|
[quote=JustASimpleGuy]If pure being is synonymous with (absolute) existence then there's never non-being or non-existence. The only thing that ceases to be is mind-body and since you're not that then from your perspective there should never be non-being. Death of the body is not death of being.
I'm only just catching up with this thread, but thanks folks for your replies to my earlier post. Guess I was taking the discussion a little too earnestly!
I've come across before now, the idea that non-existence is impossible, but my thoughts around this subject lead me into paradox. Here goes:
- For me to make a statement like 'unicorns don't exist' I must first define what a unicorn is, and therefore effectively create a unicorn in my imagination.
- So I'm saying unicorns do exist in thought/image but don't exist in another realm like the physical reality.
- The statement 'unicorns don't exist' therefore occupies a dualistic conceptual framework. From a nondualistic framework, presumably there's no split between mind and matter, imagination and physical reality. Imagined and material unicorns are just as real or unreal as each other.
I'm close to saying that there's neither existence nor non-existence of things in the nondual framework, just (being); but the paradox is holding me back. Perhaps the problem is I've dived straight into using the words existence/non-existence before defining what existence means.
|