Existence is our True Nature
Tony_A_Simien
Veteran
Here are some of the terms and their definitions as they apply to this post. I am including them at the beginning, instead of the end, to make the read more understandable from the very beginning.
Existence (the whole of reality, which includes all aspects known and unknown as well as the space which contains those aspects)
Occurrence ("...occurrence may apply to a happening without intent, volition, or plan...")
http://i.word.com/idictionary/occurrence
Process ("a series of actions that produce something or that lead to a particular result a series of changes that happen naturally")
http://i.word.com/idictionary/process
System ("A system is a set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole.")
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/System
Existence is our True Nature
Existence is simply Occurrence. Occurrence is composed of countless processes. That, which we identify as, My Body is an example of process. Because of how this particular process is organized, functioning is such that process has awareness of functioning.
Similar processes naturally combine to form systems. Systems whose functioning were dissimilar, caused conditions within the apparently individual processes, which lead to the conception of difference, hence the appearance of separation.
The body is a set of processes, which is part of a system. However one is not solely this. One is Occurrence with self aware processes.
Our true nature is Occurrence. Which is not separate from processes and groups of systems which are.
As one can see, I've removed the personal self from the equation so that, that which we are, may be seen more clearly. Which is Existence, with smaller aspects within, which are self aware and misidentifying the ever changing reality.
Any thoughts?
Comments
No
Liar
Are you saying our true nature is one of countless occurrences or rather the sum total of all occurrences, maybe like Spinoza's God, or something different than that?
Also, maybe there is something in there like Carl Sagan's quote "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.” yeah?
@person
Yes
The issue with that statement is, that would suggest that the cosmos is a sentient entity. It's just processes and systems forming existence. With some processes being self aware. But never separate from the totality.
@person
This would also be true
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable
Bear in mind that a system can be described at any scale, as can a process. So everything from an atom to the universe could be described as both a system and a process.
Systems and process theory are interesting here because they resonate strongly with Buddhist ideas of conditionality and impermanence.
@SpinyNorman
Correct!
This is why I included definition at the Very beginning of the post describing how those terms would be used. This way the readers understand exactly how They are used here.
So now there are correct and incorrect answers?
According to who, whose opinion, whose standards?
@DhammaDragon
Correct! As in yes the words process and systems are interchangeable.
Not really, they are describing things from different directions. One focuses on change, the other on structure. It's a bit like the difference between impermanence and not-self, 2 ways of looking at conditionality.
I still find you narrowed down both concepts to accomodate your personal opinion and view of the universe, as usual.
I leave you overthinking boys to your toys.
These ego-reeking monologues put me to sleep.
As usual, we can't quote with suttas, I suppose, though this is a Buddhist site, because that would somehow dismiss personal experience, according to someone...
Here in Paris it is Quatorze Juillet and I have a parade to attend.
With my Suttas book in my bag, as usual...
No, suttas are allowed, here is one that seems relevant:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.wlsh.html
@SpinyNorman
Here I'm only referring to the terms. Process and system. In my line of work for example: the techniques we use to produce baked goods on high speed equipment is referred to as a process. It is also referred to as a system.
So the terms are interchangable in some cases. My response was not referring to my original post or your comment the universe could be described as both a system and a process. It was solely a clarification of my correct! response.
@SpinyNorman: great sutta...
But since I have no time to be taken hostage in one person in particular's opinion and verbosity, I bow out.
I have a cup to empty, and a glass to fill.
Oh, I'm sorry, @Tony_A_Simien , you can't interchange or fix terms according to your mental machinations and whims... if you are expounding an idea, you need to clarify that your terminology is relevant to one factor only, not swing into a different interpretation because you happen to consider something hitherto alien to the discussion. 'Process' and 'system' being interchangeable in your 'line of work' is utterly irrelevant to the discussion of the topic in hand, and as such need not be referred to...
@federica
Yes. You are absolutely correct. After re-reading all the previous comments I see how there could be issues. Thank you for the advice
No @federica it's not like that. That's why I took the time to include definitions which could be referenced. To avoid confusion. My intent was never to reconstruct the universe in my own image.
But no harm. I'll simply have to improve how I communicate with this community is all. You know I'm here to learn also. Although I'll admit I can definitely understand how my posts could sound ego-reeking to some. Its really not like That at all. I'm here to learn. This decision for example is a learning experience for me. I ask for input because I sincerely want to have very open discussions about our individual journey and what we've come to know personally from that. So thank you very much for your advice again. I take it seriously. You would not have stepped in had it not been necessary.
I'm here to learn but also to be useful. Yes I'm a windbag. I know this. But I'm fine with that because maybe someone will find good use for my words. And if some in the community want to beat on me that's fine as well. Not saying It's happened. That is part of the journey also. When you get slapped upside the head; kicked in the balls (if you have balls), body slammed face first onto the ground; simply observe the minds reaction. So even being verbally brutalized can be an enlightening experience that you can learn to overcome.
I will do my very best to be more observant and precise with my expressions. Thanks again
Correct!
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correct
I have translated that into english:
Existence simply exists. Shit happens. Our body exists. We are aware of having a body.
Any corrections?
I'll condense it even more to just "Shit happens!" (that's the ultimate truth and just about covers everything
)...
"Shit happens" is a succinct expression of the First Noble Truth.
What about the Third Noble Truth?
There is a way out of this s...
No shit !
The fourth noble truth.
We haz plan!
Oi do loike a noice plan.
To me it doesn't suggest the cosmos is an entity, it suggests that the only way for the cosmos to be sentient is through these processes that are aware.
He didn't say we are the cosmos, he said we are a way for the cosmos to know itself.
Are you saying Carl was insane?
We are a part of the cosmos and we are aware of our surroundings. I'm not sure you can go further than that really.
You probably do have a point.
I just like Carl.
Don't like him to much, he's vexed with madness.
I love translations!
You are familiar with his work?
Translations of what?
Do you think Neil DeGrass Tyson is vexed with madness as well since he basically took over for Carl?
Yeah I've heard a few talks from him! I like his style.
Translations from Pali or Sanskrit to English.
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."
How good is that Haha.
You like his style but you don't like him.
Or are you now talking about Neil? If so I asked if you think he is also vexed with madness, not if you like his style.
(Snide remark withdrawn)
Did you know that conjecture is forming a conclusion based on a lack of evidence?
That's why I love tinkering with the ideas but never form an actual belief about them.
Quite.
I think it's funny when people mistake the unconjecturable as being unponderable.
It's so cute.
Actually, Carl Sagan presented quite a lot of evidence so it's hard to quite call it conjecture.
You can disagree that he's failed to provide sufficient evidence for you personally but that isn't really the same thing as conjecture.
In this instance I think you would have to counter his argument or at least call his evidence into question to rightly call it so.
Exactly. I cannot speak for the cosmos and have no way of knowing whether the cosmos knows itself through me. Is the cosmos sentient? Mmmm
All I know is that all things are ownerless and not self.
You can't speak for the cosmos but you can speak for all things?
Hmmm
Ode to the brain
@ourself
Or are you now talking about Neil? If so I asked if you think he is also vexed with madness, not if you like his style.
Haha I was talking about Carl Sagan but as a joke I didn't like him as he was vexed with madness. I do truly like his stuff. Not so sure I do anymore as the sutras say he's insane
That's why I love tinkering with the ideas but never form an actual belief about them.
That's why I was joking. Even what we believe is evidence isn't evidence! Wait...
You realize of course that Carl was agnostic. That means he didn't conjecture.
Google is your friend.
If you want to dismiss empirical evidence then there is no use in trying to have a rational conversation.
The reason I said you are probably right is because you and I have already had a lengthy discussion on this very subject and we came to an impasse.
I just didn't really feel like rehashing it but we could get into the very possible connection between instinct and natural selection, that the atoms forming our eyes have been around for billions of years and that since there is no separation, the distinction between a human being and the cosmos is an illusory convention...
I don't think that's where @Tony_A_Simien was headed though so am waiting for him to come back.