Who Dug this out of the Archives?, I just had to read my own posts from like 4 years ago. I would add anything but PAst me already told you the answer.
Future me is content with past me.
Peace.
Future me is content with past me.
Peace.
WHY does anything exist?
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
- Status
Not good enough.
I know thats what im saying,
Make it shorter and more Direct. Trim it up a little/
peace.
I like past E.F.C.
Future Chi agrees with past Chi though
I dont like religious groups and cults, (especialy dangerous sects and cult-cells) I Don't go to a certain mosque/Church/Temple/synagogue I practice my religion on my own mostly its unique and not quite simply Islam or Judaism or Kabalah. I still do all the things I did as a Daoist. My meditations (Except i don't teach martial arts to students now)
Anyone who calls themself Sunni or shia, or pentacostal or catholic or whatever little sub group I dont approve of. We are all brothers and we should never just Read one book. I carry books and scrolls with me wherever I go just like before I havent stopped Reading or learning of new things.
Cults = bad still to future Chi.
Peace.
Of late I have been googling the phrase "is the world real" and coming up with a lot of interesting discussion on several message forums.
The question of the objective reality of the world beats us all. I am no different than others in having my own little set of beliefs - and mind you - I call them my own not in the sense of having invented them but only in the sense of having obtained them through the experience of what's available in the literature surrounding the subject and through other beings.
Let's take the question of reality itself...perhaps once this question is answered - the others would automatically be answered.
Is the world real? Do material things truly exist? Let's take a rock for example. We understand that rock is present at a particular location when sufficient light is able to illumine it and we have a capable set of eyes to see it. Other than that - if light is not sufficient or we are blind - we can only conceptually understand a rock - but never verify its existence.
Again - let's come to a non-tangible thing - say our thought itself. We have thoughts and there is no question about it. But can we touch/see/hear thoughts? No. Going by the conventional definition - thought may be difficult to describe as an entity having an existence.
Coming back to the rock - how do we know it really exists - even if we hold it in our hands and can see it etc. Because our connection with the rock is through the image that's formed in the back of our heads (retina). The same goes for every tangible object including our own bodies. If that image is not being formed - the "reality" of a lot of things would come into question.
The only thing that's beyond any question is the simple fact that we are are aware of our own existence. That we exist in no uncertain terms is a reality one cannot deny. Whether the existence - the perceived existence is real or fake - there is no way to tell. But IT SIMPLY IS.
All other things that require material aids for coming into our awareness (such as our senses - eyes, skin, nose etc) - we cannot say whether they truly exist or are perceived to exist. Of course if they are being perceived to exist - our perception cannot form in some thin air. It has to have some kind of reality otherwise we will never have that perception in the first place. But whether that perception is real or imagined - one cannot say for sure.
Can our perception of our existing be similarly questionable? As in could it be that we are imagining we exist and we don't really? If we don't really then there is no questioner to put that question in the first place and hence is a priori inadmissible. So long as there is a questioner - some entity has to exist. Whether that entity is the mind body sense complex or something beyond this trilogy is the point of argument.
I believe in one simple fact - the whole worldy phenomenon can be broadly categorized into a seer - seen relationship. Everything in the world is clearly divisible into this subject object relationship. And the primal subject is according to me the reality - the primal subject being the observer of everything that exists (whether real or make believe). Even to record the fact that I am dead - the I must unquestionably exist. Even to comment that something is real or unreal - the commenter (in the form of the subject) must exist.
The sage Ramana Maharshi used to say - and please pardon me for bringing a spiritual angle to this discourse, but I can't help it - that reality is hard to describe in words in so far as words are created by the very same entity whose reality is under scrutiny. One potential delusion can only accentuate the illusion not obviate it.
So trying to understand the reality of things poses inherent challenges because the very entity which is sought to be understood is performing the act of understanding it. And then of course even assuming we somehow come to understand the truth there is - how again do we explain it using words which as mentioned earlier are a part and parcel of the entity under scrutiny - and hence questionable/debatable etc.
The question of the objective reality of the world beats us all. I am no different than others in having my own little set of beliefs - and mind you - I call them my own not in the sense of having invented them but only in the sense of having obtained them through the experience of what's available in the literature surrounding the subject and through other beings.
Let's take the question of reality itself...perhaps once this question is answered - the others would automatically be answered.
Is the world real? Do material things truly exist? Let's take a rock for example. We understand that rock is present at a particular location when sufficient light is able to illumine it and we have a capable set of eyes to see it. Other than that - if light is not sufficient or we are blind - we can only conceptually understand a rock - but never verify its existence.
Again - let's come to a non-tangible thing - say our thought itself. We have thoughts and there is no question about it. But can we touch/see/hear thoughts? No. Going by the conventional definition - thought may be difficult to describe as an entity having an existence.
Coming back to the rock - how do we know it really exists - even if we hold it in our hands and can see it etc. Because our connection with the rock is through the image that's formed in the back of our heads (retina). The same goes for every tangible object including our own bodies. If that image is not being formed - the "reality" of a lot of things would come into question.
The only thing that's beyond any question is the simple fact that we are are aware of our own existence. That we exist in no uncertain terms is a reality one cannot deny. Whether the existence - the perceived existence is real or fake - there is no way to tell. But IT SIMPLY IS.
All other things that require material aids for coming into our awareness (such as our senses - eyes, skin, nose etc) - we cannot say whether they truly exist or are perceived to exist. Of course if they are being perceived to exist - our perception cannot form in some thin air. It has to have some kind of reality otherwise we will never have that perception in the first place. But whether that perception is real or imagined - one cannot say for sure.
Can our perception of our existing be similarly questionable? As in could it be that we are imagining we exist and we don't really? If we don't really then there is no questioner to put that question in the first place and hence is a priori inadmissible. So long as there is a questioner - some entity has to exist. Whether that entity is the mind body sense complex or something beyond this trilogy is the point of argument.
I believe in one simple fact - the whole worldy phenomenon can be broadly categorized into a seer - seen relationship. Everything in the world is clearly divisible into this subject object relationship. And the primal subject is according to me the reality - the primal subject being the observer of everything that exists (whether real or make believe). Even to record the fact that I am dead - the I must unquestionably exist. Even to comment that something is real or unreal - the commenter (in the form of the subject) must exist.
The sage Ramana Maharshi used to say - and please pardon me for bringing a spiritual angle to this discourse, but I can't help it - that reality is hard to describe in words in so far as words are created by the very same entity whose reality is under scrutiny. One potential delusion can only accentuate the illusion not obviate it.
So trying to understand the reality of things poses inherent challenges because the very entity which is sought to be understood is performing the act of understanding it. And then of course even assuming we somehow come to understand the truth there is - how again do we explain it using words which as mentioned earlier are a part and parcel of the entity under scrutiny - and hence questionable/debatable etc.
But we have extremely good reasons for trusting our own ability to understand the structure of physical reality. Few things highlight this better than the language of mathematics. Not only can mathematics model physical reality, it can and does make predictions that are later experimentally verified. It follows therefore that we are all speaking the same language; that of physical reality.
Eugene Wigner writes in his 1960 paper entitled "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences":
"It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of laws of nature and of the human mind's capacity to divine them."
You can read the full article here or a short synopsis of the basic arguments as well as some responses here.
The best thing you can do right now is check it out. At some point you need to ground yourself so you can move on. Trusting in our own ability to logically and accurately uncover truths about the nature of physical reality and our existence within it is an essential first step.
Last edited:
Those "reasons" are still part of the same reality in question.
Within the scope of our daily existence - I agree with you. Mathematics and other sciences along with the whole chutzpah the world has to offer - I couldn't agree with you more on the fact that it's all truly fascinating and mind boggling.
I will now read the link you have kindly offered. Many thanks.
After much heart-ache and soul-searching - I do feel I am getting grounded now - finally. However, even the act of getting grounded - and I am risking monotonous repetition by reiterating the same thing over and over - is again a part of the same reality (or fiction whatever) which is under scrutiny.
Yes, trust in one's ability is the starting point - and a solid one at that. But in this journey of life, one cannot find rest unless one comes face to face with the bare truth.
I am of the firm conviction that while the truth is always with us - our delusion too is always with us. Why? Because the truth is all there is that exists. Everything else - which flashes into existence for a while and disappears thereafter - does not have independent reality of its own. It is merely an impression with a finite timespan. Truth on the other hand admits of no possibility of being conditioned by any fathomable time/space dimension.
For if it were - then it wouldn't have been truth. The "assumption" I have made in making the previous assertion is that TRUTH is CONTINOUS, UNBROKEN, ETERNAL. If anyone has doubts on these attributes of Truth then let them present another coherent definition (or even an argument) and we will take it forward.
Many thanks for giving me a fresh perspective. Please do not carry the impression that I have a defeatist/pessimistic attitude towards life and that I am simply shying away from the world out there by asserting its non-truth. Hardly. I am just trying to follow what the sages in the past have done and hopefully I shall be able to uncover something. More and More - I realize, language or any other human tool is grossly inadequate to convey the beauty of the truth within us.
Regards
Saurabh
Everything in the world is clearly divisible into this subject object relationship.
That's a category you have set.
You could just as easily divide the world into living/non-living, big/small, or yellow/non-yellow.
If you did that and then said that the category somehow defined reality, you would be wrong wouldn't you?
Re duplicate posts. Just delete the whole thing.
That's a category you have set.
You could just as easily divide the world into living/non-living, big/small, or yellow/non-yellow.
If you did that and then said that the category somehow defined reality, you would be wrong wouldn't you?
Re duplicate posts. Just delete the whole thing.
Last edited:
I haven't set any categories. It's a plain observation. There's no denying that you can categorize the world or reality as you may well please ... but whether the categorization would make any sense in the context of the discussion is quite another thing.
I find the seer seen concept as a useful tool to understand the enigma around reality. If you don't find it as enlightening, then suggest something that might be helpful in the process of understanding.
I tried to delete the posts but when I clicked the edit/delete button it wasn't showing the option to delete. So may be I was missing something. Thanks for the advice.
It's YOUR observation.
In other words any categorisation is as valid as any other?
Accepting something to be "true" (or even stating it to be true) for the purposes of discussion is one thing. It's another to proclaim it as true without also saying that only it's for discussion purposes (or declaring that it IS true, discussion or no).
How so?
It's your contention, show how it works.
- Status