Sorry, no time
If present and future depend on the past, obviously present and future already exist in the past; again, if they do not, how can present and future exist at all, being dependent on it?
But if they establish themselves without being dependent, then the past does not exist for them; it follows that neither present nor future exists. The same is true of all other possible combinations; "first, last and middle" and the like should always be termed "identical" or something similar.
Time that does not stand cannot be grasped. Time that does stand does not exist in such a way as to be grasped. And time that is not grasped - how can one even have a concept of it?
(Nâgârjuna, ca. 100 CE)
But if they establish themselves without being dependent, then the past does not exist for them; it follows that neither present nor future exists. The same is true of all other possible combinations; "first, last and middle" and the like should always be termed "identical" or something similar.
Time that does not stand cannot be grasped. Time that does stand does not exist in such a way as to be grasped. And time that is not grasped - how can one even have a concept of it?
(Nâgârjuna, ca. 100 CE)
posted by caru | 12:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home