Relinquish

What is constantly changing it's shape is the radiance OF the radiant shapelessness. Think of the shapelessness as a 'ground', and the shape as a 'growth'. The ground is ever-changeless, and the growth is ever-changing.

I flirted with that idea for a time, but eventually came to see it as one of the biggest cop-outs in the history of science and philosophy. Just my interpretation. ☺

Fair enough. I guess I am using the word 'shape' to mean 'specific objective nature'. The universe has a specific objective nature, in that it IS a certain way and ISN'T any other way. It seems to me that that most fundamental philosophical question is "why is there something rather than nothing?". It seems reasonable enough to answer that question by saying that there simply CAN'T be nothing, and that something is inevitable. Fine. But why is there THIS something rather than the potentially infinite amount of other conceivable somethings? Surely the something that exists is being constrained (and therefore caused) to be the way that it is. What could be the constraining cause of the specific objective nature of this apparently ultimate something that we call the universe? Wouldn't this constraining cause have to be, itself, absolutely unconstrained and causeless (and therefore, completely non-specific)?

So the speculations in my last post are false?

Do you ever experience 'changelessness'? I speculate that you don't. Do you ever experience 'structurelessness'? I speculate that you don't. Do you ever experience absolute symmetry? I speculate that you don't. Does anyone with properly working senses ever experience any of these three? I speculate that they don't.

I would suggest that homogeneity being observed by us at sufficiently large scales is entirely dependent upon the limitation of our own vantage point. Scales are only 'larger' or 'smaller' relative to the observer. My assertion that the universe has a shape (and is therefore finite) is based upon the existence of surfaces, which could logically not exist in a shapeless universe. Look at all the un-occupied space that surrounds all of these surfaces. My assertion that the universe has the overall shape of an 'ever-changing structured asymmetry' is based upon the fact that this is what is being experienced at all times.

I know this answer will considered to be far too vague, but it seems to me that at all perceivable scales of universe, what we see is 'ever-changing structured asymmetry'. Why should we not expect the overall finite shape of the universe to be the same? It is happening in the 'ever-changeless structureless symmetry' that is infinite space.

If one wanted to tell the WHOLE story of any particular 'thing' or 'event' in the universe, one would have to tell the entire story of the universe. Fundamentally, all things and events have the same story. In other words, the only event that is ACTUALLY happening is the universe, as one seamless whole. Neither the tree, nor either of your two supernovae (or any other independently existing thing or event) actually exist in any non-conceptual way.

Absolutely right, and that means that in any given moment, the universe does indeed have a shape, or at least is not shapeless. It's overall shape is unknowable, but that is irrelevant to my position that it must have a constraining cause. Every single surface (be it perceivable or imperceivable) is part of the overall shape of the universe. In a shapeless universe, no surfaces would exist. The fact that the universe has a shape indicates that it can not be infinite. What we call 'space', on the other hand, is absolutely shapeless and unconstrained, and is therefore infinite and eternal. It's causeless, radiant presence is the cause of the universe and the only constraint upon it's overall shape. The reason why this is is absolutely unknowable.

Evidently the universe has apparently discernable features. What sort of features would a shapeless universe have? What would an unconstrained shape look like?

Thanks for your engaging reply, Strange. ☺ Firstly, no, I don't believe that evidence IS needed to support my claims that there can be no such thing as either a shapeless universe or an unconstrained shape. These are both self evident facts that are ultimately SO obvious that they can very easily be overlooked, so I'm just pointing them out. If the existence of a shape is absolutely dependent upon it's constraint, then it's constraint can also be regarded as it's cause.

The fact that the universe is utterly inextricable from 'shape' (which cannot exist at all without 'constraint') directly indicates that it is absolutely dependent. In other words, the universe cannot occur without a 'Cause'. In this sense, the universe can be regarded as the 'Eternal Radiance' of Causeless Shapelessness itself. In truth, ALL 'things' and 'events' (including 'ourselves') are actually conceptually delineated, 'apparently discernable impermanent features' of this Radiance. Evidently, any given 'particular thing' (for example, a 'tree') exists in a state of constant change, which is to say that 'the tree' is in fact a 'process' rather than a 'thing'. This process can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are 'not the tree', and are naturally comprised of 'other processes', ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are 'not those other processes', and are naturally comprised of 'other other processes', ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present, and so on, ad infinitum. Therefore, 'the tree' could not possibly be occurring in exactly the way that it is without the ENTIRETY of 'not the tree' (i.e. the rest of the universe) occuring in exactly the way that it is. In this way, 'the tree' naturally includes the entirety of the rest of the universe within it's own existence, and so there is no REAL difference between 'the tree' and 'not the tree'. As such, neither 'the tree' nor 'not the tree' exist in Reality. Exactly the same is true of ALL 'particular processes', including 'Me' and 'Not Me' (and 'You' and 'Not You'). In truth, the necessary distinctions between all the different processes are purely conceptual, and so, do not ACTUALLY exist in any way at all. If this Radiance COULD have had another shape, It WOULD have had another shape. Because there is no way to know why It COULDN'T have had another shape, there is no way to know why It has the shape that It has. Likewise, the true nature of the Causeless Shapelessness (that is to say, the actual reason WHY It is radiant at all, and why 'experiencing' apparently happens at particular 'times' and 'places' within It's Radiance) is absolutely unknowable. If the 'ceaseless change' that is this Radiance had an absolute beginning, that beginning would also be the ending of a prior 'beginningless absence of change'. If it had an absolute ending, that ending would also be the beginning of a subsequent 'endless absence of change'. Such a situation is an absolute impossibility. Therefore, this 'ceaseless change' MUST be eternally cyclic. Apparently, some of the 'conscious features' of the Radiance are of such an extreme level of physical complexity that they have the natural capacity to become 'hypnotized' by their surroundings. This hypnosis makes it SEEM to these extremely complex conscious features (a.k.a. intelligent body/mind life-forms) that all the apparently discernable features of the Radiance (including themselves) are in fact 'solely self-inclusive forms' (which is to say, that they are all fundamentally existing separate things that have their own independent nature), and that they themselves have their own personal consciousness and are the separate, autonomous originators of their own particular movements. As such, the absolute harmony that naturally exists between all the features of the Radiance seems to be 'hidden' from these hypnotized conscious features. Instead, they perceive a situation that seems confusingly fragmented, hostile and threatening. This is the illusion of multiplicity, seperateness and duality. Perceiving this, the hypnotized conscious features are bound to suffer. Where this hypnosis is not present, there can be no suffering. Because after all, there is ONLY Radiant Shapelessness. Thanks for reading. ☺