.Gwenn Dana wrote:You cannot define a term by using itself or referencing to everything. Such definition is nonsense.
What? Well find me something that isn't true. You can't because "nothing" does not exist.
.Gwenn Dana wrote:You cannot define a term by using itself or referencing to everything. Such definition is nonsense.
Buddhism describes 31 planes of existence, but there are actually 32. The utmost worst is "non-existence", but this is usually censored because it´s terrifying to think about.garudha wrote:You can't because "nothing" does not exist.
Buddhism says that non-existence actually exists ? That's quite a claim. Are you sure you don't mean that YOU can't exist (separately) in a state of Nibbana ?odysseus wrote:Buddhism describes 31 planes of existence, but there are actually 32. The utmost worst is "non-existence", but this is usually censored because it´s terrifying to think about.garudha wrote:You can't because "nothing" does not exist.
Non-existence is lower than death itself, meaning in quick terms that one is completely forgotten by "all loved ones" and so on, like no traces of a life left (very rare I think). A vacuum in empty space is non-existence too.garudha wrote:Buddhism says that non-existence actually exists ? That's quite a claim. Are you sure you don't mean that YOU can't exist (separately) in a state of Nibbana ?odysseus wrote:
Buddhism describes 31 planes of existence, but there are actually 32. The utmost worst is "non-existence", but this is usually censored because it´s terrifying to think about.
Thanks for explaining it but I don't really understand. Maybe I'm tired.odysseus wrote:Non-existence is lower than death itself, meaning in quick terms that one is completely forgotten by "all loved ones" and so on, like no traces of a life left (very rare I think). A vacuum in empty space is non-existence too.garudha wrote:Buddhism says that non-existence actually exists ? That's quite a claim. Are you sure you don't mean that YOU can't exist (separately) in a state of Nibbana ?odysseus wrote:
Buddhism describes 31 planes of existence, but there are actually 32. The utmost worst is "non-existence", but this is usually censored because it´s terrifying to think about.
When Nirvana is reached, you´re like you said not separate anymore but you still are conscious of "living, and yourself".
Or maybe you really don't understand it. And that's OK - not understanding it is fine. The problems only start when you *think* you understand it, but you really don't.Garudha wrote:Thanks for explaining it but I don't really understand. Maybe I'm tired.
I should have said "lower than hell", sorry. I imagine hell is somewhat rare too, though death is a kind of hell on Earth like it´s said.garudha wrote: "Non-existence is lower than death itself" I don't know what either of those two things are, so, the combination is even harder to understand . What is death?
Buddhists should be hobby scientists also, not complicated. There are invisible particles and waves in space (outside our atmosphere), but there exist areas in space without particles or waves = vacuum. Then we can say that nothing exists there (not even space).garudha wrote: "A vacuum in empty space is non-existence too.". Yeah but if there is space then there is something, isn't there? --or do you refer to some complicated physics?
Yes, the notion of SELF has gone. Depends how you want to define "you don´t exist", it can be confusing to people to think annihilation/disappearance. "Only the real things exist": Well it cannot get more "real deal" than with Nirvana, sir!garudha wrote: "When Nirvana is reached, you´re like you said not separate anymore but you still are conscious of "living, and yourself""... Maybe only Nirvana exists but the "you" is gone? --so you don't exist (like you said) but only the real things exists?
That can be a reason for resistence to keep identity and its characteristics going on. Letting go is then going in the nowhere instead of very peace. I guess letting go needs surrendering identity and its goods and bads completely, by trust. Not trusting the apprehended artificial ideation.Depends how you want to define "you don´t exist", it can be confusing to people to think annihilation/
disappearance
As long as consciousness/mind is locked into a thinking of being a self, an identity ( broken/separate awareness), it is triggered by its inner and outer images/movements/other. It seems, that is meant with being enslaved of the mind, which is suffering. I guess conscious can without suffering.like you said not separate anymore but you still are conscious
odysseus wrote:Buddhists should be hobby scientists also, not complicated. There are invisible particles and waves in space (outside our atmosphere), but there exist areas in space without particles or waves = vacuum.garudha wrote: "A vacuum in empty space is non-existence too.". Yeah but if there is space then there is something, isn't there? --or do you refer to some complicated physics?
Then we can say that nothing exists there (not even space).
non-existence is as existent as much as existence is non-existent. / existence is as non-existent as much as non-existence is existent.Gwenn Dana wrote:It appears to me that nonexistent could be called those playful options which do not express in any consciousness.
Not. Naming it leads into an endless loop. No matter whether the operation is affirmation, negation, superposition, or whatever. It cannot escape thingyfying its reference, since that is an inherent feature of language as soon as sense is applied to the mere vocal chord gibberish.garudha wrote:If there was "something or nothing", which was neither "existent" nor "non-existent", what would you suppose we name "that which is without juxtaposition against this" ?
"thingyfying"Gwenn Dana wrote:Not. Naming it leads into an endless loop. No matter whether the operation is affirmation, negation, superposition, or whatever. It cannot escape thingyfying its reference, since that is an inherent feature of language as soon as sense is applied to the mere vocal chord gibberish.garudha wrote:If there was "something or nothing", which was neither "existent" nor "non-existent", what would you suppose we name "that which is without juxtaposition against this" ?
The process of observing, when an observer is observing something which is observed, and is aware of the observation (i.e. a subject/object-duality is emerging from the prior emerging "observation", where consciousness reflects back on itself (that produces that observer), and doing so is also perceived). It becomes a concept by abstraction (therefore the observing needs to be observed). There is no longer only sensual input, but you can call it "observation", no matter what it is that is being observed or who is observing it.garudha wrote:Please explain what you mean by "the concept of observation", Gwenn.