Do I really exist?

[freelight]

the 'unchanging' and the 'ever-changing'.....

the 'unchanging' and the 'ever-changing'.....

Good question to ask!

Better yet, are "you" a body, mind or both?

Let's say you have a neighbor that's gone bonkers via a mental disease, while you recently die of a terminal illness. Yet, before your death scientists "downloaded" all your thoughts, memories, ideas...etc.

Now, your neighbor's thoughts, memories...etc. have been illiminated by his mental illness therefore those scientists decide to "upload" all of your memories..etc. into your neighbor's currently defunct brain/body.

So, if successful where exactlly is the "you" in this scenairo, conversely where is the neighbor's "you"?
Is he gone because you've taken over his (now your) body or is he still here with your (now his) memories? :idunno:

Or take 2.

Reduce both bodies down to their fundamental elements ...slop them all together and show me the "you" in this elemental, uncompounded hodge-podge which distinguishes "you" from "not you"..that is, him.

Identity is an illusion.

Yes,...these analogies hold, as well as the 'Advaita'(non-duality) position from within the hindu school, - which adds further to your correlation of the Buddhist concept of 'no-self' (anatta) and 'impermanence' (annica).

The proposition that 'identity' is an illusion is only because consciousness assumes itself as a 'body-mind' construct or entity, which is subject to change at any moment, whatever 'vehicles' are being used by consciousness. The movements of mind, energy, spirit and matter continue on, no matter what transformations or adaptations of personality transpire, so that 'identity' is subject to the 'flux' of life, the continuum of creation (at least the ego investments). The pure identity of the eternal Self (Brahman/atman) is another issue, which is Self-evident, at the core of one's own "I" identity, which is the root of one's being, prior to space-time conception, that wordless/timeless state wholly ego-free (while in the play of creation it assumes various egos).

Also as we touched on earlier, the entire Christian concept of 'saving' a 'soul' is somewhat 'nebulous' from an 'Advaita' or 'buddhist' point of view, since there is no 'soul' that needs 'saving', since the soul is either already a part and parcel of 'God' (Brahman) or just a passing fluxation of energy and individuality that changes 'appearance' in the flow of nature (birth, death, rebirth), or some variation thereof So, there is no-one there to 'save', except that consciousness recognizes those aspects of 'being' that are unchanging, and those elements that are ever subject to change. - to engage this however means we must dissect the constitution of the spirit-soul, which in hindu and Buddhist schools is quite different from a Judeo-Christian conception.

In any case,....all is consciousness engaging adventures in space-time, donning various vehicles for individual expression and experimentation. This is apparently what life is about, - at least this is how it 'appears'.


pj

 

[quip]

Yes,...these analogies hold, as well as the 'Advaita'(non-duality) position from within the hindu school, - which adds further to your correlation of the Buddhist concept of 'no-self' (anatta) and 'impermanence' (annica).

The proposition that 'identity' is an illusion is only because consciousness assumes itself as a 'body-mind' construct or entity, which is subject to change at any moment, whatever 'vehicles' are being used by consciousness. The movements of mind, energy, spirit and matter continue on, no matter what transformations or adaptations of personality transpire, so that 'identity' is subject to the 'flux' of life, the continuum of creation (at least the ego investments). The pure identity of the eternal Self (Brahman/atman) is another issue, which is Self-evident, at the core of one's own "I" identity, which is the root of one's being, prior to space-time conception, that wordless/timeless state wholly ego-free (while in the play of creation it assumes various egos).

Also as we touched on earlier, the entire Christian concept of 'saving' a 'soul' is somewhat 'nebulous' from an 'Advaita' or 'buddhist' point of view, since there is no 'soul' that needs 'saving', since the soul is either already a part and parcel of 'God' (Brahman) or just a passing fluxation of energy and individuality that changes 'appearance' in the flow of nature (birth, death, rebirth), or some variation thereof So, there is no-one there to 'save', except that consciousness recognizes those aspects of 'being' that are unchanging, and those elements that are ever subject to change. - to engage this however means we must dissect the constitution of the spirit-soul, which in hindu and Buddhist schools is quite different from a Judeo-Christian conception.

In any case,....all is consciousness engaging adventures in space-time, donning various vehicles for individual expression and experimentation. This is apparently what life is about, - at least this is how it 'appears'.


pj

As a Buddhist I generally agree with what you say here. My only point of debate being that any philosophical Buddhists would take issue with the eternal nature of the Brahman/atman.... more conventionally known as the soul. How can the eternal manifest itself into the non-eternal (while maintaining eternal qualities)...there's a dubious relationship between those two that adherents to the eternal soul idea can't legitimately establish. Frankly, there's nothing for the eternal soul to establish itself to, into or upon.

_/\_

 

[oatmeal]

As shared earlier, 'Self-inquiry', its method and practice will take you directly to the SOURCE. (here). Why bother with a more complicated path like confounding theologies bound to an illusive world of duality (separation from 'God'),..when 'God' is the only omnipresent and eternal reality that IS ?

To your question,...the only reason anyone knows they exist, is because of 'God' who is the very root and essence of that existence, or existence itself. Therefore a true knowledge of one's own essential being (original nature) IS the knowledge of 'God', since the two cannot be separate.

One cannot make 'God' more 'real' than 'God' all-ready IS.



pj

Yes, I agree

One cannot make 'God' more 'real' than 'God' all-ready IS.

You have friends

They like you , they hang out with you

"A friend in need, is a friend indeed"

What does that mean?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Yes,...these analogies hold, as well as the 'Advaita'(non-duality) position from within the hindu school, - which adds further to your correlation of the Buddhist concept of 'no-self' (anatta) and 'impermanence' (annica).

The proposition that 'identity' is an illusion is only because consciousness assumes itself as a 'body-mind' construct or entity, which is subject to change at any moment, whatever 'vehicles' are being used by consciousness. The movements of mind, energy, spirit and matter continue on, no matter what transformations or adaptations of personality transpire, so that 'identity' is subject to the 'flux' of life, the continuum of creation (at least the ego investments). The pure identity of the eternal Self (Brahman/atman) is another issue, which is Self-evident, at the core of one's own "I" identity, which is the root of one's being, prior to space-time conception, that wordless/timeless state wholly ego-free (while in the play of creation it assumes various egos).

Also as we touched on earlier, the entire Christian concept of 'saving' a 'soul' is somewhat 'nebulous' from an 'Advaita' or 'buddhist' point of view, since there is no 'soul' that needs 'saving', since the soul is either already a part and parcel of 'God' (Brahman) or just a passing fluxation of energy and individuality that changes 'appearance' in the flow of nature (birth, death, rebirth), or some variation thereof So, there is no-one there to 'save', except that consciousness recognizes those aspects of 'being' that are unchanging, and those elements that are ever subject to change. - to engage this however means we must dissect the constitution of the spirit-soul, which in hindu and Buddhist schools is quite different from a Judeo-Christian conception.

In any case,....all is consciousness engaging adventures in space-time, donning various vehicles for individual expression and experimentation. This is apparently what life is about, - at least this is how it 'appears'.


pj

As a Buddhist I generally agree with what you say here. My only point of debate being that any philosophical Buddhists would take issue with the eternal nature of the Brahman/atman.... more conventionally known as the soul. How can the eternal manifest itself into the non-eternal (while maintaining eternal qualities)...there's a dubious relationship between those two that adherents to the eternal soul idea can't legitimately establish. Frankly, there's nothing for the eternal soul to establish itself to, into or upon.

_/\_

None of you delusional cosmic consciousness interlopers have any comprehension of the supernatural or the natural and their relative interplay.

A human soul is propagated by spirit-body joining. It is individual and everlasting, not eternal; and every soul has an inception and instantiation into existence. There is an underlying hypostasis (substance of existence) for every prosopon (face/presence/person).

If you could ever put aside all the mumbo jumbo drivel, you could at some point be able to have true understanding of the metaphysical and physical by the Spirit of the one true and living God, YHWH.

Unless and until that happens, you'll remain lost in your dream worlds of presumption that is passed off as objective truth. And that Hades will be your Gehenna for all everlasting in God's presence. But you don't and can't know what that means.

Why not just repent, not resist grace, and have faith by hearing the Rhema? All this other juju is just a bottomless psychedelic rabbit hole, Alice. No truth will ever be found on the journey you guys are on.

 

[quip]

None of you delusional cosmic consciousness interlopers have any comprehension of the supernatural or the natural and their relative interplay.

No need of the supernatural, hence no need of its comprehension.

A human soul is propagated by spirit-body joining. It is individual and everlasting, not eternal; and every soul has an inception and instantiation into existence. There is an underlying hypostasis (substance of existence) for every prosopon (face/presence/person).

Please illustrate how this "spirit-joining" manifests or "propagates" a human-soul?

Second, what's the practical difference between a soul being "everlasting" as opposed to being "eternal"? Semantics?

If you could ever put aside all the mumbo jumbo drivel, you could at some point be able to have true understanding of the metaphysical and physical by the Spirit of the one true and living God, YHWH.

Unless and until that happens, you'll remain lost in your dream worlds of presumption that is passed off as objective truth. And that Hades will be your Gehenna for all everlasting in God's presence. But you don't and can't know what that means.

Why not just repent, not resist grace, and have faith by hearing the Rhema? All this other juju is just a bottomless psychedelic rabbit hole, Alice. No truth will ever be found on the journey you guys are on.

You seem to desire some form of "God presence", why go to such metaphysical lengths..does your fervent desiring of such make it any closer to the truth?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

No need of the supernatural, hence no need of its comprehension.

It's not a matter of "need"; it's a matter of truth versus (your) fiction. There's a supernatural whether you dismiss it or not. You have an incredibly "low" view, but it's futile to address it much.

Please illustrate how this "spirit-joining" manifests or "propagates" a human-soul?

You wouldn't understand. You're on lock-down with your belief system of overwhelming prelest. It would be like herding cats.

Second, what's the practical difference between a soul being "everlasting" as opposed to being "eternal"? Semantics?

First, eternal is without beginning OR end; while everlasting is only without end, indicating an inception. Huge difference.

Second, semantics is "meaning". It's silly to demote "meaning" from the assigned representation the words are depicting.

You seem to desire some form of "God presence", why go to such metaphysical lengths..does your fervent desiring of such make it any closer to the truth?

And then I just pose the inverse to you. Now what? Emanation is absurd. The cosmos isn't the pinnacle of all existence. But there's never any reasoning with those afflicted with such cognitive dissonance as complete prelest. I just have to respond occasionally to all the drivel.

Have a great week.

 

[Nick M]

You exist in this world.

Do you exist?

 

[quip]

It's not a matter of "need"; it's a matter of truth versus (your) fiction. There's a supernatural whether you dismiss it or not. You have an incredibly "low" view, but it's futile to address it much.

You wouldn't understand. You're on lock-down with your belief system of overwhelming prelest. It would be like herding cats.

First, eternal is without beginning OR end; while everlasting is only without end, indicating an inception. Huge difference.

Second, semantics is "meaning". It's silly to demote "meaning" from the assigned representation the words are depicting.

And then I just pose the inverse to you. Now what? Emanation is absurd. The cosmos isn't the pinnacle of all existence. But there's never any reasoning with those afflicted with such cognitive dissonance as complete prelest. I just have to respond occasionally to all the drivel.

Have a great week.

There you have it. Seems my prelest is an overt challenge to your distressed desire for existence beyond the cosmos....which, being an ideal based upon faith, you can only fail to demonstrate.

If your desire for such is so strong as to confidently assure me the existence of the supernatural...then why all the, seemingly insecure, ranting to a non-believer afflicted with spiritual sickness and expressing drivel....are you fearful I might be correct?

Have a great week as well!

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

There you have it. Seems my prelest

Yes.

is an overt challenge

No.

to your distressed desire

No.

for existence beyond the cosmos....which, being an ideal based upon faith, you can only fail to demonstrate.

Your beliefs withIN the cosmos can only fail to be demonstrated.

If your desire for such is so strong as to confidently assure me the existence of the supernatural...

Confident assurance is faith. Neither my "desire" nor my own faith is relative to your position relative to faith. And you can't even confidently assure yourself or someone else of your assertions withIN the cosmos, much less address whether there is existence beyond the cosmos.

then why all the, seemingly insecure,

Insecure? LOL. Um... no.

ranting to a non-believer afflicted with spiritual sickness and expressing drivel....are you fearful I might be correct?

LOL, again. No. Not in the least.

Have a great week as well!

Thanx.

 

[Desert Reign]

Bibo ergo sum. Er, something like that.

For the young people: disco ergo sum.

 

[quip]

Confident assurance is faith. Neither my "desire" nor my own faith is relative to your position relative to faith. And you can't even confidently assure yourself or someone else of your assertions withIN the cosmos, much less address whether there is existence beyond the cosmos.

Does the idea of a non-existent god, make you uncomfortable?

 

[freelight]

exploring further......

exploring further......

As a Buddhist I generally agree with what you say here.

Yes, since Buddhist thought arose from within a Vedic-cultural context, hence its similarities with Hinduism on some fundamental points although the concept of 'anatta' distances itself from the eternal/immortal concept of the 'atman', which maintains its unchanging essence thru a long succession of incarnations.

My only point of debate being that any philosophical Buddhists would take issue with the eternal nature of the Brahman/atman.... more conventionally known as the soul. How can the eternal manifest itself into the non-eternal (while maintaining eternal qualities)...there's a dubious relationship between those two that adherents to the eternal soul idea can't legitimately establish. Frankly, there's nothing for the eternal soul to establish itself to, into or upon.

The relationship with the unchanging and the changing is one of those philosophical mysteries, how the infinite can involve and evolve itself within finite forms or have any kind of relationship at all, yet in the unfolding of the cosmos the essential substance, energy and intelligence expressed in creation can have no other source but its underlying substratum for its existence could not be separate from the infinite potentiality which is its root. This observation is key within esoteric science...elementary in occult teachings, seeing that visible things have corresponding relations with the invisible, as in the axiom "as above, so below".

As far as comparing or exploring the hindu concept of 'atman' with the Buddhist concept of 'anatta', we can search for an older thread touching on that, or maybe start a new thread. What does exist however from what we know and perceive is our own 'existence' here and now, no matter what we assume or perceive as being 'eternal', 'everlasting' or 'temporal'. What we 'sense' now, is all there is to us, as far as we know. Therefore as addressed, we realize we exist, because our own conscious faculty of mind or awareness registers that existence.



pj

 

[quip]

As far as comparing or exploring the hindu concept of 'atman' with the Buddhist concept of 'anatta', we can search for an older thread touching on that, or maybe start a new thread. What does exist however from what we know and perceive is our own 'existence' here and now, no matter what we assume or perceive as being 'eternal', 'everlasting' or 'temporal'. What we 'sense' now, is all there is to us, as far as we know. Therefore as addressed, we realize we exist, because our own conscious faculty of mind or awareness registers that existence.

Yes, on the phenomenal level Buddhists agree with you here. Yet, this is rather tautological, that is, it begs it's own conclusion (we exist because we exist as to 'sense' our existence.). You stated "What we 'sense' now, is all there is to us". You (human-beings) intuit this as a static event. 'Sensing' and 'now' are transitory, any nebulous sense of 'now' furtively dissipates into 'then' by the time such a sensing event reaches conscious awareness, void of any obvious temporal demarkation. Hence, if the self is contingent upon our sensing it as such in the 'here' and 'now'....it exist as merely a phantasm.

_/\_

 

[Nick M]

You exist in this world.

Do you exist?

 

[eameece]

As a Buddhist I generally agree with what you say here. My only point of debate being that any philosophical Buddhists would take issue with the eternal nature of the Brahman/atman.... more conventionally known as the soul. How can the eternal manifest itself into the non-eternal (while maintaining eternal qualities)...there's a dubious relationship between those two that adherents to the eternal soul idea can't legitimately establish. Frankly, there's nothing for the eternal soul to establish itself to, into or upon.

_/\_

Consider, though, that there may not be a difference between the eternal and the non-eternal. In consciousness, there's no difference between passing from one state to another, and persisting in the same state (H. Bergson, 1907). You as consciousness are always and eternally now, and yet always changing. So there would seem to be no problem with the eternal finding itself within the temporal; it is always there anyway.

 

[eameece]

None of you delusional cosmic consciousness interlopers have any comprehension of the supernatural or the natural and their relative interplay.

A human soul is propagated by spirit-body joining. It is individual and everlasting, not eternal; and every soul has an inception and instantiation into existence. There is an underlying hypostasis (substance of existence) for every prosopon (face/presence/person).

If you could ever put aside all the mumbo jumbo drivel, you could at some point be able to have true understanding of the metaphysical and physical by the Spirit of the one true and living God, YHWH.

Unless and until that happens, you'll remain lost in your dream worlds of presumption that is passed off as objective truth. And that Hades will be your Gehenna for all everlasting in God's presence. But you don't and can't know what that means.

Why not just repent, not resist grace, and have faith by hearing the Rhema? All this other juju is just a bottomless psychedelic rabbit hole, Alice. No truth will ever be found on the journey you guys are on.

It seems to me that most people here remain of the opinion that God is a separate, super-natural being from us, who is the father or authority figure we must repent and bow down to on punishment of hell. Alan Watts raised the question, why do Americans, who believe in a republic, accept a monarchical theory of the universe? Who is this Big Daddy, and who created Him?

We just have a mature idea of "God," rather than a child's myth from 3000 years ago.

 

[quip]

Consider, though, that there may not be a difference between the eternal and the non-eternal. In consciousness, there's no difference between passing from one state to another, and persisting in the same state (H. Bergson, 1907). You as consciousness are always and eternally now, and yet always changing. So there would seem to be no problem with the eternal finding itself within the temporal; it is always there anyway.

Hi eameece.

I agree the division between 'you' and the eternal is likewise illusory. Rather problems persist when one attempts to separate or distingush one from the other. My point, if there's no difference between the eternal/non-eternal dichotomy then there's no "finding [one]self within the temporal"...and thus no "you as consciousness".

Perhaps I'm quibbling or perhaps the mere nature of such paradoxal existence is all that may be fathomed.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

It seems to me that most people here remain of the opinion that God is a separate, super-natural being from us, who is the father or authority figure we must repent and bow down to on punishment of hell. Alan Watts raised the question, why do Americans, who believe in a republic, accept a monarchical theory of the universe? Who is this Big Daddy, and who created Him?

We just have a mature idea of "God," rather than a child's myth from 3000 years ago.

Yes, all you have is an "idea" of God, and that ultimately being yourself. Such narcissistic prelest is most certainly not "mature".

 

[quip]

Yes, all you have is an "idea" of God, and that ultimately being yourself. Such narcissistic prelest is most certainly not "mature".

I would say narcissism could be reserved for notions that man-kind's creation is somehow outside or distinct from the remainder of the universe.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I would say narcissism would be reserved for notions that man-kind is somehow outside the remainder of the universe.

I'm sure you would. Narcissism is actually reserved for those who think their inherent tangible realm of existence is preeminent to all else because of their sensual experience.