Author Topic: REALITY  (Read 26030 times)

mick hutchinson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
REALITY
« on: January 27, 2007, 11:30:18 PM »
How about this concept?
Your eyes are like cameras.
Your ears are like microphones.
Same with all the senses.
Sensory input devices.
The information travels along the nerve pathways until it reaches the brain where it " Gets cordinated" into a cohesive world view.
This world view is manufactured by the mind out of the substance of the SELF.
The mind also creates the "I" which sees the world view,  again out of the substance of the SELF.
Therefore what is percieve as the world is not real ,its a movie ,created by the mind!
Duality is "I" and the world view seen by the "I".
Both "The audience and the actors are on the screen"
So what does this say about the realty of the world?
Is it like a man in a room and his only knowledge of the outer world is by television screens on the wall [the senses]
and if the television screens cease then so does his perception of the world ? " There are no sounds for the deaf or sights for the blind"

mick hutchinson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: REALITY
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2007, 06:54:42 PM »
So really we should not say I am in the world ,we should say the world is in me!!
Thats hard to see.
And hard to be!!!
How strange is that ?
Its hard to be what we already are and cant stop being even if we try!!

dedhed

  • Guest
Re: REALITY
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2007, 04:51:09 AM »
Have you read The Hard Problem by David Chalmers?  It is about the total lack of any explanation in modern science of how we are conscious. We can create models of how the brain functions on a biochemical level, but there is no explanation for why we are aware at all.  This is what he calls the hard problem, and the same subject is taken up by Roger Penrose, the mathematician and physicist, in The Emperor's New Mind.  The unavoidable conclusion that Chalmers reaches is that consciousness is primary and fundamental, like energy.  In other words, it does not derive from any other factors.  This is very relevent to what Ramana taught.  In fact, anyone who follows his teachings would do well to understand these arguments, as they give a very powerful scientific and philosophical underpinning to their practice.
Personality and ego, on the other hand, are part of the mechanical functioning of the brain. They are a result of the conditioning of the brain by the environment, and realizing this is a powerful deconditioning tool.  You can derive Ramana's teachings from entirely scientific sources.
Realizing that you are not what you thought you were, that what you thought you were is merely the unfolding of cause and effect, is extremely liberating. You no longer are the slave of your personal history, with the inherent guilt and inferiority complexes. There is no longer an excuse for pride in any accomplishment, because it is just the action of the human bio-computer.
Realizing that consciousness is fundamental to the entire universe, and that individuality is merely the result of an organizing principle, one sees that one is intimately linked to everything and everyone in the universe. You realize that you are also the experience of every other creature, though you may not be able to see it right now directly.  How then can you avoid having empathy for all creatures and working toward their realization of their true nature?
« Last Edit: February 12, 2007, 07:17:31 PM by dedhed »

mick hutchinson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: REALITY
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2007, 07:12:45 PM »
dedhed
Thats BEAUTIFUL!!
Ill have a look out for those books
Peace
Mick

dedhed

  • Guest
Re: REALITY
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2007, 11:35:30 PM »
Quote
To explain access and reportability, for example, we need only specify the mechanism by which information about internal states is retrieved and made available for verbal report. To explain the integration of information, we need only exhibit mechanisms by which information is brought together and exploited by later processes. For an account of sleep and wakefulness, an appropriate neurophysiological account of the processes responsible for organisms' contrasting behavior in those states will suffice. In each case, an appropriate cognitive or neurophysiological model can clearly do the explanatory work.

If these phenomena were all there was to consciousness, then consciousness would not be much of a problem. Although we do not yet have anything close to a complete explanation of these phenomena, we have a clear idea of how we might go about explaining them. This is why I call these problems the easy problems. Of course, "easy" is a relative term. Getting the details right will probably take a century or two of difficult empirical work. Still, there is every reason to believe that the methods of cognitive science and neuroscience will succeed.

The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whir of information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect. As Nagel (1974) has put it, there is something it is like to be a conscious organism. This subjective aspect is experience. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations: the felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the quality of depth in a visual field. Other experiences go along with perception in different modalities: the sound of a clarinet, the smell of mothballs. Then there are bodily sensations, from pains to orgasms; mental images that are conjured up internally; the felt quality of emotion, and the experience of a stream of conscious thought. What unites all of these states is that there is something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of experience.
It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.

If any problem qualifies as the problem of consciousness, it is this one. In this central sense of "consciousness", an organism is conscious if there is something it is like to be that organism, and a mental state is conscious if there is something it is like to be in that state. Sometimes terms such as "phenomenal consciousness" and "qualia" are also used here, but I find it more natural to speak of "conscious experience" or simply "experience". Another useful way to avoid confusion (used by e.g. Newell 1990, Chalmers 1996) is to reserve the term "consciousness" for the phenomena of experience, using the less loaded term "awareness" for the more straightforward phenomena described earlier. If such a convention were widely adopted, communication would be much easier; as things stand, those who talk about "consciousness" are frequently talking past each other.

The ambiguity of the term "consciousness" is often exploited by both philosophers and scientists writing on the subject. It is common to see a paper on consciousness begin with an invocation of the mystery of consciousness, noting the strange intangibility and ineffability of subjectivity, and worrying that so far we have no theory of the phenomenon. Here, the topic is clearly the hard problem - the problem of experience. In the second half of the paper, the tone becomes more optimistic, and the author's own theory of consciousness is outlined. Upon examination, this theory turns out to be a theory of one of the more straightforward phenomena - of reportability, of introspective access, or whatever. At the close, the author declares that consciousness has turned out to be tractable after all, but the reader is left feeling like the victim of a bait-and-switch. The hard problem remains untouched.
3 Functional explanation

Why are the easy problems easy, and why is the hard problem hard? The easy problems are easy precisely because they concern the explanation of cognitive abilities and functions. To explain a cognitive function, we need only specify a mechanism that can perform the function. The methods of cognitive science are well-suited for this sort of explanation, and so are well-suited to the easy problems of consciousness. By contrast, the hard problem is hard precisely because it is not a problem about the performance of functions. The problem persists even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained. (Here "function" is not used in the narrow teleological sense of something that a system is designed to do, but in the broader sense of any causal role in the production of behavior that a system might perform.) 
---David Chalmers, from Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness
http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

mick hutchinson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: REALITY
« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2007, 04:59:26 AM »
I .sort of .feel that this sort of thing is aproaching it the wrong way round.
For instance.
Does anything exist if there is nothing to be aware of it?
Imagine a void with nothing in it ,its still exists.
Therefore there is no such thing as non exixtence.
Even if no-thing exixts nothing still exists.
Existence IS. there can be no oposite to existence.
Non exiistence is impossibe!!!
So since existence IS ,AND consciuosness is existence [Ramana said this]
Then existence must be consciuosness.
Nothing exists except conscoiusness.
Therefore experience and experincer are BOTH CONSCIUOSNESS.
The SELF is aparently split into the "I" which experiences and the object of experience.
The division of Astral [feeling] and mental [information]
These are made from the nature of the SELF ,which is Sat ,Chit and Ananda. =Existence ,awareness and bliss,
Feelings are the quality which is experienced.
The awareness is the "I " which experiences the quality.
The mind makes a filter which says one feeling is nice and another bad. This is how come pain can sometimes be pleasurable.
Its how come Ramana can die of cancer and be totaly unbothered ,Pain simply didnt hurt him because the mental function that created qualties was dead in him. Its how come he had no preferences for food .Food tasted neither good nor bad to him!
He was beyond qualities [which are just the mind.
  What is absolutely amazing about him is that he could still interact with the world!!
He said that the mind creates the world .This sounds like the raving of a madman ,UNLESS one looks deeper.
I believe ,our eyes are like cameras ,our ears are like microphones ,all the senses are input devices . The world that we percieve AND all its qualities are a PICTURE manufactured out of the SELF ,which is consciuosness. The "I" which percieves the picture and the picture ARE BOTH ON THE SCREEN is what RAMANA said.
So the answer to the "problem" of consciousness is to do as he says ,to look for the seer. This is what the Vicahare IS.
IT

mick hutchinson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: REALITY
« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2007, 05:03:33 AM »
TYPO
VICHARA last line!
The computer suddenly ended the typing and posted ,so Ill leave thsi one here.
For now anyway.
Peace ,Love and Understanding [nice song terrible singing]
Mick H

dedhed

  • Guest
Re: REALITY
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2007, 08:33:15 AM »
Quote
Does anything exist if there is nothing to be aware of it?
Imagine a void with nothing in it ,its still exists.
Therefore there is no such thing as non exixtence.
Even if no-thing exixts nothing still exists.
Existence IS. there can be no oposite to existence.
Non exiistence is impossibe!!!
So since existence IS ,AND consciuosness is existence [Ramana said this]
Then existence must be consciuosness.
Nothing exists except conscoiusness.
Therefore experience and experincer are BOTH CONSCIUOSNESS.
The SELF is aparently split into the "I" which experiences and the object of experience.
I am not certain what you mean by a void with nothing in it.  Do you mean empty space?  Because in this universe, there is no such thing.  What we refer to as empty space is actually teeming with virtual particles which spring into existence, annihilate each other, and disappear.  Space-time itself is a field which is created by mass-energy.  In our world, there can be no space without energy, just like there can be no magnetic field without electrons.  Actually, space-time cannot be separated from mass-energy, just as the electron cannot be separated from the electromagnetic field. The particle and the field are manifestations of the same thing.
But perhaps you mean something different by void, something which exists outside of spacetime as we know it.  Perhaps you are referring to the experience of vast space that mystics sometimes refer to.
When you say "Therefore there is no such thing as non exixtence.
Even if no-thing exixts nothing still exists.
Existence IS. there can be no oposite to existence.
Non exiistence is impossibe!!!"  are you referring to my statement in my other post, when I say:
"So in the end, it seems that what we mean by reality is the contents of Universal Mind.  And to ask if this mind has an independent existence is the wrong question.  It does not fall into the categories of existence or non-existence. Everything exists within it, including time and space."?
I agree, there is no such thing as non-existence.  But there are things which we agree do not exist, or no longer exist, like Santa Clause and dinosaurs.  What I was saying was that consciousness does not fit into either category, either as something that exists, or something that does not exist.  I believe that consciousness is what all that exists, exists within.  But it is not within the field of time-space.  Time-space exists within consciousness.  But we really are very close to agreement on this subject.  I do not believe that consciousness and its contents can be separated, any more than a particle can be separated from the field it exists within. Whether we identify with the contents or with consciousness itself, I think, is tremendously important, and I believe it is the central point of Ramana Maharshi's teaching. When we identify with the contents, we identify who we are with the physical body, our reactions and habits of thought, the things which imprison us.  When we identify with consciousness itself, then there is the possibility of freedom.
If you read more of Chalmers, you will find that his viewpoint about the world is really similar to your own.  He believes that consciousness is PRIMARY.  But what he is attempting to do is put this into a strict, compelling scientific framework, where he can put forward the problems inherent in most scientific viewpoints on the subject.  For this reason, I find what he is doing to be immensely valuable, because it may have a profound influence on the worldview of future generations in the west.
As for the rest of what you say, I'm not sure there is any real difference in our viewpoints, just a difference in the way we express them.
Have to go now, catch you later.  It has been interesting.

dedhed

  • Guest
Re: REALITY
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2007, 11:09:14 AM »
Perhaps you will find this excerpt of Chalmers more palatable:
"I suggest that a theory of consciousness should take experience as fundamental. We know that a theory of consciousness requires the addition of something fundamental to our ontology, as everything in physical theory is compatible with the absence of consciousness. We might add some entirely new nonphysical feature, from which experience can be derived, but it is hard to see what such a feature would be like. More likely, we will take experience itself as a fundamental feature of the world, alongside mass, charge, and space-time. If we take experience as fundamental, then we can go about the business of constructing a theory of experience.

Where there is a fundamental property, there are fundamental laws. A nonreductive theory of experience will add new principles to the furniture of the basic laws of nature. These basic principles will ultimately carry the explanatory burden in a theory of consciousness. Just as we explain familiar high-level phenomena involving mass in terms of more basic principles involving mass and other entities, we might explain familiar phenomena involving experience in terms of more basic principles involving experience and other entities.
 Of course, by taking experience as fundamental, there is a sense in which this approach does not tell us why there is experience in the first place. But this is the same for any fundamental theory. Nothing in physics tells us why there is matter in the first place, but we do not count this against theories of matter. Certain features of the world need to be taken as fundamental by any scientific theory. A theory of matter can still explain all sorts of facts about matter, by showing how they are consequences of the basic laws. The same goes for a theory of experience.
If this view is right, then in some ways a theory of consciousness will have more in common with a theory in physics than a theory in biology. Biological theories involve no principles that are fundamental in this way, so biological theory has a certain complexity and messiness to it; but theories in physics, insofar as they deal with fundamental principles, aspire to simplicity and elegance. The fundamental laws of nature are part of the basic furniture of the world, and physical theories are telling us that this basic furniture is remarkably simple. If a theory of consciousness also involves fundamental principles, then we should expect the same. The principles of simplicity, elegance, and even beauty that drive physicists' search for a fundamental theory will also apply to a theory of consciousness.
Wheeler (1990) has suggested that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe. According to this "it from bit" doctrine, the laws of physics can be cast in terms of information, postulating different states that give rise to different effects... If so, then information is a natural candidate to also play a role in a fundamental theory of consciousness. We are led to a conception of the world on which information is truly fundamental, and on which it has two basic aspects, corresponding to the physical and the phenomenal features of the world.
"
It has been suggested by many physicists that the laws of conservation of energy and mass be redefined as, or at least expanded to include, the conservation of information.  In this light, subatomic particles are viewed as "carriers of information".  A few months ago, I was even reading a paper by Stephen Hawking about how information wasn't really lost forever when particles were pulled into a black hole.
But physics is not the only branch of science where the study of consciousness itself has become important.  Neurobiologists have been doing studies on the effects of meditation on the brain, and finding some very interesting results.  For instance, the study done by Jim Davidson of the University of Wisconsin with Tibetan monks:
http://brainwaves.corante.com/archives/2005/07/28/mind_your_brain_the_neuroscience_of_meditation.php

mick hutchinson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: REALITY
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2007, 02:05:23 PM »
dedhed
I see that but I think is the wrong way round!
I think that the existence of matter ,and the laws which govern it AND the EXPERIENCER which experiences matter and its laws are the RESULT of the division of THE PRIMARY ONE WHICH IS ALL!
If all that exists ,no matter how many laws there are ,or how many particles ,galaxies Universes ,etc .All that exists is the result of the division or the Infinite and Indivisible ONE!!
This ONE is itself Consciousness!!
I reckon that it all exists ,or appears to exist to as Ramana said " Hold a mirror up to the SELF"
If all that exists is ONE.
Divide one once ,you get two ,divide again ,four ,again eight ,and so on .
 I reckon all the laws pf the Universe are this ,the natural result of the  division of the indivisible ONE which is ALL!!
The ONE is ALL .The ONE is the ETERNAL timeless SPIRIT. and all that exists is that.
All of time and space and SAMSARA exist [or appear to] to burn up the darkness.So that the SELF which is ALL can find itself and PEACE!!
Samadhi is the ending of experience and experiencer! Experience and experiencer are ONE in that state. And it was only ever an illusion that they were never ONE in the first place ,Experiennce AND experiencer are both manufactyred by the mind from Sat Chit Ananda .The incredibly super ecstatic flash of I AM of Samadhi is the ending of the ego and the Ultimate reason for the existence [apparent] of the Universe and all its laws.
I think that this debate is the single most important debate that any living being can have!But I think tha the answer cant bbe found in cioncepts, but I also think that that is no excuse for not involving onesself in it.
Personally ,except for ,the one experience of Samadhi ,I find meditaion difficult, In spite of all the words ,I aint no Guru!!!!!
Peace ,Love and Understanding
Mick

dedhed

  • Guest
Re: REALITY
« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2007, 09:50:58 PM »
When I was a teenager, I lived in Florida for a couple of years.  This was back in the early seventies.  I was introduced there to a certain variety of mushroom which grew in cow manure locally.  This experience radically influenced my view of the world, which was suddenly a far more mysterious place than I had previously assumed.  I became obsessed with trying to understand this mystery.  There were two avenues of exploration which I found very fruitful in this investigation.  The first was meditation.  The second was when I was introduced to relativity theory, and then later quantum mechanics. I cannot adequately put into words how important an effect the study of theoretical physics had upon my practice.  I realized that the worldview we were taught in school was entirely false.  The world was not this place composed of solid, distinct objects, and even time and space were not absolutes. I realized that the worldview that was emerging in modern physics was just as profound as that described in any of the mystical texts.
Have to finish this later.  Peace.

mick hutchinson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: REALITY
« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2007, 06:47:11 AM »
dedhed
I have a copy of Fritof Capras book "The Tao of Physics" but I havent got through it all.
It seems that Hindhu sages already had relativity a long time ago.
I think that Yoga/Hindhuism has something quite close to the big bang in it too.
Cosmic exhale and inhale I believe!
Buddha said that the world will end in fire ,[Red Giant].
................................................................................
Its all one entity all of it!
Its was LSD and mescaline for me !
One experience of Samadhi and the Kundalini ,never to be repeated ,I tried a lot that way but it was a one off!!
I saw the interelatedness of everything too!
There must be ,at some time ,a convergence between physics and metaphysics!
Anythings that truly pursues the truth must have a meeting point ,common ground.
................................................................................
My theory for the existence of matter is this.
There is no such thing as nothing .
Its a total paradox the idea of non existence !!!!
Ideas of existence and non existence relate to objects , to concepts ,ideas ,thoughts ,feelings etc, etc.
However even if there were no objects ,nor anyone to be conscious of obects EXISTENCE [reality] itself would still exist.
A void with no time or space ,no objects still has existence. What would exist if there was no such thing as existence?
The question is pure nonsense!
If reality is existence ,and as Ramana says the Self is Sat[existence] Chit [consciousness ] and Ananda [bliss] then all that exists is the result of the division of Sat Chit Ananda.
I reckon that the material Universe is the logical outcome of this division!
If you divide One you get two ,divide again four and so on. So mathematics was not created its simply the logical outcome of the division ONE! From this its not much of a jump to assume that all the laws of the Universe and space and time are the result of this division!!!
I reckon the ONE is fundamentaly neither conscious of itself or happy. I think thats as it is ALL, then it contains both aspects of the polarities which make up the Universe! Positive Negative ,Yin Yang, Matter Antimatter , Conscious Unconscious ,etc, etc,
This I believe is an unbearable situation,so it gives rise to the manifestation of the physical Universe!!
Samsara  and the Physical Universe is where the darkness is burned up!!!
Samadhi [Nirvana] COULD NOT EXIST ,the unlimited peace and ecstacy of Samadhi is PAID FOR by all the things that happen on the material plane.
All the awful suffering that we have to endure [sometimes] is paying for the final escape into Samadhi. This is the LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY!! 
All the energies of the Universe are from the division of the ONE . No energy can be destroyed ,it just changes form.
It cant be destroyed because it is an aspect of reality ,which is timeless and eternal!!
The Universe is the recyling method of the Self [or God if you like!!] Heaven is recyled by the material Universe and its laws ,INCLUDING THE LAW OF KARMA!!!
All the energies of the Universe are made from the substance of the Self [ or God]
Nothing exists ,except for the SELF [or God].
Atoms ,Galaxies , Black holes , everything ,the Ultimate substance is the SELF.
Only consciousnes exists.
Consciosness is REALITY.
Therefore the sense percieved Universe is some sort of MIND!!
This is how come we can forgive evil people ,they are part of the burning up of the DARKNESS
Peace
Mick
Thats a lot of words a lot of philosophical thinking.
But its not realisation of the SELF. So its not escape from Samsara.
Reincarnation scrares me!!
Not again oh no not again!!!

mick hutchinson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: REALITY
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2007, 03:13:31 PM »
Also I reckon that all the information about everything is there in the Samadhi state, Past present futrure, physics mathematics ,time space everything,
There is just no EGO to retrieve the information!!
mick
Its like everything is known all at once ,simultaneuosly ,without thought or movement ,without or an I that knows.
Knowiing all and knowing nothing.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2007, 03:23:03 PM by mick hutchinson »

dedhed

  • Guest
Re: REALITY
« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2007, 08:03:47 PM »
A void implies space. Does a void exist if there is nothing to be aware of it?
Yes, it is all one consciousness.
What is it then, that reincarnates?
If it has all been one, from the very beginning, where is the entity that reincarnates?
I'm not trying to espouse some doctrine here, it's a serious question, and I'm interested in hearing your viewpoint on the subject.
I often ask christians a similar question, since most of them believe that the personality survives death, and goes to either heaven or hell.  Or alternately, will arise at the "end of time" when Jesus establishes the Kingdom of Heaven on earth and they are judged.  I ask them, since we know now that so much of our personality is biochemical, will they recognize themselves when they are resurrected?  Or will they still have the same tendencies?  Will dumb people still be dumb?  What if they were retarded, or semi-retarded?  But, more importantly, since what we call our personality is the result of neuronal connections in the brain, formed by our environment and our responses to it, and these responses are due to previous experiences and the neuronal connections created by these, and our brains particular biochemistry, which is also to a large degree the result of environment, diet, etc., how much of this survives?  And if this personality does not survive, what is it that is judged?
Of course, in the Hindu and Buddhist cosmology, the question is quite different.  The personality does not survive, only the soul, or Atman, which contains the memories of all the previous incarnations of the entity.  In Advaita philosophy, the Atman is not different than Brahman.  Therefore, All is Atman. There is only one Self, and this same self animates all sentient beings. In this philosophy the universe has a relative existence. In Advaita, there are three levels of Truth:
   " * The transcendental or the Pāramārthika level in which Brahman is the only reality and nothing else;
    * The pragmatic or the Vyāvahārika level in which both Jiva (living creatures or individual souls) and Ishvara are true; here, the material world is completely true, and,
    * The apparent or the Prāthibhāsika level in which even material world reality is actually false, like illusion of a snake over a rope or a dream." -from Wikkipeadia
Personally, I find this all too complicated, and more of an epistemological rather than ontological problem.

Dvaita philosophy, on the other hand, posits that there is an individual atman, and that this is eternally different than Vishnu, whom they consider the one, ultimate God.  It is so similar to christianity in many respects, that I tend to think of it as Hindu Christianity.  It even posits eternal damnation.  In Dvaita, the world is real, and eternally separate from the creator.
About this system, all I can say is, "Hari Krishna, Hari Krishna! Want to buy some incense?" 
« Last Edit: February 16, 2007, 10:10:08 PM by dedhed »

mick hutchinson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: REALITY
« Reply #14 on: February 16, 2007, 03:23:20 PM »
dehed
The trouble is some stuff just doesnt get into words properly.
They can actually mean both opposite sides of the meaning! The higher you try to go the less adequate they are !
You can have a flash of insight and really struggle to find words for it.
Ive been writing a book on this for 40 years ,itl never get published !!
Il see if I can dig out this bit!!!It might be clearer!!
There is no such thing as non existence!
What would there be if there was no existenece?
Existence IS.
There is no begining to existence.
No creation no ending.
In the physical Universe there is endless cyclic change. The begining and the end are eternal!
I think its like looking at a clock ,the  hands of the clock represent time and space ,the clock face represent eternity. The hands move ,round and round and time seems to pass , but the clockface does not move and is eternal!!!
If it were possibel to get rid of space and time, existence would still BE!
Ramana said the self is Sat [existence ]Chit [consciousness ] and Ananda [bliss]
That IS existance!!
There is no such thing as noconsciuosness. Everything is consciuosness!!
Its just not SELF CONSCIUOSS not Self realised!!
I read a bit on ZEN which said even grass can become enlightened .[vegetable matter that is!]!
Everything has the potential for Self Awarereness because its IS awareness.
The separating of I and object is an illusion! Albeit a hard one to shake!!
So philosophical ideas of an "I" which is aware of " the Universe" are only usefull for the investigation of the structure of matter.
Trying to take these ideas higher cannot work,You cant split an atom with nutcrackers!! You have to have the right tools for the job!
Ramana says to look for the ego ,and that if we do, it turns out that it doesnt exist!!
The strangest thing he ever said ,in my opinion was.......
"As all the things that happen only happen to the Ego and the Ego isnt real ,nothing ever happens!!!"
He also said that becoming enlightened was "like waking up from a dream of wandering all over the world!!
There are elements of the minds functions which lead it to go round and round in circles when it tries to probe into such matters.
Some stuff just cannot be solved with the thinking process!
The Ultiimate Truth is this ,it can be known ,but not with the mind . Ramana used Silence!!
Peace ,love and understanding
Mick