EXISTENCE (not creation) Ex Nihilo

Hi everyone,

This topic reminded me of a passage in the Chandogyopanishad (VI. 2. 1 & 2). Check it out. This sage called Uddalaka is instructing a student called Svetaketu on the nature of existence...

"In the beginning, O son, there was mere Existence, one alone without a second. Regarding this some other say, 'at first there was mere non-existence, one alone without a second. From that non-esistence proceeds existence.' But verily, O son, how can this be? How can existence come from non-existence? Hence, O son, there was existence only in the beginning, one alone without a second."

Does anyone here besides me think that the answer to this question lies not in philosophical speculation, but is rather an observation discovered by those who turn their gaze inward?

Emanuel

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
<br />Hi everyone,

This topic reminded me of a passage in the Chandogyopanishad (VI. 2. 1 & 2). Check it out. This sage called Uddalaka is instructing a student called Svetaketu on the nature of existence...

"In the beginning, O son, there was mere Existence, one alone without a second. Regarding this some other say, 'at first there was mere non-existence, one alone without a second. From that non-esistence proceeds existence.' But verily, O son, how can this be? How can existence come from non-existence? Hence, O son, there was existence only in the beginning, one alone without a second."

Does anyone here besides me think that the answer to this question lies not in philosophical speculation, but is rather an observation discovered by those who turn their gaze inward?

Emanuel

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

APPLAUSE ! ! !
There are MANY things which cannot be proven empirically, but must be derived from logic alone.

Alas, there are those who believe I arrived at my Theory of Reciprocity by turning my gaze inward . . . actually by inserting my cranium between my glutei.
[url] www.theory-of-reciprocity.com [/url]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">did you read it all(broken circle etc.) don't just pick out what you want,read carefully and think about what i have said above. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What am I - Your lap dog? It's a huge thread. How can I think about what you said? You haven't said anything. If you got something to say - Spell it out.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">think about the difference between reality and concept.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Theirs not a whole lotta difference between Existence and thought.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br />The(re is) not a whole lotta difference between Existence and thought.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
????
Please re-think that one.
1) You can exist without thinking.
2) You can't think unless you exist.
Unfortunately there are a lot of #1's out there in scienceland

Sorry about the typo, or should I say mindpo.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Please re-think that one.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Let me change that to (Existence is the concept).

Skarp

existence exists without concept.