Is time an illusion?

[Mark Lapierre]

A discussion of the meaning of life lead to the topic of time, which is off topic, hence this new thread. See the previous thread to bring yourself up to speed.

Originally Posted by cordis

So if you accept the theory that time is just an illusion and really the universe is just made up of infinite seperate 'instants', or different configurations of the Universe.

I don't accept the theory that time is just an illusion. It seems to me that time is a conceptual construct which aids our understanding of relationships between events. It's as illusory as love, or beauty. All three are based on the relationship between observer and observed. All three can be described as certain types of brain activity. Just because it's not a concrete object which we can point at doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, conceptually.

Originally Posted by cordis

Then time being illusory and the universe being nothing but a series of separate "instants," is like frames in a movie, they appear to have motion only when viewed through a projector when in fact they are all just motionless complete and seperate frames.

That theory also isn't convincing. It requires the motion of something through those separate instants in order to simulate the passage of time, which requires that that something be separate from the universe. It also begs the question, how did those separate instants come to exist? And what stops the illusion of the passage of time from running backwards? It also means that causality is an illusion, that events are not linked to one another, they only appear that way. That makes it a more complex theory to explain the same thing as the standard model. Of course being more complex doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it less likely.

Originally Posted by cordis

Everything we call "the past" is, literally, nothing but present memories. Likewise, everything we call "the future" is nothing but present memories inverted, or rearranged, to form a prediction or expectation. The appearance of "time" is little more than a trick of memory, as the Avatamsaka Sutra (Flower Ornament Scripture) says. You can easily discern this for yourself: simply figure out what it is you consider "the past" and "the future." You will discover that it is nothing but thoughts--nothing but memories, nothing but expectations, nothing but mental commentary.

This disagrees with the theory of a universe of infinite instants, which states that those instants exist, thus the universe in what appears to be a past/future state exists.

Originally Posted by cordis

It's "all in your head," so to speak. There's really no such thing as time. There is really only Now--an eternally present Present with no beginning and no ending. Everything is completely new, distinct, and original every instant, with no real "change" or "motion" at all. The mystic-philosopher Heraclitus, explaining this point, said, "A man cannot step in the same river twice."

I agree that the past and future are accessible only via thought, and that time isn't a concrete, external construct, but the fact of our experiences shows that events really do occur, in a uni-directional sequence.

So in conclusion, if both theories are correct, that time is an illusion, and that the universe exists as infinite, distinct slices of existence, one or the other theory needs to be altered so that they're compatible. (Or if they already are, could someone explain how?)

And finally, how does this impact our existence? Does it mean we lead our lives any differently?

[cordis]

The essential qualities of time have been debated from Plato to Einstein, with no conclusive explanation to date.

It may be that the main attribute of time as it applies to our present dimension, is simply the measurement of the transformation of energy/matter. As I said before to view a 3 hr. movie you can either look at the film reel and thus see the entire movie in an instant as you look at the reel, however this precludes you from knowing/experiencing its content. Or one can put it in a projector and view/experience it ONE frame at time which gives the illusion that the events depicted are happening in a fluid sequence. (Clock on the wall has moved 3 hrs.) The actual film never changed, only the manner in which it was viewed/perceived/experienced.

Similarly the ability of flight has always existed, but it took the Wright Bros. to set mankind on the path that has led to our present space flight. The possibilities of everything have always existed, the manifestation of each possibility takes place ONE frame at a time whether is milliseconds or eons.

IMHO time would be defined as the mathematical measurement of the transformation of energy/matter.

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by cordis

IMHO time would be defined as the mathematical measurement of the transformation of energy/matter.

I believe this is true. Put another way, time is the rate of change as we perceive it. When time is moving faster, change is simply happening at a faster pace. More energy leads to a decrease in the rate of change, according to the theory of relativity. Once you reach the speed of light, you are outside of time.

Which leads to some interesting questions, such as, is the speed of light simply a boundary we can't "see" past? What exactly is doing the perceiving of the time (conciousness), and is it possible to raise and lower energy levels to slow down and speed up time? Anecdotally I think there's a case for it, but since we can't even really define conciousness or time it's not something you can do with hard science yet.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by cordis

The essential qualities of time have been debated from Plato to Einstein, with no conclusive explanation to date.

Meaning that there's unlikely to be a simple answer? Or more likely that the answer is extremely unintuitive.

Originally Posted by cordis

It may be that the main attribute of time as it applies to our present dimension, is simply the measurement of the transformation of energy/matter. As I said before to view a 3 hr. movie you can either look at the film reel and thus see the entire movie in an instant as you look at the reel, however this precludes you from knowing/experiencing its content. Or one can put it in a projector and view/experience it ONE frame at time which gives the illusion that the events depicted are happening in a fluid sequence. (Clock on the wall has moved 3 hrs.) The actual film never changed, only the manner in which it was viewed/perceived/experienced.

And how do we see our 'reel'?

Originally Posted by cordis

Similarly the ability of flight has always existed, but it took the Wright Bros. to set mankind on the path that has led to our present space flight. The possibilities of everything have always existed, the manifestation of each possibility takes place ONE frame at a time whether is milliseconds or eons.

It's a big leap to go from possibility to reality.

Originally Posted by jdiddy

Which leads to some interesting questions, such as, is the speed of light simply a boundary we can't "see" past? What exactly is doing the perceiving of the time (conciousness), and is it possible to raise and lower energy levels to slow down and speed up time? Anecdotally I think there's a case for it, but since we can't even really define conciousness or time it's not something you can do with hard science yet.

Good questions. I'm sure we'll answer them as long as we keep asking.

[absvan]

AHH Very interesting discussion. I ran thro the previous discussion posts but I apologize in advance if I bring up any points that I missed from the previous discussions.

I kind of agree with Mark's description of time where its nothing but a conceptual construct to help us understand events.

Originally Posted by cordis

Similarly the ability of flight has always existed, but it took the Wright Bros. to set mankind on the path that has led to our present space flight. The possibilities of everything have always existed, the manifestation of each possibility takes place ONE frame at a time whether is milliseconds or eons.

Possibility for anything always exist. If what you said is correct, then everything that has happened and will happen was predetermined and at the right frame the energy will be transformed to physical object.

I understand the idea of illusion as mentioned by the philosophy of Advaita or SR as they call in this forum but saying that we are not creating the universe/physical world in every moment but that its just a series of frames showing up does not comply with the law of cause/effect.

[ethereal]

Maybe I can supply some information that sheds more light on the matter

From my own spiritual studies, I have read about people's personal experiences where the ego mechanism/mind has been sufficiently deconstructed that perception and experience actually appears as a succession of stop-frames. The concept of time is unconsciously ingrained into our minds, but when it is de-energized, the reality actually does seem like a slow-motion movie, with each instant complete as it is.

To add to that understanding, it is found that the ego/mind mechanism is based on the 1/10000th second "editing" of all incoming data that distorts non-dual Reality into dualistic perception. When this is transcended, i.e. enlightenment, there is only the sense of eternal timelessness, alwaysness. I believe the whole experience of time is due to the ego/mind's continuous "graspingness" / attachment to wanting to experience the next instant, wanting to control the next split-second of experience, wanting to survive in the very next moment -- continuously trying to "one-up" the future, so to speak. This would explain how when this mechanism is removed, there remains only timelessness in the Now; when each instant of experience is complete by itself, without having to connect it to the past instant or control the next instant.

I think the stop-frame theory and creating the universe in each moment theory is compatible and not mutually exclusive

[Mark Lapierre]

Interesting stuff ethereal, but as with any attempt to study perception using the faculties of perception, you're possibly subject to distortion, even while it appears as if distortion is being removed.

Still, I'm curious. How was it found that 'the ego/mind mechanism is based on the 1/10000th second "editing" of all incoming data'? And how does a sense of timelessness not contradict the perception of reality as a succession of stop-frames? Shouldn't timelessness remove the appearance of any sequence (i.e., succession?) Or is that not the case, and it's a matter of difficulty in communicating a counterintuitive concept within a language framework built up around a very different worldview?

And in the end, what effect might this different worldview have on our lives?

[Anagogy]

In my opinion, time = change.

Without change, there is no time.

Changes happen relative to other changes, which in turn, are changing relative to yet more changes. This creates the chain of causation for linear events.

Linear events involve a beginning and an end.

Now why does change exist? Now that's the time-stopping question isn't it?

Personally, I've come to believe everything is a manifestation of mind. Including time. What is being manifested you ask? Why...everything of course.

Nothingness has never existed, and never will. You see, alot of people (many scientists and theologists alike) believe there was nothing.....nothing......and then POOF.....something. I'm contending, that this was not the case. Everything always existed and always will. Remember how I said time = change? Well, it is also my opinion that existence = awareness/mind.

Because nothingness never existed, everythingness always existed. All possible thoughtforms are and always will be manifest. The universe is the manifestation of a thoughtform. This world is the manifestation of the thoughtform of separation. All natural thoughtforms within that domain will reflect that in one way or another. Energy is not energy. It is thought. It is the thoughtform of action. Time is the thoughtform of impermanence. Energy....Matter....Time....."Indivi-duality"...all expressions of separation and...yep....duality.

Now I can't prove any of this of course. All I can say is that it is currently what agrees most with my intuition.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Nothingness has never existed, and never will. You see, alot of people (many scientists and theologists alike) believe there was nothing.....nothing......and then POOF.....something.

As far as what scientists believe is concerned, that's a common misunderstanding of the Big Bang Theory. It doesn't state that something followed nothing, just that we don't know what came before what appears to be the start. "Uncertain then something", not "nothing then something".

Originally Posted by Anagogy

All possible thoughtforms are and always will be manifest. The universe is the manifestation of a thoughtform. This world is the manifestation of the thoughtform of separation. All natural thoughtforms within that domain will reflect that in one way or another. Energy is not energy. It is thought. It is the thoughtform of action. Time is the thoughtform of impermanence.

What's a thoughtform?

Incidentally, I started learning about William James in my Psych class recently. Part of his work stated that pure experience is everything and everything is pure experience. It's interesting to see some of the history of the Western interpretation of the idea of non-duality.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

As far as what scientists believe is concerned, that's a common misunderstanding of the Big Bang Theory. It doesn't state that something followed nothing, just that we don't know what came before what appears to be the start. "Uncertain then something", not "nothing then something".

What I was meaning to imply was that many believe it was a linear string of events (i.e. a beginning and an end).

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

What's a thoughtform?

Incidentally, I started learning about William James in my Psych class recently. Part of his work stated that pure experience is everything and everything is pure experience. It's interesting to see some of the history of the Western interpretation of the idea of non-duality.

You'll find many definitions of what a thoughtform is. I would define thoughtforms as abstract and intangible archetypes or perfect ideals. Specific phenomena in our world are instances of the manifestation of these thoughtforms. Much in the same way an artist "captures", say, an emotion in a painting. Everything in this world is a "cross-section" through the more abstract and natural state of mind.

[songwriter]

Time is one of those big words, like Love, Conscience, Life, Reality, Universe, God.. that if you take two different person and ask them to define them... almost never you'll get two similar definitions.

How can we discuss is it's an illusion if we don't define it first?

It's like the thread of "Do you believe in God?"... what do you call God?...

What do you call time?

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

You'll find many definitions of what a thoughtform is. I would define thoughtforms as abstract and intangible archetypes or perfect ideals. Specific phenomena in our world are instances of the manifestation of these thoughtforms. Much in the same way an artist "captures", say, an emotion in a painting. Everything in this world is a "cross-section" through the more abstract and natural state of mind.

I see. Where did this concept originate?

Originally Posted by songwriter

Time is one of those big words, like Love, Conscience, Life, Reality, Universe, God.. that if you take two different person and ask them to define them... almost never you'll get two similar definitions.

How can we discuss is it's an illusion if we don't define it first?

It's like the thread of "Do you believe in God?"... what do you call God?...

What do you call time?

I don't think it's that ambiguous. Time is a measure of change. Does anyone disagree with that?

It can be seen as constant, such as when measuring the frequency of an atom's oscillation in an atomic clock.

It can be seen as variable, such as differing judgment of how much time passes, as measured by a clock, when we're having fun as opposed to when we're bored.

[Maguru]

Love your interpretation. Completely relate to your perceptions.

Originally Posted by ethereal

Maybe I can supply some information that sheds more light on the matter

From my own spiritual studies, I have read about people's personal experiences where the ego mechanism/mind has been sufficiently deconstructed that perception and experience actually appears as a succession of stop-frames. The concept of time is unconsciously ingrained into our minds, but when it is de-energized, the reality actually does seem like a slow-motion movie, with each instant complete as it is.

To add to that understanding, it is found that the ego/mind mechanism is based on the 1/10000th second "editing" of all incoming data that distorts non-dual Reality into dualistic perception. When this is transcended, i.e. enlightenment, there is only the sense of eternal timelessness, alwaysness. I believe the whole experience of time is due to the ego/mind's continuous "graspingness" / attachment to wanting to experience the next instant, wanting to control the next split-second of experience, wanting to survive in the very next moment -- continuously trying to "one-up" the future, so to speak. This would explain how when this mechanism is removed, there remains only timelessness in the Now; when each instant of experience is complete by itself, without having to connect it to the past instant or control the next instant.

I think the stop-frame theory and creating the universe in each moment theory is compatible and not mutually exclusive

[Maguru]

Bloody good final question you ask. What difference does the 'concept' of time make in our lives? The concept of no time cannot be experienced in the reality of the here and now for any length of time. Even when experiencing no time, you still are, even when you know time is a construct.

Maybe the differing view points are from percieving time either as a construct or an illusion? I don't believe it to be an illusion. I only wish it were, the mirror would be lying to me every morning. Maybe the 'time' as we know it is a part of the whole illusion but I'm not dead yet, so I wouldn't know.

The only life I know of is this one. As far as I can know, it is the only one, and I know I have a past based in time and change. I am who I am because of that past. Any attempt to dispense with time would bring the world crashing around our ears.

Time may be crude and not based in truth of anything, but it works to bring organisation and identification to the human race. So I reckon it's here to stay and we can argue til the cows come home and it won't make any difference at all.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Interesting stuff ethereal, but as with any attempt to study perception using the faculties of perception, you're possibly subject to distortion, even while it appears as if distortion is being removed.

Still, I'm curious. How was it found that 'the ego/mind mechanism is based on the 1/10000th second "editing" of all incoming data'? And how does a sense of timelessness not contradict the perception of reality as a succession of stop-frames? Shouldn't timelessness remove the appearance of any sequence (i.e., succession?) Or is that not the case, and it's a matter of difficulty in communicating a counterintuitive concept within a language framework built up around a very different worldview?

And in the end, what effect might this different worldview have on our lives?

[absvan]

Based on the discussion above, I understand that our ego needs time to exist. Time is a measure of change and change happens in a world of duality when everything is separate from you. However if you change the angle then you get a different POV.

The ego use the senses for perception. Eg: Steve is color blind and hence cant see some colors. So may be nothing exists and its only our mind/senses that create it. Eg: I have this glass in front of me now. Does the glass actually exist? If I break it into smaller pieces, its no more a glass but the smaller pieces you get. If I further crush them and so on we reach the smallest particle "quant" which scientists including beleive that its pure energy.

So essentially for materials to exist we need our senses/ego to perceive them. So if we release ourself from our ego, no-thing exists. This might be the state of Pure Awareness - timeless because there is "no-thing" need for change. This could be why teachers of nonduality mention that everything you see is an illusion.

[medaille]

I'm going to preface that I didn't read the other thread, because I'm on break at work, but I got sucked into this thread and had to respond.

I've heard several people mention time with reference to change.

What happens if we view this with the lense of quantum physics (or at least my limited understanding of it). So if everything is a probability distribution until it is observed, what does that mean? If one thing can be in two places, what does that mean? To me it means that you can't possibly view time as a difference in change because at any given period in time, objects could flash out of existance or wind up in a completely different place without travelling the distance between them.

Everything is a probability distribution, and at any period in time the world could be configured into an infinitely large array of possibilities. I feel that the current state of the universe is the collective oberservations/creations of all our splinters of consciousness. ie if your were the only consciousness participating in this universe that you could change anything instantly, but if you were part of many other consciousnesses than you would all be affecting the state of the universe thus contributing to the constancy (well fluid transitioning) that we all notice. I feel that somehow, I can grow in my consciousness. This would mean increasing the frequency of my consciousness and probably equivalently the energy involved. If this were to approach godliness than that would mean both the frequency and the energy contained in that wave would approach infinity. I feel like this would mean that time is more a change in consciousness than a change in state. Although, a change in consciousness very well would result in a change in physical state as well.

The more I think about it everybody is right.

The big questions I have are:

What does a thought look like in wave form?
How do they combine to produce my individual splinter of consciousness?
How is matter created from consciousness?

The farther I think I get the more questions I come across.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Time may be crude and not based in truth of anything, but it works to bring organisation and identification to the human race. So I reckon it's here to stay and we can argue til the cows come home and it won't make any difference at all.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by absvan

So essentially for materials to exist we need our senses/ego to perceive them. So if we release ourself from our ego, no-thing exists. This might be the state of Pure Awareness - timeless because there is "no-thing" need for change. This could be why teachers of nonduality mention that everything you see is an illusion.

But as said above, if nothing exists and thus there is nothing to observe changing, what use is existence?

Originally Posted by medaille

What happens if we view this with the lense of quantum physics (or at least my limited understanding of it). So if everything is a probability distribution until it is observed, what does that mean? If one thing can be in two places, what does that mean? To me it means that you can't possibly view time as a difference in change because at any given period in time, objects could flash out of existance or wind up in a completely different place without travelling the distance between them.

Nothing about quantum physics says that an object can disappear and reappear somewhere else. It doesn't even say that can happen to particles at the quantum level, let alone the macroscopic level. Waveform collapse, yes. Quantum entanglement yes. But it doesn't combine to allow teleportation (of anything more than information at a subatomic level). Not as we currently understand quantum theory.

Originally Posted by medaille

Everything is a probability distribution, and at any period in time the world could be configured into an infinitely large array of possibilities. I feel that the current state of the universe is the collective oberservations/creations of all our splinters of consciousness. ie if your were the only consciousness participating in this universe that you could change anything instantly, but if you were part of many other consciousnesses than you would all be affecting the state of the universe thus contributing to the constancy (well fluid transitioning) that we all notice. I feel that somehow, I can grow in my consciousness. This would mean increasing the frequency of my consciousness and probably equivalently the energy involved. If this were to approach godliness than that would mean both the frequency and the energy contained in that wave would approach infinity. I feel like this would mean that time is more a change in consciousness than a change in state. Although, a change in consciousness very well would result in a change in physical state as well.

You're entitled to your intuitions and ideas, but by misusing scientific terms you only a) mislead people who don't have as much of an understanding, or b) make yourself look naive to those who understand more. The terms apply withing specific contexts. If taken out of context they lose their meaning. They can be applied to other contexts, but to do that requires defining how they apply in the expanded context. As far as I'm aware that hasn't been done with the terms you're using. This misuse turns quantum mechanics into quantum mysticism.

Originally Posted by medaille

What does a thought look like in wave form?

Since a waveform is a mathematical construct then such a thought would look like an equation. However, as far as I'm aware, no-one has yet isolated a single thought in terms of neurological activity. And even once that was accomplished you'd likely have 100's of thousands of neurons, if not millions, involved in that single thought. Each neuron composed of innumerable molecules, each molecule of many atoms, each atom of many subatomic particles, each possibly represented by a collapsed waveform equation...

Originally Posted by medaille

How do they combine to produce my individual splinter of consciousness?

Good question, and one which neuroscience is slowly figuring out. Which is probably irrelevant to most people here.

Originally Posted by medaille

How is matter created from consciousness?

The first question to answer is, "is matter created from consciousness?" If the answer to that question is no, then the other question makes no sense.

Originally Posted by medaille

The farther I think I get the more questions I come across.

Definitely. And that's a good thing, we need people asking every kind of question because otherwise we'll get too stuck in our ways. But of course that also means being able to accept when some questions are shot down

[medaille]

If I was misleading anyone I'm truly sorry. Mostly, I was thinking outloud, since I don't spend much time in this forum. I tried to make that clear, but apparently I didn't.

[Mark Lapierre]

Oh no, that is clear, but none-the-less it can have an effect on people. Even though it's clearly your ideas, other people will use them without fully understanding them. Then the Chinese Whispers propagate and people end up believing it as scientific theory, not personal speculation.

And of course it's not your fault if that does happen, and it may not happen at all. But it's a possibility everyone should be aware of.

But don't let that stop you from thinking or contributing.

[absvan]

The purpose of existence can be relative. For me its an opportunity to grow. I took birth for some reasons that will enable my soul to grow. The ultimate goal of my soul is to realize nonduality. How and when is what life/existence will teach me.

Hence I start from a dual world and find my way back to where I came from - Pure awareness. This makes complete sense to me as to why one is born with ego and why the world has been created with dual nature.

You might find this interesting - From Form to Formlessness

[Mark Lapierre]

Interesting yes, but Joel should know better than to equate thought experiments to the work of scientists in a lab. Introspection and philosophising is only a small part of a scientist's work.

And thanks for that link, it seems a very thorough walk through on the concepts of thought forms, and their implications for existence. However, as asked before, what difference does this make to one's life?

[absvan]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Interesting yes, but Joel should know better than to equate thought experiments to the work of scientists in a lab. Introspection and philosophising is only a small part of a scientist's work.

And thanks for that link, it seems a very thorough walk through on the concepts of thought forms, and their implications for existence. However, as asked before, what difference does this make to one's life?

Aha yes...that indeed is the million dollar question which most of us have asked in different words............I believe we will know the answer when we reach the other end.......or when you reach that place beyond our mind from where our thoughts come.

[Maguru]

I have a bit of a problem with this exists and that doesn't exist. If no-thing exists then everything exists. We cannot know either. If this no-thing is pure awareness then it is something. That something constructs the everything, the all we know. Both are real and true.

This POV doesn't include the ego. The ego or perceptions are just descriptions of the constructs. Our way of seeing and understanding ourselves and the world around us.

The deeper we go I do believe we will aquire pure awareness and maybe a lot more.

Originally Posted by absvan

Based on the discussion above, I understand that our ego needs time to exist. Time is a measure of change and change happens in a world of duality when everything is separate from you. However if you change the angle then you get a different POV.

The ego use the senses for perception. Eg: Steve is color blind and hence cant see some colors. So may be nothing exists and its only our mind/senses that create it. Eg: I have this glass in front of me now. Does the glass actually exist? If I break it into smaller pieces, its no more a glass but the smaller pieces you get. If I further crush them and so on we reach the smallest particle "quant" which scientists including beleive that its pure energy.

So essentially for materials to exist we need our senses/ego to perceive them. So if we release ourself from our ego, no-thing exists. This might be the state of Pure Awareness - timeless because there is "no-thing" need for change. This could be why teachers of nonduality mention that everything you see is an illusion.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by absvan

Aha yes...that indeed is the million dollar question which most of us have asked in different words............I believe we will know the answer when we reach the other end.......or when you reach that place beyond our mind from where our thoughts come.

I prefer to not chance there being no beyond, and thus focus on living this corporeal life as best as possible. That should carry on to the next, if there is one, right?

Originally Posted by Maguru

I have a bit of a problem with this exists and that doesn't exist. If no-thing exists then everything exists. We cannot know either. If this no-thing is pure awareness then it is something. That something constructs the everything, the all we know. Both are real and true.

This POV doesn't include the ego. The ego or perceptions are just descriptions of the constructs. Our way of seeing and understanding ourselves and the world around us.

The deeper we go I do believe we will aquire pure awareness and maybe a lot more.

The flip side of going deeper is the possibility of convincing ourselves more completely of what we've already decided, whether or not it reflects reality. I suspect that to be effective, going deeper also requires surfacing once in a while to make sure we haven't gotten ourselves completely lost.

[Liara Covert]

I agree with much that has been said. Time, as we know it, is a human invention. It helps us grasp and attempt to pin down perceived change. Cultures and belief systems add their own interpretations to ground time.

One notable religious example is when Buddha said, "I am awake." He meant the wasn't a participant in the illusion but the maker of the complete illusion. he noticed how people use time to help clarify their identity and existence.

Chinese horoscopes and astrological signs also link views of time and star constellations with birth. Resulting predictions are offered to help us learn to better understand our personalities, aptitudes and behavioural patterns.

Consider how human beings choose to buy into time as an illusion. We set up appointments, schedules, school-business-tax-and other calendar years. People condition themselves to look forward to birthdays, anniversaries and other time-related milestones and celebrations. Time makes them matter.

Its interesting how some people evolve to depend on and feel comfortable with rigid structure and timeframes or deadlines in their lives. Other people resist this or prefer to go about their lives without even wearing a watch. Some people do feel needier and thrive on elements of predictability. Other people are more apt to step outside societal and other comfort zones.

[absvan]

Originally Posted by Maguru

I have a bit of a problem with this exists and that doesn't exist. If no-thing exists then everything exists. We cannot know either. If this no-thing is pure awareness then it is something. That something constructs the everything, the all we know. Both are real and true.

This POV doesn't include the ego. The ego or perceptions are just descriptions of the constructs. Our way of seeing and understanding ourselves and the world around us.

The deeper we go I do believe we will aquire pure awareness and maybe a lot more.

I dont mean to say affirmatively that nothing exists. I havent been there and so I refer to that as "no-thing".

Yes as you mentioned pure awareness could be something. Nisargdatta constantly mentions in his book "I am that" that he doesnt have words to express that state. I agree that the deeper we go we will acquire pure awareness and may be more. But we have to go to know that.....staying here will only confuse us with more words and terminology.

I prefer to not chance there being no beyond, and thus focus on living this corporeal life as best as possible. That should carry on to the next, if there is one, right?

Mark, I understand where you are coming from. I can only speak from what I have read and learnt from books and theories. Your mind understands things with form. To know the formless you have to rise above your mind. As far as I know, rising above your mind is a good thing and there are no bad effects to it. It will only empower you and so its worth taking the chance.

[Maguru]

Hi Mark, I'm not sure what you mean by the flip side of going deeper. I haven't experience of this. What does it mean?

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I prefer to not chance there being no beyond, and thus focus on living this corporeal life as best as possible. That should carry on to the next, if there is one, right?

The flip side of going deeper is the possibility of convincing ourselves more completely of what we've already decided, whether or not it reflects reality. I suspect that to be effective, going deeper also requires surfacing once in a while to make sure we haven't gotten ourselves completely lost.

[Livgivare]

My 2 euro-cents of thoughts.

Time is relative and a fourth dimention (just like Albert Einstein told the world). Because when you do something really fun the time goes fast and when something is really booring time is slow. The illution of time is that it will be the same for everyone at the same time at the same place. take for instance the fact that you and a friend go and se a horrormovie. You are a rabbid fan and your friend is not a fan and think it is a booring type of movie. But since you paid this time it is your choice, and you are used to take turns. You have a real fun time and the 90 minutes goes by really fast for you and feels like 50 minutes, the friend find it to feel like 120-130 minutes or something like that. Both sat there in 90 minutes but had totally different feelings about the time.

But since we cannot live a life were everyone has an own feel for time, we had to get clocks and scedules. This was a thing that started off when railroad went popular.

So I am with Albert Einstein on this but I also find the linear time that the western world is a bit limited, since days more or less feels like cykles I tend to think about time abit more like eastern poeple.

Well, there you have it, 2 Europence worth nothing less nothing more.

Love Leelene

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by absvan

Your mind understands things with form. To know the formless you have to rise above your mind. As far as I know, rising above your mind is a good thing and there are no bad effects to it. It will only empower you and so its worth taking the chance.

As far as I can see it 'rising above your mind' involves achieving greater awareness through meditation and focused introspection. I completely agree that that is empowering.

However, if it also means believing that there is no fundamental substance to reality, or that the substance is any of thoughtforms, consciousness, experience, etc., then I don't see how that helps since we have to interact with forms.

Originally Posted by Maguru

Hi Mark, I'm not sure what you mean by the flip side of going deeper. I haven't experience of this. What does it mean?

By 'flip side' I mean the negative side. The possible issues with such introspection.

If you read and discuss issues from only one perspective (which in this case is thoughtforms, pure awareness, universal consciousness, subjective reality... all very similar if not identical perspectives) then you run the risk of restricting what you perceive and what you think about to only that perspective.

It's like digging deeper, straight down. You might stumble across one or two caverns full of emerald and think that there is so much vibrant green beauty in the world. Yet you don't realise that a few hundred metres to either side of the caverns you found are other caverns full of rubies or sapphires. By constantly going deeper in one direction you miss out on breadth of wonder reality has to offer.

Originally Posted by Livgivare

Time is relative and a fourth dimention (just like Albert Einstein told the world). Because when you do something really fun the time goes fast and when something is really booring time is slow. The illution of time is that it will be the same for everyone at the same time at the same place.

Just thought I'd point out that Einstein's theory of relativity is not about how time seems to vary when we're distracted or focused. It's about how the passage of time actually varies as measured by separate observers when one approaches relativistic speeds (i.e., the speed of light).

Very different concepts. In the case of the horror movie, 90 minutes went past as measured by the clock but the two people simply thought it was more or less. However in the case of relativistic differences, if you put one clock on a space ship, sent it somewhere distant on a return journey at near-light speed, when it came back the time that passed on the clock on the ship would be less than the time that passed on the clock here on Earth.

[Liara Covert]

To follow on what Livgivare mentioned about linear time, I have read that humans are actually non-linear beings who adopt linear perceptions of time. If we're also non-spatial beings who buy into spatial illusions, it is easier to begin to understand why it would be hard to deal with absolute stillness. Humans seem to prefer to fragment time and space for the purpose of making existence more meaningful, for learning, and to create opportunities to explore perception and consciousness.