The nature of existence

[chronictoker]

While there are many theories as to the nature of existence, the big bang, creationism etc. I really like what the Buddha has to say about existence. When it comes to that I really think he gives the best answer: no answer at all. hahah. It was one of his fourteen unanswerable questions which I posted earlier, but upon reading it again I think I forgot to post the best part, I posted the link, but I feel it's important enough to have its own thread. So here it is. Buddha's reasoning for refusing to answer the question of existence haha... cuz pretty much all of the fourteen questions concern it in some way shape or form. It's kind of ironic bc religion is the philosophy of existence so to have a relegious teacher who doesn't attempt to explain its nature is actually pretty mind blowing if u think about, very progressive indeed. This is the sheer genius of The Buddha, imo:

The fourteen questions imply two basic attitudes toward the world. The Buddha spoke of these two attitudes in his dialogue with Mahakashyapa, when he said that there are two basic views, the view of existence and the view of nonexistence. He said that people are accustomed to think in these terms, and that as long as they remain entangled in these two views they will not attain liberation. The propositions that the world is eternal, that the world is infinite, that the Tathagatha exists after death, and that the self is independent of the body reflect the view of existence. The propositions that the world is not eternal, that the world is finite, that the Tathagata does not exist after death, and that the self is identical with the body reflect the view of nonexistence. These two views were professed by teachers of other schools during the time of the Buddha The view of existence is generally the view of the Brahmins; that of nonexistence is generally the view of the materialists and hedonists. When the Buddha refused to be drawn into the net of these dogmatic views of existence and nonexistence, he had two things in mind: the ethical consequences of these two views, and, the fact that the views of absolute existence and nonexistence do not correspond to the way things really are. The eternalists view this self as permanent and unchanging. When the body dies, this self will not die because the self is by nature unchanging. If that is the case, it does not matter what this body does: actions of the body will not affect the destiny of the self. This view is incompatible with moral responsibility because if the self is eternal and unchanging, it will not be affected by wholesome and unwholesome actions. Similarly, if the self were identical with the body and the self dies along with the body, then it does not matter what the body does. If you believe that existence ends at death, there will be no constraint upon action. But in a situation where things exist through interdependent origination, absolute existence and nonexistence are impossible. Another example drawn from the fourteen unanswerable questions also shows that the propositions do not correspond to the way things really are. Take the example of the world. The world does not exist absolutely or not exist absolutely in time. The world exists dependent on causes and conditions--ignorance, craving, and clinging. When ignorance, craving, and clinging are present, the world exists; when they are not present, the world ceases to exist. Hence the question of the absolute existence or nonexistence of the world is unanswerable. Existence and nonexistence, taken as absolute ideas, do not apply to things as they really are. This is why the Buddha refused to agree to absolute statements about the nature of things. He saw that the absolute categories of metaphysics do not apply to things as they really are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...able_questions

oh and here are some other philosophers views of the metaphysical, God, and so forth...Aristotle Plato etc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence

pretty cool shit.