What is the meaning behind existence, in your view?

[ananda]

Buddhists aren't universally in agreement about nirvana anymore than they universally have a structure of how karma exactly works, from what I recall. You have divisions because of those disagreements of method and doctrine. If you have no reason to doubt, then you seemingly have no reason to think in general except when it becomes immediately relevant, which seems very lazy.

I don't think I said I "have no reason to doubt" ... I said "I have no reason to disbelieve" that the highest Buddhist goal does exist, due to a growing trust based on a personal verification of lesser goals.

 

[ananda]

So, if you define "existence" as "the totality of everything, including consciousness" and this "highest existence" is real (i.e. included in "existence" - what´s the "meaning behind existence", again?
(Point: You are equivocating "existence".)

No, I merely have a more expansive understanding of "existence" than you do. Also, I do not limit "existence" to any particular definition in my OP, as I intended to leave it open for each individual to decide and expound for themselves

 

[Chany]

The question is incoherent. Existence alone can never generate meaning.

 

[bhsmte]

Personal experience of higher realms, and the law of kamma, etc. I have not experienced Nibbana (the highest goal) yet, but (as he instructed us to do) my faith in what the Buddha taught grows as I personally examine and verify each step of the path he mapped out. So far, I have no reason to disbelieve that Nibbana exists.

Ok. Personal experiences are highly susceptible to our own psyche and is why personal experiences people claim are highly different.

Depending on one's personal psychology, some are more prone to experience powerful personal experiences.

 

[bhsmte]

No, I merely have a more expansive understanding of "existence" than you do. Also, I do not limit "existence" to any particular definition in my OP, as I intended to leave it open for each individual to decide and expound for themselves

That is what you claim, based on your personal experiences. I would suspect, it is very important to you to think you have a more expansive understanding of existence than most.

 

[ananda]

That is what you claim, based on your personal experiences. I would suspect, it is very important to you to think you have a more expansive understanding of existence than most.

I meant that I had a more expansive understanding of the word "existence" than quatona's strict and specific definitions.

 

[bhsmte]

I meant that I had a more expansive understanding of the word "existence" than quatona's strict and specific definitions.

How so?

 

[ananda]

Ok. Personal experiences are highly susceptible to our own psyche and is why personal experiences people claim are highly different.

Depending on one's personal psychology, some are more prone to experience powerful personal experiences.

I don't doubt that. That is why one part of Buddha's path is to transcend the psyche.

 

[ananda]

How so?

I am open to whatever anyone reasonably defines "existence" to be, and to answer based on their understanding of existence. Quatona wishes to see that as equivocating.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't doubt that. That is why one part of Buddha's path is to transcend the psyche.

How does one know they have transcended the psyche?

 

[bhsmte]

I am open to whatever anyone reasonably defines "existence" to be, and to answer based on their understanding of existence. Quatona wishes to see that as equivocating.

But you decide what is "reasonable", correct?

 

[ananda]

How does one know they have transcended the psyche?

Among other things:

1. the absence of attachment,
2. detachment from or the stilling of thought,
3. detachment from or the stilling of emotion

, leaving only the observer.

 

[ananda]

But you decide what is "reasonable", correct?

In the context of my thread, sure, why not, since it's my thread and question

 

[bhsmte]

Among other things:

1. the absence of attachment,
2. detachment from or the stilling of thought,
3. detachment from or the stilling of emotion

, leaving only the observer.

All based on personal experience, correct?

 

[ananda]

All based on personal experience, correct?

Yes. IMO there is no practical existence of an objective reality.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes. IMO there is no practical existence of an objective reality.

Which would mean you form your own reality.

Is there anyway to rely on anything besides your own personal experiences, to at least increase the likelihood that a certain reality is more likely than another?

 

[ananda]

Which would mean you form your own reality.

Is there anyway to rely on anything besides your own personal experiences, to at least increase the likelihood that a certain reality is more likely than another?

I am not sure if I understand your question. Are you working under the assumption that there are multiple disparate realities?

 

[bhsmte]

I am not sure if I understand your question. Are you working under the assumption that there are multiple disparate realities?

Nope.

Is there anyway you can rely on elements outside of your personal experiences, to aide you in determining what is likely to be reality or not?

 

[ananda]

Nope.

Is there anyway you can rely on elements outside of your personal experiences, to aide you in determining what is likely to be reality or not?

The testimony of other conscious observers may be helpful, but it is ultimately up to one's own "observer".

I see reality in this fashion:

Imagine a flat sheet of fabric, made of interwoven fibers. Embedded in this sheet exists multiple lights. Streaming from each light are the fibers of the sheet, intersecting with other fibers emanating from other lights.

I see the sheet as representing (illusory) reality. The "lights" represent multiple individual conscious observers in that reality. Observers, craving "reality", both create and are attached to the fibers (kamma/karma) of existence. The fibers represent strings of created reality, the Creator being each individual observer. Where a "fiber" intersects with a "fiber" emanating from another observer, an illusory "independent" object in illusory reality is created.

The more attached (craving) an observer is to this illusory "reality", the more entangled he becomes in the "fabric" of illusory reality. Transcending the illusory reality involves cutting the fibers of kamma, freeing the conscious observer. The process of "cutting" the fibers destroys one's own fibers from illusory reality, destroys his version of reality (his universe) as he knows it, with the result of collapsing all of reality as far as he is concerned.

 

[bhsmte]

The testimony of other conscious observers may be helpful, but it is ultimately up to one's own "observer".

I see reality in this fashion:

Imagine a flat sheet of fabric, made of interwoven fibers. Embedded in this sheet exists multiple lights. Streaming from each light are the fibers of the sheet, intersecting with other fibers emanating from other lights.

I see the sheet as representing (illusory) reality. The "lights" represent multiple individual conscious observers in that reality. Observers, craving "reality", both create and are attached to the fibers (kamma/karma) of existence. The fibers represent strings of created reality, the Creator being each individual observer. Where a "fiber" intersects with a "fiber" emanating from another observer, an illusory "independent" object in illusory reality is created.

The more attached (craving) an observer is to this illusory "reality", the more entangled he becomes in the "fabric" of illusory reality. Transcending the illusory reality involves cutting the fibers of kamma, freeing the conscious observer. The process of "cutting" the fibers destroys one's own fibers from illusory reality, destroys his version of reality (his universe) as he knows it, with the result of collapsing all of reality as far as he is concerned.

Never mind.