A reflection on existentialism had me wondered, exist I by NATURE and nature is not a classifiable force. It works its own accord and goes on changing. The second paradox states that exist I by a creation of the ALMIGHTY and to Him is solely the responsible of everything perceivable and non-perceivable. The third paradox states that my existence is inconceivable with no beginning and therefore, no ending.
Reasoning thus, because my existence is inconceivable, therefore be it a creation of the Almighty or otherwise an ever changing spectacle part of nature, I do not exist. If I do not exist, would there be an action accountable to me? I think therefore I am. This is the pretext of existentialism.
Naming things are the order of man in existentialism. A child is given a name at birth, does he ask for one? So is the art, be it SanHe, SanYuan, XuanKong or YuanKong, whatsoever. It is just a name. Naming is an art of imperfection. Buddha is a given name, it does not exist. In the absence of the thus come one, is the act of worshipping becomes necessary? Yet, we witnessed the pantheon of Buddha. We keep on worshipping, for salvation of our own weaknesses, do we called this Tantric? Is this what called the name that has been named is the mother of a myriad things?
Since Buddha is a given name, in essence it does not exist. Man is the author of name, therefore he existed. By virtue of existing he creates hell and heaven, knowingly and unknowingly. Therefore, the wise man makes his own heaven while the foolish man creates his own hell here and hereafter. What is wise and foolish, what is hell and heaven? The Chinese pictograms, again a name, clustered the act of listening and to speak floating above the stillness pool of water, mind, to be representation of wisdom or otherwise. Whereas the fool is the otherwise. Indeed, the wise is the mirror image of the fool at the end tail of a normal distribution? Who wants to be wise and who wants to be a fool, if it is not as an art of politics, which slides on the scales of the two extremes? Again, is politics a given name or could it be given a more diplomatic flavor of managing diversity?
Because ugliness exists, we knew what is beautiful. Does it really exist? Because there are named Buddhist belittle others to elevate himself, so that he is called a fool, and the seeker of no name is called a wise man. Would this not mirror the same?