why not?


(My first ever blog post, from the United States.)

1 comment:

Acrillic said...

"The Tao that can be expressed is not the eternal Tao; the name that can be defined is not the unchanging name.' Tao te Ching

'OM. This eternal word is all: what was, what is and what shall be, and what beyond is all eternity. All (is) OM.' - Mandukya Upanishad.

'In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God...All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.' - Saint John

Almost without exception the sacred writings begin their exposition of the ultimate reality without preface, argument or proof. The modern philosopher will regard this as hopeless prejudice, for to odopt the existence of the infinite or of God as one's major premise is against every rule of his science. But it cannot be otherwise, for as the reality of light cannot be proved or described in terms of visible shape., the reality of the infinite cannot be proved in terms of the finite. For this reason every attempt to prove the existence of God by logic is a forgone failure. Logic cannot reach God. It may travel backwards in time from effect to cause, effect to cause, but as long as it stays in time, as it must, it cannot touch the eternal. That which does not begin with the infinite cannot end with it. The most that can be said is that finite contingencies suggest the infinite; in no sense can they be said to prove it. The stream of existence seems to run from the infinite to the finite so that one cannot swim against it. For the purposes of discussion one can reach the infinite only by jumping upstream like a salmon, though for purposes of realization, of true knowledge, it will be seen that, flow as far as it may, the stream can never leave the infinite. - Alan Watts, The Infinite and the Finite, The Supreme identity, An essay on the Oriental Metaphysic and the Christian Religion. "