The Being

[Menna]

So, I deduce they are not saying there is Non-Being, but they are saying there is a balance of "Total Existence" (7th density) and Total Non-Existence (1st density). IMHO this is mostly related to consciousness than to existence

I like your post - I would think of the word recycle/d - symbiotic relationship when thinking about existence and such.

 

[Ðekel]

..

And why the frustration? I am not a cat. I may know all there is to know about cats' biology, behavior, folklore, etc., but not Being a cat means I only have information that translates poorly to my personal experience. Who cares about cats, anyway? (I do...love them...one sleeping on my desk at the moment) I once commented to my wife that I was frustrated because I can't love her enough to actually Be her. Imagine the look of bewildered confusion such a comment would induce. Hence, the frustration of love truncated by misunderstood Being.

..

ge0m0,

In a way, one could say you are also the cat.
In the way that the cat is connected to you directly, responding to you, sleeping on your desk.
In that way, You are the experiencing of the cat.. and also the "cat".
So both the physical cat and also in the metaphoric sense you used.

I feel there is truth in the eastern concept of us ultimately being the experienced phenomena as well as the experiencer and also the experience itself, because how and where can they be separated ? If you take the cat away there is no experience of it.

Hope that makes some sense.. Often when attempting to use language to describe such philosophical ideas, we are limited to a choice of words which can also easily be read as babble.

And I also believe that when one has an animal around them for some time, they are able to learn from its behavior and "absorb" something of its nature if they're so inclined. Not taking anything -away- from the animal, but learning something from it. Sort of like how the animal styles of kung fu were developed by studying animals and their movements and how they defended themselves in the wild.
(btw- I do not advocate pitting animals against each other to learn anything !)

 

[Ðekel]

Plus I neglected to say that I really enjoyed your initial post, Red Star !

 

[Deleted member 9511]

Hope that makes some sense.. Often when attempting to use language to describe such philosophical ideas, we are limited to a choice of words which can also easily be read as babble.

Which is why I wrote this:

To add a personal note, the kind of contemplation at the heart of this thread has been my core spiritual practice for 15 years. I find the practice to be fruitful as it has grounded a sense of Being in me that is solid, nearly unshakeable. Oddly, I also find it silly, because with that grounding, there is no reason to talk about it. After all, to whom would I be directing comments, as if I am trying to prove something to myself by gaining 3rd-party perspective? I suppose I could be looking for feedback to revise and improved my understanding of Being, but for what purpose? So I can be better at Being or better at explaining Being to that same Being who imagines itself as something other than that very same Being? So the cat chases it's tail :) Quite frustrating. I've been told that it's akin to drilling through hard rock...or my own hard head.

And also, to clarify my "frustration", it's not because I'm trying to describe philosophical ideas. Rather, it's

a sense of Being in me that is solid, nearly unshakeable

, and not a philosophical idea. It is my direct experience. What is "frustrating" is that the same sense of Being that I experience (mostly) is not shared by others, or at least not by those whom I encounter regularly. I think the root of the frustration comes from imagining that there are any others at all from whom Being needs validation. Being needs nothing as it is necessarily everything. Looking for 3rd-party perspective is akin to a cat chasing it's tail. If I could cease to be distracted by this sense of other-Being, there would be no need to run around and around, that sense of Being would be fully grounded.

Did you read the article on panpsychism?

 

[redstar]

So, I deduce they are not saying there is Non-Being, but they are saying there is a balance of "Total Existence" (7th density) and Total Non-Existence (1st density). IMHO this is mostly related to consciousness than to existence

I like your post - I would think of the word recycle/d - symbiotic relationship when thinking about existence and such.

Plus I neglected to say that I really enjoyed your initial post, Red Star !

Thank you!

I'm happy to read the ideas and opinions of other people about this topic.

 

[Ðekel]

..
and not a philosophical idea. It is my direct experience. What is "frustrating" is that the same sense of Being that I experience (mostly) is not shared by others, or at least not by those whom I encounter regularly. I think the root of the frustration comes from imagining that there are any others at all from whom Being needs validation. Being needs nothing as it is necessarily everything. Looking for 3rd-party perspective is akin to a cat chasing it's tail. If I could cease to be distracted by this sense of other-Being, there would be no need to run around and around, that sense of Being would be fully grounded.

Did you read the article on panpsychism?

Oh yes, I see. I understand now what you meant.

If Being needs nothing and is necessarily everything, how does it come to be distracted by "other-Being" ?
Maybe the idea of validation which you referred to can be discarded somehow, or seen as creating separation ?

I haven't read the article yet, I will definitely read it.