|
Post by therealfake on Jan 25, 2011 9:27:59 GMT -5
As to it being fundamental, of course it is, in a conceptual framework. What's more fundamental than existence? Is existence more fundamental than an object or subject that exists? I would say existence shows up at the same time as the object or subject! Notice that what your 'not' aware of, doesn't 'exist' for you...
|
|
bruppy
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by bruppy on Jan 25, 2011 17:47:27 GMT -5
Porto "Close to 'I am everything.' And fun it is! "
It can feel like the horizon. Always some distant lineal event. If you stop moving, it can become extremely extremely terrifying. If its not, then your moving, moving away from it. I say this, feeling on the verge of vomiting. Good for me, I'd imagine.
|
|
|
Post by teetown on Jan 26, 2011 9:58:28 GMT -5
Enigma, So why is there something instead of nothing? That's a koan that's been on my mind for some time now. How could "what is" have come to exist in the first place? Recently I had a minor insight: that "what is" MUST be beyond even existence itself. Existence and non-existence is a part of duality and "what is" is beyond even that. It contains both. That's the only way the paradox can be resolved. According to Niz, the Absolute is beyond existence and non-existence. So I think it is just a concept like time & space. 'Absolute' is just a concept. What Is, is beyond absolute and relative. IOW, everything we can talk about is 'just a concept', so the issue isn't meaningful and there are dishes to be washed! (Meaningful being just a concept.) As to it being fundamental, of course it is, in a conceptual framework. What's more fundamental than existence? As for it not being necessarily required, I don't know of anything that is required. As for dualistic concepts cancelling each other out and leaving nothing, that's just a concept. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2011 12:56:33 GMT -5
Well, you can't really resolve a paradox that is formed by a dualistic bifurcation, by applying another one. We're just building more conceptual layers that can't ultimately be true. If what's beyond existence is called 'What Is', there must be something that isn't 'What Is', and this isn't ultimately true. Mind and language deals only with these artificial divisions; imagining and conceptualizing and labeling them, and then imagining, conceptualizing and labeling what each of the labels means. They actually mean exactly what we imagine them to mean, since that's their foundation.
Mind struggles to resolve it's own questions that arise entirely from it's own process of conceptual division, and it answers them by continuing to conceptually divide. Of course, there is no end to this process since it's isn't grounded in anything absolute but is rather self sustaining and self defining. The answer to all questions is the realization that the question has no meaning beyond the meaning assigned to it in the asking.
Mind will point to empirical sensory experience as evidence that it's divisions are more than ideas, but since all conceptual separations are false, there is no division between ideas ABOUT physicality, and physicality itself. There is not something objective 'out there' that demonstrates the validity of my ideas 'in here'. It's all literally one happening that isn't even happening. It's all happening in consciousness, though there is no consciousness in which it is happening. The happening that is not a happening IS consciousness which is not consciousness.
This is the paradoxical nature of mind. What Is, is prior to mind in the sense that it is what is, before mind has it's first thought about it; before it makes it's first conceptual division. There isn't, however, a mind doing this. Ultimately, 'What Is' is an unsolvable mystery, not because it isn't understood, but because understanding is a concept that arises within 'What Is', and has only the meaning that is assigned to it. There isn't something that isn't understood, there is just THIS. Obviously, you are THIS. What THIS is cannot be known, but there is nothing to know and no need to know.
|
|
|
Post by question on Jan 26, 2011 13:05:15 GMT -5
What's more fundamental than existence? The framework which allows to think about existence is prior to the concept of existence. To me existence seems indeed problematic. It's probably next to impossible to doubt it intuitively. Analytically it's not so easy. We can formalize arguments that try to prove existence and show that existence can't be a logical consequence, only a premise which always shows up as a tautology. Following intuitions is risky business, but so is blindly following axioms.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Jan 26, 2011 16:23:13 GMT -5
All words are misleading by nature. Here on this forum we have some members that think if I can find just the correct words to explain something then it proves I am awake. This is nonsense. The truth is to be seen not read and what is seen can never be unseen.You can play around with nonduality word puzzles for your entire life and not get anywhere or you can just be still and quiet and see whatever comes up. Once you have seen the truth all these words and forums become very close to meaningless.
Michael
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2011 20:21:33 GMT -5
All words are misleading by nature. Here on this forum we have some members that think if I can find just the correct words to explain something then it proves I am awake. This is nonsense. The truth is to be seen not read and what is seen can never be unseen.You can play around with nonduality word puzzles for your entire life and not get anywhere or you can just be still and quiet and see whatever comes up. Once you have seen the truth all these words and forums become very close to meaningless. Michael and yet....
|
|
|
Post by teetown on Jan 26, 2011 20:38:08 GMT -5
I wasn't making an intellectual proposition. What I said was the result of an intuitive insight, or seeing, or something, that happened recently. To go back to my koan, it was seen that reality isn't something or nothing, yet it contains them both...or something like that. Anyway, I know there are dishes to do, but I think these things are worth discussing not because we're figuring anything out or adding to a philosophical body of knowledge, it's clear that's BS, but because sometimes thinking about these things can act as a koan that can trigger a realization. At least that's the way it's worked for me. So thanks for participating. Well, you can't really resolve a paradox that is formed by a dualistic bifurcation, by applying another one. We're just building more conceptual layers that can't ultimately be true. If what's beyond existence is called 'What Is', there must be something that isn't 'What Is', and this isn't ultimately true. Mind and language deals only with these artificial divisions; imagining and conceptualizing and labeling them, and then imagining, conceptualizing and labeling what each of the labels means. They actually mean exactly what we imagine them to mean, since that's their foundation. Mind struggles to resolve it's own questions that arise entirely from it's own process of conceptual division, and it answers them by continuing to conceptually divide. Of course, there is no end to this process since it's isn't grounded in anything absolute but is rather self sustaining and self defining. The answer to all questions is the realization that the question has no meaning beyond the meaning assigned to it in the asking. Mind will point to empirical sensory experience as evidence that it's divisions are more than ideas, but since all conceptual separations are false, there is no division between ideas ABOUT physicality, and physicality itself. There is not something objective 'out there' that demonstrates the validity of my ideas 'in here'. It's all literally one happening that isn't even happening. It's all happening in consciousness, though there is no consciousness in which it is happening. The happening that is not a happening IS consciousness which is not consciousness. This is the paradoxical nature of mind. What Is, is prior to mind in the sense that it is what is, before mind has it's first thought about it; before it makes it's first conceptual division. There isn't, however, a mind doing this. Ultimately, 'What Is' is an unsolvable mystery, not because it isn't understood, but because understanding is a concept that arises within 'What Is', and has only the meaning that is assigned to it. There isn't something that isn't understood, there is just THIS. Obviously, you are THIS. What THIS is cannot be known, but there is nothing to know and no need to know.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 26, 2011 20:40:11 GMT -5
Just like the human eye, can't see the reality that the microscope can, doesn't mean there aren't means beyond the mind, to delve into consciousness...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2011 21:55:58 GMT -5
What's more fundamental than existence? The framework which allows to think about existence is prior to the concept of existence. That's what existence refers to. I didn't mean to imply that any concept has some fundamental reality.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2011 22:02:10 GMT -5
All words are misleading by nature. Here on this forum we have some members that think if I can find just the correct words to explain something then it proves I am awake. This is nonsense. Michael Oh, I'm not sure anybody thinks that, Michael. Why not let people talk?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2011 22:39:04 GMT -5
I wasn't making an intellectual proposition. What I said was the result of an intuitive insight, or seeing, or something, that happened recently. To go back to my koan, it was seen that reality isn't something or nothing, yet it contains them both...or something like that. I was trying to speak to the boundary you created in your seeing, and to question the conclusion you derived about the only way to solve the paradox. The concept of existence is formed to point to that which fundamentally IS. That's already the reason for using the concept. The point of using the concept is not to say the concept IS existence. The concept is a concept. It can never be more than a dualistic concept, so there's no need to say 'what is' must be beyond the concept of existence. In that sense, 'What is' is also beyond the concept of 'what is'. The point is that inventing new concepts as a way of somehow transcending the old concepts, ('What Is' as opposed to 'existence) is just more conceptualization, which is why I sometimes use the word 'God'. If the futility of transcending concepts with concepts is seen, any old concept will do fine, as long as it's meaning is understood. I realize my last post got a little heavy. I was trying to talk about the conceptualizing process, and implying that this is the cause of the confusion and not the solution. The solution to the question 'Why is there something rather nothing' is to understand the falsity of the question.The questioner invents a dualistic concept (something) and then proceeds to question why one polarity of his made up dualistic concept is true and the opposite polarity (nothing) is not. The paradox is the result of believing in the reality of these made up concepts. The koan is designed to collapse that process.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2011 22:42:50 GMT -5
Just like the human eye, can't see the reality that the microscope can, doesn't mean there aren't means beyond the mind, to delve into consciousness... There are indeed such means, since 'existence' is already beyond mind. As I think you've mentioned, mind appears within what 'we' are, and so we are already beyond it.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Jan 27, 2011 0:03:48 GMT -5
All words are misleading by nature. Here on this forum we have some members that think if I can find just the correct words to explain something then it proves I am awake. This is nonsense. Michael Oh, I'm not sure anybody thinks that, Michael. Why not let people talk? Well not my experience for sure. I have seen a lot of posts being pigeon holed because of the wording. I have to laugh some actually believe if the grammar is not correct the poster is not speaking truth. This is how far away from truth you become when you only have words to relied on. Members always have complete freedom to talk here. I certainly do not have any effect if someone posts or not. Michael
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 27, 2011 0:20:28 GMT -5
Oh, I'm not sure anybody thinks that, Michael. Why not let people talk? Well not my experience for sure. I have seen a lot of posts being pigeon holed because of the wording. I have to laugh some actually believe if the grammar is not correct the poster is not speaking truth. Sure, that happens quite a bit. I was referring to 'if I find the right words it proves I'm awake.' When I made that comment i was thinking about the post you made the other day where you warned the OP not to listen to anybody who says this or that. I was going to post a comment before I read that, but then it seemed like I might have to overcome the impression left by your warning first, so I went away, so it seems what you say isn't really true for me. Of course you're free to offer your opinion as to why what folks here say is wrong, so I'm just offering a different one. I appreciate this forum because I see the contributors as being quite mature and well spoken. i don't feel they deserve your generic reprimands.
|
|