existence exists in contrast to non-existence; however nonexistence cannot exist because the existence of nonexistence is contradictory; so how can there be existence, without nonexistence?
buddhism philosophy: existence cannot exist
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
word salad
existence is only a thing in contrast or as an opposite of nonexistence, yes or no? (ie our notion that things exist, is always in contrast to things that do not exist; otherwise pointing out a thing exists is meaningless).
if nonexistence exists, it is an existence and therefore not a nonexistence, yes or no?
if there is therefore no nonexistence, how can its opposite be?
>our notion that things exist, is always in contrast to things that do not exist
That seems right I suppose.
>if nonexistence exists, it is an existence and therefore not a nonexistence, yes or no?
What does that mean?
>if there is therefore no nonexistence, how can its opposite be?
What exactly is the issue?
nonexistence, is the not existing, so it cannot exist.
but without nonexistence, existence also becomes untenable.
the material world only exists in thought.
>The material world only exists in thought
Yeah the great thing about life is that statement has no bearing on the reality we're experiencing, that of the material world. You typed those words in the material world and I'm replying to them in the material world.
You and I both automatically assume the material world exists merely by replying to each other, otherwise you wouldn't expect a reply; you could just think of a reply instead, which you did not.
Either way though, my initial reply stands: existence is relative. So if something exists or does not exist, it only does so in relation to that world of thought. If the thought remains in some way shape or form in the world of thought, then it is not non-existent.
What I meant about semantics is that you're expecting purity and absolutist logic from concepts that are human-created and fundamentally imperfect. Why do you expect existence to perfectly contrast non-existence? Why must it be pure?
Of course, it doesn't have to be. These are concepts - words we use to describe phenomena. And words aren't perfect. They're approximations.
the mind precedes all phenomena doofus. the material world as opposed to the mental realm or dreams is just a fantasy of the mind
The mind preceding phenomena still has no bearing on the material world which is shared and agreed upon, whether or not you like it. You not experiencing something individually doesn't mean the phenomenon does not exist in the material world. Pretending there's some value in the mind preceding phenomena is an egoistic cope; you can jerk off in the woods to your true world all you want, but we'll be off tending to the fire in the real world while you do it.
>The mind preceding phenomena still has no bearing on the material world which is shared and agreed upon
sorry mate you're really dumb if you can't see the point being made.
>sharing
>agreement
>the material world
these are all preceded by mind
Do you have anything actually valuable to offer? "Nah sorry nothing exists only the mind does xP" okay? And?
yes, my point is that your distinctions and epistemic tools are all just concepts from your mind that crumble upon examination.
Instead we must accept the emptiness.
Your fundamental philosophical basis is only made possible by knowledge you acquired from someone else. You would have never come to the conclusion that the mind precedes phenomenon had you not read the thoughts of others from the material world. Or did you come to the conclusion yourself through thought alone? Through your own individual thought as soon as you assumed consciousness?
You can keep lying to yourself, relating everything back to the ego like a toddler, or you can accept that there is no emptiness. Emptiness is a cope. Every reply you write validates my point further. You exist, and you are a homosexual.
>only made possible by knowledge you acquired from someone else
All this knowledge is conditioned by the mind.
Existence is meaningless without a contrary concept of nonexistence. Since then everything will exist.
Yes.
It's true
No one is denying the 4 noble truths dear
You're just getting caught up in semantics. Existence is relative, to some perspective or reality.
Man exists in the material world.
Man is destroyed, and no longer exists in the material world.
He may exist still in thought - but he is non-existent in the material world. There's not much more to it.
>so how can there be existence, without nonexistence?
its simple; because things don't depend on their very negation
two interdependent concepts, abstractions
Lol
HERESY! THE IMPERIAL TRUTH IS IRREFUTABLE! ONLY THE RUINOUS POWERS AND THEIR WEAK MINDED SERVANTS FUTILELY ARGUE OTHERWISE! THE IMPERIUM OF MAN WILL NOT ABIDE SUCH TREACHERY! THE HOLY INQUISITION IS COMING FOR YOU HERETIC! PREPARE TO BE PURGED!
THE IMPERIAL TRUTH PROTECTS!
ᛋ The Imperial Truth ᛋ
I. Suffering is inseparable from existence.
II. Craving is the root cause of suffering.
III. Suffering can be ended by ending craving.
IV. There is a path to ending craving and suffering.
∞ ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/What%20the%20Buddha%20Taught_Rahula.pdf
∞ buddhanet.net/audio-lectures.htm