What is the meaning of life?

[roger]

I'm thinking that the word "the" is part of the problem with this question.

 

Life doesn't have "a" meaning- it just has meaning, period.

 

To say that life doesn't have meaning is to deny some very simple and obvious things.

 

If you, or someone you love, is suffering, or is happy, it MATTERS to YOU.

 

Therefore, it has MEANING to you.

 

YOU MATTER. Therefore your life, your happiness, your suffering, matter.

 

That which lives, matters, therefore its experience matters.

 

In other words, it has meaning, significance.

Edited October 7, 2016 by roger

[Marblehead]

If it happened it has meaning.

[Karl]

I'm thinking that the word "the" is part of the problem with this question.

 

Life doesn't have "a" meaning- it just has meaning, period.

 

To say that life doesn't have meaning is to deny some very simple and obvious things.

 

If you, or someone you love, is suffering, or is happy, it MATTERS to YOU.

 

Therefore, it has MEANING to you.

 

YOU MATTER. Therefore your life, your happiness, your suffering, matter.

 

That which lives, matters, therefore its experience matters.

 

In other words, it has meaning, significance.

Then you understand by saying 'matters to you' that it is not a matter of living for someone else's life ? This knot can easily become tied if you form that relationship as selflessness, altruism etc. You have stated explicitly 'meaning to you' which implies selfishness in the sense of a rational animal.

 

Objectivism is defined : "man as the heroic being, with happiness as the moral purpose of his life, productive achievement being his noblest activity and reason as his only absolute".

 

This isn't an ad hoc, intrinsically divined philosophy, neither is it whim worship. So, not like a passage in the bible, nor something from the pages of the Marxist manifesto, but a completely logical total philosophy the asks the questions 'where am I, who am I, what am I, why am I and how can I know it.

[Prasanna]

Life has meaning or no meaning depends on one's level of Self unfoldment. If a person believes in the supreme Self or God, then one realizes that the world of Time, Space and Causation that he experiences is just a projection of his ego and Mind. How much ever meaningful and purposeful the experiences of the world may be, they are only relative/comparative or they are all still in the realm of duality or pairs of opposites. The spiritual effort according to Vedanta is Self realization or crossing over the duality. For such evolved souls (Self Realized souls), there are no personal likes or dislikes whatsoever. Personal likes and dislikes holds the person to the terrestrial realm and stands as an impediment in the spiritual path. Ego and selfish desires are inverted Divinity that do not help us recognize the underlying truth or Supreme Self or Reality.

[Karl]

Ah the old 'existence is a projection of consciousness' philosophy again :-/

 

Why doesn't this just die ? Consciousness is a corrolary axiom. There is no consciousness conscious of nothing, it's a conflict of terms. We only know we are conscious when we are conscious of some thing. A some-thing is an existent. We are not born with a conscious sense of self we learn it later on. At first we are conscious only of existence (that there is something and we sense it)consciousness is only apparent when we are sensing incoming data. As we grow we begin to notice that there is some faculty that is doing the grasping and now we have developed the concept of self.

 

As an experiment-a crude one. Shut your eyes and visual existence vanishes and visual consciousness vanishes together. This is why children love peek a boo. Of course we are aware still and even of the imprints left on our retina, or the pressure exerted by our eye lids, we cannot completely blank out visual consciousness in that crude experiment, but that's a good way to get it across.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Karl

[blackstar212]

Uhhhhmmmmmmm uhhhmmmmm clears throat and opens letter..... drumroll please

 

 

"Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"

 

[Karl]

I think it's now the advice to eat fat, particularly animal fats as they are good for you. There is a suggestion that it prevents grazing on carbs because fats stay in the stomach longer and that it prevents brain dysfunction such as Alzheimer's.

 

There is a school of thought that suggests one of the reasons for promoting vegetarianism is that it weakens the mind and makes people malleable to propaganda.

[blackstar212]

I think it's now the advice to eat fat, particularly animal fats as they are good for you. There is a suggestion that it prevents grazing on carbs because fats stay in the stomach longer and that it prevents brain dysfunction such as Alzheimer's.

 

There is a school of thought that suggests one of the reasons for promoting vegetarianism is that it weakens the mind and makes people malleable to propaganda.

Swoosh.......... right over your head and I am pretty sure if you really look at the quote I posted you will remember it. You are from the UK

[Karl]

Swoosh.......... right over your head and I am pretty sure if you really look at the quote I posted you will remember it. You are from the UK

'Avoid eating fat' it says ? I'm not sure how many ways I can interpret that ?

Unless I wrote it and can't remember because Inadertently advised myself not to eat fat ? That would be weird, like something out of Bill & Ted ( excellent)

Edited October 7, 2016 by Karl

[blackstar212]

'Avoid eating fat' it says ? I'm not sure how many ways I can interpret that ?

Unless I wrote it and can't remember because Inadertently advised myself not to eat fat ? That would be weird, like something out of Bill & Ted ( excellent)

Monty Python the ending of meaning of life.

[Karl]

Monty Python the ending of meaning of life.

Ohhhh, yeah, that ....nah can't remember it........is that a shiny thing........goooooody

[Prasanna]

Ah the old 'existence is a projection of consciousness' philosophy again :-/

 

Why doesn't this just die ? Consciousness is a corrolary axiom. There is no consciousness conscious of nothing, it's a conflict of terms. We only know we are conscious when we are conscious of some thing. A some-thing is an existent. We are not born with a conscious sense of self we learn it later on. At first we are conscious only of existence (that there is something and we sense it)consciousness is only apparent when we are sensing incoming data. As we grow we begin to notice that there is some faculty that is doing the grasping and now we have developed the concept of self.

 

As an experiment-a crude one. Shut your eyes and visual existence vanishes and visual consciousness vanishes together. This is why children love peek a boo. Of course we are aware still and even of the imprints left on our retina, or the pressure exerted by our eye lids, we cannot completely blank out visual consciousness in that crude experiment, but that's a good way to get it across.

I don't understand what is your difficulty in understanding the two different terms consciousness and conscious. Consciousness is sometimes used to refer pure consciousness or Supreme Self or God, the very enlivening principle or reality that is supporting our life, physical body, Mind, Intellect, ego, life's various experiences, existence etc. In this context, consciousness is the enlivening principle that is the source, causes and support of life and life's experiences. We are conscious of the world only because of the consciousness or God. The thing is you have taken things for granted in life. The Divinity is so much splashed everywhere that it is indistinguishable unless you develop objectivity. You are using your body as a machine when you say shut your eyes and the world will disappear. You fail to recognize the importance of the beautiful function called sight and you fail to question about what is supporting this fascinating functionality called eyesight? Philosophy is questioning every single aspect od life and finding answers, not just taking things or life for granted which most of us do ignorantly.

[Karl]

I presume you are asking a question ? However, to ask you must first provide the context. In what sense 'supporting vision' ? Do you mean biologically, or in some other way ? If you mean biologically I only have a rudimentary knowledge, a doctor or neuroscientist would provide a better answer.

 

If you are asking the fundamentals: what is life ? What is consciousness ? What is existence ? Then this can be answered simply enough.

 

We can define what life is but we cannot get beyond how it is. It is another axiomatic corrollary to existence and it's twin consciousness. We can break down the components of life into DNA strands and atomic nuclei and such, but we can't find life itself-the spirit/soul. Existence exists and consciousness is conscious of it, these are irreducible primaries. We cannot ask questions beyond these primaries. Those that attempt to do so find themselves in an infinite regression- If a God made this, then who made God ? If the answer is that no one made God, then it stands to reason that no one made this. As no God has been found, nor is one needed, we can go with what is already and have no further regressions.

[roger]

Karl,

 

Some of the points you're making are not logically sound imo.

 

"We cannot ask questions beyond these primaries."

 

Why can't we? It's an assumption that we can only know what our senses reveal, or that that which cannot be PROVEN, cannot be KNOWN.

 

My sister has said, "Well, there's so many religions and different beliefs, how do we know who's right? We can't know for sure. No one knows."

 

She's assuming that truth can't be known based on insufficient data. That truth cannot be known DOES NOT logically follow from the fact that people believe different things. You see, it SEEMS logical, reasonable, rational, to her, that we can't know, but it IS an assumption.

 

Again, the popular philisophical idea that we "can't know" if God exists is also an assumption. YOU might not know, Bertrand Russell might not know, but it doesn't follow that it's impossible to know.

 

Consider the idea that it MIGHT be possible to know, but that you DON'T KNOW whether it is or not. Consider that you don't know whether or not it's possible to know.

Edited October 10, 2016 by roger

[Prasanna]

>>> If a God made this, then who made God ? If the answer is that no one made God, then it stands to reason that no one made this. As no God has been found, nor is one needed, we can go with what is already and have no further regressions.<<<

 

I don't understand this, first of all it is very naive to believe that there is a separate creation when God is defined as everything. Whoever sees the creation needs to find the answer on their own. If you believe that God made world, then you fail to recognise that God is both immanent and as well as transcendent simultaneously. It is just like the dreamer is the source, cause and support of the Dream, the dream world, dream objects, dream beings and dream experiences. Just as the dream world vanishes when the dreamers wakes upto the waking state and realizes that the individual he/she alone is responsible for the dream world, dream objects, dream beings and dream experiences, the waker must realize it is God and god and god alone which is the reality underlying our waking state of consciousness. Our waking state in which we claim wrongly about creation is God's projection. You are nothing but that God from within your personality. Upanishad says realize that "That Thou Art" and not this limited, material aspects of body mind, intellect and Ego that goes through the cycle of births and deaths from one experience to another. The waking world is just another more realistic dream projection of your own God or supreme Self, just another flimsy imagination. 

[Karl]

Karl,

 

Some of the points you're making are not logically sound imo.

 

"We cannot ask questions beyond these primaries."

 

Why can't we? It's an assumption that we can only know what our senses reveal, or that that which cannot be PROVEN, cannot be KNOWN.

 

My sister has said, "Well, there's so many religions and different beliefs, how do we know who's right? We can't know for sure. No one knows."

 

She's assuming that truth can't be known based on insufficient data. That truth cannot be known DOES NOT logically follow from the fact that people believe different things. You see, it SEEMS logical, reasonable, rational, to her, that we can't know, but it IS an assumption.

 

Again, the popular philisophical idea that we "can't know" if God exists is also an assumption. YOU might not know, Bertrand Russell might not know, but it doesn't follow that it's impossible to know.

 

Consider the idea that it MIGHT be possible to know, but that you DON'T KNOW whether it is or not. Consider that you don't know whether or not it's possible to know.

We can't because we stand on them. On one of these threads I've posted Peikoffs rebuttal of reductionism for consciousness. You see, knowing that the universe is made up of flying invisible spaghetti, or that mixing 10 photons with 6 quarks creates consciousness does not alter a thing. Existence exists and consciousness grasps it. That's it, it's not going to alter consciousness or existence in any way what so ever.

 

God doesn't exist as a creator, because then God would need creating and of course would remain part of the totality of the universe. Perhaps the God people refer to is a transmitter in a distant galaxy that has discovered a way to broadcast directly to human brains. However, this is not a philosophical question, but a scientific one. The same applies to the material of the universe, or the physical nature of consciousness creation-should such a hypothetical thing be found.

 

No religion is right, it is mystic nonsense and science should have finished it off. It would have had it not been for Kant and his following of intellectuals that promoted his work through Prussian universities and gained massive support from a wealthy church slowly seeing its position undermined.

[Karl]

>>> If a God made this, then who made God ? If the answer is that no one made God, then it stands to reason that no one made this. As no God has been found, nor is one needed, we can go with what is already and have no further regressions.<<<

 

I don't understand this, first of all it is very naive to believe that there is a separate creation when God is defined as everything. Whoever sees the creation needs to find the answer on their own. If you believe that God made world, then you fail to recognise that God is both immanent and as well as transcendent simultaneously. It is just like the dreamer is the source, cause and support of the Dream, the dream world, dream objects, dream beings and dream experiences. Just as the dream world vanishes when the dreamers wakes upto the waking state and realizes that the individual he/she alone is responsible for the dream world, dream objects, dream beings and dream experiences, the waker must realize it is God and god and god alone which is the reality underlying our waking state of consciousness. Our waking state in which we claim wrongly about creation is God's projection. You are nothing but that God from within your personality. Upanishad says realize that "That Thou Art" and not this limited, material aspects of body mind, intellect and Ego that goes through the cycle of births and deaths from one experience to another. The waking world is just another more realistic dream projection of your own God or supreme Self, just another flimsy imagination.

 

The universe is everything. No such entity as God has been found, but if you want to define the universe as God, well a label is a label, define your terms.

 

Why does God need to be responsible for consciousness ? Consciousness is and that's all we need. Why it's necessary to bring in a God is unnecessary, I would simply say 'so what'. You can give consciousness any source you wish, but it doesn't alter it. As with the universe we don't need a creator, even if such a thing were possible (logically it isn't) it would make no difference to the fact that existence exists.

 

If you want a nice story about God and heaven then I wouldn't deprive you of it. Those that have faith appear to desire it and that's their choice.

[Theorangelotus]

The meaning you give to life is its meaning. Also, because the self doesn't exist, you could say that it is life itself which gives meaning to "you", then "you" create based on that, to me it looks like a feedback loop in that looks a lot like a taurus- this shape

 

this is also the shape of the HEF(human energy field)

but alas, I digress, my point is, we create meaning, cool huh? though most of you probably know about this already XD

[roger]

Karl,

 

ACIM and other channeled material teach that people are uncomfortable with, and rebel against, the idea of being "created" by God. AND RIGHTLY SO.

 

The reason for this is because, you see, it gives God all the glory, it puts God in a position of superiority and we wouldn't exist had God not "created" us.

 

It paints an unloving, joyless, picture of both ourselves and God.

 

The truth is that God didn't "create" us out of NOTHING. We ARE God. We are FORMS, MANIFESTATIONS, of God. God didn't "create" us- He/She/It BECAME us. You are God in the FORM of you.

 

ACIM says, "Everything that is now, has always been."

 

You see, you have ALWAYS BEEN the "Universal"- and then you took FORM.

[Marblehead]

 

You see, you have ALWAYS BEEN the "Universal"- and then you took FORM.

 

Interesting concept.  And true at the most basic root.

[Karl]

Karl,

 

ACIM and other channeled material teach that people are uncomfortable with, and rebel against, the idea of being "created" by God. AND RIGHTLY SO.

 

The reason for this is because, you see, it gives God all the glory, it puts God in a position of superiority and we wouldn't exist had God not "created" us.

 

It paints an unloving, joyless, picture of both ourselves and God.

 

The truth is that God didn't "create" us out of NOTHING. We ARE God. We are FORMS, MANIFESTATIONS, of God. God didn't "create" us- He/She/It BECAME us. You are God in the FORM of you.

 

ACIM says, "Everything that is now, has always been."

 

You see, you have ALWAYS BEEN the "Universal"- and then you took FORM.

Gods are omnipotent and omniscient which I am certainly not.

 

From that perspective there is no necessity to add something into the mix that you cannot prove and is unnecessary to it.

 

'Everything that is now has always been' is a deliberately vague statement. It lacks context and so it is easy for the unwary to digest.

 

The universe has always existed in some form, but everything in the universe is in causal change. Sure, the raw materials of the universe always existed and are always morphing into new kinds of things as the react and interact with each other. Our raw material always existed, but the parts are not the whole. This is the fallacy of composition and it's twin, parts. Humans are a unique variant of multiple reactions and interactions that have occured throughout the universe. We are not a design. We are not created. We are part of causal evolution with an ever changing universe.

[Marblehead]

But that won't stop me from saying:

 

Everything that is, is, always has been and always will be.  Things simply take different forms over time.

[Karl]

But that won't stop me from saying:

 

Everything that is, is, always has been and always will be.  Things simply take different forms over time.

Everything is as it must be. :-)

 

Everything bit of matter that comprises the universe has always been and will always be.

[doc benway]

I'm thinking that the word "the" is part of the problem with this question.

 

Life doesn't have "a" meaning- it just has meaning, period.

 

To say that life doesn't have meaning is to deny some very simple and obvious things.

 

If you, or someone you love, is suffering, or is happy, it MATTERS to YOU.

 

Therefore, it has MEANING to you.

 

YOU MATTER. Therefore your life, your happiness, your suffering, matter.

 

That which lives, matters, therefore its experience matters.

 

In other words, it has meaning, significance.

 

Dear roger,

I genuinely appreciate your loving and courageous contributions to our community. 

Your question inspired me to deeply consider this question of meaning which led me to compose a poem.

I do not propose that this is truth, it is simply something of significance for me where I am on the path.

 

 

On Meaning

 

I was invited to consider meaning in my life.

Meaning is clearly connected with concept, language, and judgement.

As such it is imputed by human thought and inherent in our life experience.

 

On the path of liberation, the meaning of life is defined as liberating one's self from ignorance in order to assist all others in liberation from ignorance. 

The vehicle of Dzogchen achieves this objective through continuously resting in a state of non-conceptual being.

In that space, meaning is extinguished as the self is liberated from ignorance.

 

In order to fulfill the objective of life's meaning, the conceptual mind which gives rise to meaning must be dissolved.

In that dissolution one comes to a very special place.

 

Self and other no longer occupy opposite sides of any boundary.

Creation and destruction no longer enjoy a frame of reference.

Your pain and pleasure are experienced as my own.

I am simply the vehicle through which the song and dance of life become manifest.

 

Boundless unity gives birth to that which was extinguished.

 

The meaning of life becomes clear and can be expressed in a very simple word - love.

 

Yom Kippur 10/12/16

Overlooking Sarasota Bay

[Marblehead]

Everything is as it must be. :-)

 

Everything bit of matter that comprises the universe has always been and will always be.

 

I knew you wouldn't be able to argue against your own proposition.