Essay 1

The Fundamental Metaphysical Inquiry and How It  Serves Objective Science    

                                                                                                                  By Marilynn Stark

Everything in the realm known as the universe shares one thing in common: existence.  Only if in the further abstract observation time is included as to the question of the phenomenon of existence, is the dialectical opposite of existence,  non-existence, imposed upon the metaphysical inquiry, for in the gross physical reality we can perceive across time certain entities undergo dissolution and death as well as change through time.  The metaphysical inquiry most fundamentally concerns the question of what is the nature of reality; however, since the definitions of the words essential to a meaningful discourse on metaphysics must be clear, let us clarify first the word metaphysics.  

According to the American Heritage Dictionary metaphysics is defined as, "The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality  . . .  ."  Etymologically, the word metaphysics  means ' transcending (meta) or after (meta) the natural science (phusica or physica)'.  Thus, as according to this dictionary, in the archaic sense the meaning of physics is, "The study of the natural or material world and phenomena; natural philosophy," whereas to understand that which is transcendent to the natural phenomenon of the physical world the discourse will concern metaphysics.  However, in the strict meaning of the same branch of science, metaphysics, derived from the ancient source afforded us from India, the sense of metaphysics is more precise unto the science known as yogic science.   Yogic science concerns the self most exactingly; and the word for the self is aatmaa AaTma.  A word meaning metaphysics in Sanskrit will include the self, aatmaa AaTma, such as aatmavidyaa AaTmiv*a.  This word means literally 'knowledge of the self', and in its vast reach of ultimate reality such knowledge will include all that is, the subjective as well as the objective reality.  To a practitioner of yogic science, the word philosophy refers to a speculative discourse with no evidential outcome applicable to the practical world or being.  On the other hand, such a knower of metaphysics, the yogi, who is concerned with the study of the binding of the self to all which is real, metaphysics is the supreme knowledge of an ultimate reality, and that knowledge can only serve to make a fuller realization of self and therefore of life as a practical thing itself.  Similarly, the word religion comes from the Latin re-, meaning 'back to' or 'again', and ligare, meaning 'to bind'.  Further back etymologically, the Sanskrit gives the substantives yugam yugm or also yoktr^ yae´&, meaning 'yoke' such that a yogi is in a yoke, a binding or a union with reality -- this is the kind of metaphysics to which this essay is addressed.  

 In that sense, then, the metaphysical inquiry herein will ask the two founding or first fundamental questions, 'Who am I?' and 'What is that?'  For all of the reality of the world about us, the entire universe, indeed, boils down to the subjective correlative born of the sense of 'I' and the objective correlative arising from 'that', meaning precisely all objects and beings other than the self who poses the inquiry.  So it becomes obvious that in this genre of metaphysical inquiry, each inquirer will realize the truth through the venture ultimately into an inquiry which is yet established but for its universal nature.  This further implies that  a metaphysical construct of knowledge arising out of such an inquiry which is distinguished for its universality must be so unified as to truth, and such unified truth will elevate any resultant discourse or query accordingly into a single-pointed quest at hand and within conceptual reach.  It therefore becomes worthwhile to broach the nature  of this native metaphysical inquiry born of universal truth as it might concern the instance of objective science inquiry, as well.  For if the truth thus disposed through metaphysical discipline is universal in its sight, even prospectively, then how such truth for its universal attributes will weigh upon the scientific thinker and researcher in the objective world of science will be determined to be of far-reaching effect.  Any scientist must clamor to know more of this hypothesis of the universal stature of truth so derived by metaphysical method and herein proposed, that it might prove through subjective determinations of such an individual scientist, to have validity and great utility.  Even hearing of this ideation on the universal nature of truth, besides ringing a familiar bell, will certainly bring about a more open mind for truth in any mind already studied and disciplined in the quests of objective science.  

Why is the subjective self equated to the objective reality?  

Inevitably, the objective scientist who ponders the nature of objects relevant to the physical realm in some way will concern himself/herself with change, and that change occurs through time.  This constrains such objective scientific inquiry unto the relative realm of reality, wherein comparative measure is utilized.  Such measure is as against the two fundamental and most universally reaching continua, time and space.  As was previously observed in this essay, existence is common to the world, even to the larger universe.  Think of a star in the sky.  The star is an entity with changing features, it exists and thus shines forth, so that we on Earth can perceive its existence.  It is not a direct part of the world in our immediate environment, it probably does not receive coverage in  the evening news, but it has been recognized and relayed to the simple perception of an observer on Earth.  The entire conceivable universe is such, that its objective truth is known to us as one which occupies the status known as existence; the common reality of the universe seems to be existence.  If that is so, then why do things, even such stars as may be available to the naked eye from millions of  miles away from the Earth's surface, change so drastically, that they go into dissolution and die, much as living things also die?  For a star, as in this example, has a finite amount of gaseous substance to burn, and then the celestial fire that is the star, burns itself out of further existence.  As another example of the effects through time on existence, time by dint of erosion has the power to crumble the earth's rock into sand.  The entity known through the form of a rock no longer is once it is converted into sand.  

Yet, if one stands in perceptive awe and wonderment at the moment of realization of 'what is' in the world of nature, or in the world of scientific achievement in understanding 'what is' by the laws of science; or if one is finally delegated the acquisition of scientific knowledge derived ultimately from the fundamental principles of a particular branch of knowledge,  and that realization strikes upon the mind and intuitive faculties as most remarkable; in these instances of intense realization of truth through science the concept of 'what is' becomes total to the observer, the knower now enlightened.  In such an intense state of realization there is no sense of time per se.  Time may have been used as a continuum against which measurements in the experimental method had been employed, yet time stands still in such an awe-inspiring moment of truth when the nature of reality is revealed to the inquirer in objective science.  

This offers a clue perhaps, this sense that the nature of 'what is' lies beyond the physical, and therefore beyond time somehow.  This point may seem too subtle at first to lend such total meaning in our quest to understand why  the subjective self can be equated to the objective reality.  According to this grand equation, the self, aatmaa AaTma, is also all of 'what is,' and which may sound confusing or itself beyond belief.  If the knower of science is contained within the conceptual reach of, say, the physico-chemical workings of a human being as per study and knowledge apprehension, then the idea of an individual as the equivalent of the objective world might be foreign, indeed threatening, and never acceptable.  For in the irregularities incumbent upon those afflicted with perception problems, the line of individuation between self and world, between the individual and the environment, may have been distorted, and such distortion will be reflected as an altered perception of what is commonly known and taken as real by those capable of living within certain norms of social and emotionally balanced ranges of behavior and responsiveness.  An immediate refute to any obstacle such a clinical version of altered perception of reality might contend, that the self is indeed the same as the universe of objective reality and the truth thereof, will be the profound love and compassionate wisdom which is engendered in the enlightened yogi who masters the truth through the basic and all-demanding inquiry, 'Who am I?'  Indeed, such a knower of truth will have  knowledge dispensable to the practitioner of medical science to advise, as per omniscience, even, upon the possible root causes of a physico-chemical imbalance in a person, and that without consulting a text book.  For long before Galileo and the days of  objective science there were such healers who are basically seers of truth, who had accomplished wisdom's haven through contemplation and good deed, and had advised miraculously among the people upon their excessive problems in health and in other social discord.

In the objective science endeavor the body of knowledge grows in a process of contingency of truth, one experiment based upon the outcome of a previous experiment, so that logic solves facets of an overall reality concerning the relative, or changing realm.  One definition holds as true until it is modified by further discovery, so that the overall growth in the body of knowledge is distinguished by its changing nature.  In a certain sense, this modification or even at times inconstancy of truth, as it changes ever onward through successive discoveries, each dependent upon the next for its further validation, is challenging and partial.  The higher truth available through more universally disposed inquiry, that of metaphysics, will offer a kind of knowledge which transcends terms and definitions, and which never changes with time.  This kind of truth, the absolute truth, sTym!  satyam, is beyond the three periods of time, is most real, and goes according to the same definition for the purpose of each inquiry after its essence.  The truth of satyam sTym!  is sought after for the sense of its essence, and not for the terms of a definition now labile unto a chain of truth determinations which had been delineated in logical sequence through the assertion of experimental, scientific  method.  Each time satyam sTym!  is defined for a seeker who poses the inquiry after its truest meaning, a deeper realization of this universal truth may be achieved by that seeker, while the definition of satyam sTym! per se never changes.  This successively growing self-realization, as it is called, is felt in other sectors of living and thought by the one undergoing such a discovery in truth.  That simple phenomenon of a deepened, more one-pointed perceptive ability in the seeker who attains to higher knowledge of a more ultimate abstract truth, satyam sTym! , points up how the process of self-growth through yogic science works to fulfill the life of the yogi by its reach into the objective reality through the subjective inquiry; in fact, they are inter-feeding, since they are equivalent.  There is an inborn knowledge there to be found in each individual, which is covered over by ignorance.  Uncovering that knowledge through the lifting of ignorance of the self in yogic science is a scientific process, yes; however, this is not a system of facts which comprise a body of knowledge whose license unto posterity demands further proof and greater elaboration through a continued application of contiguous truth determinations which are interdependent.  Rather, it is a process of finding an ultimate reality which lies beyond the intellect.  Logic serves this inquiring process up to a certain point, ever refining the inquiry, and boiling it down to  more cogent and sincerely felt questions and answers to those questions.  Even words cannot sum up the ultimate truth once found, yet they can point to it.  For realization of satyam sTym! is almost like a metaphysical rumor until it is intuited most completely.  In a leap of intuition and faith, satyam sTym! , and the self, its repository of knowledge, will converge and render the inquirer a most profound revelation.  By looking into tat tt! , which in Sanskrit means 'that,' the metaphysical inquirer goes deeper into aatmaa AaTma, the self.  Tat tt!  refers to all, absolutely all, of the objects in the universe, or the larger world.  The conclusion becomes clear to such an inquirer now turned knower: 'You are that.'  This answer is existence--what exists as most real, you are; what grosser levels of reality in the physical realm are available to be known, such as name, form, color, shape and all such objects of the senses, are bound in time.  The more subtle reality, the ultimate reality, is beyond time, and thus that which exists in time fools one into seeing it as real; actually, it just is.  Its reality is beyond physical measure in the ultimate sense of an absolute reality.  Since it is, since satyam  sTym! is, we can defer to it conceptually and unravel its meaning in knowledge, self-knowledge, whose validation becomes wisdom--the know-how of that self-knowledge, and certainly also a most dynamic and attractive truth proposition.  For once an individual is served by the wisdom of a knower, a seer, in Sanskrit a jnaani }ain, then that individual has seen proof of the value for self-realization, and the simple case that it is possible and most useful.

The universe, in summary, is indeed characterized by the most common unifying feature, existence, and which existence is characterized also by the nature of change across time, and which change also accrues to death in living beings.  The  most salient attributes of such reality known as existence convince that non-existence, death and change, are equally real; however, in the absolute context of satyam sTym! there is no attribute to be considered in the first place.  Satyam sTym!  is beyond time, or even the question of time.  Existence just is, and that means it also has no dependence upon the existence or non-existence of the grosser levels of reality through which change moderates.  A pot is made of clay.  But the clay is not made of pot, it can indeed be made into other articles for use in the physical realm, perhaps a walkway, for instance.  The pot depends upon clay for its existence, yet the clay is independent of the pot--the clay represents satyam sTym! , and the pot represents mithyaa imWya, or that which is false in regards to its qualifying for satyam sTym! .  This sums up in essence the nature of the absolute versus the relative, wherein the absolute is beyond the physical, hence metaphysical, and the relative is a subset of the absolute, having been derived from the absolute.

Now compare the coordinates of x and y, whereupon we might construct the mapping of  a simple function, y=f(x), where x represents the independent variable, and y represents that which is to be measured as against x, and which y is the dependent variable.  We know that y depends upon x in some causal way, and are doing a determination to see how much, to quantify, that relationship of dependence.  This mapping of the function y=f(x) reflects the nature of the higher metaphysical relationship being considered in this essay, wherein all things of the absolute consideration are related to those of the relative framework, which abides, of course, in the absolute;  wherein the fundamental metaphysical inquiry, 'What is?' amounts to 'Who am I?' and 'What is that?' when differentiated further into the subjective and objective correlatives of all that is.  Since the question of dependency arises out of the nature of material, the substance of the relative world, and which material changes with time phenomenologically, the mathematical precept  of function, which concisely summarizes this question of dependency from one realm to the other, should conceptually serve to clarify the characteristics in question.  The relative realm factor or range would be y, and the absolute factor or domain would be x.  To translate this into the concepts and vocabulary of metaphysics, the relative is a function of the absolute, that which is relative depends upon the absolute.  Furthermore, since x does not depend upon y, it is indeed the very domain of y, or y must be mapped onto this domain of x in some given range, then x is indeed, the absolute is indeed, the independent variable.  Satyam sTym!   does not depend upon the relative world, yet the relative world does depend upon the absolute reality or absolute truth, satyam sTym! . 

 Notice how this relationship of the absolute to the relative is exactly reflected into the process of measuring in the relative, objective world of science most fundamentally.   In a physical experiment located in the world of objective science the same basic relationship holds as that of the relative being dependent upon, a subset of, the absolute, but to a lesser degree of reality.  Therein, one variable is more inclusive than another due to causality, and it therefore sets the reality mathematically for its dependent variable.  This means that this independent variable is of a more subtle reality than its more grossly real counterpart in some way, which is why it is being studied.  Similarly, the absolute, parama prm,  which is understood through satyam sTym! , universal truth, is more subtle but by far, than is the relative, whose effect is mithyaa imWya, whose feature is aparoksha Aprae], not invisible, not distant.

What Is Causality?

Perhaps a question has arisen in your inquiry by now, as to the question of causality, and its nature.  After all, it has been demonstrated that the absolute does not depend upon the relative.  Furthermore, this discourse has carefully asserted that the absolute realm is indeed relevant to the relative realm, and that this relevance of the absolute to the relative bears a significance in the objective scientific inquiry and its measuring determinations through degrees of reality, which are often compared to layers of reality;  this lack of interdependence between these two realms, the absolute and the relative, points up the argument that ultimately, then, there is  no real basis for causality.  Even before delving further into the derivation of the validity of such an argument which refutes causality, one is reminded of an immediate solution to the entire question first-hand, if one has considered the theological precept of the will of God.  Divine will is an answer which instantaneously presents the physical world as largely following certain laws of nature and a certain likelihood in given sequences of events which are predictable indeed through a scientific understanding of the world about us, yet, the paranormal phenomenon are understood by a religious thinker as due to the power of an almighty category, often referred to by  many names perhaps, and which almighty categorical power is known as God.  This reference to God in the minds of many is a great settling factor when trying to grasp the nature of things, their attributes and dynamic features, since God becomes an absolute catchall in explanations, certainly; however, it is thematic in this essay to elucidate further upon the place of the absolute in reasoning processes.   

It may be at once startling and confusing to say that in the highest metaphysical sense there is no basis for causality.  Indeed, the scientific researcher will treat any question of the dependency, interdependency or independence of one variable to another as according to the theory that there is a causal connection between them.  All research upon questions relevant to such variables is proven to be valid or not valid by the scrutiny of scientific method, wherein causality of course plays a key role in the conceptual process of unraveling the truth in the objective realm.  However, the metaphysical argument against causality as the basis of action, karma kRm, will elucidate the question of causality in the relative realm as actually unavailable for postulation as a direct function of the absolute realm.  Such a quality of being indirect as that of the absolute into the relative, moreover, when properly grasped by the inquirer, will afford the scientific thinker a more diffuse understanding of the objective scientific endeavor.    For in the mathematics associated with the sciences in general, the concept of correlation is derived first from the sense of identity, wherein all is understood from the basic and all-reaching nature of ONE, of unity; any quantity divided by itself is equal to one, and from this unique relationship the concept of identity is formed.  If we pursue also this question of how the absolute bears upon the relative framework within which are written all of the laws and experiments of science as we know them, then we also begin intuitively with the concept of equality in trying to formulate a mapping of the absolute onto the relative, and vice versa; however, the most universal equation is that of unity, the identity based upon ONE or ONENESS. 

There is a paradox in this concept that the absolute is not connected in a direct causal manner with the relative.  For  within the relative realm we prove that an enzyme, for instance, brings about a certain chemical reaction. This resultant chemical reaction  may affect an organism in a way which is being studied for vital reasons,  so that the question arises,  what is there except causality?  To beg this question, why would anyone be interested in the ultimate truth of a series of enzymatically driven chemical reactions as causal or non-causal in feature, when the exact molecular changes by substituent group and protein structure with its related function besides, are known and can be discerned?  Herein the power of prediction of the scientific mind will allow even transgenic manipulation of plants, perhaps, and which is perceived by the genetic engineer as being only causal--this gene manipulation will be an action purported by scientific studies with concrete conclusions.  Such gene manipulation further may constitute that action which gives results according to what was once a hypothesis,  is now a well-researched and verified scientific procedure of genetic engineering, and which can subsequently fulfill a demonstrated purpose.  Yet, this entire practicum of gene engineering is conceptually causal, gives results whose effects arise out of cause seen at the gene-to-molecule chemistry level, and  this transgenic effect may be approved for patent as according to its causal results in the scientific community.  

In the consideration of causality as ultimately unreal in the scale of things extending from the relative realm into the absolute realm in the perspective of our inquiry, that level of ordination of reality in the relative, physical realm, and which sees causality as a valid and verifiable relating factor as between objects, is valid in its own right.  Such objects are considered as the objects of scientific exploration and discovery through valid scientific method, as in the preceding example of genetic engineering.  In the natural constructs of space and time as continua in which all objects relate in the dualistic relative realm, wherein dual physical opposites inhere accordingly, change will determine an underlying and readable feature as to how objects do interrelate and form as functions of one another in a causal construct which a scientific observer can delineate and enumerate according to strict scientific method.  To say that the higher nature of reality as born of a vision of the absolute refutes causality, is in no way disparaging and certainly not belittling of such, the causal relationship, which can often times be unraveled through logic.   Indeed, if one has the curiosity to know more of this refutation of causality in the ultimate metaphysical pursuit, then one's perception of the world of scientific experimental truth will be uplifted; and this upliftment is also born of the same power of truth to alter the delusion factor in a working scientific mind.  The more enlightened a thinker, the more cogent the truth in level to which that thinker will attain.  Thus, if one has through steady and successive refutations,  refuted causality from a reflective and contemplative ardor for satyam 

 sTym! , then one will understand all mathematics and logic, for instance, as derived from unity, since the sense of oneness will diffuse into the perceptive processes intuitively.  This transcendent awareness will imbue the mind and pursuits of such an uplifted scientific observer and experimenter.

This may sound in a certain twist, 'unreal,' that perception could be influenced by a realization of a higher order of reality.  Unfortunately, the evidence for this kind of knowledge must be sought after tirelessly by the inquirer, and most fortunately, certain teachers who have understood this kind of metaphysical knowledge constitute direct guidance unto such self-realization.  A teacher who knows satyam  sTym! is qualified to teach others this sacred knowledge.  Such a teacher, a jnaani, }ain will also be able to see wherein lies the prevailing delusion which blocks a seeker's fuller self-realization.  The method in Sanskrit of searching after absolute, universal truth is that of the negation of all that one perceives and logically derives as  most real until the final adoration and realization of the most real has thus been derived and realized.  The word in Sanskrit is, neti  neti neit neit, not this, not this.  This word is a combination of the indeclinable negative particle na n, meaning not, and the conjunction #it iti, meaning thus, as according to the euphonic combinations of the vowel sounds of a + i to yield e.  [na + iti = neti].   #it iti in Sanskrit writings is used after a given truth determination, whereupon a conclusion of the greater truth in an inquiry has been made as according to specific requirements which must be met in proving that such truth is indeed on the order of satyam  sTym  --anything which remains the same in all three periods of time is the leading such requirement owing to satyam  sTym! .  The inquirer must reflect and contemplate consistently upon this question of what is most real.  Then, to so refute according to the precept that delusion which is born of attachment to material things through the senses is pre-empting the discovery of satyam  sTym! , one giant refutational analysis results in the mind of the inquirer.  This giant refutation serves to rarefy the mind and prepare it for the ultimate delivery of satyam  sTym!  after all.  This is exactly a scientific method of metaphysical proof and discovery, to repeatedly say, neti  neti  neit neit, not this, not this, so that when a leap in awareness of the higher truth is made, it will have been derived through successive levels of asseverations, but rather the indirect asseverations of the refutational method.  Such a seeker after ultimate truth will therefore see the world and the questions posed through observations, and through each particulate inquiry made based on those observations, as unreal, as if all is a dream.  This is much like boiling  all of reality down to the search for one final experimental analysis, and which will give the one-pointed result of undeniable, ultimate truth through a series of results which had each produced a derived negative outcome.  This conclusion of successive negating or refuting of all as unreal can be intuited on the faith that the selfsame experiment, if you will, or inquiry, has for centuries been conducted by esteemed seers, who had arrived at the same conclusion of satyam  sTym! .  This pursuit through metaphysical refutation of satyam sTym! is also unlike the rule of prevailing rectitude in understanding scientific data for truth determination, whereby conclusions cannot be drawn from negative results.  

Consider an hypothesis symbolically represented as

                                           If A, then B

which through experimental method is to be determined by the perturbation of object M of a process within that construct (formed by M) known as M_q

such that M relates to the stated hypothesis by inference.  The crux of the experiment involving the process M_q   

will  rest upon  results which are direct and by prediction had been hypothesized to prove or disprove the larger truth of "If A, then B."  If these results do match a directness in their character, what is commonly known as positive, then a true inference can be made regarding the  original hypothesis being explored.  If, however, the results given regarding the named process M_q

_{are negative, then no valid inference or conclusion can be drawn regarding B, nor the "If A, then B" idea.  In seeking the unknown so as to finally know of it, one cannot reap knowledge of that unknown through scientific results which reflect a negative assay.  This is categorically exclusive of the logic which is essential to drawing inference, and inference is that which gives a logical clarity and proof of the truth of any attribute or process or event after which we seek in the objective realm to further our knowledge in scientific discovery.  However, in the metaphysical method of refutation by precept, so as to derive the universal truth, or satyam sTym! , the idea of using a negated conclusion or} neti  neit to then dismiss methodologically as unreal an observation as that which would match all attributes of such universal truth, also lands at the larger conclusion that satyam sTym! has not been determined yet.  This is also a valid conclusion, whereas in objective science endeavor, negative results allow no conclusion to be drawn. Thus, by negating results we approach successively the truth in this logical method of seeking that absolute truth, since the results of our observations of possible truth-giving evidence towards that truth,  satyam sTym! , can only ever be true if those results are seen as incorrect, until proven otherwise.  Where does that proof, that ultimate proof lie?  To outline simplistically the method of neti  neit neti  neit , the sequence would be as follows:

• If A, then B , where A is the  result of a specific inquiry after universal truth B; this expression is the goal: to see the universal truth B in and through everything, all of A;
• this result A turns out to be negated, thus, If A, then not B, A has not shown all of the requirements to meet the truth of B; its converse is also true, therefore, If not A, then B;
• when all of the objective realm is seen to be as unreal through many such "If A's, then not B," a transcendence of the dual opposites of the objective reality can be glimpsed at first, and the oneness of the absolute presents at least symbologically as,  If not A's in summation, then B.
• The goal is accomplish the unitary solution to all of delusion, wherein the dual opposites of the objective realm are before inquiry and deeper realization taken as most real.  That giant inverse is seen as, If not A, then not B--or, in words, if this world is not most real, then there is no reality left to consider which can be greater.  The inverse of this is of course the original goal, If A, then B, wherein the physical, relative realm is no longer seen as through delusion.  Rather, the absolute truth is seen in and through all.

This method of refuting reality methodically until an ultimate reality is intuited does not mean that negative results have given an invalid scientific conclusion.  For in this case, there is one giant inversion, the inquirer attains to one ultimate logical inverse such that there is no inverse greater than that one inverse.  Of course, you may ask if that is possible, and the answer is not directly--the absolute cannot be expressed in terms of the relative, yet, the absolute can be approached through the relative terms of logic available, and that saves the argument.  Moreover, if one unified negation, whose unity is born of successive refutations incessantly, turns out to logically signify unity, at least, such that the absolute has been sought after to completion by rational thought processes accordingly, then all of logic when applied to the relative realm where logic knows no end within itself, will be derived from such a unitary concept.   Addition is based upon one.  The question of variables whose causal relationships to one another define functions of characteristic dependency upon one another must be analyzed through logic.  The algorithm to logic is also unity, but in the case of logic, there is no visible "one" to be counted.  Rather, there is only an ultimate feature of the question of the absolute as a larger measure than that which can be determined through direct measurement, and when inferential logic is used to approach an understanding of the most expansive question of a relation--that of the relative to the absolute, the unreal to the ultimately real--all of logic rests upon the fusion of nothing and everything.  The unity in that sense of reality lies in refuting the objective reality for its attribute as not ultimately real, which is seen therefore as nothing.  Seeing that nothing, that total refutation until logic is left off by an  intuitive leap, gives in return the seeming conclusion that nothing is everything.  But this may sound expressive of the paradox, while the actual realization of that paradox is not available through words or through logic.  Rather, you are that.  This objective reality just IS.  This is unity, and once realized through proper means, including contemplation and also meditation, the mind becomes one-pointed in the embrace of such expansive truth, of satyam  sTym! .