The worldly see lust for one
to be a factor of True Love
for that one.

The spiritual see lust for no one
to be a factor of True Love
for everyone.

How do you love truly,
when the essence of that loved,
is a certain look and expression?

How do you love truly,
when the essence of that loved
is fleeting in nature?

How do you love truly,
when the essence of that loved is fickle,
when the essence of that loving flickers too?

How do you love truly,
without also embracing that less loved,
without embracing everything else unlovely too?

One’s love might not
be perfectly true
right now,

but one’s love can
be more and more true,
starting from now.

If your love was true,
how can you
be heartbroken beyond salvation?

If your love was true,
how can it
be shattered beyond repair?

If your heart has not broken,
your love is not true yet,
because you have yet to love deeply.

If your heart can be broken,
your love is not true yet,
because you have yet to love selflessly.

- Stonepeace

对一个被暧昧影响的朋友说的话：

潇洒点，干脆做好朋友吧！
如果连好朋友都做不成，
更本不能作好情侣。

太过暧昧就连朋友都做不好。
朋友！平常心看着办吧！
友谊万岁！

Do you really love who another is, or
do you really love who you imagine that person is?

Do you really love that person, or
do you really love that person’s love for you?

Do you really love, or
do you really love being in love?

True love is so wonderful,
that it brings joy,
that it relieves suffering.

True love is so wonderful,
that if it brings suffering instead [to the loving or beloved ones],
that means the love is not really true yet.

If one loves another truly, one would truly not suffer at all,
as true love is completely unconcerned with self-suffering,
as true love is completely concerned with self-sacrificing.
If we all love one another truly, we would truly not suffer at all.

We imagine we would perfectly love someone perfect to us,
but if someone truly perfect like the Buddha is before us,
can we imagine loving the Buddha the same way?

If we cannot,
it means we don’t really love the perfect,
and/or the way we love is imperfect.

We imagine we would love someone perfect to us,
but if so, we would love more to be like the Buddha,
than we love to remain unenlightened, to love imperfectly.

While the enlightened with perfect love
love the imperfect perfectly,
we the unenlightened love the perfect and imperfect imperfectly.

Love is a strange word,
because we define it in contradicting ways,
because the love you say is not always the love I think,
because the love I say is not always the love you think.

Love is a strange word,
because we use it in contradicting ways,
because we often say we love when we don’t really love,
because we often don’t say we love when we really love.

Love is a strange word,
because all the other words can’t express it,
because it is to be expressed personally, beyond words,
because ‘love’ is ‘to love’.

While hosting a game of setting deadlines for our bucket lists,
one participant listed becoming a vegan in a few months’ time,
and another wrote ‘to be nicer to my parents’, with no fixed deadline,
because it seems strange to fix one for such a ‘task’.

I next asked everyone to reset their deadlines within the span of three months,
imagining that their doctors have announced that that’s their time left.

Suddenly, the one who wants to be vegan
realised she could turn vegan immediately.
Suddenly, the one who wants to be more filial
realised he should do so instantly.

Now…
who is to say, that we have more than three months to live?

The law of karma is perfectly just
because it is perfectly natural and unbiased;
not created or directed by any imperfect supernatural and biased lawmaker.

- Stonepeace 

Question: If karma exists to punish the evil and reward the good, who assigns karma? Shouldn’t there be God doing it?

Answer: Karma doesn’t exist to do this or that, because it is a natural law without will – just like gravity for instance. We don’t say gravity is assigned by anyone. It is naturally there for everyone; not unnaturally or supernaturally there only for some things or beings. Karma is natural because it operates like gravity for all. Just as gravity doesn’t differentiate good or bad people, karma doesn’t either. It is a law however, that evil deeds lead to suffering and good deeds lead to happiness.

Based on the thinking that there ‘must’ be an assigner, if there is a God assigned to assign karma, there is the question of who assigned God to do it. If he needs no assigner, it is simpler to say nature is naturally there, with karma as one of nature’s laws, with no assigner needed. It is thus more natural to see the idea of God as an assigner to be assigned by those who do not understand the above.

If there is a good and almighty creator,
he would not create or sustain any evil or suffering.
Since both are abundant, he does not exist.

- Stonepeace

By Royston Sim [The Straits Times]: ‘For 40 minutes on Saturday morning, representatives from eight religions took turns to recite prayers at Bedok Reservoir. They were blessing the area after the recent spate of deaths [6 suicides] there. The prayer event by religious representatives from the Inter-Religious Organisation…’ (Photo: Raj Nadarajan)

Comments: If the idea was just to bless the area in a general way, it’s alright. But it isn’t exactly a good idea to have share prayers from many religions if the intention is to urge any wandering spirits to take on a good rebirth – because the mixed messages can be confusing or even frustrating for them? It would be better to check which religions the deceased were inclined towards to help guide them accordingly?

There is no terror in the bang,
only in the anticipation of it.

- Alfred Hitchcock

S: Dukkha (suffering) is in this moment only when there is clinging to or fretting of it.
D: The real pain (physical sensation) may just last for a few seconds but thinking about it creates more ‘pain’.
S: And though pain is sometimes inevitable, suffering over it is optional.

Related Article:
Why Shoot Yourself with Two Arrows?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thedailyenlightenment-realisation/message/375