Do you believe in God and why

[Sunmaster]

24 minutes ago, Chris Daley said:

I am interested to know why the Japanese airline on it's way to send aid to the earthquake victims was set ablaze by God?

There you go:

Why does God >insert your grievance here<....? - ASEAN NOW Community Pub - Thailand News, Travel & Forum - ASEAN NOW

[brianthainess]

19 hours ago, Chris Daley said:

Fairly easy one for today.  Why did God allow the Holocaust to happen?

He only likes fair hair and blue eyes, no gays or blacks. also staved off obesity for a few years.

[brianthainess]

Gods design was a bit of a mess really, with volcanoes erupting and killing thousands of people, loose plates with fault lines causing earthquakes not the best construction init.  I'm surprised he is still working for some people at all.

[Tippaporn]

18 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

As far as I can judge, my arguments are  build on sound logic. I know you value logic and don't base your beliefs on thoughts without heads or tails.

 

Question:  Is it logic or philosophy upon which your arguments are based?

 

I decided to educate myself, in at least a rudimentary fashion, on Advaita Vedanta.  Here's what I came up with.  Correct me if I'm wrong on anything.

 

Advaita Vedanta is a school of Hindu philosophy and a Hindu sādhanā, a path of spiritual discipline and experience.  In a narrow sense it refers to the oldest extant scholarly tradition of the orthodox Hindu school Vedānta, written in Sanskrit;[note 2] in a broader sense it refers to a popular, syncretic tradition, blending Vedānta with other traditions and producing works in vernacular.

 

Advaita Vedānta adapted philosophical concepts from Buddhism, giving them a Vedantic basis and interpretation, and was influenced by, and influenced, various traditions and texts of Indian philosophy.

 

So basically it's a Hindu school of thought, of which there are many schools.

 

Advaita is a subschool of Vedānta, the latter being one of the six classical Hindu darśanas, an integrated body of textual interpretations and religious practices which aim at the attainment of moksha, release or liberation from transmigratory existence.

 

Here I can trace some of the ideas you express in your writings to a few of the meanings ascribed to Advaita.

• Nonduality of subject and object.  As Gaudapada states, when a distinction is made between subject and object, people grasp to objects, which is samsara. By realizing one's true identity as Brahman, there is no more grasping, and the mind comes to rest.
• Monism: there is no other reality than Brahman, that "Reality is not constituted by parts," that is, ever-changing 'things' have no existence of their own, but are appearances of the one Existent, Brahman; and that there is in reality no duality between the "experiencing self" (jiva) and Brahman, the Ground of Being.

I could go on and make every connection between each idea you subscribe to with it's source in Advaita Vedānta.  But there's no need for it.  I'll instead make my point here.  There is within all religions distortions of truth.  That's true for both western religions and eastern religions, or philosophies.  Now I was raised a Catholic and had come to recognise the distortions within Christianity.  As I turned to see if eastern religions had something better to offer what initially struck me most was, what appeared to me at least, the highly structured and complex system of thought.  As my first reaction was that it made my head spin I very quickly set it aside and continued my search.

 

Perhaps I couldn't express what I was specifically looking for in words at that time but the two general thoughts that were very prominent in my mind back then was that 1) what I was looking for existed and 2) I'd instantly recognise it as soon as I would stumble upon it.

 

When I did come across the Seth material I immediately recognised that it was neither a religion nor a school of thought nor a philosophy.  So that satisfied part of was I was looking for.  No dogma, thank you but no thank you.  The only question then was how accurate was it in not only describing my practical experience but in providing explanations to those eternal questions which were asked by all religions and philosophies.  Of course another requirement I had was that blind faith was not to be a required component.    I did not want to be in a position where if I were to explain to another what I believed my sole argument to convince would be, "Trust what I say.  You must believe me."    What I was looking for needed to be open to validation.  I was not interested in merely theories but practical information which would be of a beneficial nature that I could put to use easily to enrich my life in practical ways.  For what would be the purpose otherwise? 

 

The Seth material is not at all some esoteric, philosophical, religious or philosophical text.  What it is is a simple, straightforward explanation of what we are and how reality actually works.  To that end it's scope is quite breathtaking as well as it's granular detail.  It is, as best as I can tell, without any distortions.  Seth himself has remarked upon that point.

 

If anyone wanted to learn about how an electrical light switch operates there are books that would tell you all of the necessary detail as to the how of it; in other words it would cover the practical operation of a light switch.  A book of that nature may even go further into an explanation of the principles upon which the practical how of it is based and that which makes the how of it possible.  The Seth material is exactly that and nothing more.  And just as with a light switch, once one understands the how if it and the principles by which it works they are then able to construct their own light switch from scratch, if they so desired, so it is with the Seth material.  Once on understands how reality works and the principles by which it works then they are able to put it into practical use as well.

 

The purpose of the Seth material is not at all meant as providing "a way of life" that everyone should then need to follow, as that is what many religions espouse - "The Way" as per their "Answers" (which only they have possession of the "correct" ones.  ).  Instead, the purpose of the Seth material, getting back to the light switch analogy, is to use it for whatever purpose you wish and towards whatever end you desire.  If you want to build a light switch then here's the "how to" and the "what makes it work."  If you're in poor health and you desire to be healthy then here's the "how to" and the "what makes it work."  If you're lonely and want a mate then here's the "how to" and the "what makes it work."  If you're unsatisfied with your job and you're looking to change, or even begin a new career, then here's the "how to" and the "what makes it work."

 

The Seth material is nothing more than a "how to" and "what makes it work" guide.  Any and all exercises it provides for connecting with other portions of yourself is for the single and sole purpose of using the knowledge which that endeavour would bring to enrich your experience here.  Seth never stops emphasising the importance of who you are as a physical personality or identity and the importance of what you're doing in this worldly, physical reality.  But that understanding, the understanding of the importance of the physical self and it's doings here can only come from the understanding of who and what we are.  Which Seth explains exhaustively, in granular detail, and concisely.

 

The entire purpose of any religion is to bring awareness of that part of us which exists outside of our present awareness and to connect with it.  But the connecting part of this purpose of religion is not meant for the purpose of moving towards that portion of ourselves, which we now become aware of, by escaping our existence here.  Because that would defeat our entire purpose for being here in the first place. 

 

Now it's only self evident and purely logical that if the purpose of religion is as I stated above then there would certainly be a number of commonalities between religion view of us and our reality and what Seth' view of it.  But as every religion contains distortions then any of those distortions will instantly be at loggerheads with the reality Seth offers.  That is only self evident and purely logical as well.

 

And so, Sunmaster, we shall continue to have both our agreements and disagreements.  Advaita Vedānta and Seth's explanation of who we are and what our reality is are ultimately incompatible and the differences irreconcilable.  We can agree on the commonalities of Advaita Vedānta and the Seth material but on the differences we will never be able to.  We can only ever agree to disagree. 

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

There you go:

Why does God >insert your grievance here<....? - ASEAN NOW Community Pub - Thailand News, Travel & Forum - ASEAN NOW

I think you were wasting your time. IMO they come on here to scorn the ones that believe. The post is just a vehicle for scorn. Without the believers to rail against they have no reason to post, IMO.

I may be wrong though, and that's OK. I often am, according to certain posters on this forum.

 

[Tippaporn]

@Sunmaster

 

For what it's worth I'll give you my perception of where you stand right now.  Please take it as only what I see - my humble opinion and nothing more.  Whether it's accurate or not is not the point and it's accuracy, or not, is up to you to accept or reject. 

 

You have, no doubt, a very fine mind in general and an highly enquiring mind when it comes to deep issues.  You've searched for the answers to those questions which were, and are, most important to you.  Your search led you to investigate many different schools of thought, philosophies, and religions.  On your search you also came across the Seth material.  You saw parallels amongst all of the material you investigated as well as discrepancies.  But ultimately you had to settle on something so you chose that which made the most sense to you.

 

For now it is Advaita Vedānta.  You will take it as far as you can.  And perhaps there will come a time when you chuck it for something else. 

[thaibeachlovers]

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I think you were wasting your time. IMO they come on here to scorn the ones that believe. The post is just a vehicle for scorn. Without the believers to rail against they have no reason to post, IMO.

I may be wrong though, and that's OK. I often am, according to certain posters on this forum.

 

I did have a read, but I gave up after the first page. The only one being serious is the OP.

I was a bit surprised that it's got 3 pages though, so I was wrong on that.

[Tippaporn]

@Sunmaster

 

I'm afraid the issue of the ego will forever be unresolved between us.  Advaita Vedānta has one version of what the ego is and Seth provides another.  There are similarities and there are differences.  The differences are irreconcilable.  If you're still interested in having that discussion then I will be a willing party.  However, I do recognise that the most that I can do in such a discussion is to point out the differences and provide explanations, reasoning and logic which would show where and what the distortions are in Advaita Vedānta's version of the ego.  Of course that would necessarily require dragging in so many other concepts.  Primarily the concept of who and what we are for that is, accurately, at the basis of any true understanding of the ego.  Without having a correct understanding of that then there can be no true understanding of what the ego is.

 

But there again a discussion of who and what we are would also highlight the differences between the Advaita Vedānta school of thought and Seth's explanation.  Then those differences would be debated, just like the differences regarding the ego are now debated.

 

Now the above suggests an inevitable end result of a stalemate as a possibility.  There are, however, other possibilities.  Some of which aren't difficult to imagine as to what those other end results might be.  In any case, such a discussion would have educational value. 

 

How deep would you like to go, Sunmaster? 

[Sunmaster]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Question:  Is it logic or philosophy upon which your arguments are based?

Both and more.

First and formost direct experience, without which the arguments would be devoid of any real substance. This is then put into concepts and words with the help of logically structured philosophy.

 

More later. Ciao

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Both and more.

First and formost direct experience, without which the arguments would be devoid of any real substance. This is then put into concepts and words with the help of logically structured philosophy.

 

More later. Ciao

 

Bis später! 

[Sunmaster]

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Here I can trace some of the ideas you express in your writings to a few of the meanings ascribed to Advaita.

• Nonduality of subject and object.  As Gaudapada states, when a distinction is made between subject and object, people grasp to objects, which is samsara. By realizing one's true identity as Brahman, there is no more grasping, and the mind comes to rest.
•  Monism: there is no other reality than Brahman, that "Reality is not constituted by parts," that is, ever-changing 'things' have no existence of their own, but are appearances of the one Existent, Brahman; and that there is in reality no duality between the "experiencing self" (jiva) and Brahman, the Ground of Being.

Sounds about right.

- Non-duality. So far I couldn't find a contradiction with Seth's material. If you could point out specific arguments, I'd be grateful.
- Everchanging things have no existence on their own. Seth says the same thing. What appears to be solid is essentially a thought form where energy-consciousness passes through. But the same goes for "things" that are not solid, like the ego. The ego only appears to be real as long as the wind of consciousness fills its sails. 
If something (A) is only real as long as something else (B) gives it existence, then the logic conclusion is that that something else (B) is a necessity for the existence of (A). The ego (and with it all the material world) cannot exist without consciousness, but consciousness doesn't need the ego to exist. This is what is meant with Brahman being the ultimate reality. 

 

 

I don't subscribe to Advaita Vedanta as my sole source or map. In fact, after your research, you probably know more about it than I do. What I can see is that it offers a very practical and logical framework, with which it is possible to understand your true identity. It does so through self-inquiry and logical deduction. 
But it is only one of the maps that I use. 
One of the first and most helpful maps I encountered was Spiral Dynamics as presented by Ken Wilber. A great way to describe and categorize human and societal levels of development. It really helped me to understand many dynamics in society, but also in my own.
Another map was Kriya Yoga provided by Paramhamsa Yogananda, who taught me how far the love for the Divine can go and how important daily practice is.
Another map was Seth's material. I love the "no BS" approach, but to say that even a child could understand it, is a bit too much. 55. I often have to re-read entire paragraphs because of the over-convoluted sentences. Your writing style is very similar. I don't know if it's intentional or not, but I do like it very much.
At one point I may have thought Spiral Dynamics was the best, or Kriya Yoga was the best or Advaita is the best. And they were. For me, at that time. They provided directions for places I was in at that particular time. Was one "The Best"? Of course not. 

Most of your reply is yet another love letter to Seth. I get it, it's a great map. But it's still only a map, not the territory. The territory has to be experienced, there are no 2 ways around it.
That's why I asked that 3rd question. 
Without the direct experience of the territory, any map, as precise and beautiful as they may appear, is completely useless. 
I'm sure Seth would agree. 

 

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

But the connecting part of this purpose of religion is not meant for the purpose of moving towards that portion of ourselves, which we now become aware of, by escaping our existence here.

Where do you get this notion from? Where do you see the "escaping our existence"?

 

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Now it's only self evident and purely logical that if the purpose of religion is as I stated above then there would certainly be a number of commonalities between religion view of us and our reality and what Seth' view of it.  But as every religion contains distortions then any of those distortions will instantly be at loggerheads with the reality Seth offers.  That is only self evident and purely logical as well.

Advaita can not be considered to be a religion. It is more of a practical philosophy. Your belief is that all maps have distortions, except Seth's map. I think the very nature of a map is to have distortions, including Seth's. The only way to find out how many distortions and to what degree, is to walk the territory yourself. 

Before I started to meditate regularly, I looked into TM (Transcendental Meditation). The reason why I ultimately steered away from it, was the constant shilling of its members. "TM is the fastest, the best, bla bla..." To me it sounded just like what bible thumpers always say. Here lies the danger of elevating the map over the territory itself. And that's also the reason why I always ask for YOUR opinion, not Seth's.

 

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Advaita Vedānta and Seth's explanation of who we are and what our reality is are ultimately incompatible and the differences irreconcilable.  We can agree on the commonalities of Advaita Vedānta and the Seth material but on the differences we will never be able to.  We can only ever agree to disagree. 

 

This we haven't established yet. Where you see irreconcilable differences, I see only not yet recognized commonalities. 
The free will argument comes to my mind. Some say it exists. Some say it doesn't. They are seemingly opposite propositions, irreconcilable.....until you include them in a bigger framework.

Then both become true. 

Edited January 8 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

@Sunmaster

 

Great response, Sunmaster.  But I'll have to get back to you tomorrow.  I've been on a schedule of getting up between midnight and 2 AM and since you started the spin-off of the God thread, like the spin-off of a popular TV sitcom , I've spent too many hours entertaining myself there.  (BTW, how did you like my restaurant analogy?    I've used it here before, as you know.  Still, I thought it put the entire issue into proper perspective.)

 

Anyway, I, too, very much appreciate your perspectives.  I have no doubt that I harbour my own bias to an extent at times and I'm only too cognizant of it and therefore I try to be as careful as I can.

 

Bis zum Morgen. 

[Sunmaster]

@Tippaporn

  I was just thinking...

If we consider that religions or spiritual philosophies are basically maps for the individual to get rid of ignorance and reconnect with his true identity, then there is a very simple way to test that map's efficacy. 

How many have reached the intended destination using that map?

In other words, how many people have reached liberation by following a certain path?

I'm not talking about a better way to dream the dream, but a way to wake up from the dream. 

 

What is the purpose of Seth's teachings? To live a better life by recognising the power of thoughts and beliefs, or is there more? If there is more, then what does Seth's map say about it? And finally, if there is more and he provides directions to it, how many Sethians have followed those directions to the destination? 

 

 

PS: You'll have your hands full tomorrow morning. Hope your fingers won't overheat. 55

I won't have much time tmw as I have to drive to bkk to get my new passport at the embassy. Oh Joy.... 🙄😮‍💨

Edited January 8 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I won't have much time tmw as I have to drive to bkk to get my new passport at the embassy. Oh Joy.... 🙄😮‍💨

 

Thanks for the day off, Sunmaster.    I've already noticed your absence on the God thread spin-off. 

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

If we consider that religions or spiritual philosophies are basically maps . . .

 

Just a thought for you to entertain to keep your mind occupied whilst on your drive to Bkk . . .   Not so much so that it takes your eyes off the road. 

 

Are they maps?  Or is the idea that they're maps based on the assumption that you're going somewhere?  Which implies a destination, an arriving, . . . an . . .  . . . end.

 

Hopefully you do have a map to get you to your end destination though, which is the embassy. 

 

Edited January 8 by Tippaporn

[save the frogs]

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/herbinger/schuman-resonance-54959/

 

Schuman resonance

The earth experiencing a change in its resonance from 7.38hz to 11 hz which will cause a transformation in our mind, body and psyche

 

[Tippaporn]

30 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/herbinger/schuman-resonance-54959/

 

Schuman resonance

The earth experiencing a change in its resonance from 7.38hz to 11 hz which will cause a transformation in our mind, body and psyche

 

 

Put that tinfoil hat on for your protection NOW!  Keep it on until the crisis is over.

 

The gory details and what to expect . . .

 

The earth experiencing a change in its resonance from 7.38hz to 11 hz which will cause a transformation in our mind, body and psyche, it means the earth can communicate with us with a higher bit of pulse therefore it is the time to meditate because it will expedite the metamorphosis.

 

Thanks for the heads up, save the frogs. 

[Sunmaster]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Just a thought for you to entertain to keep your mind occupied whilst on your drive to Bkk . . .   Not so much so that it takes your eyes off the road. 

 

Are they maps?  Or is the idea that they're maps based on the assumption that you're going somewhere?  Which implies a destination, an arriving, . . . an . . .  . . . end.

 

Hopefully you do have a map to get you to your end destination though, which is the embassy. 

 

The analogy of the map only goes so far.  A better way maybe is to see it as an explanation of the reality around and in you.  In time, we try to improve this explanation to the best of our knowledge and capabilities. We stick this map on the walls of our bedroom and we look at it and we are proud of our achievements to make such a beautiful and well thought-out map. Sometimes we will add some parts or remove others. Then the map hangs there, nicely framed along with all the posters of our favourite bands.  And so we decorate our room with all the things we like. Of course there's a nice library too. Lots of books about science, religion, philosophy and whatnot. 

But looking at the beautiful map or reading all the books in the world will not get you out of that room. And that's what it's all about, in my opinion. If the map actually helps you getting out, then great. When you get out you have to leave everything behind to be free, including the map that helped you in the first place.

 

You rightly talk about a destination. Is there one? Yes and no, I would say. Assuming that you believe in something called enlightenment, from our point of view we can say we are here and enlightenment is there. We are not enlightened, yet. In that sense it is a destination. On the other hand, from the perspective of the eternal self, this notion is an illusion. You are already enlightened right now, you are just not aware of it. So, in that sense we can not talk about a destination. See, again 2 seemingly opposing notions that become both true once seen from a bigger perspective. 

[Sunmaster]

15 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

The analogy of the map only goes so far.  A better way maybe is to see it as an explanation of the reality around and in you.  In time, we try to improve this explanation to the best of our knowledge and capabilities. We stick this map on the walls of our bedroom and we look at it and we are proud of our achievements to make such a beautiful and well thought-out map. Sometimes we will add some parts or remove others. Then the map hangs there, nicely framed along with all the posters of our favourite bands.  And so we decorate our room with all the things we like. Of course there's a nice library too. Lots of books about science, religion, philosophy and whatnot. 

But looking at the beautiful map or reading all the books in the world will not get you out of that room. And that's what it's all about, in my opinion. If the map actually helps you getting out, then great. When you get out you have to leave everything behind to be free, including the map that helped you in the first place.

 

You rightly talk about a destination. Is there one? Yes and no, I would say. Assuming that you believe in something called enlightenment, from our point of view we can say we are here and enlightenment is there. We are not enlightened, yet. In that sense it is a destination. On the other hand, from the perspective of the eternal self, this notion is an illusion. You are already enlightened right now, you are just not aware of it. So, in that sense we can not talk about a destination. See, again 2 seemingly opposing notions that become both true once seen from a bigger perspective. 

 

Addendum of morning musings...

 

In the above example, the bedroom is our mind which creates the ego. 

We call it bedroom and make it as comfortable as possible. We add all kinds of stuff to raise the quality of our life while there. But if you never leave that bedroom, what is it if not a prison?

 

We lie to ourselves by saying "Yes, but I choose to stay here. And look how nice it is. Look at my map! It shows this room and that other room and the garden around the building. I know what it looks like outside. For now I'll stay here though. I have few more books to read about that garden outside."

 

"Yesterday I had a good discussion with the guy who lives in the next bedroom (prison cell). He told me what his map looks like. Oh my...a child could have drawn that. I told him so, but he got upset. I don't know why, after all I was just trying to help him make it better. Oh well, his loss. I bet his bedroom is very messy and he never cleans. Tststs, mine is spotless. I'll take a good nap now."

 

"Outside? Yeah, I know everything about outside. It's right here on my map. I know it because that guy outside told me. Plus I read lots of books about it, of course. So, no need to go for now. If I go now, I might not be able to come back to this lovely room I spent so much time decorating."

 

Or...

"Outside? There is no outside! Do you believe in fairytale and Santa too? Haha, ridiculous. Just sit down and worry about that leaking sink you got there."

 

Or...

"Ahhh, I wish I could go outside, but my shoes are broken. It might rain outside and I don't have an umbrella. Will it be cold? What if I don't remember my way back?"

 

And finally...

"Let's see...according to my map, if I want to go outside I just have to open that door. I thought it was locked, but it was open all along. I'm tired of this place and really excited to see that garden I read so much about. Shoes? Nah, don't need any. Food? There are fruit trees in the garden. Actually, I don't need anything. Let's go!"

 

 

[save the frogs]

21 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Thanks for the heads up, save the frogs.

frogs is going into retirement.

take care!

[save the frogs]

This video just came into my feed on Youtube.

But it's 4 freakin' hours so I won't be watching it any time soon.

But title sounds intriguing. 

Is the God of the Bible an imposter?

 

 

Edited January 10 by save the frogs

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

frogs is going into retirement.

take care!

 

18 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

This video just came into my feed on Youtube.

But it's 4 freakin' hours so I won't be watching it any time soon.

But title sounds intriguing. 

Is the God of the Bible an imposter?

 

 

Welcome back, save the frogs!  You didn't get very far, did ya? 

[save the frogs]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Welcome back, save the frogs!  You didn't get very far, did ya? 

it popped in my feed.

felt I had a moral obligation to point out that you're all being duped by the bible before i eff off. 

 

[Sunmaster]

12 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

you're all being duped by the bible

I resent that statement. 

[Sunmaster]

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

it popped in my feed.

felt I had a moral obligation to point out that you're all being duped by the bible before i eff off. 

 

What is this "all". Who on here pays any mind to that?

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

 

Another red letter day today. 

 

Please take down the post, though.  Revealing what another poster looks like is against forum rules. 

 

Germans are known for their punctuality.  I've been in Thailand long enough to consider myself part Thai.  So that part of my identity tells me everything is tomorrow. 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Another red letter day today. 

 

Please take down the post, though.  Revealing what another poster looks like is against forum rules. 

 

Germans are known for their punctuality.  I've been in Thailand long enough to consider myself part Thai.  So that part of my identity tells me everything is tomorrow. 

No worries. I use the downtime to get stuff done, like washing the car, painting the house and rearranging all the furniture.

[Sunmaster]

Bloody freeloaders refuse to help...

[save the frogs]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What is this "all". Who on here pays any mind to that?

I did some more reading on the elohim.

 

Excerpts from "The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible"

 

https://www.logos.com/grow/who-are-elohim/

 

This is not to say that an elohim could not interact with the human world. The Bible makes it clear that divine beings can (and did) assume physical human form, and even corporeal flesh, for interaction with people, but that is not their normal estate.

 

Spiritual beings are “spirits” (1 Kgs. 22:19–22; John 4:24; Heb. 1:14; Rev. 1:4). In like manner, humans can be transported to the divine realm (e.g., Isa. 6), but that is not our normal plane of existence.