dostf

- To lose that which is not real is no loss, and a great joy. The shackles that bind are those shadows of the past where even joy turns to sadness of what was and will not be again. Every day is new for those that erase the past.
- Truth is not known but lived. To know this is a beautiful thing
- Human is not seperate from all that is. "soul" "god" "spirit" are but names from those in the past that sought to tell that which they did not know or understand. Yet even these live by the humans who gave them meaning. Tradgedy and suffering were the price.

Be seeing you...

Seraphim

"- To lose that which is not real is no loss, and a great joy. The shackles that bind are those shadows of the past where even joy turns to sadness of what was and will not be again. Every day is new for those that erase the past."

My reply : Have you become WISE enough to know which is real and which is not? Are you just fooling yourself by assuming that what you are throwing away is false?
The future is uncertain, the present is been made but the past is what you were. Turning your back onto your past is equals to erasing part of yourself. Isn't it better to embrace your past rather than avoiding it?

"- Truth is not known but lived. To know this is a beautiful thing"

My reply : And YET, we define the world we are living in by terms and philosophy of those who lived before us. Which is the truth and which is false determined by what those who went before us saw, NOT what we alone had lived through.

"- Human is not seperate from all that is. "soul" "god" "spirit" are but names from those in the past that sought to tell that which they did not know or understand. Yet even these live by the humans who gave them meaning. Tradgedy and suffering were the price."

My reply : Names are given by humans, but the meanings always been there. Humans gives names to what they can't describe with words so those who come after them will understand it. The Truth is always been there and it always will be, it needs no name or words to describe it.

dostf

Seraphim:

- My original post was basically a comment on the fact that IMO that the use of paradox and riddle is not an effective way to communicate to another what one knows or lives(not to knock the original poster who obviously finds meaning in the quotes given)
- It in fact opens up a wide variety of interpretation that is misleading, not useful, egocentric, and dangerous
- If I wish to know or understand something it should be explained to me reasonably, and preferably with a scientific base
- Your replies to my "riddles" while interesting and I think genuine in nature, were most often incorrect with regards to what i was expressing. Of course this is certainly no fault of yours as the ideas I wished to express were "cloaked" in the prose--hence the confusion
- If you wish to continue the converstion or want clarification on the ideas i was expressing, we may certainly do so.....otherwise thanks for the conversation.....

Be seeing you...

Seraphim

"- My original post was basically a comment on the fact that IMO that the use of paradox and riddle is not an effective way to communicate to another what one knows or lives(not to knock the original poster who obviously finds meaning in the quotes given)
- It in fact opens up a wide variety of interpretation that is misleading, not useful, egocentric, and dangerous
- If I wish to know or understand something it should be explained to me reasonably, and preferably with a scientific base
- Your replies to my "riddles" while interesting and I think genuine in nature, were most often incorrect with regards to what i was expressing. Of course this is certainly no fault of yours as the ideas I wished to express were "cloaked" in the prose--hence the confusion
- If you wish to continue the converstion or want clarification on the ideas i was expressing, we may certainly do so.....otherwise thanks for the conversation..... "

My reply : I didn't meant it as an offence. The reason I answered the "riddles" simply to show that riddle is not always hard to understand, it is simply to show that it will be easier to understand if we sit and think about it for a while.
The answer is always there, all we had to do is think about it and the answer will shape itself around our knowledge to something we could have understood. That's was my intention.

Anyway, I will be around if you want to continue the conversation on the riddles.

dostf

Seraphim:

- I'm certainly not knocking your answers to the original quotes, or your assertation that most paradoxes or riddles are solvable. They seemed accurate enough.
- My point is I prefer straight, open dialogue when discussing ideas, as opposed to "mystical non specific dialogue"
- If I don't know something--tell me as simply and straightforward as possible so we both benefit as quickly as possible!!!

Be seeing you...

Seraphim

"- I'm certainly not knocking your answers to the original quotes, or your assertation that most paradoxes or riddles are solvable. They seemed accurate enough.
- My point is I prefer straight, open dialogue when discussing ideas, as opposed to "mystical non specific dialogue"
- If I don't know something--tell me as simply and straightforward as possible so we both benefit as quickly as possible!!!"

My reply : Not everything can be explained by words alone, some needs to be shown, others demonstrated. Take the answer where you can find it, if cannot find some that suits you, look somewhere else.

Take my answers for example, you said it is accurate enough despite of the riddle-like state. Why? Is it because I'm wise in making riddles? Nope, because you think of what I said and found the meaning by yourself. If the answer is accurate, it is because you thought though it and found the answer, not because of my words alone.

dostf

- Again, I prefer simple straight open dialogue.
- Again with regards to your interpretations of my posts they were generally incorrect...again through no fault of yours. Would it not be simpler to have stated mt ideas simply and reasonably, instead of "hiding" the meaning in some sort of clever jargon?

Be seeing you...

sweep

seraphim and yourself make me smile. I hope you both feel better for knowing that you both bring pleasure to the world, and not disaster.

So long as I don't take what everyone says (myself included) too seriously, then we can all go about our monkey business, without crossing swords

how Buddhist is this?

er.. not very ? *jumps off the bandwaggon*

Seraphim

"- Again, I prefer simple straight open dialogue.
- Again with regards to your interpretations of my posts they were generally incorrect...again through no fault of yours. Would it not be simpler to have stated mt ideas simply and reasonably, instead of "hiding" the meaning in some sort of clever jargon?"

My reply : Well, if we are talking face to face, straight dialogue is acceptable, but I don't think it is acceptable if you are doing some writing etc.
For me, I attend to like riddles since the answer is not the one the person tells you is the answer, but the one we find outself. Then again, different people follow different style to understand something.

"seraphim and yourself make me smile. I hope you both feel better for knowing that you both bring pleasure to the world, and not disaster. "

My reply : How sure are you that I will not bring disaster to the world? If it is my fate that I will sink this world in fire, I will play that role properly.

"So long as I don't take what everyone says (myself included) too seriously, then we can all go about our monkey business, without crossing swords"

My reply : Well ... crossing tongues (as in debating and not something else) is always better than crossing swords.

sweep

how sure are you that I assumed that (a) you only bring pleasure to the world and not a mixture of pain and pleasure? (b) you will not in the future, turn bad and decide to eat babies?

On the subject of BEING SPECIFIC, I was being self specific. What I should have put was:

"seraphim and yourself make me smile. I hope you both feel better for knowing that you both bring pleasure to me and possibly other people in the world. In this PARTICULAR situation no disaster seems to be the case. Although I am now smiling, the source that caused me to smile may have negative consequences in the near future, of which I am uncertain of, making my current perception null and void."

IF you can crap thunder and piss lightening then I may take that comment a tad more serious. This is a game, but not one that we can restart.

Although we are bound by ignorance, we have the ability to LOOK. Therein lies our capacity to realise our potential, and change 'things'. If you KNOW that you are setting the world on fire, and that millions of lifeforms will perish, and that children will be deprived of soft undulating hills, dashed by flowers and butterflies, then surely it would be folly to encourage your actions, on a notion so fickle as fate?

If YOU don't CARE that you know you are setting the world on fire, then I question why you don't care, what you hope to gain, or if you have lost your will entirely FOR LIFE, in which case, fate has overcome will