reached through phenomena. You cannot get closer to the infinite by walking toward it; we have an asymptotic relationship with the vertical plane. Striving further towards it is not a matter of closing the distance but recognizing what already is.God does not have to be intelligible to us, I think. If you believe in miracles, what are they if not broken logic? Violations against the demiurgic/physical code window; refuting the simulation by demonstrating Admin access.
>>42843537You don’t need to construct complex metaphysical essences or demiurge systems to perceive God. You just need to observe unity, that the field is one field, everything fitting together as one motion without separate parts.
>>42843559Which can be done without losing resolution. You're saying>Zoom outI'm saying>You can zoom in AND zoom out
>>42843380Who can grasp the nameless?Obvious, but unintelligible, without form, its design most excellent.Who can assert its mysterious purpose?By our knowledge it becomes more obscure, more remote.Without attribut, I know not its name. How free it is, it has no need of sovereignty! Kingdoms are their own despoilers.
>>42843864That's why we see the Endless Father and Eternal Mother from our vantage point. They will *always* have power over the mysteries and thus will *always* appear to be parental to us, as our parents were among the first mysterious knowledge keepers of our born lives in the garden. The true self is not confused by these things, but perhaps intrigued by them.
>>42843380>If a truly sovereign One existsThen no amount of our expectation or "this is what should be" holds any relevance of power of compulsion over such a sovereign.
>>42843864>Who can grasp the nameless?Anyone that God wants to grasp it.You are just one more person that thinks the solution to limitation is make god the most limited understanding possible.
>>42846352Logic is not compulsion. I’m saying the geometry matches, not that sovereignty means freedom from logical coherence or from being what God is.
>>42846389>Logic is not compulsionThen dont try to use it as such.>I’m saying the geometry matchesYou are trying to impose your own sense of correct onto a situation far beyond your limitations.
>>42846402I’m not saying, “God must obey my expectations.” I’m saying, “Given the hypothesis that God alone possesses underived causal sovereignty, what would creation consequently look like?” That is inference from a hypothesis, not imposing a rule upon God.
>>42846403>I’m saying, “Given the hypothesis that God alone possesses underived causal sovereignty, what would creation consequently look like?”And the ONLY answer is "Whatever God wants."You are trying to extrapolate from data as if the data sets some sort of groundwork beyond a person's whim.That is an attempt to control God.
>>42846407“Whatever God wants” does not imply that no conditional inference about God is possible. If we hypothesize specifically that God alone has underived causal power, then something else having underived causal power would contradict the hypothesis.God could create whatever forms He wills, but He cannot create a second underived source: if God created it, it is derived by definition.
>>42846420>“Whatever God wants” does not imply that no conditional inference about God is possible.It does though, because any inference assumes there is a reason, a cause, a force on God for them to act the way they do.Which means there is something outside of Gods control that must be accounted for.>but He cannotAs I said - this is all an attempt to control God.
>>42846425Inference does not require an external cause acting on God. “God cannot create an uncreated thing” is not a force controlling God. It follows from the meanings of create and uncreated. A “created uncreated thing” is simply a contradiction, like a square circle.If every logical truth counted as an external constraint on sovereignty, then even “God is God” would be an illicit attempt to control God. Your position makes meaningful statements about God impossible.
>>42846429>“God cannot create an uncreated thing” is not a force controlling God.Correct.It is a bad attempt at using human logic and language to FAIL at controlling God.>It follows from the meaningsHas no sway over God.God is not bound by definitions of words.>like a square circle.God could make a square circle.>then even “God is God” would be an illicit attempt to control GodOnly if you then go "thus God CANNOT" as you did.God is God.God can be not God, if God wants.Because God is God.>Your position makes meaningful statements about God impossible.No, it makes those statements inadmissible as limitations or steps toward a conclusion.
>>42843450Ungraspable to shallow ponds.
>>42846433Now your position is explicit: you reject the applicability of logic to God. Once you reject that, you cannot rationally infer *anything*. Your argument consumes itself.
>>42846443>Now your position is explicitIt always was.Claims of God can ONLY be top-down, from God.There is no ability to build up to a claim about God, even if what you are building upon are claims made by God.>Once you reject that, you cannot rationally infer *anything*.About God?Correct.
>>42843380This post was made by a designated street shitter.
Emptiness is just one of the many perspectives. Not the paramarthasatya. Next.
>>42846471Now you have conceded the central point: your epistemology forbids natural theology altogether. That’s a coherent position one can take, but it doesn’t refute the inference.>>42846550In Madhyamaka it precisely is paramārthasatya… for me, it’s just a self-evident fact about the geometry of separate existence.
>>42847771>your epistemology forbids natural theologyOf course. You can tell about this realm a little bit, this universe, but there is no gleaning anything about god through nature other than god wants it.And there is no reason for that wanting other than the wanting.>it doesn’t refute the inferenceYes it does. The inference has a limitation, and cannot reach to where you want.
>>42848207> thread is doing conditional metaphysics> proposed correspondence between śūnyatā and causal unicity> instead of disputing whether the geometry follows from the hypothesis, you attack the possibility of doing metaphysics about God at all> God can make contradictions true, so there is not even any shared inferential space left at all in which either side can arguetiresome & don’t know why you’re here
Why do greys and other aliens including demon believe in mother source and not the father?
>>42848315But you began with> If a truly sovereign One existsAnd now you are admitting that what you are saying has no bearing on such a one at all.I will accept you conceding that everything you have said has zero bearing on God, if that is where you want to run to.
>>42848332I don’t concede that. You have succeeded in moving me precisely 0 distance away from the original idea. Do you even know what svabhava is?
>>42848356I know it is the mark of a sophist to try and hide behind terminology.I DO know, but I also know you are likely Buddhist and have a distorted understanding of the word.And you DID concede that.> God can make contradictions true, so there is not even any shared inferential space left at all in which either side can argueAnd yet that is exactly what you are trying to do in the OP.So which is it?Can it be done or not?
>>42843864I recognize the corner of a room owned by a boomer who has a lot of money and moderate to severe hoarding tendencies but probably a maid to keep the dust from accumulating, with her lobotomized stuffed bear in the lower right
