3 Repaced because unnecessarry here
source | link

Is there an idea of non-spatial reality in philosophy? ....A world where the notions of figures, points, lines, positions, angles, etc. are meaningless.

There is only one 'thing'...but you cannot call it a world, because to call it a world, you should see a second thing...at least 'you' and 'the world'. (Even you deny all the terms given above.) Even though you were not ready to deny, it is 'The one without a second'...always.

Here you should note one more thing--You can't use any other tense forms except 'is'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

I agree it's hard to think of non-spatial world.

Of course, mind cannot catch it.

If it is as you mentioned, all your sorrowsdoubts must end by its realization.

Now I believe you understood whether this idea is recognized within philosophy.

Is there an idea of non-spatial reality in philosophy? ....A world where the notions of figures, points, lines, positions, angles, etc. are meaningless.

There is only one 'thing'...but you cannot call it a world, because to call it a world, you should see a second thing...at least 'you' and 'the world'. (Even you deny all the terms given above.) Even though you were not ready to deny, it is 'The one without a second'...always.

Here you should note one more thing--You can't use any other tense forms except 'is'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

I agree it's hard to think of non-spatial world.

Of course, mind cannot catch it.

If it is as you mentioned, all your sorrows must end by its realization.

Now I believe you understood whether this idea is recognized within philosophy.

Is there an idea of non-spatial reality in philosophy? ....A world where the notions of figures, points, lines, positions, angles, etc. are meaningless.

There is only one 'thing'...but you cannot call it a world, because to call it a world, you should see a second thing...at least 'you' and 'the world'. (Even you deny all the terms given above.) Even though you were not ready to deny, it is 'The one without a second'...always.

Here you should note one more thing--You can't use any other tense forms except 'is'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

I agree it's hard to think of non-spatial world.

Of course, mind cannot catch it.

If it is as you mentioned, all your doubts must end by its realization.

Now I believe you understood whether this idea is recognized within philosophy.

2 Fixed grammar
source | link

Is there an idea of non-spatial reality in philosophy? ....A world where the notions of figures, points, lines, positions, angles, etc. are meaningless.

There is only one a 'thing'...youbut you cannot call it a world, because to call it a world, you should see a second thing. And it is..at least 'you' and 'the world'. (also) not possible ifEven you deny all the terms given above.) Even though you were not ready to deny, it is 'The one without a second'...always. 

Here you should note one more thing...use 'is' only...you--You can't use any other tense forms...no 'was' or 'will be' except 'is'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

I agree it's hard to think of non-spatial world.

Of course, mind cannot catch it.

If it is as you mentioned, all your sorrows must end by its realization.

Now I believe you understood whether this idea is recognized within philosophy.

Is there an idea of non-spatial reality in philosophy? ....A world where the notions of figures, points, lines, positions, angles, etc. are meaningless.

There is only one a 'thing'...you cannot call it a world, because to call it a world you should see a second thing. And it is (also) not possible if you deny all the terms given above.

Here you should note one more thing...use 'is' only...you can't use any other tense forms...no 'was' or 'will be'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

I agree it's hard to think of non-spatial world.

Of course, mind cannot catch it.

If it is as you mentioned, all your sorrows must end.

Now I believe you understood whether this idea is recognized within philosophy.

Is there an idea of non-spatial reality in philosophy? ....A world where the notions of figures, points, lines, positions, angles, etc. are meaningless.

There is only one 'thing'...but you cannot call it a world, because to call it a world, you should see a second thing...at least 'you' and 'the world'. (Even you deny all the terms given above.) Even though you were not ready to deny, it is 'The one without a second'...always. 

Here you should note one more thing--You can't use any other tense forms except 'is'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

I agree it's hard to think of non-spatial world.

Of course, mind cannot catch it.

If it is as you mentioned, all your sorrows must end by its realization.

Now I believe you understood whether this idea is recognized within philosophy.

1
source | link

Is there an idea of non-spatial reality in philosophy? ....A world where the notions of figures, points, lines, positions, angles, etc. are meaningless.

There is only one a 'thing'...you cannot call it a world, because to call it a world you should see a second thing. And it is (also) not possible if you deny all the terms given above.

Here you should note one more thing...use 'is' only...you can't use any other tense forms...no 'was' or 'will be'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

I agree it's hard to think of non-spatial world.

Of course, mind cannot catch it.

If it is as you mentioned, all your sorrows must end.

Now I believe you understood whether this idea is recognized within philosophy.