The Endless Mystery of Existence Itself

[Windmill knight]

Existence itself (as opposed to nothing existing at all) seems to be the biggest mystery of them all.

I'm not going to try to answer this right now, as it is rather late here, and also, if I were to figure that out in a completely satisfactory manner, I'd probably be in 7D, not 3D! All I can think of at the moment is that from a very essential point of view, complete nothingness sounds like a massive contradiction, or as you say axj, an absurdity. Therefore there is something, which is everything. It's more an intuition than an actual argument, I know.

But I did want to say that this question often arises in my mind, "why Being instead of Nothing?", and usually my reaction is not so much to attempt an answer, but a huge sense of gratitude and wonder. Imagine the possibilites, everything is out there for the knowing and learning and loving, and, warts and all, here we ARE! What can be more miraculous than that? Even with all our shortcomings, as well as the evils and sufferings of the world, the fact that there is us, and there is a world and a Universe, is infinitely better than there being nothing at all. Not to mention that an 'eternity' of nothingness would be incredibly boring...

 

[bozadi]

Why and how is there existence/being? I think we’ll be knowing the answer when we really understand the meaning of “time doesn’t exist”. Maybe sometimes we know or perceive it temporarily to some extent.

Our STS mode of being, which is hopefully diminishing, causes many mental blind spots, I suppose. The answer to the question may be “too simple/basic to know”.

Apparently, one problem about the question is that we tend to believe that existence/being, just like anything else, must have “begun” somehow. It is said, however, “no, it hasn’t / didn’t”. Understanding “timelessness” might be a hallmark of STO. Timelessness seems to be closely related to nonduality. The C’s say “no duality in 5D, 6D, and 7D”. Since this doesn’t include 4D, I think 4D (STO, at least?) is a transition zone from duality to nonduality.

If I get it right, true/pure nonduality means “no person”, “no experience”, and “no knowledge”, as these involve duality. But we know, I think, that there are individuals (souls, students) in “nondual” densities as well. The C’s say STS also exist in 5D and 6D. So, how is it that nondual densities still involve duality? My current understanding or guess is about the difference between “appearance” and “essence”. I mean, for example, the STO denizens of nondual densities appear to be “individuals” who are still experiencing and learning. This is “somewhat” true, especially from the viewpoint of previous densities, but I think nonduality/oneness “gets hold of them”, not only conceptually or perceptually but “actually”. The concept of Service to “Others” also seems to involve an obvious duality (me/us and others). But I think STO in 5D and 6D don’t consider “others” as “others” as we understand it in 3D. They “see” (and be) the actual oneness of all “individuals” just like seeing all branches stemming from a single trunk, or all waves emerging from the same ocean.

What to think of the STS denizens of nondual densities then? The C’s say 4D is the last density in which STS can fully manifest. So, apparently, STS is bound to be gradually diminished there due to the deepening nondual nature of that realm(s). Duality seems to be a “must” for STS.

 

[bozadi]

It is said that nonduality involves a pure "awareness". I think at those levels "being" and "awareness" are the same thing. Being and knowing/awareness are merged into one in nonduality, I suppose.

 

[Pearce]

The problem is that the concept of "infinite" also implies the ability to create something new. It's a paradox, which usually happens with these questions, at least when we try to understand them. When we run into a paradox, it usually means we're thinking about something in the wrong terms, or we lack the ability to think about them in the correct terms, at least for now.

Definitely unsure if I'm thinking in the correct terms but my problem with infinite was always that I could conceptualize it (in theory) and therefore classify it or as they say, put it in a box. And if I can put it in a box then there is something beyond that box. Or another way, there is a boundary to the infinite.

Plus, didn't the C's say that if you zoom out far enough with the example of the seven spokes on a wheel, you return to the point of origin. So infinite in that sense is really cyclic, and it may cycle infinitely in "time" but the items that are on the table so to speak are not infinite.

And perhaps our subjective experiences of them always change as was mentioned, creating more layers of depth to the experience of the infinite. Even more so if we're always playing different characters via reincarnation and parallel selves.

 

[tschai]

was actually thinking about this last night. It seems that the idea of learning lessons is at odds with the idea of all things already having happened or having been experienced.

Indeed- if we have already experienced everything and learned everything, why do we exist now? Unless- shudder- we just endlessly repeat the same here and now again and again.
No, there must be some progress of some sort-to dwell on this, and think otherwise is just too maddening. But we must keep playing the game mustn’t we? We just have to see how it plays out! Ah it’s fun, it’s tragic, it’s maddening- it’s the damn game but we must keep playing!

 

[Asa]

Not that I can solve this paradox, but one analogy I came up with a while ago is this: imagine a general on a hill observing a battle. He knows exactly what's going on, has the big picture, has a plan etc. Now imagine the same scene from the perspective of an ordinary soldier: he sees the same thing going on as the general, but he doesn't know the big picture, plan, and so on - instead he's in the thick of it. Point being, the experience of the soldier is different, and even though the general knows everything (God, higher perspective), he doesn't know the experience of the soldier. This experience brings new information. So one way of looking at it would be that all the lessons have been learned already in a sense, but learning them again from different perspectives still adds something to the picture. The picture keeps evolving, because new perspectives are added constantly, even though the basic picture, principles and outlines are already there because they have been "learned" before many times. In other words, infinite variations of learning the same thing, which are still meaningful. (Now don't bring free will into my neat little analogy, just don't )

Cool analogy. I also think the enjoyment of travel is another useful analogy. I do absolutely nothing novel when i visit a new place, but brushing my teeth, eating, arguing, sleeping and laughing somehow feels novel because i am in a strange or foreign land.

Would be even cooler if it could be a strange and foreign planet

 

[Asa]

The C's say that the whole multiverse is a part of "All is One and One is All".

Though some mystics like Gurdjieff and Theun Mares hinted that there may be something like a higher or deeper type of existence that goes even beyond "our" Prime Creator. I wrote about that before:


Though ultimately, even if there are other Prime Creators for other multiverses, this would just put in an additional layer between us and the most fundamental layer of existence beyond our Prime Creator. The questions about existence itself still remain the same.

I think Chris Langan's CTMU provides for some kind of fundamental framework for reality as well. Sadly, i lack the cognitive horsepower to grok it lol

 

[HyperdimensionalApe]

What to think of the STS denizens of nondual densities then? The C’s say 4D is the last density in which STS can fully manifest. So, apparently, STS is bound to be gradually diminished there due to the deepening nondual nature of that realm(s). Duality seems to be a “must” for STS.

Q: (L) But still, is there an STS experience at 6th density, like the 6th density Orions?

A: These are only reflections of individuals, not unified entities. These reflections exist for balance. They are not whole entities, just thought forms.

 

[bozadi]

@HyperdimensionalApe

And also this about 5D STS:

Third density repetition

The bolded parts sound like pure disinformation to me. I don't remember if Michael Newton defended or suggested such ideas. I hope not. Can you find and share anything he said on these? And what about the C's and Ra? Do you think they have omitted to warn us about such a serious danger? Or STS...

cassiopaea.org

 

[axj]

The concept of Service to “Others” also seems to involve an obvious duality (me/us and others). But I think STO in 5D and 6D don’t consider “others” as “others” as we understand it in 3D. They “see” (and be) the actual oneness of all “individuals” just like seeing all branches stemming from a single trunk, or all waves emerging from the same ocean.

I think you are spot on regarding increasing non-duality in the higher densities, though the C's say that even reflections or thought forms of STS exist in 6D.

If I get it right, true/pure nonduality means “no person”, “no experience”, and “no knowledge”, as these involve duality.

Does non-duality really mean "no knowledge"? When All becomes One (non-duality), it seems that One still has the knowledge from the experiences of All.

It also seems that there is some form of "individuality" within the collective group consciousness in 6D and maybe even in 7D. For example, the C's always introduce themselves by a personal name.

 

[Tomiro]

An interesting discussion, that I have though about a lot, from an early age.

Not to mention that an 'eternity' of nothingness would be incredibly boring...

Perhaps. Although as a child the Christian version of heaven scared me. I imagined a static pleasant existence, that lasted forever. Now forever is a hard concept to get your mind around, especially as a child. I thought that eventually you will have to get bored, no matter how nice it is. It felt a bit like a prison. So I can sort of see the appeal to "turn off the lights".

Now trying to grapple with this subject from a hopefully slightly more aware perspective with our 3D brains seems almost as futile :D Although I've recently felt more of what you describe when contemplating this topic; Wonder, marvel and gratitude that anything exists at all.

Syntax

A man staring at his equations
said that the universe had a beginning.
There had been an explosion, he said.
A bang of bangs, and the universe was born.
And it is expanding, he said.
He had even calculated the length of its life:
ten billion revolutions of the earth around the sun.
The entire globe cheered;
They found his calculations to be science.
None thought that by proposing that the universe began,
the man had merely mirrored the syntax of his mother tongue;
a syntax which demands beginnings, like birth,
and developments, like maturation,
and ends, like death, as statements of facts.
The universe began,
and it is getting old, the man assured us,
and it will die, like all things die,
like he himself died after confirming mathematically
the syntax of his mother tongue.


The Other Syntax

Did the universe really begin?
Is the theory of the big bang true?
These are not questions, though they sound like they are.
Is the syntax that requires beginnings, developments
and ends as statements of fact the only syntax that exists?
That's the real question.
There are other syntaxes.
There is one, for example, which demands that varieties
of intensity be taken as facts.
In that syntax nothing begins and nothing ends;
thus birth is not a clean, clear-cut event,
but a specific type of intensity,
and so is maturation, and so is death.
A man of that syntax, looking over his equations, finds that
he has calculated enough varieties of intensity
to say with authority
that the universe never began
and will never end,
but that it has gone, and is going now, and will go
through endless fluctuations of intensity.
That man could very well conclude that the universe itself
is the chariot of intensity
and that one can board it
to journey through changes without end.
He will conclude all that, and much more,
perhaps without ever realizing
that he is merely confirming
the syntax of his mother tongue.

 

[Natus Videre]

The reason why learning never stops is because some beings are actively 'unlearning' their lessons (disintegration). Free will allows this to happen. They are going in the opposite direction by choice. Instead of writing on a chalkboard, they destroy it. Instead of filling a bucket with water, they poke holes in it.

As a result, this imbalance creates an opportunity to learn. Darkness is necessary for light to exist. So existence is constantly oscillating in a composition-decomposition cycle. Why? Because gravity, the grand equalizer, is static, i.e. its total "value" doesn't change. However, local imbalances are possible (i.e. more gravity "there" than "here") which explains why some realms can be so negative and drift away from Creation. When you "invert" gravity, what you get? Consciousness. What happens when you invert a constant value? You get another constant value. That's why souls are immortal. They can change shape, transform, grow, shrink, but their total "mass" remains the same. When two things are equal, they are balanced, all their substitutions are equivalent. Thus, to promote balance is to promote free will, and vice versa.

 

[axj]

The reason why learning never stops is because some beings are actively 'unlearning' their lessons (disintegration).

When a being loses knowledge, does that mean that this knowledge is lost on the level of universal consciousness as well?

One possible reason I see why learning never stops: If existence is a true infinity, then there is always something new in that infinity to experience and explore, never ending.

 

[Natus Videre]

When a being loses knowledge, does that mean that this knowledge is lost on the level of universal consciousness as well?

No. The disintegrative experiences of this being could be "added" to the universal knowledge base, and serve as a lesson for other beings. For example, if two people are stuck on an island and only one of them knows how to light a fire, if the person who knows how to light a fire commits suicide out of desperation, it doesn't prevent the remaining person from learning how to light a fire. In fact, this "tragic" event might even accelerate the remaining person's learning process. Interestingly, the knowledge of lighting a fire is timeless—it can outlive the last 3D being. This knowledge is always there, waiting to be applied by a sufficiently advanced being.

 

[ElmerDirtly]

Darkness is necessary for light to exist.

Chiaroscuro