Superphysics
Chapter 5

# The Real One versus The Illusory One

## Rest and Motion

The One is necessarily both at rest and in motion.

• The One is at rest because it is a Whole in Itself.
• But It is also always in the Others which are never in the same and is therefore never at rest.

Everything in relation to every other thing is either the same or other.

If Everything is neither the same nor the other, then everything is in the relation of: - a part to a whole, or - a whole to a part.

The One as a Whole is not a part of Itself.*

• Thus, It cannot be related to Itself in the same way as a whole is related to its part.
Superphysics Note
This is Nirguna Brahma in Vedic philosophy. In Superphysics, this is the Absolute Entity

But is the One inside the Whole different from the One which is Whole?

If It is different, then the One inside is neither other, nor a whole, nor a part in relation to Itself.

This means that the One inside must be the same with Itself.

But if a thing which is in another place from Its original place while both selves exist, then it means that It is other than that Self.

Then the One is at once in Itself and in another Self. In this way, the One will appear other than Itself*.

Superphysics Note
This is Saguna Brahma in Vedic philosophy. In Superphysics, this is the Supreme Entity

This makes Its other Self different from Itself and become the Other.

### The Illusory One versus the Real One

But ‘absolute equality’ and ‘absolute difference’ are opposites. The equality will never be in the difference*.

If the difference is never in the equality, then there is nothing in which the difference is during any span of time. This is because during that span of time, however small, the difference would be in the equality.

Since the difference is never in equality, it can never be in anything that exists.

Then the difference will never be either in the illusory One, or in the real One.

Then not by reason of otherness is the One other than the not-one, or the not-One other than the One.

Nor by reason of themselves will they be other than one another, if not partaking of the other.

But if they are not other, either by reason of themselves or of the other, they will altogether escape being other than one another.

The Illusory One is a part of the real One.

Superphysics Note
This is consistent with Saguna Brahma being Illusory

The Illusory One cannot be number. If it were countable, then it would not have been the Illusory One at all.

If then, in every point of view, the real One and the Illusory One are distinct.

Thus, the Real One is not part or the whole of the Illusory One, just as the Illusory One is not part or whole of the Real One.

But things which are neither parts nor wholes of one another, nor other than one another, will be the equal with one another.

Then the Real One, being in this relation to the Illusory One, is the same with it.

Then it is the same with Itself and the Others, and also other than Itself and the Others.

It will also be like and unlike Itself and the Others.

Since the One was shown to be distinct and separate from the Others, the Others will also be distinct and separate from the One.

The Real One is other than the Others in the same degree that the Others are other than It.

In virtue of the affection by which the one is other than others and others in like manner other than it, the one will be affected like the others and the others like the one.

For example, you give a name to a thing. This name is an ‘other’ thing that is separate from that thing. <!– and say the name often. When you say it once, you mention that of which it is the name? and when more than once, is it something else which you mention? or must it always be the same thing of which you speak, whether you utter the name once or more than once?

Of course it is the same.

And is not ‘other’ a name given to a thing? –>

Whenever, then, you use the word ‘other,’ whether once or oftener, you name that of which it is the name, and to no other do you give the name?

So when we say that the Others are other than the One, and the One is other than the Others, then we only mean that they are other in name only.

This means that every thing will be like every thing, for every thing is other than every thing.

Like is opposed to the unlike, and the other is opposed to the same.

The One was also shown to be the same with the Others.

To be the same with the Others is the opposite of being other than the Others.

But in that it was the same it will be unlike by virtue of the opposite affection to that which made it like; and this was the affection of otherness.

The same then will make it unlike, otherwise it will not be the opposite of the other.

Then the One will be both like and unlike the Others. It will be like in so far as it is other, and unlike in so far as it is the same.