Time does not exists - Andrew PK Yap
-
You experience reality and you find that it confirms the theories and concepts then you are the one who is disillusioned.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Sorry if you did not get what I meant.
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. -
Reality, AEN... you still get hungry and need to eat... face reality...Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Sorry if you did not get what I meant.
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.
This thread is not about getting at the truth because we can always turn to the back of the math book and find the answer... yet knowing the answer is... useless... (this statement for the benefit of Isis as well).
You have jumped from the debate of "Time does not exists" to "The nature of the universe, according to Buddhism"
Sure, we can debate "The nature of the universe, according to Buddhism"
That is not clearing up in your own head whether or not Time exists.
In order for you to clear up in your own head the existence or the lack of the existence of time... the struggle, the effort... of working it out in your mind is where you will reap the great benefits.... is where you will banish the curse of Dukka. This is how you will defeat ignorance in your life... -
This thread is not about getting at the truth because we can always turn to the back of the math book and find the answer... yet knowing the answer is... useless... (this statement for the benefit of Isis as well).Originally posted by Isis: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 ?
You have to clear up in your own head whether or not Time exists.
In order for you to clear up in your own head the existence or the lack of the existence of time... the struggle, the effort... of working it out in your mind is where you will reap the great benefits.... is where you will banish the curse of Dukka. This is how you will defeat ignorance in your life... -
That's what we have been discussing all the while... the existence of time, to which i said, it is not a matter of whether time exists or not (exist and not exist are all dualistic concepts).... Time is Existence (i.e everything that appears to you right now) itself, and there is no 'time' that is something separate from existence, or containing existence. Everything is spontaneously arising as Time itself, there is no 'thing' that is being contained in time and moving through space-time, and neither is there a fixed 'you' moving through space-time, growing old, etc.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Reality, AEN... you still get hungry and need to eat... face reality...
This thread is not about getting at the truth because we can always turn to the back of the math book and find the answer... yet knowing the answer is... useless... (this statement for the benefit of Isis as well).
You have jumped from the debate of "Time does not exists" to "The nature of the universe, according to Buddhism"
Sure, we can debate "The nature of the universe, according to Buddhism"
That is not clearing up in your own head whether or not Time exists.
In order for you to clear up in your own head the existence or the lack of the existence of time... the struggle, the effort... of working it out in your mind is where you will reap the great benefits.... is where you will banish the curse of Dukka. This is how you will defeat ignorance in your life...
Conclusion: yes time is unreal -- we can only be time and not know time, there is no duality of time as the container and the contained, therefore there is no truly existing time moving linearly as we usually think of. -
Buddy, Time is considered to be a slip-space demension. So it is a thing.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:That's what we have been discussing all th while... the existence of time, to which i said, it is not a matter of whether time exists or not (exist and not exist are all dualistic concepts).... Time is Existence (i.e everything that appears to you right now) itself, and there is no 'time' that is something separate from existence, or containing existence. Everything is spontaneously arising as Time itself, there is no 'thing' that is being contained in time and moving through space-time, and neither is there a fixed 'you' moving through space-time, growing old, etc. -
Oei, Andrew WTF happened to you?!Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I do not exist
Time does not exist
What the....
How come suddenly post such bo liao thread?
-
Not necessarily. Time is ungraspable.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Buddy, Time is considered to be a slip-space demension. So it is a thing. -
This thread does not exist
-
Your existence is already implicit by that very statement now how are you going to refute thatOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:I do not exist
-
Then you don't exist, as you are not a thing.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Not necessarily. Time is ungraspable. -
Damn I am replying to nothing...
-
Originally posted by bangkokboy:Damn I am replying to nothing...Originally posted by ulquiorra87:Your existence is already implicit by that very statement now how are you going to refute that Originally posted by fatslob:This thread does not exist
This is like taking a walk going nowhere and simply observing as you walk. In the mean time, you are building up your body as a result of the exercise.Originally posted by Chuichi Koshiramaru:Oei, Andrew WTF happened to you?!
How come suddenly post such bo liao thread?
You might think that taking a walk and observing what you see along the way is useless if you are not walking towards any destination....
You are wrong. -
I do not existOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:I do not exist
Time does not exist
What the....
Time does not exist
My name is Tan Ah Teck
and I am an honest man.
Time for breakfast! -
Do you see the contradiction? "we have been discussing... the existence of time" and "not a matter of whether time exists or not" So what are you discussing "in reality"?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:That's what we have been discussing all the while... the existence of time, to which i said, it is not a matter of whether time exists or not (exist and not exist are all dualistic concepts)....
Are you discussing the existence or non-existence of time or a concept of existence that has nothing to do with Time?
I can see that you are trying to say. "Look here, there is a way to look at existence where "Time" does not figure at all." We are not looking at existence, are we? We are looking at and discussing "time".
There are a couple of problems here... we have to consider whether your assertion, your concept is valid or not... that is to say whether it is in the realm of beliefs or logic.
If you say that it is logic, then you would be able to work it out logically.
What is "work it out logically"?
Like mathematics, there are mathematical conventions and you cannot simply use a lot of gibberish to come to the conclusion. Even if your conclusion is correct, it is useless. (You conclusion could be correct because you took it from the answer page at the back of the book. The answer in the book could be wrong, you don't know unless you worked it out yourself).
If we accept things like that, accept without looking at the "process" of how the conclusion is arrived at... you will be subject to delusions.
There is something very wrong when you say, "reality" must be experienced.
If what you experienced is reality, then you must be able to explain it.
Your concept of a "dualistic" mind is wrong.
Is the car black? (even if the car is black), yes and no.
Is the car a Toyota? (even if Toyota manufactured it and the name on the car says, Toyota), yes and no
Is the car metallic? yes and no
It is? All of the above and more...
That is what "not having a dualistic" mind means.
It certainly does not mean that all we can say about a car is: What is a car? It is a car!
There is a concept called regression. What is regression? You look at a piece of Gold. You break it down and what do you get? Molecules. You break down the molecules and what do you get? Atoms. You break down the atoms....
This way, we understand Gold.
What you are proposing is.... "don't be dualistic, experience gold, eat gold, touch gold, rub gold on your skin... that is the only way to know gold"
Hello Mr AEN.... when you say, don't be dualistic, you are already dualistic. -
You ask for the 'process' which the conclusion is derived.. I believe I already explained in the previous posts in this thread, and if my posts aren't clear enough, the URL would do.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Do you see the contradiction? "we have been discussing... the existence of time" and "not a matter of whether time exists or not" So what are you discussing "in reality"?
Are you discussing the existence or non-existence of time or a concept of existence that has nothing to do with Time?
I can see that you are trying to say. "Look here, there is a way to look at existence where "Time" does not figure at all." We are not looking at existence, are we? We are looking at and discussing "time".
There are a couple of problems here... we have to consider whether your assertion, your concept is valid or not... that is to say whether it is in the realm of beliefs or logic.
If you say that it is logic, then you would be able to work it out logically.
What is "work it out logically"?
Like mathematics, there are mathematical conventions and you cannot simply use a lot of gibberish to come to the conclusion. Even if your conclusion is correct, it is useless. (You conclusion could be correct because you took it from the answer page at the back of the book. The answer in the book could be wrong, you don't know unless you worked it out yourself).
If we accept things like that, accept without looking at the "process" of how the conclusion is arrived at... you will be subject to delusions.
There is something very wrong when you say, "reality" must be experienced.
If what you experienced is reality, then you must be able to explain it.
Your concept of a "dualistic" mind is wrong.
Is the car black? (even if the car is black), yes and no.
Is the car a Toyota? (even if Toyota manufactured it and the name on the car says, Toyota), yes and no
Is the car metallic? yes and no
It is? All of the above and more...
That is what "not having a dualistic" mind means.
It certainly does not mean that all we can say about a car is: What is a car? It is a car!
There is a concept called regression. What is regression? You look at a piece of Gold. You break it down and what do you get? Molecules. You break down the molecules and what do you get? Atoms. You break down the atoms....
This way, we understand Gold.
What you are proposing is.... "don't be dualistic, experience gold, eat gold, touch gold, rub gold on your skin... that is the only way to know gold"
Hello Mr AEN.... when you say, don't be dualistic, you are already dualistic. -
How you can understand it (this is not just answer in the back of a book, because it explains clearly the process to understand it):Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:There is a concept called regression. What is regression? You look at a piece of Gold. You break it down and what do you get? Molecules. You break down the molecules and what do you get? Atoms. You break down the atoms....
This way, we understand Gold.
Much of our difficulty in understanding time is due to the unwise use of spatial metaphors -- in fact, the objectification of time requires such spatial metaphors -- but in this case another spatial metaphor is helpful. We normally understand objects such as cups to be "in" space, which (as explained above in relation to time) implies that in themselves they must have a self-existence distinct from space. However, not much reflection is necessary to realize that the cup itself is irremediably spatial. All its parts must have a certain thickness, and without the various spatial relations among the bottom, sides, and handle, the cup could not be a cup. Perhaps one way to express this is to say that the cup is not "in" space but itself is space: the cup is "what space is doing in that place," so to speak. The same is true for the temporality of the cup. The cup is not an atemporal, self-existing object that just happens to be "in" time, for its being is irremediably temporal. The point of this is to destroy the thought-constructed dualism between things and time. When we wish to express this, we must describe one in terms of the other, by saying either that objects are temporal (in which case they are not "objects" as we usually conceive of them) or, conversely, that time is objects -- that is, that time expresses itself in the manifestations that we call objects. Probably the clearest expression of this way is given by Dogen: "The time we call spring blossoms directly as an existence called flowers. The flowers, in turn, express the time called spring. This is not existence within time; existence itself is time."[20] This is the meaning of his "being-time" (uji):
"Being-time" means that time is being; that is, "Time is existence, existence is time." The shape of a Buddha-statue is time.... Every thing, every being in this entire world is time.... Do not think of time as merely flying by; do not only study the fleeting aspect of time. If time is really flying away, there would be a separation between time and ourselves. If you think that time is just a passing phenomenon, you will never understand being-time.[21]
Time "flies away" when we experience it dualistically, with the sense of a self that is outside and looking at it. Then time becomes something that I have (or do not have), objectified and quantified in a succession of "now-moments" that cannot be held but incessantly fall away. In contrast, the "being-times" that we usually reify into objects cannot be said to occur in time, for they are time. As Nagarjuna would put it, that things (or rather "thingings"Wink are time means that there is no second, external time that they are "within."
This brings us to the second prong of the dialectic. To use the interdependence of objects and time to deny only the reality (svabhava) of objects is incomplete, because their relativity also implies the unreality of time. Just as with the other dualities analyzed earlier in section II, to say that there is only time turns out to be equivalent to saying that there is no time. Having used temporality to deconstruct things, we must reverse the analysis and use the lack of a thing "in" time to negate the objectivity of time also: when there is no "contained," there can be no "container." If there are no nouns, then there can be no temporal predicates because they have no referent. When there are no things which have an existence apart from time, then it makes no sense to speak of" them" as being young or old: "so the young man does not grow old nor does the old man grow old" (Nagarjuna).[22] Dogen expressed this in terms of firewood and ashes:
... we should not take the view that what is latterly ashes was formerly firewood. What we should understand is that, according to the doctrine of Buddhism, firewood stays at the position of firewood.... There are former and later stages, but these stages are clearly cut.[23]
Firewood does not become ashes; rather, there is the "being-time" of firewood, then the "being-time" of ashes. But how does such "being-time" free us from time?
Similarly, when human beings die, they cannot return to life; but in Buddhist teaching we never say life changes into death.... Likewise, death cannot change into life.... Life and death have absolute existence, like the relationship of winter and spring. But do not think of winter changing into spring or spring into summer.[24]
Because life and death, like spring and summer, are not in time, they are in themselves timeless. If there is nobody who lives and dies, then there is no life and death -- or, alternatively, we may say that there is life-and-death in every moment, with the arising and disappearance of each thought, perception, and act. Perhaps this is what Heraclitus meant when he said that "both life and
death are in both our living and dying."[25] Certainly it is what Dogen meant when he wrote that we must realize that nirvana is nothing other than life-and-death, for only then can we escape from life and death.
In terms of time, this paradox can be expressed in either of two contradictory ways. We may say that there is only the present: not, of course, the present as usually understood -- a series of fleeting moments which incessantly fall away to become the past -- but a very different present which incorporates the past and the future because it always stays the same.
We cannot be separated from time. This means that because, in reality, there is no coming or going in time, when we cross the river or climb the mountain we exist in the eternal present of time; this time includes all past and present time.... Most people think time is passing and do not realize that there is an aspect that is not passing. (Dogen)[26]
Dogen's "eternal present of time" -- the "standing now" (nunc stans) of medieval Western philosophy -- is eternal because there is indeed something which does not change: it is always now. Alternatively, this nondual way of experiencing time may be described as living in eternity: of course, not eternity in the usually sense, an infinite persistence in time which presupposes the usual duality between things and time. There is an "eternity on this side of the grave" if the present is not devalued:
For life in the present there is no death. Death is not an event in life. It is not a fact of the world. If by eternity is understood not infinite temporal duration but non-temporality, then it can be said that a man lives eternally if he lives in the present.[27] -
Without human brain, nothing exists.
-
What he is saying here is that the cup is a part of the whole and the whole includes the "empty space" that separates the cup from "other things".Originally posted by An Eternal Now:How you can understand it (this is not just answer in the back of a book, because it explains clearly the process to understand it):
Much of our difficulty in understanding time is due to the unwise use of spatial metaphors -- in fact, the objectification of time requires such spatial metaphors -- but in this case another spatial metaphor is helpful. We normally understand objects such as cups to be "in" space, which (as explained above in relation to time) implies that in themselves they must have a self-existence distinct from space. However, not much reflection is necessary to realize that the cup itself is irremediably spatial. All its parts must have a certain thickness, and without the various spatial relations among the bottom, sides, and handle, the cup could not be a cup. Perhaps one way to express this is to say that the cup is not "in" space but itself is space: the cup is "what space is doing in that place," so to speak.
Like if you see a "sheep" in the clouds, there is no "sheep" there is only "clouds"
If you take a picture of a cup, in the picture there is not a cup, there is only the picture.
So the question is, why look at cups that you can hold in your hand like it is a cup that you cannot hold, in a picture.
What is the purpose of looking at a cup like that? To understand that we are all not existing separately?
Sure, if you want you can look at it like that; we are not existing separately, but if you cut yourself, you bleed. The blood that is in you will flow out.
There are millions of "not you" in the forms of germs and viruses that try to get into you, be a part of you.
You will be dead in no time if you hold on to such beliefs in a practical manner. You will bleed to death and the germs will destroy you.
The writer then says that just as the cup can be viewed as "part of a whole" that is, as a part of space, the old cup, the present cup and the future cup can be viewed as one cup and need not be viewed as "the cup just when it was made" "the cup as I am holding it in my hand now" and the cup "when I throw it away in future"Originally posted by An Eternal Now:The same is true for the temporality of the cup. The cup is not an atemporal, self-existing object that just happens to be "in" time, for its being is irremediably temporal. The point of this is to destroy the thought-constructed dualism between things and time. When we wish to express this, we must describe one in terms of the other, by saying either that objects are temporal (in which case they are not "objects" as we usually conceive of them) or, conversely, that time is objects -- that is, that time expresses itself in the manifestations that we call objects. Probably the clearest expression of this way is given by Dogen: "The time we call spring blossoms directly as an existence called flowers. The flowers, in turn, express the time called spring. This is not existence within time; existence itself is time."[20] This is the meaning of his "being-time" (uji):.................
...........................
................
Again, what is the purpose of viewing the cup like that?
Notice, you are viewing the cup... nothing to do with time. The cup changed... time is not involved. Man wants to know "when" the cup changed and invented the concept of time.
Without man, everything in the universe would have changed anyway... and nobody would have asked "when" "how long" and so the concept of time would not have existed.
Everything simply "happily" continues to change without involving time and the existence of time and without the existence of the concept of time.
When the cup was just made, it looked new for one and now it is worn and by he time I throw it away, it will probably be broken.
The reality is that you can never drink from the same cup twice.
You do not see it, the cup looks the same to you, but the reality is that the cup has changed. The heat from your hand and the liquid in the cup will change the cup's molecules, for example.
If I say you cannot drink from the same cup twice, I tell you something that can be independently verified.
All this article says is to look at cup as "non-separate" and "non-existing as a separate object" either in space or in time.
It is talking about perception. It does not say anything about reality and nothing to say about time.... -
Well said. Which is why cup is irremedialy temporal, there is no container and the contained, which is why time is unreal.
The reality is that you can never drink from the same cup twice.
You do not see it, the cup looks the same to you, but the reality is that the cup has changed. The heat from your hand and the liquid in the cup will change the cup's molecules, for example. -
Huh what are you saying theres no relevance to my statementOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:This is like taking a walk going nowhere and simply observing as you walk. In the mean time, you are building up your body as a result of the exercise.
You might think that taking a walk and observing what you see along the way is useless if you are not walking towards any destination....
You are wrong. -
most of the things are invented by man....like time...distance and bla bla bla
-
think complicated = time exist
think simple = time dont exist M I RITE -
Whether you think or not, time is not as what most people think.Originally posted by Eric Cartman:think complicated = time exist
think simple = time dont exist M I RITE
Same as 'self'. Whether you think about your self, there never was a truly existing self, only a momentary self (self1, self2, self3) made up of mental and karmic factors that isn't even a 'self'.
Since 'self' is unreal, it is just a matter of whether you have the insights to see it as it is. Many mistake their identification with the body-mind as absolute. Even so, the truth remains that there never was a truly existing self. -
I don't remember what your original statement was... but you probably have very narrow views and lack the ability to see alternative views.Originally posted by ulquiorra87:Huh what are you saying theres no relevance to my statement -
complicated and simple are dualistic concepts... there is no complicated and simple.. it is both complicated and simple... it depends...Originally posted by Eric Cartman:think complicated = time exist
think simple = time dont exist M I RITE