What is the meaning behind existence, in your view?

[quatona]

No, I merely have a more expansive understanding of "existence" than you do.

I haven´t even told you what an "understanding of existence" I have. After all, it´s just a word, and I am fine to follow your thoughts based on your definition - as long as this definition is coherent and not changed in the midst of describing your ideas.

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

Well, if you make statements, arguments and/or models with the keyword "existence" in it (as you did), I expect you to not use the word in different meanings.
So I ask you again: What is "the meaning behind existence" (in your "expansive understanding" of the term "existence")?

 

[ananda]

I haven´t even told you what an "understanding of existence" I have. After all, it´s just a word, and I am fine to follow your thoughts based on your definition - as long as this definition is coherent and not changed in the midst of describing your ideas.

Well, if you make statements, arguments and/or models with the keyword "existence" in it (as you did), I expect you to not use the word in different meanings.
So I ask you again: What is "the meaning behind existence" (in your "expansive understanding" of the term "existence")?

As I've said, the meaning as I understand it is to transcend this existence in order to gain the highest existence.

 

[quatona]

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.

I´m sorry, but as far as I can tell your idea of reality/existence is just as much a product of your thoughts and emotions as everybody else´s, and you seem quite attached to this product of your mind.

 

[ananda]

I´m sorry, but as far as I can tell your idea of reality/existence is just as much a product of your thoughts and emotions as everybody else´s, and you seem quite attached to this product of your mind.

I've no problem with that!

 

[quatona]

As I've said, the meaning as I understand it is to transcend this existence in order to gain the highest existence.

This would be an answer to "What´s the meaning behind this existence?"
It isn´t an answer to the question when we work from your definition of "existence" (which includes your "higher existence").

 

[ananda]

This would be an answer to "What´s the meaning behind this existence?"
It isn´t an answer to the question when we work from your definition of "existence" (which includes your "higher existence").

I've also said, I had no answer regarding the purpose/meaning of the highest existence.

 

[quatona]

I've also said, I had no answer regarding the purpose/meaning of the highest existence.

So you have no answer regarding the purpose/meanig behind existence (since "existence", per your own definition, includes your "higher existence").

 

[ananda]

So you have no answer regarding the purpose/meanig behind existence (since "existence", per your own definition, includes your "higher existence").

No, I have no answer regarding the purpose or meaning behind the highest existence Maybe one day, if I should reach it!

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

That doesn't necessarily change much: it still reduces this to you going on your own intuition instead of trying to be more objective in considering you could be wrong. Disbelief is a stronger term than doubt: if anything, you're making this more black and white than it needs to be. I wasn't saying you should outright disbelieve, but question whether a particular understanding is accurate

 

[ananda]

That doesn't necessarily change much: it still reduces this to you going on your own intuition instead of trying to be more objective in considering you could be wrong. Disbelief is a stronger term than doubt: if anything, you're making this more black and white than it needs to be. I wasn't saying you should outright disbelieve, but question whether a particular understanding is accurate

I understand fully that I can very well be wrong ... when I come to that point, I will surely do a 180. All I'm saying is that as of right now, I have no reason to disbelieve what the Buddha said is ahead of me to be wrong, since the path as he has described it (so far as I've taken it) has been accurate.

 

[muichimotsu]

My main criticism still seems to remain: you're just taking it as you see it, which focuses a bit too much on the subjective aspects of what appears to be an existentialist viewpoint you hold. The objective aspects are in the philosophy, but they're less emphasized because, arguably, the subjective is still held as more primary than those truths that are inescapable regardless of your convictions otherwise.

But if we're going with a purely coherentist or pragmatic structure of epistemology (which seems to be what you're utilizing), there's not a lot of room for growth unless you're also incorporating a degree of postmodern thought, where things are so relative, you don't have much foundation or stability beyond "what works for you" rather than common ground for those who will disagree with you on some or all things.

 

[ananda]

My main criticism still seems to remain: you're just taking it as you see it, which focuses a bit too much on the subjective aspects of what appears to be an existentialist viewpoint you hold. The objective aspects are in the philosophy, but they're less emphasized because, arguably, the subjective is still held as more primary than those truths that are inescapable regardless of your convictions otherwise.

But if we're going with a purely coherentist or pragmatic structure of epistemology (which seems to be what you're utilizing), there's not a lot of room for growth unless you're also incorporating a degree of postmodern thought, where things are so relative, you don't have much foundation or stability beyond "what works for you" rather than common ground for those who will disagree with you on some or all things.

Does anything truly exist outside what one knows directly for oneself?

 

[muichimotsu]

In the absolute sense, no. But in the sense that it still exists even if we don't perceive it, yes. I can meet my grandparents, but just because I haven't seen them in a while doesn't mean they cease to exist as entities unto themselves anymore than a cat I see at a friend's house loses its existence because I only see it once every few months.

You're suggesting that the essence of things is in our perception, but that's closer to incidental interactions rather than us creating something in itself by our exposure to it. Trees in my backyard existed before I was born, same as the house I'm living in. My existence isn't required for them. All I can say is that these things can be confirmed to be true moreso when I have direct experience with them, but not that they cannot exist apart from my experience of them.

 

[Davian]

Does anything truly exist outside what one knows directly for oneself?

Try walking across a busy highway at night with your eyes closed.

 

[ananda]

In the absolute sense, no. But in the sense that it still exists even if we don't perceive it, yes. I can meet my grandparents, but just because I haven't seen them in a while doesn't mean they cease to exist as entities unto themselves anymore than a cat I see at a friend's house loses its existence because I only see it once every few months.

You're suggesting that the essence of things is in our perception, but that's closer to incidental interactions rather than us creating something in itself by our exposure to it. Trees in my backyard existed before I was born, same as the house I'm living in. My existence isn't required for them. All I can say is that these things can be confirmed to be true moreso when I have direct experience with them, but not that they cannot exist apart from my experience of them.

Try walking across a busy highway at night with your eyes closed.

I don't deny that there is a form of external existence apart from the personal experience. The "outer" forms of existences, like a car on a busy highway, is sustained by other consciousnesses. IMO weaking of kamma attachments to the fabric of existence will allow someone to transcend the influence of these other objects, in a "miraculous" way.

 

[muichimotsu]

All you seemed to have said there was losing attachments, particularly in a karmic sense, will somehow allow you to perceive in a way that's different, but does that make you more objective in that epistemological sense of not having your own filters, even if they're not as biased?

 

[ananda]

Losing attachments of the mind is the abandonment of filters.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't deny that there is a form of external existence apart from the personal experience. The "outer" forms of existences, like a car on a busy highway, is sustained by other consciousnesses. IMO weaking of kamma attachments to the fabric of existence will allow someone to transcend the influence of these other objects, in a "miraculous" way.

Then good luck then crossing a street where you are blindfolded and an unoccupied car is rolling down a hill because someone forgot to set the parking brake. As long as no one is looking, you're okay, right?

(This is Darwin Award material.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[muichimotsu]

Losing attachments of the mind is the abandonment of filters.

Of some filters, but not all filters. To say you can just look at things completely as they are is a stretch. You have particular biases of sorts that you're approaching things with and eve if they are good, that doesn't mean you've looked at things completely.

 

[Davian]

I don't deny that there is a form of external existence apart from the personal experience. The "outer" forms of existences, like a car on a busy highway, is sustained by other consciousnesses. IMO weaking of kamma attachments to the fabric of existence will allow someone to transcend the influence of these other objects, in a "miraculous" way.

If you were the only one left alive on Earth, you could be impervious to falling rocks and trees? Just close your eyes...