Quote:
|
Originally Posted by snowyowl
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.
|
From the perspective of Advaita philosophy duality is but an appearance of the Absolute and within the Absolute, and within that appearance things exist in the sense they borrow their existence from the Absolute which has inherent existence and they don't exist in the sense they do not have their own inherent existence. The Absolute is infinite and limitless and not bound by space, time or form whereas all that appears as duality is finite and limited by space, time and form.
If we could precisely define inherent existence we could precisely define the Absolute and then because it has definable attributes it's limited by those attributes and no longer Absolute, Ineffable.
It's rather easy to say all is One or there's only Being, but not so easy to understand it intellectually and even less easy to experience it. That's where a solid philosophical foundation with proven practices comes in handy. It doesn't have to be Advaita. There are other options, however they all have their philosophical underpinnings and specific practices and there are some overlaps. The point is they have to be understood and their practices engaged. If it was easy we'd have a world chock-full of Enlightened Beings.
Advaita is basically a two-step process.
Step 1 - Discernment between the real and the unreal. Between That which has inherent existence and that which has borrowed existence. That's the practice of Neti Neti using the teachings, the Vivekas and Vedantic meditation or Self inquiry into Who am I (more aptly What am I).
Step 2 - Realizing their is no separation between the real and the unreal in the sense that the unreal (all objects - name, form & function) is never witnessed apart from the real (Consciousness). The real is the "space" wherein name, form & function arise, for a time exists, then subside.
So duality is the illusion caused by ignorance of one's true nature, and that's called Maya.
The best analogy is a dream. It's Maya and one's true nature is the Dreamer. A lucid dream is a great model for an Awakening experience or Self Realization where one pierces through the veil of Maya and has a glimpse of one's true nature.
Maya has two powers, the power to project and the power to veil. Awakening, Self Realization and even Enlightenment only pierce its power to veil and not its power to project.
Of course this is according to Advaita philosophy, however I have experienced the waking equivalent of a lucid dream. I couldn't even begin to explain it outside of this context and I suppose that's because it's the philosophy that's most familiar and understood.
This is my story and I'm sticking to it. Well, at least if/until I come across a better explanation or slip the surly bonds of Earth... If the prior comes to pass I'll let you know. If it's the latter that will be a bit more difficult. LOL!