Nonexistance

[BurnOneDown]

I don't have time to read all the posts, so I may repeat what some have already said.

Ham-milton: I don't think you are referring to interdependence as many have tried to explain. This is not the idea of non-existence at all. It claims that things are empty (of ultimate meaning) because nothing has independent existence. Emptiness is often confused with non-existence.

However, I think you are referring to Idealism. Idealism is the belief that everything that exists is mental or within one's mind. Famous Buddhist monk Vasubandhu explained this belief in The Twenty Verses. He believed that nothing could have physical existence because indivisible parts cannot create a stable aggregate (no size + no size = no size)... Although I believe modern physics explain this phenomena using force fields. I could go on, but I think it's a rather obsolete idea.

 

[Hewhomustnotbenamed]

mmm...I would say though that the argument you've put forth (not necessarily all Buddhism) speaks to epistemology but not ontology. If all is flux, yes, then truth is nothingness. However, the universe "as such" might have things with properties...but they change all the time. Thus, our ontology points to a something, not a nothing.

That said, I don't believe this view.

ebola

What do you mean by universe as such? As such as in as it appears? I have little schooling in western philosophy, and I don't really know the difference between epistemology vs. ontology. Is this like theoretical vs. lived experience?

Do you mean that while the things that comprise the universe have no fixed nature, the universe as a whole does?

Or that in our lived experience the universe has properties?

I'd say rather than properties, tendencies, or karmic loops that close in on themselves.

 

[ebola?]

Sorry 'bout the jargon.

>>
What do you mean by universe as such? As such as in as it appears?>>

By "as such", I mean, "as it is, in itself." In my hypothetical example, I was talking about a universe without an observer. I must also add that I don't believe in the universe "as such".

>>I don't really know the difference between epistemology vs. ontology.>>

epistemology: the study of how we are able to know what we do, the bases for knowledge.

ontology: the study of the fundamental properties of being. What kind of "stuff" is out there, and how does it inter-relate?

>>
Do you mean that while the things that comprise the universe have no fixed nature, the universe as a whole does?

Or that in our lived experience the universe has properties? >>

What I was saying is that constant flux entails necessarily that our certain knowledge must be without content, but there still may be content to the "stuff" of the world, just content that is always shifting.

>>However, I think you are referring to Idealism. Idealism is the belief that everything that exists is mental or within one's mind.>>

Well, this is one sub-strand of idealism, mainly Berkley's. Other variants look pretty different. Think of Descartes or Hegel.

ebola

 

[callupjah]

I thought Buddhists were reffering to the physical world as an illusion?

 

[unsui]

they are in a way.

 

[Maitereya]

(step 1)

the physical world as in things, like a car or anything we would take pride in owning but will eventually decay. that is the illusion.

(step 2)

other guy: well everything eventually decays?

yes

 

[namelesss]

If anyone cares to enlighten (heh) me as to how it works in a Buddhist framework, I'd be most appreciative.

The Great Master Bodhi-dharma's Teaching on the Two Enterings and the Four Practices

By Bodhi-dharma

..."Fourth, practicing the Dharma.' The Dharma is the truth that all natures are pure. By this truth, all appearances are empty. Defilement and attachment, subject and object don't exist. The sutras say, "The Dharma includes no being because it's free from the impurity of being, and the Dharma includes no self because it's free from the impurity of self." Those wise enough to believe and understand these truths are bound to practice according to the Dharma."...

 

[namelesss]

the physical world as in things, like a car or anything we would take pride in owning but will eventually decay. that is the illusion.

From 'this' perspective, the 'illusory' component of existence (everything exists in its context) is the 'thoughts' that arise concerning what we perceive;
We perceive, when we open our eyes, a blue sky. That is simple Perspective/perception. When we observe, and then 'think' (father of illusion) that that sky IS anything; out there as it appears, is 'blue' independent of our perspective, exists independently of our perception,... these are illusions. That because we (many) perceive in a linear fashion, and have thunk up 'time' to explain.. that is an illusion, to accept (in thought) 'linearity' and 'time' as a 'reality' of the true basic nature of existence, out there, independent of Perspective. It is 'illusion' to 'think'(!) that what is 'true' for you is 'true' for all because 'you' perceive it (ego) in your universe (the one that you perceive).
Thinking that there actually is some 'physical world' of 'hard stuff out there' is illusion as much subjectively perspectively related as watching a movie or a dream. 'Seeing' without 'thought' (patterns, mechanisms, correlations, distinctions, categories, whys, wherefores, hows, etc...) is our true nature as Perspective. The mind creates illusion from the nebulous raw material of Perspective/observation. It is by our observation/Perspective that existence is actualized for each Perspective (us). More than that is illusion.
"All phenomena are empty" -Boddhidharma

(step 2)
other guy: well everything eventually decays?
yes

Decay is as much an illusion as is your 'everything'.
Do 'things' in your dreams decay? What is decaying? What is the difference between your 'night dream' and your 'day dream'?
"As the sun obscures the stars by day, so does wakefulness obscure the fact that we are still dreaming."

 

[ebola?]

>>I thought Buddhists were reffering to the physical world as an illusion?>>

A spiritual realm, existing along side the physical realm, would be just as much caught up in Maya. Hell, any dualism is the hallmark of maya.

ebola

 

[namelesss]

>>I thought Buddhists were reffering to the physical world as an illusion?>>

All 'existence'.

A spiritual realm, existing along side the physical realm, would be just as much caught up in Maya. Hell, any dualism is the hallmark of maya.

ebola

'Dualism' = 'existence'
Existence = Context.
Context = dualism

The 'illusion' is that it is 'Reality/Truth' beyond 'our' reality/truth.

 

[vegan]

It's hard to imagine nonexistance

ayahuasca will make you understand"

 

[ebola?]

nameless:

you might've mis-responded to what I said, as you quote my quote of someone else, who I sorta argue against.

>>'Dualism' = 'existence'
Existence = Context.
Context = dualism

The 'illusion' is that it is 'Reality/Truth' beyond 'our' reality/truth.>>

I'm not sure I quite get you, so I'll throw out a clarifying question:

If the illusion itself is that there is truth to be found beyond this illusion, does this entail that there actually isn't illusion? That immediate being is true? Or that there can be no truth?

ebola

 

[namelesss]

nameless:
you might've mis-responded to what I said, as you quote my quote of someone else, who I sorta argue against.

Could well have. It is difficult, at times, to sort out who said what without any attribution to the quote.

'Dualism' = 'existence'
Existence = Context.
Context = dualism

The 'illusion' is that it is 'Reality/Truth' beyond 'our' reality/truth.

I'm not sure I quite get you, so I'll throw out a clarifying question:

If the illusion itself is that there is truth to be found beyond this illusion,

Not what I said. Please read more carefully, I said that the 'illusion' is not that of which we are aware (individually, as perspectives); our universes, 'selves', beer, etc... The 'illusion', bolstered by ego, is that these worlds, these universes, this Perspective is more than it really is, Perspective.
All Perspectives are Correct. All Perspectives are incomplete, some more than others. All the blind men's reports of the 'elephant', together, give a better view of the 'elephant'.
It is egoic identification and dedication to the 'illusion' that we argue as to which perspective is superior, right, good, inferior, bad, wrong... using our own perspective as arbiter of 'Truth/Reality'. Agree or be 'wrong/bad/stupid..' says the ego.
Remember, all Perspectives (us) added together, total, is the only way that Consciousness can know Mind. That which we Perceive is the undifferentiated potential/chaos of Mind. It is by Perspective (the limitations thereof) that the 'undifferentiated' can be 'differentiated' (dualized/contextualized) and thus Known to Consciousness.

does this entail that there actually isn't illusion?

Yes.

That immediate being is true?

I don't understand your meaning here.

Or that there can be no truth?

There's lots of little "t" 'truths' in existence; lots of little "r" 'realities' (actually a quantumly unique 'reality' per Perspective, per moment).

 

[Bludda]

I talk about this stuff often with a mate of mine who is a pretty strict Buddhist (and doesn't take drugs) and he always manages to explain it to me in terms that I can almost, but not quite grasp the logic of. I can't remember any of it now on account of all the temazepam and beer flowing through my brain - but the main problem, that I have with the concept of non-existance is that it is meaningless without the concept of 'existance'.

In the absense of something to be compared to, 'non-existance' is non-existant.


Reaching a place of nirvana (the state where the cycle of samsara ends? sorry, I was raised a catholic), where in the annhiliation of the ego and experience, there is no 'one' to realise that 'one' hadn't been on a journey at all...still seems to suggest that non-existance is something that is relative, and hence, cannot exist by itself, as such.....

urgh....


Man, it's thinking about this shit that got me on benzos in the first place.

 

[Wayne Gale]

Can anyone actually prove that they exist though. I know there's the whole concept of "I think therfore I am" But if one's thoughts exist through time, and we are only ever existing at one moment at a time, would this not make our thoughts an illusion and therfore support the idea that everything is nonexistant?

 

[Jamshyd]

Ok, I have a better metaphor which I observed today.

A cube of ice exists as such. But the fact that it is a cube is an illusion, since by the time you've read this sentence it no longer is a cube (assuming you live in a hot place ).

 

[vegan]

Can anyone actually prove that they exist though. I know there's the whole concept of "I think therfore I am" But if one's thoughts exist through time, and we are only ever existing at one moment at a time, would this not make our thoughts an illusion and therfore support the idea that everything is nonexistant?

why would it make our thoughts an illusion?
i have no problem with thoughts existing one moment at a time

 

[Hewhomustnotbenamed]

I talk about this stuff often with a mate of mine who is a pretty strict Buddhist (and doesn't take drugs) and he always manages to explain it to me in terms that I can almost, but not quite grasp the logic of. I can't remember any of it now on account of all the temazepam and beer flowing through my brain - but the main problem, that I have with the concept of non-existance is that it is meaningless without the concept of 'existance'.

In the absense of something to be compared to, 'non-existance' is non-existant.


Reaching a place of nirvana (the state where the cycle of samsara ends? sorry, I was raised a catholic), where in the annhiliation of the ego and experience, there is no 'one' to realise that 'one' hadn't been on a journey at all...still seems to suggest that non-existance is something that is relative, and hence, cannot exist by itself, as such.....

urgh....


Man, it's thinking about this shit that got me on benzos in the first place.

Yeah, dualities sort of create each other, and since nirvana is supposedly beyond all duality it must be described as neither existence or non-existence. It just is, man... 8(

 

[namelesss]

Can anyone actually prove that they exist though.

Prove?
Everything exists.
Existence is Contextual/definitional.
If you can conceive of it, define it, it exists, for you, within context.
No context/definition = no existence.
We have context/definition, therefore we exist.

'Thoughts' exist, 'baseballs' exist, 'monkeys' exist, 'unicorns' and 'faeries' exist... all in context...

 

[ebola?]

>>Not what I said. Please read more carefully, I said that the 'illusion' is not that of which we are aware (individually, as perspectives); our universes, 'selves', beer, etc... The 'illusion', bolstered by ego, is that these worlds, these universes, this Perspective is more than it really is, Perspective.
All Perspectives are Correct. All Perspectives are incomplete, some more than others. All the blind men's reports of the 'elephant', together, give a better view of the 'elephant'.
It is egoic identification and dedication to the 'illusion' that we argue as to which perspective is superior, right, good, inferior, bad, wrong... using our own perspective as arbiter of 'Truth/Reality'. Agree or be 'wrong/bad/stupid..' says the ego.
Remember, all Perspectives (us) added together, total, is the only way that Consciousness can know Mind. That which we Perceive is the undifferentiated potential/chaos of Mind. It is by Perspective (the limitations thereof) that the 'undifferentiated' can be 'differentiated' (dualized/contextualized) and thus Known to Consciousness.>>

My bad. This makes a lot more sense now.

>>
urgh....


Man, it's thinking about this shit that got me on benzos in the first place.>>

That's the thing. You can't capture this with language and/or logic.

>>Ok, I have a better metaphor which I observed today.
A cube of ice exists as such. But the fact that it is a cube is an illusion, since by the time you've read this sentence it no longer is a cube (assuming you live in a hot place ).
>>

This is great. It's really the crux of how language represents. Kinda Heraclitan...

>>I keep drifting away from Buddhism, the more I learn about it. It seems to me that the west has a very romanticized view on Buddhism and its teachings. Living in Buddhist countries, one begins to get disenchanted...>>

Yup. We have the luxury of studying Buddhism divorced from the ills of organized religion.

ebola