Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

impermanence, separation, and the transcendence of time and space

TheJourneyTheJourney
edited November 2010 in General Banter
Impermanence is a truth of all things eternally. That which transcends time is impermanence. In being permanent all is impermanent. This is to be taken in conjunction with non-separation. In not being separate there is separation. That which transcends space is separation. Therefore, that which transcends time and space is that which works within time and space. Impermanence works within time, yet if you look at the big picture there is transcendence of time. separation works within space, yet if you look at the big picture there is transcendence of space.

Comments

  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    Do we have an Advanced Beyond Comprehensible thread? :)

    Maybe make it really simple, or not, but I have absolutely no clue... it's like a run-on sentence that changes directions and by the end you forget where it started or why. Maybe it's just me, but it does make me smile so it's not all that bad. *chuckle*
  • TheFoundTheFound
    edited November 2010
    1+1
    Equals: Two..

    and nothing else.. EVER....ANYWHERE..

    thanks to permanent truths we can attain the way by means of this
  • NirvanaNirvana aka BUBBA   `     `   South Carolina, USA Veteran
    edited November 2010
    1+1
    Equals: Eleven (if you're adding the numerals, rather than the numbers).

    It all depends on the field or context.

    The ground of being is nonbeing is another way of saying what TheJourney said above.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited November 2010
    Cloud wrote: »
    Do we have an Advanced Beyond Comprehensible thread? :)

    Maybe make it really simple, or not, but I have absolutely no clue... it's like a run-on sentence that changes directions and by the end you forget where it started or why. Maybe it's just me, but it does make me smile so it's not all that bad. *chuckle*

    It's similar to emptiness. Form does not differ from emptiness. Non-separation does not differ from separation. Impermanence does not differ from permanence. The nature of permanence is impermanence. The nature of impermanence is permanence. The nature of that which has no separation is separation. The nature of separation is that which has no separation. Hopefully this makes more sense. Maybe not...lol.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    But what is it that you're really trying to say? :)
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited November 2010
    Cloud wrote: »
    But what is it that you're really trying to say? :)

    hmm...that for all concepts(things, ideas, anything) which seem separate(different, opposing, you get the drift), that separation is illusory...I think is what i'm trying to say...lol
  • NirvanaNirvana aka BUBBA   `     `   South Carolina, USA Veteran
    edited November 2010
    Time to go to bed?
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited November 2010
    Nirvana wrote: »
    Time to go to bed?

    perhaps, but I feel as though you probably mean something more than literally going to bed lol. Why oh why do the people on these forums make me feel so un-clever
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    You're right, TJ. And just think, when dualistic thinking ends entirely all of that b.s. is put in its place. ;)
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited November 2010
    Permanence and impermanence are concepts that have meaning only within the context of time; that which transcends time can't truly be label either since these designations effectively lose their meaning outside of this context. Both concepts are related as far as their relationship to time is concerned, but they're not identical (they make valid distinctions), nor do they have any meaning outside of this relationship.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited November 2010
    Jason wrote: »
    Permanence and impermanence are concepts that have meaning only within the context of time; that which transcends time can't truly be label either since these designations effectively lose their meaning outside of this context. Both concepts are related as far as their relationship to time is concerned, but they're not identical (they make valid distinctions), nor do they have any meaning outside of this relationship.

    good post
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited November 2010
    I thought general banter was for...non buddhist topics. "lay off the heady discussions"
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited November 2010
    I don't think this particular topic is heady as much as it's pointless, which is probably why it was moved.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited November 2010
    I don't see why it's pointless but ok idc i was just sharing i thought thats what forums were for. and the other thread he moved was a quote from nagarjuna so I really don't think that's pointless.
Sign In or Register to comment.