Time does not exists - Andrew PK Yap
-
To your question of whether time exists.. you answered it yourself
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
So, yes, time does exist - but only in the human mind. However, you cannot prove that time does NOT exist either..
hahaha I worry because, like length and breadth and time, "Area and Volume" exists only in people's heads...
Take for example length and height. length and height is merely a term to refer to the measurement of that LINE from one point to the other. The line exists for sure. "length" therefore exists - albeit only within languages - so that we can communicate how long the line is to other people.. or for ourselves as a reference..
Even without humans, "length" will STILL exist - animals will still build their homes, collect materials like wood etc (and yes they do know how to choose between different lengths of wood for example based on how big a nest etc) but obviously they don't call it "length" per se.. they call it wadeva it is they call it in their language..
this brings us back to time.. past present future - all words used the same way as length.. to describe events and let people know whether they already happened, is happening, or will happen..
as you can see.. it is nothing but language.. without humans, these "concepts" will still be around.. other living things also know the concept..
and so it all boils down to language.. any other questions.. -
Man must be full of himself if he thinks he invented it. Man merely discovered the concepts. some things are not even discovered, they just progress naturally..Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Man invented concepts like Time because they observe that things change...
"Things" exists but Time? hahaha it is man's invention... it does not exists the way "things" exists. It exists only in people's heads.
other animals are also capable of indicating whether something has happened, something is happening, or something is about to happen.. and therefore, they do understand the concept of time.. and the concept is in their heads too.. (collecting food to prepare for hibernation as winter is COMING in the near future etc.)
wad about brainless things like plants? they "generally" are able to sense the concept as well.. preparing themselves for the 4 seasons.. deciding when to flower.. when is the best time to release their seeds to seed new plants.. etc.. -
Mr AEN... what in the world is "being time?"Originally posted by An Eternal Now:This is not about knowing time, this is about being time.
Please look up the definition of time and tell me how one can be "time".
Please don't change the definitions of words to suit your own purposes. Look up the correct words. -
Can you prove that ANYTHING does not exist? I tell you that there is a little sentient being residing in my wallet in the form of a little yellow paper with some words written on it.... now prove my piece of yellow paper does not reside a being....Originally posted by Vigelic:So, yes, time does exist - but only in the human mind. However, you cannot prove that time does NOT exist either..
If you want to go into the realms of beliefs and superstitions, there is not much to discuss... you can believe anything you want... we are not interested...
Only a matter of language? The sun that shines everyday... is only a concept and nobody can prove that the sun exists and nobody can prove that the sun does not exist like Time?Originally posted by Vigelic:Take for example length and height. length and height is merely a term to refer to the measurement of that LINE from one point to the other. The line exists for sure. "length" therefore exists - albeit only within languages - so that we can communicate how long the line is to other people.. or for ourselves as a reference..
Even without humans, "length" will STILL exist - animals will still build their homes, collect materials like wood etc (and yes they do know how to choose between different lengths of wood for example based on how big a nest etc) but obviously they don't call it "length" per se.. they call it wadeva it is they call it in their language..
this brings us back to time.. past present future - all words used the same way as length.. to describe events and let people know whether they already happened, is happening, or will happen..
as you can see.. it is nothing but language.. without humans, these "concepts" will still be around.. other living things also know the concept..
and so it all boils down to language.. any other questions.. 
-
I feel like talking to two dickhead when I post in this thread.
-
All Hail to the Greatest Philosophy, Scientist and Thinker of all time:Originally posted by Darkness_hacker99:I feel like talking to two dickhead when I post in this thread.
Mr Darkness_hacker99
Call people dickheads you win lah? So I call you simpleton I win?
Who makes the most sense depends on who is better at name-calling?
OMG You are one confused person. ("one confused person" quite good wat. I win or not?) -
There is nothing wrong with dictionary's definition, though time is almost always misunderstood.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Mr AEN... what in the world is "being time?"
Please look up the definition of time and tell me how one can be "time".
Please don't change the definitions of words to suit your own purposes. Look up the correct words.
You are time. Everything is Time. Therefore there is no reason why you cannot 'be time'. If there is no existence within time, and existence itself is time, there can only be being-time. So time is not passing by, because there is no separation between 'me' and 'time'.
A young man does not grow old. Firewood does not turn into ashes. Firewood is firewood, ashes is ashes. Because there is no existence apart from time, there is no birth, no ageing, no death. -
Like I said, what is there to stop me from replacing the word Time in you paragraph with the word Love?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:There is nothing wrong with dictionary's definition, though time is almost always misunderstood.
You are time. Everything is Time. Therefore there is no reason why you cannot 'be time'. If there is no existence within time, and existence itself is time, there can only be being-time. So time is not passing by, because there is no separation between 'me' and 'time'.
A young man does not grow old. Firewood does not turn into ashes. Firewood is firewood, ashes is ashes. Because there is no existence apart from time, there is no birth, no ageing, no death.Originally posted by An Eternal Now (edited by Andrew Yap):There is nothing wrong with dictionary's definition, though love is almost always misunderstood.
How? When I replace your word time with the word love... nothing changed in your statement. Why?
You are love. Everything is Love. Therefore there is no reason why you cannot 'be love'. If there is no existence within love, and existence itself is love, there can only be being-love. So love is not passing by, because there is no separation between 'me' and 'love'.
A young man does not grow old. Firewood does not turn into ashes. Firewood is firewood, ashes is ashes. Because there is no existence apart from love, there is no birth, no ageing, no death.
Anybody comes around and give their own meanings to words... how will that answer ANY question? -
winning or not winning is you say one leh.. I haven't say anything. you dickhead.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:All Hail to the Greatest Philosophy, Scientist and Thinker of all time:
Mr Darkness_hacker99
Call people dickheads you win lah? So I call you simpleton I win?
Who makes the most sense depends on who is better at name-calling?
OMG You are one confused person. ("one confused person" quite good wat. I win or not?) 
-
I have no idea what you meant by 'be love'.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:How? When I replace your word time with the word love... nothing changed in your statement. Why?
Anybody comes around and give their own meanings to words... how will that answer ANY question?
Being time means I am not in time because I am time, which therefore means that I am free from time. -
Originally posted by Darkness_hacker99:winning or not winning is you say one leh.. I haven't say anything. you dickhead.
-
I am a human being, makes sense because everyone knows what a human being is. I am a mammal, makes sense because everyone knows what a mammal is. I am a primate, makes sense because everyone knows what a primate is.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I have no idea what you meant by 'be love'.
Being time means I am not in time because I am time, which therefore means that I am free from time.
In all of the above sentences, people can look up the dictionary and find out what you mean when you say: I am .....
If anyone looks up the dictionary, he sees:
Time
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are two distinct views on the meaning of time. One view is that time is linear and part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence, and time itself is something that can be measured. This is the realist's view, to which Sir Isaac Newton subscribed.[1]
A contrasting view is that time is part of the fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which we sequence events, quantify the duration of events and the intervals between them, and compare the motions of objects. In this view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows", that objects "move through", or that is a "container" for events. This view is in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[2] and Immanuel Kant,[3][4] in which time, rather than being an objective thing to be measured, is part of the mental measuring system. The question, perhaps overly simplified and allowing for no middle ground, is thus: is time a "real thing" that is "all around us", or is it nothing more than a way of speaking about and measuring events?
So which distinct view on the meaning of Time are you referring to? -
When you say:
I am Time? -
let me give u something simpler...
if your dad dun exist, u dun exist. -
Just look at what Andrew use to write. He use "Said", "invented" and countless other past and future tense. If he believe time do not exists, he wouldn't even be writing in past tense, future tense, etc.
This is pure nonsense. Saying something is not true but yet using the concept of time in his words?? -
yes, but "HOW" does your dad exist? "HOW" do you exist?Originally posted by kwlee:let me give u something simpler...
if your dad dun exist, u dun exist. -
You don't think that the concept of time exists?Originally posted by apples:Just look at what Andrew use to write. He use "Said", "invented" and countless other past and future tense. If he don't believe time do not exists, he wouldn't even be writing in past tense, future tense, etc.
This is pure nonsense. Saying something is not true but yet using the concept of time in his words??
This is pure nonsense.... how can you be so nonsensical as to claim that the concept of time does not exist? -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
My understanding of time is not the Realist's understanding of time. Under the teachings of Emptiness, the understanding of the realist and the nihilist are both rejected.
I am a human being, makes sense because everyone knows what a human being is. I am a mammal, makes sense because everyone knows what a mammal is. I am a primate, makes sense because everyone knows what a primate is.
In all of the above sentences, people can look up the dictionary and find out what you mean when you say: I am .....
If anyone looks up the dictionary, he sees:
[b]Time
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are two distinct views on the meaning of time. One view is that time is linear and part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence, and time itself is something that can be measured. This is the realist's view, to which Sir Isaac Newton subscribed.[1]
A contrasting view is that time is part of the fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which we sequence events, quantify the duration of events and the intervals between them, and compare the motions of objects. In this view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows", that objects "move through", or that is a "container" for events. This view is in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[2] and Immanuel Kant,[3][4] in which time, rather than being an objective thing to be measured, is part of the mental measuring system. The question, perhaps overly simplified and allowing for no middle ground, is thus: is time a "real thing" that is "all around us", or is it nothing more than a way of speaking about and measuring events?
So which distinct view on the meaning of Time are you referring to?[/b]
Second definition of time seems better but I'm not sure if I understood what they meant. Time is indeed not a container for events or things happening, it is not a 'link' for someting that changes from this, to that. What arises, arises spontaneously, as Time, NOT in time. There is no coming and going, there is no movement in time and space.
Change occurs, but there is no changing 'thing'. There is NO duality of time and object. The trees and grasses is time. The keyboard I am typing now is time. -
It seems like the second explanation, though does not posit time as a container, is still dealing with comparisons. When there is comparison between two 'objects', which is a concept, is still movement in time. This is not being-time.
There is no movement in reality, only change. All there is is time and change, no changing 'things'. Everything is of this nature. -
And the Buddhist outlook is also wrong as it cannot be proven true. So all views on time itself is wrong.
-
The Buddhist view on time is the only one that can be experienced intuitively. All other views are concepts, theories and clinging.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:And the Buddhist outlook is also wrong as it cannot be proven true. So all views on time itself is wrong. -
For those interested in understand my view on Time, pls read the second article (especially part IV) in: Nondual Thinking and the Mahayana Deconstruction of Time by David Loy. First article is also a great read and mentions about spontaneous arising as well.
-
Intuition does not mean that the view is correct and you are still clinging on to your views.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:The Buddhist view on time is the only one that can be experienced intuitively. All other views are concepts, theories and clinging. -
Sorry if you did not get what I meant.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Intuition does not mean that the view is correct and you are still clinging on to your views.
What I meant is it is reality that can be directly experienced, and not derived from theories and concept. One who realises this reality does not even need to establish a view, because a view is still conceptual. All illusory views and concepts are however, destroyed. There is just empty-luminous spontaneous arising appearances, that is it, that is all. -
Time was a concept that was fabricated by man in the first place.
erm btw can u explain why do we need to know this ?