General Painting Without A Canvas (part 2)

[pk70]

“In other words, you can take from it but you can never exhaust it because it is complete in and of itself.(quote aad0002 Ji )”
aad0002 Ji
I agree with this part completely but I actually questioned “that part” author calls “full” which is taken from the “full” If he says only when “a part “( or parts) is/are taken from the “ Full”, it doesn’t affect the “fullness” of the “full” then it aligns with your thought but he also calls “full” to that part” which is taken out of “ the Full”
That is what made me comment on it. Sorry if I have to disagree with that “taken part” to be called “full”.

 

[spnadmin]

pk70 ji

That is why I cracked the joke about the author being a mathematician. The author (s) of the Upanishads are lost in history.

To me the line that you question is saying that completeness (if you can imagine completeness taken away or subtracted from completeness) even when taken away leaves something that is whole and complete. It is a paradox that would be impossible in mathematical terms of thought, but not impossible when contemplating the satgur Who baffles all logic.

 

[pk70]

"It is a paradox that would be impossible in mathematical terms of thought, but not impossible when contemplating the satgur Who baffles all logic. ""

Very True aad0002 Ji