I, you are always here
-
I said this in ~EH~ where non-christians go after they die
Predictably, a couple of them there thinks that it is funny.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:hahaha, you are always here, had always been here and will always be here, as far as you are concerned. No matter where you go, you are always "here". To others you go here and there but to you, there is no such thing.
I am under the impression that some people cannot see reality, cannot know reality when reality in hidden behind the obvious.
They take words and the human language as precise, accurate and conceptually perfect.
Think what happens when "no words can describe it"
Even better, think what happens when not just you but the whole of humanity have no idea about the existence (things, concepts, ideas, words) of something.
Not only "no words can describe it" but humanity does not even know that "it" exists. Just like, "I cannot give it a name" but what happens when you do not even know "it" and nobody in this world ever the thought of giving "it" a name because nobody ever knew of its existence.
Please don't make this topic into a cimbo game.
-
erm so wad are u trying to say?
-
You were there or you will be there... is that real?
-
i still dont understand wad u are trying to say
-
wtf is this
-
-
People take their existence for granted. People take time for granted. People take words for granted and take concepts in their heads for granted.Originally posted by selfobliged:i still dont understand wad u are trying to say
It is better if you take nothing for granted. -
-
If we junk the concept of time, not just replace it, what happens?
Co-ordination between living things fails.
Co-ordination fails, nothing else. The universe continues as it is.
This would suggest that other than for co-ordination among living things, the concept of time is useless and in fact, time is not in existence and is an invention of living, sentient beings to better achieve what it wants.
When you say, I was not here at the grocer's, you have to refer to a place and time that is no longer in existence and which existence is debatable.
In order to define the existence of anything, you have to speak of the existence of that something in relation to everything else and you have to speak of the existence of the something over a period of time.
If you have to speak of the existence of something only in relation of everything else, does that something exist? Certainly not in and of itself. It does not exist in itself, by itself.
That would then bring up the question of whether "everything" exists all at once and whether or not something exists, because that something does not exist in itself and by itself.
If you have to talk about existence in reference to a period of time and time does not exist, then the existence become doubtful. -
Here ,there and everywhere (in Sgforum)
-
sorry now i still in my dreamland catch no balls
now i still in a zombie stage
once i awake 100 percent
then i can catch all the balls liao -
The spoken language is to allow human communication as best as possible.. It can never capture the whole essence of life.. Similarly, how do we truly determine what is a dot/point in space?
-
Firewood does not turn into ashes!Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You were there or you will be there... is that real?
As Zen Master Dogen said, "... 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."
Every moment is complete and transient, yet unmoving. Changing, changing, yet complete, unmoved. Drop the observer, just the walking, the typing...
But there is no sense of walking while walking, no moving in movement... everything is complete as it is, just This.
...Theres no mind for motion to exist apart from, and no motion for mind to exist apart from. Motion is the mindÂ’s function, and its function is its motion. Even so, the mind neither moves nor functions, the essence of its functioning is emptiness and emptiness is essentially motionless. Motion is the same as the mind. And the mind is essentially motionless. Hence the Sutras tell us to move without moving, to travel without traveling, to see without seeing, to laugh without laughing, to hear without hearing, to know without knowing, to be happy, without being happy, to walk without walking, to stand without standing...
THE ZEN TEACHINGS OF BODHIDHARMA -
-
Originally posted by seotiblizzard:erm so wad are u trying to say?
Everything we call "the past" is, literally, nothing but present memories. Likewise, everything we call "the future" is nothing but present memories inverted, or rearranged, to form a prediction or expectation. The appearance of "time" is little more than a trick of memory, as the Avatamsaka Sutra (Flower Ornament Scripture) says. You can easily discern this for yourself: simply figure out what it is you consider "the past" and "the future." You will discover that it is nothing but thoughts--nothing but memories, nothing but expectations, nothing but mental commentary. It's "all in your head," so to speak. There's really no such thing as time. There is really only Now--an eternally present Present with no beginning and no ending. Everything is completely new, distinct, and original every instant, with no real "change" or "motion" at all. The mystic-philosopher Heraclitus, explaining this point, said, "A man cannot step in the same river twice."
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhism_and_the_illusion_of_time.htm -
Strangely, someone in EH asked me what is 'An Eternal Now' before.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I said this in ~EH~ where non-christians go after they die Predictably, a couple of them there thinks that it is funny.
http://christians.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=150661 -
ok, i'm out.
i only knw where am i now, and after finish work. -
People's existence gives birth to sorrows. Recognition is also the beginning of misunderstanding. That's why people have stopped to recognize the existence of one another. They erased them and merged them into one.
-
You lucky liao, at least got balls to catch, for me 100% or not also no ball to catch.Originally posted by noahnoah:sorry now i still in my dreamland catch no balls
now i still in a zombie stage
once i awake 100 percent
then i can catch all the balls liao -
you my god you are giving me a headache
i read until the time part den stop liao.
time is just a ruler invented by man to measure how long or short it takes us to do things right. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
i sort of understood the one in bold red....
Firewood does not turn into ashes!
As Zen Master Dogen said, "... 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."
Every moment is complete and transient, yet unmoving. Changing, changing, yet complete, unmoved. Drop the observer, just the walking, the typing...
But there is no sense of walking while walking, no moving in movement... everything is complete as it is, just This.
.[b]..Theres no mind for motion to exist apart from, and no motion for mind to exist apart from. Motion is the mindÂ’s function, and its function is its motion. Even so, the mind neither moves nor functions, the essence of its functioning is emptiness and emptiness is essentially motionless. Motion is the same as the mind. And the mind is essentially motionless. Hence the Sutras tell us to move without moving, to travel without traveling, to see without seeing, to laugh without laughing, to hear without hearing, to know without knowing, to be happy, without being happy, to walk without walking, to stand without standing...
THE ZEN TEACHINGS OF BODHIDHARMA[/b]
kinda meaningful 
-
GSMLJ
-
aaa? i thought it should be KSMLJ??Originally posted by FireIce:GSMLJ -
er, you can simplify anot?
-
Think TS is saying like....
when I talking to you, it is not you who I talk to and also it might not be me who talk to you whom is not you.