No I think I understand where you are coming from now... You wax a little more mystical than I do; i.e. seeking connection to whatever ultimate truth there is to be found, but I think we largely agree on the "nature of things."
If by existence you are talking about a function of "Greater Reality" then yes all things which exist transcend time, but if we "limit" our discussion to "temporal" objects then existence is similarly devoid of transcendental quality of timelessness as time has no meaning inside of an eternity (one moment to the next is meaningless as there is nothing to compare to; not static/not dynamic there simply isn't any way of saying this happened "yesterday" because "yesterday" stretches on into infinity and "tomorrow" does the same).
And if we are talking about conceiving of "Greater Reality" (or whatever you want to call it), then certainly it exceeds anything resembling human ability to conceive. But I think where we fundamentally differ is in the assumption that a perspective attempting to encompass the "eternal nature of things" is actually a good or valid thing to do.
When we limit our discussion to the transient existence of objects bound by time, then we must by a matter of course have existence come before consciousness. When we extend our conversation to include that which exceeds time and is bound up in eternity (the unified consciousness and "material" of Supreme Reality), then it is necessary that consciousness and existence are part of one and the same thing: conception, planning, doing, and consequence are all the same thing at that level. But I believe it is exactly because this level completely exceeds human understanding that I would rather restrict discussion of it. We can't really say for sure how any of this effects our actions or ideas. We can't really say for sure if our understanding is correct or even how to correct it if it is indeed wrong.
I won't go so far as to say we shouldn't probe for answers; that would defeat the purpose of living in my mind, but I will say that I don't think attempting to place an eternal perspective on the transient aids most discussion.
MTF
Hi MTF, enjoyed your excellent post, some very astute observations and agree with practically all you have said. Still, will add a few further comments.
Yes, the mystical underlayings are indeed the 'what' and the 'who' of my mortal existence. However, my present understanding no longer includes any possibility of realization of 'ultimate truth' through seeking, for that implies a duality, a separation of seeker and of that sought, while the ultimate truth is unambuously one. Rather it a matter of first understanding that the mortal self-aware 'I' can't ever possess or possibly be 'ultimate truth', and then subsequently surrender all the content of one's heart, one's soul, one's mind, and one's will to be.
To be what?...the dualistic mind demands. The mystic can't say, except to mutter that 'ultimate truth' is forever on the other side of the any and all concepts of ultimate truth.
Of course.. it very well may turn out that the ancient religious traditions are correct and that immortal entities do indeed exist, but a mystic is well aware that intellectual enquiry alone will never bring about the realization of the truth or not of such concepts, so actually puts it to the test as in a life wholly dedicated to realization of enlightenment. IOW, the mystic is dying to find out directly, whereas the lukewarm is not prepared to go that far, but is content to merely probe the mysteries with the intellect.
BTW, as a quick digression/elaboration, mystics have all come come through the lukewarm phase and do not lose the conceptual understanding developed there as a result of turning inwards. All learning proceeds from the simple level to the more complex 'higher' levels, and each level needs to be mastered to have the prerequisite understanding appropriate to be able to understand the more difficult next 'higher' level. But the first principles still remain the foundation throughout the whole as in,...a thousand precepts coalesce at some point to form a concept, a thousand concepts coalesce to make an idea, a thousand ideas coalesce to make a ...etc.. In religious mystical practice, which includes all learning, not just the intellectual, the same principles apply. Do not imagine that there are not also the equivalent of exams, in this case called initiations, through which students must pass before unfolding to the next level, teachers though invisible, etc..
Overall there is so much that we share common understanding on that there is little else that arises thats begs expression for now, perhaps except to add appreciation for your post, thanks.
P.S. Hope you don't consider this post an attempt to "place an eternal perspective on the transient" for am in full agreement with you, and nor does my contemplation try to place a transient perspective on the eternal as some anthropocentric religious and scientific theorists are wont to do, except as in the use of analogies, metaphors, parables, etc., as an expedient to communication.