I have travelled and lived in many parts of the world, but a question arises in the mind. What is the purpose of the world? What is the purpose of existence or life itself? I am trying to make sense of the world. Through my long winded post I will be taking you into geography, economy, Hindu philosphy and science. Don’t worry, I will drop you off in your current state of mind.
How beautiful is the world. The nature may have the answer to our emotions but no to our existence. Many of us are trying to find out, what’s the purpose or the intention of this existence. It’s an ongoing topic. Many sages and saints in my religion have mentioned that life on Earth is for the only purpose of helping and doing community service to uplift the soul.
To manage life effectively one need to understand life. Vedanta – part of hindu scriptures has some answers to my questions. According to Vedanta, life is has 2 factors:
- Yourself the individual
- The world outside
Life happens when yourself contacts the world. Right from birth to death, from creation to cremation we are contacting the world. – M K Angajan (philosopher)
When we attend schools we are taught about the world. Through Vedanta we learn about our inner minds and ourselves.
I would like to link 2 videos from Mr MK Angajan whom is great Vedanta Philosophor. I have been following his books and CD’s in the past few years.
I feel the Hindu scriptures have somthing to contribute to our understanding of what life is. Let’s see what the rest of the world have to say. Anyhow, I googled “what is the point of existence?” and this is what I came up with.
“The question is not about OUR existence. It doesn’t take an immortal to uncover that answer. An immortal would be interested in the point of “existence as existence,” and since the question doesn’t say “man’s existence” I can say it doesn’t take an immortal to figure this one out, either:
Existence is a self-sufficient primary. It is not a product of a supernatural dimension, or of anything else. There is nothing antecedent to existence, nothing apart from it—and no alternative to it. Existence exists—and only existence exists. Its existence and its nature are irreducible and unalterable.” Leonard Peikoff
Why does Peikoff make this claim? What could be “antecedent to existence” except non-existence? If non-existence existed, it would not be non-existence. If it did not exist, then existence would exist. Either way, something existed and that is existence itself.
We don’t know what that existence was made of. We know it was energy, obviously, since the size of the matter that existed is said to be smaller than the nucleus of an atom; but we don’t know what kind of energy nor what that tiny piece of material was.
The point of existence is to exist, because existence cannot not exist, and non-existence cannot exist; therefore, existence must exist always and forever without creation and without end. That is why science says matter becomes energy and energy becomes matter, but it never ceases to exist in one form or the other.”
That explanation looks like, some kind of equation. I agree with the equation.
I was just sitting in my garden one fine day, I saw ants on the grass trying to find food for their queen and thought hard to myself, is that the only purpose for those ants. Hmm, just now they will be tramped upon by larger beings.
So what is the point of anything and everything? Many people who have experienced death or near death have said that their whole life flash before their eyes and they see themselves walking towards a white calming soothing light. If we have no memories of ourselves being born into the world how come our whole life flash before us? That white calm light.. Is this the light of exiting the womb into the world? If so then reincarnation might be the answer.
I think we are all racing towards the end in our own ways. We put up a temporary purpose to life. We pass time by doing various things. The men are here to impregnate females, and the ladies are here to have babies.
Everything we do is – basically – towards this end. We are merely puppets, dancing to nature`s tune?
We are individual, atomic units in the way we experience the world, and our decisions only affect ourselves.
This is a shockingly recent idea for the way it often feels as a given, like David Foster Wallace’s young fish asking what the hell is water. Obviously we all understand the idea of doing harm to another, or maybe, in some squinty way, to a system, but that’s not really what I’m getting at.
That the only way we can imagine being in relationship to another person or thing is as a benefit or a harm is in and of itself the assumption, because it relies on a desperately lonely vision of ourselves.
I see and experience this in so many ways, in our relationship to government as this faceless entity we are subject to and participate in only in our shuffle to a voting booth, in a vision of companies as ticker symbols or doodles or a machine we plug ourselves into.
I see it in families gazing into different sets of electronic devices without a word between them, in the constant breaking down of people into demographics or preference groups, or in the idea, that I hear over and over from wonderful, discouraged people, that everything is so screwed you might as well get what you can for yourself. All these things, and so many more, are manifestations of a view of identity and the experience of consciousness as a series of choices disconnected from the rest of the world around us. Think about being in the happiest gathering in the world.
That lovely place in a family vacation, or that truly quiet spot out behind the house sitting with a few best friends, or your favorite pub. Then think about the way it feels to have someone anxious in that space, maybe a couple quietly fighting nearby. Or how it feels when you’re at a concert with an aggressive crowd, or one that lets you move through without an elbow. The experience of our emotional reality takes cues from the people around us– or even the space– a thriving woodland versus dying weeds behind a carpark.
These are the things that affect our conscious experience in the moment, and what of all the moments before then? What of the physical realities that come together to allow us to be, the energy passing through the sun to microbes to plants to our mouths, the long ago formation of our parents and future effects on our children, our communities, our friends. We aren’t parts of a system, like cogs, with no thoughts of our own, nor independent blobs picking to go this way or that in a sea of jelly. We are shaped and in turned shapers of our communities, our governments, our families, our lands, from now and forever on. This is not to induce guilt or paralysis– how can you be guilty when a conduit of such larger flows? But nor can we be bystanders with the knowledge that there is no such thing as having no effect.
Prices are as good a way to prioritize things as we can get, as they are most neutral and reliable way to understand what people want
- Prices only reflect the preferences of people, with the money to express them, in a given moment. So future generations, every other living thing and the eco-systems that sustain them (and us), people who don’t have money because of past injustices or hindrances, all of them, they are out, or at best, dependent on someone’s largesse. And a system based on prices alone will over time only squeeze them out further.
- Many things are too complex to price, so changes from stable environments need to be thought about carefully. Take a map of desertification (the process of fertile soil turning to sand as the trees and other life that held it in place are destroyed) and civil war in Africa and stick them on top of each other, and you’ll be shocked (or maybe not) by the correspondence. In the most enlightened policy environment, where noble technocrats tried to price the damage of ripping out every tree to make way for a mining company, how could they possibly, a priori, include the price of civil war, even if it’s the natural conclusion of those causes?
- People will have different preferences under different sets of conditions. That may sound obvious, but in the world of academic policy making or simplistic market-morality, it’s anathema. Imagine a city designed with walking in mind, with beautiful open plazas and zigzagging alleys protected from the elements. Cars would be cheap, or there would just not be very many producers. In a surburban sprawl, it would be the opposite. In either case, people’s preferences, and the production that results, is a function of the broader system. Whether it’s a walking city or sprawl, however, is often not a market decision, as it will often be a function of historical circumstance or policy decisions. Ah, someone might say, but wouldn’t changes in real estate prices between cities fix it? Depends where people’s jobs are located, their families, whether such variety even exists, or if they are able to move, and in many cases, the existence of one prevailing paradigm narrows the choices that are even possible. The broader point (and you can take it beyond real estate to any time people make micro-choices under a larger system) is that the accumulation of small choices, like pasta for dinner, do not always build a system that actually reflects people’s larger preferences, as the larger system already in place creates the context in which those choices are made. And what about the future versus the present? How often have you done a big purchase and thought afterwards “I really didn’t need that…” Or wished that you had paid a little more for something that would have lasted? Or not even had the option because “that’s how things are these days?”
I am sure I have raised some cliched but rewindable points in my post. It is cliched because we are all mirrors of each other’s souls and we all have the same tracked thoughts deep down. I think we should keep questioning till we find the real purpose to this existence.
Keep thinking but keep it cool!