Adamq8

Non existence vs existence as "ground"

44 posts in this topic

12 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

existence does not know or feel anything, it just exists. pure existence, no more. the infinite emptiness that is. Feeling or knowing is apparent, it is what seems to be happening in the current experience of having a body. existence only exists, is everything 

 

Yes I agree.

Existence has no opposite in that manner.

 


Let thy speech be better then silence, or be silent.

- Pseudo-dionysius 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at your hands. That is existence. You can't get at existence with thoughts.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Adamq8 said:

But we should be able to reach some kind of consensus in what existence entails.

Who cares about consensus? What would consensus give you that you don't already have or you don't think that you already have? Say we've reached a consensus and a conclusion, how would that feel? Grounding? Reassuring? Would you say that feeling is what you're seeking ultimately?

Quote

Can we say that existence is the feeling/knowing that one is?

The map is not the territory.

Quote

I can't deny the obviousness in me writing these words etc.

I can't deny that I am concious right now.

I have been in states where I would inquire into similar thoughts and get this mocking answer: What are you even talking about?!

Edited by Gesundheit2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All difference is imaginary. Oneness/Existence/Consciousness/Love/God (/w/e label you find fitting for the fundamental nature of reality) is the Truth: i.e. it is everything. Everything is it. It's this, this eternal moment wherein everything appears and out of which everything appears. Pure magic. Pure mystery, yet as obvious as the blue sky.

All difference within Oneness/Existence/You (with capital Y, not your identity) is a game, a play. Imaginary. It isn't real in any absolute sense. So in that way, the difference you imagine there is between 'existence' and 'non-existence' isn't real: it's imaginary.

Non-existence/nothingness IS THIS; it's identical with what you call existence or being.

Being is non-being. Non-being is being.

Speaking in purely philosophical, logical terms, of course non-existence (death, deep sleep) and existence (life, consciousness) are polar opposites. But the only one that's interested in logic to rubricize Oneness into categories is the ego that wants to survive. It's a game. And you are not part of the game or outside the game. You are IT. 

The only thing that can die is that separate self which thinks it were born and which thinks it's real. That's just God playing a game with Itself; a game which, often, "seems" very, very, very serious and full of horror: only so You can then, eventually, *actually grasp* how freakingly amazing You in Truth are and how freakingly non-serious, loving and infinite and good You/Existence actually is. >>Contrast<<<. Imagined. Play.

Existence is inherently playful. All purposes are imaginary, i.e.: play. It's an infinite strange loop, where you can lose and find 'yourself' (as 'something') for eternity.

Edited by WaveInTheOcean

Can you bite your own teeth?  --  “What a caterpillar calls the end of the world we call a butterfly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Adamq8 said:

A fictional duality in that, non existence is that which is not.

This is a duality in language only, which you are pointing out. You could say "non" or "not" anything you like, like non-nothingness, it is fiction. Most dualities come out of language use.

1 hour ago, Adamq8 said:

Illusion presupposes that something or no thing is aware of it as an illusion.

Illusion is only recognised retrospectively. So before illusion is recognised for what it is, it is real. But consciousness is self-referential, so it has the ability to recognise stuff - an observer isn't necessary.

1 hour ago, Adamq8 said:

But in contrast to what is it an illusion?

To itself, i.e. it wasn't an illusion before it was recognised to be one. Maybe I see the shadow of a man in a dark alley at night (real), and then I realise it was just a cat walking along a wall throwing a shadow (illusion).

1 hour ago, Adamq8 said:

This moment is what is, and it is an illusion that the previous moment somehow dissapeared into oblivion.

Yeah moment is the wrong word, because it has a connotation of "snapshot" or "slice" in time. It's no such thing, moments are a fiction of language. But I was talking within a paradigm of "moments". For something to stop existing, a comparison has to be made between two things: existence and non-existence. For a comparison to be made, we need to remember the state of something before it changed. So we are reliant on memory (possibly a fiction) to say that "moments" go into oblivion.

1 hour ago, Adamq8 said:

This moment is what is , and has always been, but through the appearence of moving through space and time it is creating the illusion that the previous moment went to non existence and that we move from 1 point to another.

That presupposes that "moments" exist, which they don't, but we can discuss things as if they do exist. The appearance of movement, space and time are all real, they are the content of experience, the illusory nature of them is only recognised after you have experienced them. They are real and unreal.

1 hour ago, Adamq8 said:

Reality is static but appears to be moving.

It is fluid but hard as a rock

Agreed, both are the case simultaneously. There is a static (persistent) quality to experience as well as a fluid one. There is a subtle interplay of the two: energy (movement) is conserved (static).


Conciousness is not conciousness, it's a word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Adamq8 said:

 

But perhaps because non-existence is not, then everything else is.

I enjoyed the post! But yes this is the key.  Since true non-existence does not exist by definition..you can think of it like it gets swallowed up by existence...thus turning it into existing but existing as a concept within existence.   Now to your point about non-esixtence, if it were to truly be, (and notice it would need to "be", swallowing up infinity..maybe you are really conceptualizing about "nothing" here?  Because true or actual nothing cannot be spoken or thought.  It is actual nothing - but it permeates through everything as it is the source of everything.


 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Adamq8

6 hours ago, Adamq8 said:

So i've been contemplating the issue of existence vs non existence.

And scouring over thousands of pages of different traditions and philosophy etc, mostly they say the same thing.

That existence in one way or form is the only possibility and that non existence is an illusion.

But here comes the contradiction in this day and age.

Take for example, Frank Yang claims non existence is the case upon death.

Leo claims existence is the case and non existence is impossible.

How do you reconcile this?

GOD realization is a true comprehension that eternity is what the case is, there is no death other then the illusory self construct. 

But GOD is not a finite thing or " no thing" 

Thats why I find a contradiction in Frank from my point of view, he is teaching GOD and Universe but that can cease to exist, how does infinite conciousness cease to be? 

Other then deluding itself to experience this.

How can GOD/Being be finite and cease to exist?

Where would it go?

@Synchronicity this might also be a question for you as well.

But @Leo Gura how do one actually reconcile this?

This is the biggest differences between the traditions.

It is the same as in philosophy today, idealism vs materialism.

Materialism = non existence upon death.

Idealism = core subjectivity is what reality is and "experience " or dreaming will never cease because nature does what it does because it is what it is.

Not to be conflated with the ego self but with pure awareness. 

And I do really question if this really is a semantic difference, i think it is more than that. 

Take advaita vedanta vs theravada buddhism, almost the same thing

   Hey, this was the issue I was also contemplating several months ago, about non-existence. In that thread, I talked about how the mythology of Zeus's origin was pointing to how non existence came to be, and how it changed when existence came to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

mythology of Zeus's origin was pointing to how non existence came to be, and how it changed when existence came to be

let imagine (although it's Impossible) that reality "was" non-existence. and suddenly existence arises. we know that existence is right now, undeniable. "was" with "" because if there is existence, there was never nonexistence, due to the very nature of nonexistence (no exist). and most importantly ... there never will be. because the current existence is not temporary. it doesn't last long, it just is. it is the same if it "lasts" a second, or 10 to the power of whatever. Is now, and on its edges or limits, there is nonexistence ... that it does not exist. there are no borders or limits, only present eternal existence.

Edited by Breakingthewall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Adamq8 said:

It depends on how we like to define non-existence, nothing is existence but pure and true non existence is not even nothing in my definition.

No thing ness is not non-existence, the void still exists or how we like to put it.

Pure non-existence would be akin to not nothing, not anything,  not void, not fullness, not awareness,  not anything , not even that.

But perhaps because non-existence is not, then everything else is.

It is paradoxical as f*ck.

Non-existence is eternal unchanging, and by definition not existing.

And if this came from non-existence then it is not a true non-existence. 

The term non existence should not even be a word in the dictionary because it contradicts everything.

 

IMO it is void as in literally nothing. And when we are conscious of something, we know total absolute nothingness by being it... As in, without things, nothing would never be known. What is something with literally no properties whatsoever?

The void has no properties not even being like an infinite blackness. It's just nothing.

It seems to me nothingness EQUALS the subject portion of awareness. It seems they are literally the same. It seems the existence of perception necessitates a subject to perceive these objects, but the subject is simply nothing at all. And that's what we are.

To me the nothing appears the ground of existence: There literally could never be more than one "absolute nothing" could there? It would be an impossibility? Then if every human's "consciousness" subject is found to be literal nothing, then it MUST be the same by the sheer fact there can't be multiple separate nothings because it's just nothing.

I'm not even sure it exists per sé because it might be that perceiving which springs from the void necessitates perceiver, and that portion is basically an illusion. Like the existence of perceiving necessarily created perceiver and perceived so itself can be. Without things the "subject" would not exist it'd just be void with no content. So I think we might be experiencing existent non-existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Someone here said:

"non-existence" doesn't exist. By definition. 

boom

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Infinity cannot die because it literally has nowhere else to go. Infinity exists in all places at once, including no-place. Anywhere you imagine Infinity might go to upon death, it's already there!

and boom

I like both those responses^^^ Now yes, there are people like Frank who say that nonexistence is real and furthermore, that it’s an achievable realization through practice. I’m not invalidating this in any way. Cessation is certainly an actual realization and can be very valuable. 
 

But I’ve had a discussion with Frank as well as many other zen practitioners and what I can say is that what they call “nonexistence” isn’t some Universal End where everything ceases to be. 

We’ve all heard the old zen proverb, “before Enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After Enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.” So rather than some Universal End to all of existence, cessation integrates into every activity. Nirvana = Samsara

You fuse it with life itself and integrate it. You still exist to chop wood and carry water. The cessation just becomes One with that activity. If Cessation were instead, some Universal End to everything, then there’d be no more chopping wood or carrying water.
But notice that no serious zen teacher describes cessation as an escape from existence where everything ceases to be. Instead, you still exist to chop wood and carry water. 
 

So in a strict Stage Orange philosophical context, what Frank Yang and zen masters call “nonexistence” is still a part of existence.
It’s just that what we’re calling “existence” here is an infinite singularity that contains everything, including what those zen masters label as “existence,” “nonexistence,” “both,” “neither,” “cessation” etc. 

It’s Pure Oneness/not-Oneness

So the “cessation of Oneness” that Frank talks about is also included

Hopefully that adds some valuable clarity to the subject @Adamq8 Just thought I’d give a detailed response on this since you requested my take
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Breakingthewall

7 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

let imagine (although it's Impossible) that reality "was" non-existence. and suddenly existence arises. we know that existence is right now, undeniable. "was" with "" because if there is existence, there was never nonexistence, due to the very nature of nonexistence (no exist). and most importantly ... there never will be. because the current existence is not temporary. it doesn't last long, it just is. it is the same if it "lasts" a second, or 10 to the power of whatever. Is now, and on its edges or limits, there is nonexistence ... that it does not exist. there are no borders or limits, only present eternal existence.

    I define non-existence as the same as nothingness, that which is before the big bang so to speak, and synonymous to the "void", because it's to avoid misunderstanding from where I'm coming from when I say non-existence. 

   Firstly, from your point of view, you set the standard for your imagination to not be possible to imagine that reality was non-existence and suddenly existence emerges as a emergent property of non-existence. That, and not knowing how you define non-existence for you, makes this very hard to reply. Are you assuming that you can have 1 without first the 0?

   Secondly, while it's true that existence in now is undeniable, there are many factors involved in making that so, and other factors that could also make that not so. If you are faced with something horrible, can you deny and distract yourself from that?

   Thirdly, "if there is existence, there was never existence, due to the very nature of nonexistence(no exist)." is not accurate logic. the order is this instead: Non-existence=no exist, therefore, if true, therefore there is existence, which equals no existence. Even here, there is an error. This is like saying that 0=nothing, so if I see a 1, then there never was a 0, but that assumes existence of 0 came after 1, or there isn't a 0.

   fourthly, another logical contradiction. You claim that most importantly, there never will be non-existence because the current existence is not temporary, but then you say it doesn't last long. Are you referring to existence not lasting long? If you are, then existence is impermanent, which eventually means that existence itself will die, and become nothing. If not, and you're referring to non-existence as temporary, when what you're claiming is that the very bed rock of all of existence, nothingness, the void, is temporary, and not permanent, which contradicts current spiritual teachings about the world, and the nature of no-self as a temporary thing, which contradicts.

   In conclusion, I think we still need to contemplate non-existence if there's still difficulty in grasping non-existence. 

 P.S.  The main problem when I contemplate non-existence, is that I run into immediate trouble, that I'm surrounded, in me, and around me, with existence, or 'something(s)'. So many somethings, somethings that cause and effect other things, and many somethings that correlate with other things, with little evidence of non-existence. I see a lot of conflation with non-existence too, that it's also synonymous with illusion of the self, or the illusion of the world due to maybe the impermanence. Is this the case?   

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing is, cessation is imaginary.

Wait till you realize that little mindfuck ;)


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

I define non-existence as the same as nothingness, that which is before the big bang

here is the main misunderstanding. the nothingness is, and it is you. This is not a matter of logic, it is a realization, mystical experience, or whatever you want to call it. it is to realize the being, the existence,  what you are. 

32 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

not knowing how you define non-existence for you

nonexistence cannot be thought, it does not exist unless it is eternal and it cannot be eternal since then there couldn't be existence. if now you immerse yourself in non-existence, and then come out of it, how long have you been in non-existence? No time, zero. because it does not exist.

32 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

the very bed rock of all of existence, nothingness, the void, is temporary,

The empty existence, the void is not temporary, is eternal. it is what there is, and it is still being, it does not pass, it is reality. I said that a second is the same as a thousand, but it is a bad example because there are no seconds. is, period. you can say: it is temporary because it fills up with things, here we are. but it's not like that. that's why they call it a dream. It's emptiness right now, seeming like it's not

32 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

.S.  The main problem when I contemplate non-existence, is that I run into immediate trouble,

Yeah, because it's Impossible to contemplate the non existence. It doesn't exist

Edited by Breakingthewall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Breakingthewall

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

here is the main misunderstanding. the nothingness is, and it is you. This is not a matter of logic, it is a realization, mystical experience, or whatever you want to call it. it is to realize the being, the existence,  what you are. 

nonexistence cannot be thought, it does not exist unless it is eternal and it cannot be eternal since then there couldn't be existence. if now you immerse yourself in non-existence, and then come out of it, how long have you been in non-existence? No time, zero. because it does not exist.

The empty existence, the void is not temporary, is eternal. it is what there is, and it is still being, it does not pass, it is reality. I said that a second is the same as a thousand, but it is a bad example because there are no seconds. is, period. you can say: it is temporary because it fills up with things, here we are. but it's not like that. that's why they call it a dream. It's emptiness right now, seeming like it's not

Yeah, because it's Impossible to contemplate the non existence. It doesn't exist

   Ok. I agree and disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Adamq8 said:

So i've been contemplating the issue of existence vs non existence.

And scouring over thousands of pages of different traditions and philosophy etc, mostly they say the same thing.

That existence in one way or form is the only possibility and that non existence is an illusion.

But here comes the contradiction in this day and age.

Take for example, Frank Yang claims non existence is the case upon death.

Leo claims existence is the case and non existence is impossible.

How do you reconcile this?

GOD realization is a true comprehension that eternity is what the case is, there is no death other then the illusory self construct. 

But GOD is not a finite thing or " no thing" 

Thats why I find a contradiction in Frank from my point of view, he is teaching GOD and Universe but that can cease to exist, how does infinite conciousness cease to be? 

Other then deluding itself to experience this.

How can GOD/Being be finite and cease to exist?

Where would it go?

@Synchronicity this might also be a question for you as well.

But @Leo Gura how do one actually reconcile this?

This is the biggest differences between the traditions.

It is the same as in philosophy today, idealism vs materialism.

Materialism = non existence upon death.

Idealism = core subjectivity is what reality is and "experience " or dreaming will never cease because nature does what it does because it is what it is.

Not to be conflated with the ego self but with pure awareness. 

And I do really question if this really is a semantic difference, i think it is more than that. 

Take advaita vedanta vs theravada buddhism, almost the same thing

I never said non-existence is a ground or it's what happens after death. I'm saying non-existence and existence are One. 2 sides of the same coin.  "Truth" is beyond both existence and non-existence, form and emptiness.  There is no contradiction there. Actually contradiction/paradoxes IS the bedrock of the Ultimate.  When you shrink yourself down to non-existence you flip yourself inside out into Infinite existence. Through out the spiritual path you tend to go back and forth between being and non-being, God mode and emptiness mode, until finally they merge as one, and your moment to moment experience is something like a Schrödinger's cat. you're both and neither totally dead, yet alive. The "Buddha" is the merging of both the "bodhisattva" (love) and Arahat (death). At some point you stop thinking about all of this. 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Synchronicity said:

boom

and boom

I like both those responses^^^ Now yes, there are people like Frank who say that nonexistence is real and furthermore, that it’s an achievable realization through practice. I’m not invalidating this in any way. Cessation is certainly an actual realization and can be very valuable. 
 

But I’ve had a discussion with Frank as well as many other zen practitioners and what I can say is that what they call “nonexistence” isn’t some Universal End where everything ceases to be. 

We’ve all heard the old zen proverb, “before Enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After Enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.” So rather than some Universal End to all of existence, cessation integrates into every activity. Nirvana = Samsara

You fuse it with life itself and integrate it. You still exist to chop wood and carry water. The cessation just becomes One with that activity. If Cessation were instead, some Universal End to everything, then there’d be no more chopping wood or carrying water.
But notice that no serious zen teacher describes cessation as an escape from existence where everything ceases to be. Instead, you still exist to chop wood and carry water. 
 

So in a strict Stage Orange philosophical context, what Frank Yang and zen masters call “nonexistence” is still a part of existence.
It’s just that what we’re calling “existence” here is an infinite singularity that contains everything, including what those zen masters label as “existence,” “nonexistence,” “both,” “neither,” “cessation” etc. 

It’s Pure Oneness/not-Oneness

So the “cessation of Oneness” that Frank talks about is also included

Hopefully that adds some valuable clarity to the subject @Adamq8 Just thought I’d give a detailed response on this since you requested my take
 

 

That;s a good explaination. God/Infinity must include existence and non-existence,   Even when a cessation occurs you won't be there to experience it.  But training yourself to go in and out of existence and non-existence over and over again does something to your mind and how you experience Reality.   And yes your daily experience becomes something like a permanent state of cessation while still totally conscious.  Existence and non-existence both becomes just another concept at the end. When they merge as One, both are transcended. 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Being Frank Yang said:

But training yourself to go in and out of existence and non-existence over and over again does something to your mind and how you experience Reality.   

What methods did you use for this training if you don't mind me asking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nos7algiK said:

What methods did you use for this training if you don't mind me asking?

Mainly Vipassana, self inquiry mainly. I've recorded my entire path on Youtube and training journal on IG, 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now