Adamq8

So i've been contemplating the issue of existence vs non existence. And scouring over thousands of pages of different traditions and philosophy etc, mostly they say the same thing. That existence in one way or form is the only possibility and that non existence is an illusion. But here comes the contradiction in this day and age. Take for example, Frank Yang claims non existence is the case upon death. Leo claims existence is the case and non existence is impossible. How do you reconcile this? GOD realization is a true comprehension that eternity is what the case is, there is no death other then the illusory self construct. But GOD is not a finite thing or " no thing" Thats why I find a contradiction in Frank from my point of view, he is teaching GOD and Universe but that can cease to exist, how does infinite conciousness cease to be? Other then deluding itself to experience this. How can GOD/Being be finite and cease to exist? Where would it go? @Synchronicity this might also be a question for you as well. But @Leo Gura how do one actually reconcile this? This is the biggest differences between the traditions. It is the same as in philosophy today, idealism vs materialism. Materialism = non existence upon death. Idealism = core subjectivity is what reality is and "experience " or dreaming will never cease because nature does what it does because it is what it is. Not to be conflated with the ego self but with pure awareness. And I do really question if this really is a semantic difference, i think it is more than that. Take advaita vedanta vs theravada buddhism, almost the same thing

Śrī Aurobindo "They proved to me by convincing reasons that God does not exist; Afterwards I saw God, for he came and embraced me. And now what am I to believe- the reasoning of others or my own experience? Truth is what the soul has seen and experienced; the rest is appearance, prejudice and opinion." -- Sri Aurobindo "The cup has to be left clean and empty for the divine liquor to be poured into it." - Sri Aurobindo "Love is the keynote, Joy is the music, Knowledge is the performer, the Infinite All is the composer and audience." - Sri Aurobindo "The first and the most important thing is to know that life is one and immortal. Only the forms, countless in number, are transient and brittle. The life everlasting is independent of any form but manifests itself in all forms. Life then does not die... but the forms are dissolved." - Sri Aurobindo

Thank you guys for your beatiful responses, i want to answer them but I am at work now so I will answer them when I get the time. Just wanted to say that, despite having semantic differences or what not, this is an amazing community ? Thanks everyone. @Synchronicity @Leo Gura @Being Frank Yang @Inliytened1 @LastThursday @Breakingthewall @Mu_ Sorry if I forgot to tag anyone else that responded

Yes I agree. Existence has no opposite in that manner.

A fictional duality in that, non existence is that which is not. Illusion presupposes that something or no thing is aware of it as an illusion. But in contrast to what is it an illusion? This moment is what is, and it is an illusion that the previous moment somehow dissapeared into oblivion. This moment is what is , and has always been, but through the appearence of moving through space and time it is creating the illusion that the previous moment went to non existence and that we move from 1 point to another. Reality is static but appears to be moving. It is fluid but hard as a rock

Great inquiry. But we should be able to reach some kind of consensus in what existence entails. Can we say that existence is the feeling/knowing that one is? I can't deny the obviousness in me writing these words etc. I can't deny that I am concious right now. We could say that I assume you also have the same experience of the things i said above. But that might as well be an illusion. I can't read your thoughts but I suppose that you have thoughts, or how else would you wrote what you wrote, but that can as easily be a dream ofcourse and I am imagining right now that you exist. But can not the paradox be solved in saying, existence or this right here is all that there is or ever will be, therefore a notion of something that is called non existence is entirely an imaginary thought. It is the notion of non existence that gets us into the paradox, but the paradox would dissappear if we recognize that existence is that which is the case and that time as we think it is, does not exist at all.

It depends on how we like to define non-existence, nothing is existence but pure and true non existence is not even nothing in my definition. No thing ness is not non-existence, the void still exists or how we like to put it. Pure non-existence would be akin to not nothing, not anything, not void, not fullness, not awareness, not anything , not even that. But perhaps because non-existence is not, then everything else is. It is paradoxical as f*ck. Non-existence is eternal unchanging, and by definition not existing. And if this came from non-existence then it is not a true non-existence. The term non existence should not even be a word in the dictionary because it contradicts everything.

Yes indeed! Non existence relatively happens within existence, and Absolute Non-existence is not real whatsoever

Yes it is limitless in that way, it can be however it wills to be. Through my own awakenings, i've noticed the horror of the actual implication of what existence really is. There is no getting out, and that can be freakish but also liberating at the same time.

I agree totally. To me it seems more like Frank is throwing words around just to make it sound advanced. I do not doubt at all that he has had awakenings, or that he is exceptionally skilled when it comes to meditation and the different Jhanas, but it is not complete in my honest opinion.

@Nahm I also like how you explain this topic, with the notion of how it feels to actually "think" that non existence is real, it is not in accord with the feelings the body is telling you. It is false according to the feelings, non existence is not real.

Agreed. Just like I said to @Someone here , infinity and non existence is by definition totally exklusive since non existence is what it is by definition, non existence. It has nothing to do with the nature of infinity. If conciousness would cease when the body dies, then we can conclude that the imaginary brain is responsible for conciousness exactly as materialism has been saying. But that is not really the case, not according to logic, evidence , awakening, intuition etc. So I would say that to even speak about non existence is wrong, we can't point to it, because it is not real. To me your metaphysics makes sense and i've experienced a exact correlation with it, GOD realization is the most radical thing that there is, not only does it effect you but it effects everyone who is near and around you to the degree that it is completly realized that GOD is everyone and there is only the ONE and it has never ever been born to begin with. ETERNITY is not just a word game but actually the case.

Yes I agree with that. Non existence cannot possibly be. But I guess it depends on the definition people are using, to me non existence is that which is not and cannot possibly have anything to do with this right here. Infinity does not really include non existence because non existence would swallow infinity as it never was, and that would by definition already have happened but yet here we are. Or here infinity is. Those two are mutually exklusive.

How is Leo's view really so different then what Frank is saying here? You are still stuck with using language which inherently creates dualities and a seperation. But I find it amusing that Frank is more or less obsessed with Leo, have anyone else noticed it? There is ofcourse value in his message, but Frank is a metaphysician as well no matter how he believes he is just enlightened and has transcended mind. He nevertheless uses models of awakening formulated by mind. and then actually we might reconsider one thing, who is to say that enlightenment or franks natural state is that which is the ultimate truth? Actually deeply question this notion of that enlightenment is the ultimate truth. It can certainly be the most freeing thing i don't doubt that, but I do doubt that you can infer a ultimate status to it and that it somehow transcends mind is a thought, and ofcourse it matters what is meant when we say mind. Frank have to come to terms with, that he is also looking at the elephant from his point of view. And it is bound to be reflected through a filter as he is accusing Leo of. Ever wonder why there is disagreements in non dual circles as well? Because it is being filtered through an individual agent with his own biases. Absolutly im 100% for the notion that you can reduce the biases of mind to a large degree, but you will never ever get 100% free from it. Edit: i don't think @Leo Gura that a conversation with Frank as some are suggesting, would be fruitful at all tbh, i believe that Curt will ask you for a conversation with him and Frank.

"Scientism today is doing what the church did in the fifteenth century: forcing theory to fit a predetermined metaphysics." - Bernardo Kastrup

Totally agree with this! Im now about 4 h and 30 min in, and it is getting better and better, Leo you really did a good job with this one. I think Curt is amazing too, he opened up alot when you spoke about paranormal phenomena. You are still the greatest teacher there is in this field imo. Call me biased but it is nevertheless true, atleast in my view.

It was a great podcast and I think that Curt is pretty open minded, you broke through on him a couple of times, but your view is so radically different then his or his science audience, haha i can only imagine how many people will be pissed ? But truth is not necessarily a fun thing, especially for people like that. But I think you did great, if you do more podcast you will be a force to be reckoned with tbh. And I still feel that a podcast with Marcus Aubrey or a podcast with Bernardo could be interesting ? Anyway i did enjoy the podcast alot!

Nice!

Perhaps @Synchronicity can help you or atleast talk about it with you ?

Also, it is consistent with research that impaired brain function can and does correlate with a more profound spiritual experience or that ones identity is greatly enhanced, from being a person to being the universe etc. As with psychedelics, across the board with all different kinds of psychedelics, they greatly decreases brain activity, brain metabolism, totally a counter intuitive find, so a truly breakthrough experience of psychedelics which will guaranteed be the most profound experience of your life, decreases brain metabolism, so how do we reconcile this with idealism? The universe consist of experiences, it is a transpersonal field of conciousness, not necessarily a meta cognitive field, but experiential nevertheless, so when the ego/person/individual is getting out of the picture, reality will appear as it is. That there is a you seperate from the universe is a total illusion, even tho it does not seem to be the case.

You should instead contemplate what materialism actually entails, how come matter outside of conciousness, which is considered dead go together and create conciousness? If you investigate the brain, the feeling of love can and does correspond with certain areas lightning up, but that does not explain anything, thats a description not an explanation on why electrical impulses in the brain can make me feel love, i dont have any experience of the electrical output of the brain, i have my feelings and perceptions and thoughts about the world. There is a reason academics and philosphers, cred to David Chalmers, has labeled this particular situation the hard problem of conciousness. First of all, it is not hard when viewed through a mind/conciousness only ontology. It is hard for materialism to reconcile that sub atomic particles which is dead can combine or create a living thing with a nervous system. So how do they try to solve it? By postulating a certain metaphysics which is panpsychism, there is plenty of different versions of panpsychism, but the theory is that matter has an experience, there is something to be a sub atomic particle, but this also gives a new problem, the combination problem, it is as hard as the hard problem of conciousness. How does subatomic particles with their own experiences combine into a whole experience called a human being? Also lets talk about awakening, it is a truly ineffable experience, our language has evolved and is useful in our everyday life, it is inherently dualistic in its nature, but a pure awakening is usally a total non dual experience, we dont have words for it, language can't explain it, BUT we sure do try it extremely hard and it is there and then it is prone to disagreements or contradictions. A pure awakening is not really a meta concious thing, it is a direct insight without a self there to reflect about it, the reflection usally comes after, and then it is reflected through the filter of the person, its life experiences and beliefs etc. But what everyone can agree on is that it is a truly ineffable experience.

Thoughts is still thoughts, no matter how we twist and turn it, commentaries will arise. But that thoughts has nothing to do with reality is a bit of a cop out imo, BECAUSE, thoughts has everything to do with how you percieve reality or how you "create" reality. If you ever noticed with thoughts, they both arise how and when they will, but you can also actively contemplate using thoughts etc. Or build things using the power of thoughts and imagination. Some people like to look at thoughts as if they were the plague, but that is not wholeness at all, thats a bias. Thoughts is extremely useful, IF you know that they also can't capture the whole picture, they do create dualites in a way, but they are useful and necessary in life, hell life is thought imo. Someone who struggles with thought attachment should ser through the immaterial and ephemeral nature of thoughts, and the ones who know that thoughts is just something arising can also use them in a way that is not identified with. Thats more or less freedom imo.

I want to deeply recommend Bernardo's new book, Science Ideated. Why? Because if you struggle with the materialist view and outlook on life, or that it is ingrained in your "subconscious" I strongly suggest that this book is for you. The chapters is divided in essays, that include the topics of : why materialism is outdated and an absurd metaphysics of reality and why Analytical Idealism=everything is conciousness/mind, is a perfectly reasonable substitute for it. And how panpsychism is also a last effort for materialism to survive and keep their selves in the game so to speak. And finally his argument for mind/conciousness only reality. It is a philosophy not unlike Leo's teaching, IE everything is mind/conciousness. But he argues from a scientific standpoint that the evidence is clear on what paradigm makes the most sense both according to our experience in daily life and the hardcore evidence based science of today. He is a deeply intiuitive and honest intellectual guy who is deeply spiritual as well. I suggest you check out interviews of him on Youtube too, preferable the one with Theories Of Everything channel, the one Leo was on ? If you are interested in philosophy you should check him out aswell.

Excellent book aswell! Jung's most famous televised quote came after he was asked if he believed in God. He replied, “I don't need to believe, I know” Decoding Schopenhauer's metaphysics is also an excellent book! ?

Yeah I would say that even if you listened to the interview and read the materialism is baloney book, you should read his new one ?