• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Nonexistance

vegan said:
why would it make our thoughts an illusion?
i have no problem with thoughts existing one moment at a time
Click to expand...
But your thoughts don't exist one moment at a time, they occur in time. Have you ever had a thought that has only occured for a moment. Imagine if uyou will that you could take a snap shot of the universe for a single moment, yet you could view it some how as if you were standing outside of it. Imagine a human brain, it would simply be a still lump of matter. Another example is the forces of the universe, they would be non existant. The earths gravity for instance would not exist here as it would no longer be pulling objects to itself. However view things from within time and suddenly these forces appear to exist and our minds appear to be experiencing. How is this possible? Are we experiencing more than one moment at a time? I don't think so. This is where the paradox of our existance lies.
 
Wayne Gale said:
But your thoughts don't exist one moment at a time, they occur in time. Have you ever had a thought that has only occured for a moment. Imagine if uyou will that you could take a snap shot of the universe for a single moment, yet you could view it some how as if you were standing outside of it. Imagine a human brain, it would simply be a still lump of matter. Another example is the forces of the universe, they would be non existant. The earths gravity for instance would not exist here as it would no longer be pulling objects to itself. However view things from within time and suddenly these forces appear to exist and our minds appear to be experiencing. How is this possible? Are we experiencing more than one moment at a time? I don't think so. This is where the paradox of our existance lies.
Click to expand...


^ It's not a paradox, the things you are referring to are called 'emergent phenomena'
 
Wayne Gale said:
But your thoughts don't exist one moment at a time
Click to expand...
Actually they do.
Quantum theory has shown us the discrete nature of 'time/space'. All (Planck) moments of 'existence' existing synchronously (simultaneously), Now.
So, every pattern that you perceive, every 'thought', is 'your' Perspective, at the moment. Just so that you can get a handle on the 'no size' of a 'moment, there are 10^-43/sec (one billion trillion trillion trillion Planck moments would be in a second, if they were any 'longer' at all) A Planck moment is of too short a 'duration' to have 'duration', no 'temporal qualities' at all. Each moment is a discrete universe for each of us.
'Linear thought' is merely an 'appearance' to a very a few Perspectives. It is very 'memory' related. 'Memories' give an appearance of 'linear continuity', to some...

This is where the paradox of our existance lies.
Click to expand...
'Paradox' is a sure indicator of (cognitive) error.
 
Nonexistence is somewhat of a paradoxical term one would think. Like describing a shade of white as slightly black....or something...
 
Jamshyd said:
^ Please clarify your question. When I said "they are anything but", I was referring to them not being in a state of bliss in spite of being Buddhists.
Click to expand...

I know. My bad, I unconsciously took your wording and applied it in a different context. What i was saying was, they're still better off as Buddhists than anything else, think how much worse situations in China and whatnot would be if for example the "Jihad" was a Buddhist concept. But I retract that statement based on your observances - if Buddhism is reduced to superstition and blind worship, it is not better than any other organized religion. Very disappointing, though, considering that Buddhism is inherently intended to be logical and beyond petty beliefs.
 
Think about the inherent power that exists in nothingness. When there's nothing that needs to be done, think about all that you are free to do.
 
My take on non-existence:

We exist because we don't exist. Because there is nonexistence, there has to be existence, since both concepts only exist in relation to each other. The universe is a giant paradox. This means that at the same time that nothing exists, everything actually exists. It is just a reflection of infinity from nothingness.
 
Well that is because language is dualistic. How can something dualistic explain something nondualistic? The universe is a paradox. And you know what, it does make no sense. You cant solve this problem with rationality. That is the essence of paradoxical thinking. I am just saying that when you have 2 parts of a dualistic relationship: existence and nonexistence- they both must exist, since they exist only in relation to each other.

ask if you want a further explanation.
 
FreedomOfTheMind said:
Well that is because language is dualistic. How can something dualistic explain something nondualistic? The universe is a paradox. And you know what, it does make no sense. You cant solve this problem with rationality. That is the essence of paradoxical thinking. I am just saying that when you have 2 parts of a dualistic relationship: existence and nonexistence- they both must exist, since they exist only in relation to each other.

ask if you want a further explanation.
Click to expand...

Language doesn't have to be dualistic, that's simply how you've used it. With care and maybe a little work, it can be avoided. Maybe it ends up sounding a little hokey, though.
 
nonexistence isn't anything easy to define but it isn't complicated either. without dualistic concepts of "i" and "you" and separation "you" would cease to exist in any conscious way. even submitting yourself to the dharma is still grounded in dualism. there is nothing substantial about the universe. what is matter other than energy? the same thing applies to consciousness and humanities limited awareness...
 
entheo said:
nonexistence isn't anything easy to define but it isn't complicated either.
Click to expand...
Actually, for something to exist, it must be defined/contextual.
If something (is something) is defined/contextual, it exists.
Everything exists, by/in contextual definition.
 
entheo said:
nameless said:
Actually, for something to exist, it must be defined/contextual.
If something (is something) is defined/contextual, it exists.
Everything exists, by/in contextual definition.
Click to expand...
if you are going to go along with the assumptions of maya then it is no more than an illusion created by your imperfect perceptions.
Click to expand...
Hah, actually I don't find the whole maya thing to be 'accurate' as I state, everything exists, in context.
Perspective is, by definition, incomplete/limited. That is why anything appears to exist at all. Without that 'narrowed focus', we couldn't 'differentiate' undifferentiated potential. What we perceive is is not 'faulty, it is merely, to one extent or another, incomplete.
Everything exists.
But, metaphorically, we could well be looking at the same 'elephant'.

yeah man,
Click to expand...
Its always helpful, if you are responding to a post, if you include the name of the referred poster. If I don't see an obvious sign or my name, I might well miss it, or have to ask (as I did) which is boring and wastes space. Or I just miss it. (Old eyes). Please?
 
I once found nothing in a bottle. took a sip, but it was pretty blah.
 
Jamshyd said:
Hammilton: you seem to be ignoring all my posts here which are largely directed at you. What's the deal?
Click to expand...

I guess I just hate you.

Honestly it was just random chance. I apologise, and will rectify the situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top