Vedanta - Discussion Forum I (introductory))

[Sunder]

<!--QuoteBegin-vijnan_anand+Jul 24 2004, 01:29 PM-->QUOTE(vijnan_anand @ Jul 24 2004, 01:29 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> <i>
There cannot be two of it. If there is two of it, then it's already divided.
</i>
I am sorry, I don't get you. Why can't there exist two things that cannot be further subdivided?
I don't seen an obvious contradiction above.
How do you corelate the number of copies an object to the property of it being further subdivisible or not? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let us say there is an object that cannot be divided. In the conventional sense, it is so small that YOU cannot further subdivide it. This does not imply Nature has not already divided it (hence the duality.)

This means, the object has a finite size (it is small). When this object has boundaries *nature* has already divided it from other particles of nature...

When I mentioned Atomicity, it denoted undifferenciated - and did not denote nuclear particles. For example space cannot be divided [there cannot be "two" spaces.)]

Anything that can be divided is Finite and hence impermanent. Please let me know if you see a flaw in logic or concept.