GENIUS FORUMS

[Recovered posts]

16 posts • Page 1 of 1
Why Existence?

Postby yahooyoda on Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:15 am
http://www.sankaracharya.org/i_am_that.php


"The seeker is he who is in search of himself. Give up all questions except one: "Who am I?" After all, the only fact you are sure of is that you are. The "I am" is certain. The "I am this" is not. Struggle to find out what you are in reality. To know what you are, you must first investigate and know what you are not. Discover all that you are not -- body, feelings thoughts, time, space, this or that -- nothing, concrete or abstract, which you perceive can be you. The very act of perceiving shows that you are not what you perceive. The clearer you understand on the level of mind you can be described in negative terms only, the quicker will you come to the end of your search and realise that you are the limitless being". - Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

User avatar
yahooyoda

Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:36 am

Top
Re: Why Existence?

Postby Sue Hindmarsh on Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:47 am
-

And...you want to say - what, Yah?

-

User avatar
Sue Hindmarsh

Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:02 pm
Location: Australia

Top
Re: Why Existence?

Postby Sapius on Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:52 am

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:-

And...you want to say - what, Yah?

-



I am that I am.

(please notice the full-stop)
---------

Sapius

Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 6:59 am

Top
Re: Why Existence?

Postby Sue Hindmarsh on Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:31 pm
Sapius,

"Full-stop" noticed.

"You are what you are" - And what would that be?

-

User avatar
Sue Hindmarsh

Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:02 pm
Location: Australia

Top
Re: Why Existence?

Postby bert on Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:46 pm

"You are what you are" - And what would that be?



sovereign in freedom,most desirable,beyond desire,untouched by the six stupefiers.

bert

Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Antwerp

Top
Re: Why Existence?

Postby Sapius on Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:08 pm

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Sapius,

"Full-stop" noticed.

"You are what you are" - And what would that be?

-



Hahahahahaahhaaaaa....

That's a good one... sorry Sue, I cannot help but RONFL... hahahaaha... I beg your pardon :D

Well, Bert expressed it for you above; and if it is still not clear, then may be Carl can help translate this too.

Try noticing it now.
---------

Sapius

Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 6:59 am

Top
Re: Why Existence?

Postby Carl G on Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:10 pm
Sue, I am that I am means "I am this particular temporary assemblage of energy which was caused to be."

Glad to help.

Of course, that is only one possible definition.
Carl

User avatar
Carl G

Posts: 546
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:52 am
Location: Arizona

Top
Re: Why Existence?

Postby yahooyoda on Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:21 pm
Perhaps there is only one Mind and we are all individualized manifestations of the Universal Consciousness. We are then co-creators of Reality.

User avatar
yahooyoda

Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:36 am

Top
Re: Why Existence?

Postby yahooyoda on Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:37 pm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/um/um05.htm


The personal self of every individual must acknowledge completely and unconditionally that the human or outer activity of consciousness—has absolutely—nothing—of its own. Even the energy—by which one recognizes the Great God Within—is radiated into the personal self—by the Great God Self.

User avatar
yahooyoda

Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:36 am

Top
Re: Why Existence?

Postby Dan Rowden on Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:15 am
Yoda, this is not a board for the visually impaired! Please do not use the size tag when posting material. Just place the text within the quote tags - thanks.

User avatar
Dan Rowden

Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:03 am
Location: Brisbane., Australia

Top
Re: Why Existence?

Postby Sue Hindmarsh on Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:24 am
Sapius wrote:

Sue: "Full-stop" noticed.

"You are what you are" - And what would that be?



Hahahahahaahhaaaaa....

That's a good one... sorry Sue, I cannot help but RONFL... hahahaaha... I beg your pardon :D

Well, Bert expressed it for you above; and if it is still not clear, then may be Carl can help translate this too.

Try noticing it now.



That full stop of yours is all good and well – that is, as far as correct grammar is concerned, but it doesn’t satisfy as a philosophical argument. To be able to do that, you need to back up your thought with the logical reasons that drew you to your conclusion. Your “I am that I am.” appears glib standing there all by itself. And as I’ve already stated, even the placement of the full-stop lacks the power to save your little sentence from oblivion. You need to inject some depth into it so that it can live without you having to continuously hang around extolling its virtues to every passerby.

But let’s take a look at it as it stands.

--------------------

“I am that I am.”

Are you?

“I am.”

What are you?

“That!”

What is “that”?

“‘That’ is what I am.”

Are you? How do you know?

“I just know I am – ‘that’.”

But what is, “that”?

“That” is what I am.”

That’s nice for you.

--------------------------
I’m sorry Sapius, it sounds just like an old slap-stick routine, and nothing like a philosophical statement. Two or three sentences at the most should do to give it some meaning – which isn’t much to ask for a little sentence that longs to stand on its own two legs without the aid of that big fat vainglorious full-stop. Worth it – don’t you think?

-

User avatar
Sue Hindmarsh

Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:02 pm
Location: Australia

Top
Re: Why Existence?

Postby Sapius on Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:33 am

yahooyoda wrote:http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/um/um05.htm

The personal self of every individual must acknowledge completely and unconditionally that the human or outer activity of consciousness—has absolutely—nothing—of its own. Even the energy—by which one recognizes the Great God Within—is radiated into the personal self—by the Great God Self.



"That in whom reside all beings and who resides in all beings, who is the giver of grace to all, the Supreme Soul of the universe, the limitless being -- I am that." - Amritbindu Upanishad



"That which permeates all, which nothing transcends and which, like the universal space around us, fills everything completely from within and without, that Supreme non-dual Brahman -- that thou art." – Sankaracharya



YY: Perhaps there is only one Mind and we are all individualized manifestations of the Universal Consciousness. We are then co-creators of Reality.



Are you, and the others quoted above trying to say that ‘I am THAT’?

I read the closing remark of opening quote as...

realise that you are the limitless being



And not as...

realise that you are the limitless being

---------

Sapius

Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 6:59 am

Top
Re: Why Existence?

Postby Sapius on Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:35 am

Dan Rowden wrote:Yoda, this is not a board for the visually impaired! Please do not use the size tag when posting material. Just place the text within the quote tags - thanks.



Yes. I wanted to mention that too. Please, you don't have to shout.
---------

Sapius

Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 6:59 am

Top
Re: Why Existence?

Postby Sapius on Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:51 am
Sue dear, how many years have you been at it now? Neither can you understand an elaborate opening post, nor what I said, not what Carl said, (I can excuse you for Bert’s language though), so I’m afraid it is your problem. Your thought processes are heavily academic, so try those that are of your league; I am but a lowly uneducated person.

I am that I am, is for me and me alone, and the end to the understanding of who I am? Please go and find your own certainty of ‘I am’, by following the advice given in the opening post.

On the other hand, be patient until it is “caused”; you understand that! Don’t you, Sue?
---------

Sapius

Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 6:59 am

Top
Re: Why Existence?

Postby Sue Hindmarsh on Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:06 am
Sapius,

If you believe that there is some meaning in the phrase you posted, you need to be able to back it up. Otherwise there is no reason for you to be posting anything on this philosophy forum.

-

User avatar
Sue Hindmarsh

Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:02 pm
Location: Australia

Top
Re: Why Existence?

Postby Sapius on Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:58 am

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Sapius,

If you believe that there is some meaning in the phrase you posted, you need to be able to back it up.
-


Yes mam'! Here is the back-up then.


"The seeker is he who is in search of himself.

Give up all questions except one: "Who am I?" After all, the only fact you are sure of is that you are. The "I am" is certain. The "I am this" is not.

Struggle to find out what you are in reality. To know what you are, you must first investigate and know what you are not. Discover all that you are not -- body, feelings thoughts, time, space, this or that -- nothing, concrete or abstract, which you perceive can be you. The very act of perceiving shows that you are not what you perceive.

The clearer you understand on the level of mind you can be described in negative terms only, the quicker will you come to the end of your search and realize that you are the limitless being".

- Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj



Circular back-up? Well, it may seem so to those who are caused to be confused. Its not their fault really.


Otherwise there is no reason for you to be posting anything on this philosophy forum.


Hehehee... Really?! C’mon now Sue… as if you don’t know the reason – I am caused to!
You see, I am but helpless in that regard, and neither could I help it if I were caused to ignore you.

Now since when is this logical reason not good enough or acceptable to this philosophy forum that you seem to be the custodian of?
---------

Sapius

Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 6:59 am

Why this thread?

I had saved a post that I'd worked on and posted, but which has not been retrieved. It is only two post on in Sapius' and my discussion, and one that he hadn't yet replied to. Though our discussion, as seen above, has focused mainly on the importance of transparency when discussing one's philosophical thoughts, we have also moved to discussing some of the consequences of causation - which is the focus of this post.

--

Sapius wrote:

Sue: The more conscious you are of the deep ramifications of causation, the more responsible you are for your own thoughts and actions, as well as the thoughts and actions of the entire world - now, and in the future.

Hmm... No, Sue, as I have mentioned many a times, and I take it you have misunderstood; all are equally responsible for their OWN thoughts and actions according to those deep ramifications of causality, and not only the “more conscious”. The ramifications of what you say indicate a fully bloated false ego. One should try and work on that first.

The only way “all” people could be “equally responsible” is if they all understood those “deep ramifications of causality”. This obviously isn’t the case, as most people base their lives on the false beliefs of an inherently existing-self, free-will, and the concept of mutual love and respect.

One other thing - if “all are equal”, the qualification “more conscious” is rendered meaningless.

...tell me, to what extent would a “more conscious” be ready to take responsibility for the thoughts and actions of Bin Laden?

Bin Laden’s beliefs arise out of ignorance. A wise person understands the causes of ignorance (such as the belief in an independently existing self) and strives to expose ignorance by fostering the truth (such as there is no such thing as an independently existing self). Responsibility for ignorance can only be taken by those who understand it – everyone else, because they are blinded by ignorance, are completely innocent.

.

Hi Sue,

The only way “all” people could be “equally responsible” is if they all understood those “deep ramifications of causality”. This obviously isn’t the case, as most people base their lives on the false beliefs of an inherently existing-self, free-will, and the concept of mutual love and respect.

Yeah… you are right, not all are aware of the deep ramifications of causality, hence cannot be held responsible for their thoughts and actions. Sounds reasonable. So we can let go of a rapist if he is not aware of the deep ramifications of causality.

However, how does that make you, (I take it that you consider yourself “more conscious”; please let me know if you are not), responsible of the thoughts and deeds of the rest of the world? I think the ramifications of causality have gone to your head as delusions of self-grandeur. No?

One other thing - if “all are equal”, the qualification “more conscious” is rendered meaningless.

Well that depends on what you mean by ‘”more” conscious’ here? Do you mean more aware of philosophical ramifications? A more realized mentality? A less deluded or a less stupid mentality?

All I see that is rendered meaningless above is the meaning of ‘conscious’.

One other thing; I don’t like dishonest people who deliberately pick words out of context and then use that to support a non-existent argument, or use it to divert a discussion. If you think, “all people are equally RESPONSIBLE for THEIR thoughts and actions” is the same as “all are equal”, (which you shamelessly imply by placing those words out of context in my mouth), then I’m afraid I haven’t met anyone more illogical or deceitful on this site than your good self.

Bin Laden’s beliefs arise out of ignorance.

Oops! I thought they arise out of causation. My mistake.

Sapius wrote:

Sue: The only way “all” people could be “equally responsible” is if they all understood those “deep ramifications of causality”. This obviously isn’t the case, as most people base their lives on the false beliefs of an inherently existing-self, free-will, and the concept of mutual love and respect.

Yeah… you are right, not all are aware of the deep ramifications of causality, hence cannot be held responsible for their thoughts and actions. Sounds reasonable. So we can let go of a rapist if he is not aware of the deep ramifications of causality.

The above sentiment only repeats your idea that, “all are equally responsible for their OWN thoughts and actions according to those deep ramifications of causality, and not only the ‘more conscious’”, and does not provide an argument as to why you believe this to be the case.

So we can let go of a rapist if he is not aware of the deep ramifications of causality.

Depending on the laws present in the rapist’s community, they will either be punished for their actions, or ignored. Rape has not always been, and is not even now considered irrational in some cultures and groups. In places where it is considered to be irrational behaviour, the rapist is punished according to the law of that land.

Philosophically, rape is a wholly irrational action which arises out of ignorance. The act is only possible if you believe that other people exist separate to you. Only when a person is submerged in that illusion can they believe that rape is having power over another.

Ignorance of one’s true nature forms the basis for all irrationalities: love and hate, fear and security, pain and pleasure…

However, how does that make you, (I take it that you consider yourself “more conscious”; please let me know if you are not), responsible of the thoughts and deeds of the rest of the world? I think the ramifications of causality have gone to your head as delusions of self-grandeur. No?

No. My posts make it clear that I do not believe in an inherently existing self. The only way I could possess "delusions of self-grandeur" is if I somehow became ignorant of that truth.

I’m responsible for the thoughts and deeds of the rest of the world because I am in no way separated from them. They are literally ‘me’. I therefore strive to act in accordance with this knowledge, and root out all irrationalities in ‘me’ – remembering that ‘me’ includes everything.

Sue: One other thing - if “all are equal”, the qualification “more conscious” is rendered meaningless.

Well that depends on what you mean by ‘”more” conscious’ here? Do you mean more aware of philosophical ramifications? A more realized mentality? A less deluded or a less stupid mentality?

Yes.

All I see that is rendered meaningless above is the meaning of ‘conscious’.

If “all are equal” in consciousness, none can be “more conscious”.

One other thing; I don’t like dishonest people who deliberately pick words out of context and then use that to support a non-existent argument, or use it to divert a discussion. If you think, “all people are equally RESPONSIBLE for THEIR thoughts and actions” is the same as “all are equal”, (which you shamelessly imply by placing those words out of context in my mouth), then I’m afraid I haven’t met anyone more illogical or deceitful on this site than your good self.

Below is your complete paragraph:

Hmm... No, Sue, as I have mentioned many a times, and I take it you have misunderstood; all are equally responsible for their OWN thoughts and actions according to those deep ramifications of causality, and not only the “more conscious”. The ramifications of what you say indicate a fully bloated false ego. One should try and work on that first.

As you can see, I had no need to place “words out of context in (your) mouth” for these are your very words. But if you feel that once again I have misunderstood your meaning, I will once again await the clarification of your position.

Sue: Bin Laden’s beliefs arise out of ignorance.

Oops! I thought they arise out of causation. My mistake.

No, you are not in error. Ignorance is not uncaused. One of the causes of ignorance is the belief that ignorance cannot be eradicated – but thankfully that is only believed by the ignorant.

-

Sue: Bin Laden’s beliefs arise out of ignorance.

Sapius: Oops! I thought they arise out of causation. My mistake.

Sue: No, you are not in error. Ignorance is not uncaused. One of the causes of ignorance is the belief that ignorance cannot be eradicated – but thankfully that is only believed by the ignorant.

Accordingly, how is a belief not itself caused? Why are you holding an ignorant responsible for his/her belief in this instant if that too is caused however?

Sapius wrote:

Accordingly, how is a belief not itself caused?

“Beliefs” are indeed caused. They also have effects.

Why are you holding an ignorant responsible for his/her belief in this instant if that too is caused however?

No, you can’t be too harsh on ignorant people like Bin Laden and the billions of other people who believe in love and hate, and the existence of an inherently existing self like he and they do. Their ignorance has been caused. But you can judge them harshly for effectively poisoning billions upon billions of other people’s minds with their ignorance – causing generation after generation to be trapped in ignorance like they are.

.

To gain knowledge, and to learn to love one another.

We live in an almost unimaginable wonderland of technology and are still troubled by the self-same concerns that tortured our ancestors. Why is that? More importantly, why accept the transmitted wisdom of your situation? Should it be yours? Should you accept that which not only appears to be correct, but that which insists that it is?

If I were a wise man, I would or might, suggest not. Yet, I am not wise. Indeed, I am terrified of my very own existence. I am also afraid of my very own not-being.

What knowledge? What love?

All.

windhawk wrote:

If I were a wise man, I would or might, suggest not. Yet, I am not wise. Indeed, I am terrified of my very own existence. I am also afraid of my very own not-being.

You sound like you are in a bit of quandary there, Windhawk. Maybe if you define "existence" and "non-being" you'll be better able to communicate what it is about these two concepts that evoke in you so much fear.

What knowledge? What love?

I'm not sure what you are asking. Can you add a bit more detail.

-

OK, the subject is existence, and the predicate is "why?"

The emotive, and in this case, primitive response was a poorly worded plea of poetics, which asked for a common sense (sensation) of the possibility that "all" is not non-sense.

Again, to the poetics: "a damn dirty trick, played by an uncaring universe, which will not only deny the importance of my Being, but refuses to acknowledge the chance of such a meaning."

No poetics: to have a self-conscious awareness that is not only refused a meaning, not denied but refused; a consciousness which has been created as a sentinent being (with a small bee), from dirt and will return to dirt, scares the hell out of me.

I can alleviate this fear by denying it, by affirming it, or by transcending it. Is not this my choice?

I simply choose to transcend it (existence), by affirming the possibility that life (again, the fear, My Life) has meaning, and thus forcefully expunge the possibility that it's all a "damn dirty trick."

Is this in any way valid? ...only, to the extent that I am a man who demands with his own power that such be so.

At this point, we retreat to poetics, to song, to life [and stand before Our belief of God] and sing with a trembling voice, "After such gifts, would you deny me what I most desire?"

Perhaps, the answer lies within your voice?

windhawk wrote:

OK, the subject is existence, and the predicate is "why?"

The emotive, and in this case, primitive response was a poorly worded plea of poetics, which asked for a common sense (sensation) of the possibility that "all" is not non-sense.

Again, to the poetics: "a damn dirty trick, played by an uncaring universe, which will not only deny the importance of my Being, but refuses to acknowledge the chance of such a meaning."

Not really poetic; just the ordinary garden variety idea that the individual is but a mere speck compared to the vastness of the universe. Also, to add a touch of the dramatics, you’ve imputed intentions to the universe which actually contradicts the idea of the insignificance of the individual. The universe, in your mind “denies” and “refuses” to acknowledge both the “importance” and the potential of your “Being”. The way you have put it, the universe is obsessed with your “Being” – though it would appear you’re presently not in its good books.

I wish people would drop such lazy minded whimsy. If you were ten years old it would perhaps be acceptable behaviour, but I don’t think you are; which means there is no excuse for you indulging in such nonsense.

No poetics: to have a self-conscious awareness that is not only refused a meaning, not denied but refused; a consciousness which has been created as a sentinent being (with a small bee), from dirt and will return to dirt, scares the hell out of me.

This plodding rehash has imbued into it all the same misconceptions of its “poetic” brother.

I already gather that you assume the universe to have some sort of intelligence, and I understand that you’re a tad upset because it won’t give you what you want (immortality?); but as yet, you have not explained why you think this is the truth of existence.

I can alleviate this fear by denying it, by affirming it, or by transcending it. Is not this my choice?

You're not sure?

You could also “alleviate your fear” by poking your tongue out at it – that may help. But if you were really truly scared out of your mind about the thought of death, the first thing you’d want to know is whether or not the concept was absolutely true. Have you done that? And if so, what conclusion have you reached?

I simply choose to transcend it (existence), by affirming the possibility that life (again, the fear, My Life) has meaning, and thus forcefully expunge the possibility that it's all a "damn dirty trick."

Is that it?! So this – that (waves hand in direction of above sentence) is the ultimate meaning of life – The Truth.

Ah, but…

Is this in any way valid? ...only, to the extent that I am a man who demands with his own power that such be so.

So it isn’t, The Truth. You haven’t gone to the trouble to ensure that it is true always for everything. It's just your ten year old self stamping around pronouncing it to be so based on nothing other than you wish it.

At this point, we retreat to poetics, to song, to life [and stand before Our belief of God] and sing with a trembling voice, "After such gifts, would you deny me what I most desire?"

Perhaps, the answer lies within your voice?

Well, in as much as I’m the one presently speaking to you.

It is not for me, or anyone else to “deny” you of this “desire” to escape death by what I’d describe as hiding from life. If you have no interest in discovering the truth of anything, you will undoubtedly continue on your merry way fostering lies and falsehoods wherever you go. I’d predict that your life, based upon your willful wish, should be satisfying as long as nothing too horrible befalls you. But the fate of all those that come after you, tainted by your whimsy, may not be so lucky. Unlike you, they may not be able to sustain the fairy floss fortress into which they have retreated. Their fears may instead entomb them in a living hell.

That prospect may be something that causes you to tremble.

-

No, no and no again. An argument is not the statement of a belief, nor of an understanding. It is only a discussion of what the immediate moment of thought contains.

I might be wrong, but I read some things on this board that seem to have an inauthenticity about it.

Step back, this is no competition.

To gain knowledge, and to learn to love one another.

That, is my grounding. Maybe I'm wrong... so, what?

I'm going to do what shouldn't be done; that is, argue a point before you've had a chance to digest what I just said.

You do give me the dignity of being wrong?

That is an assumption.

Do not, ever, insult me by implying that I've not yet lived.

An idiot will reply: so, what; what will you do; I doubt it; I do not care.

I do care. I believe you do as well.

Should it be otherwise?

windtalk,

Stop speaking in poetry. This is not a world guru gathering or aphorism competition.

OK.